It’s great that activists are going all out to lobby Congress against immunity for the telecommunications corporations’ illegal warrantless surveillance of innocent American citizens, but it is important to understand that we are likely to be sold out on this issue. In my opinion, all of this activism is probably focused in the wrong place. Here’s why:
1. The current FISA bill is only necessary because the Protect America Act of 2007 is due to sunset early next year.
2. Everyone agrees that part of the PAA2007 is necessary. Specifically, the part of the law that allows warrantless foreign to foreign surveillance even when the communication is routed through domestic channels.
3. The president has promised not to sign any reauthorization of this FISA fix if the bill does not ALSO include telecom immunity.
4. In order to keep both the fix and prevent telecom immunity, we will need a supermajority in both houses.
5. We have no prospect of getting a supermajority in both houses.
6. This leads to the obvious conclusion that we will reach a point where we have a choice of capitulating or allowing the law to sunset.
7. Pressure will be immense not to allow the law to sunset because it will cause a needless gap in NSA coverage.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have to convince their respective caucuses to allow the law to sunset, even though that will result in a needless gap in NSA coverage that could conceivably result in missed intelligence that could have prevented a terrorist attack.
All of this activism that is focused on preventing telecom immunity is important because it helps provide incentive and courage to Democrats that are concerned about letting the law sunset for both security and political reasons. But even if we succeed in preventing telecom immunity in the FISA update, we will not avoid the president’s veto pen. And when he vetoes, we will have to let the law sunset, or all of this activism will have been for nothing.
Keep your eyes on the ball. The only way to prevent telecom immunity is to defeat it now, AND THEN LET THE LAW SUNSET.
It shouldn’t be this way. The president should not make us choose between doing all we can to keep the country safe and holding lawbreakers accountable. But that is the decision he has made. He is playing chicken with our security to cover up his crimes. And we need to realize the game. It’s easy to win, if we are willing to make the argument that I have layed out here.
Let’s quit kidding ourselves. The Republicans have got the issue of security tied up and in the bag. The only resort here is for Democrats to be carried along, occasionally trying to one-up them, but never voicing a proposal, or BEING AGAINST a proposal that ensures our security. Yes it is all bullshit, but what can they do? Follow Kusinich? People who tell the truth will never go very far in Washington.
Any claim that there’s a critical need for this legislation for reasons of national security is bullshit. There won’t be a gap in NSA coverage if the law sunsets, because the BushCo NSA doesn’t care about the law, they’ll just continue listening to everyone all the time anyway. Just like they have been for years now.
I totally agree with you. However I think that there won’t be a National security risk simply because there are other ways to render those programs useless: the post office.
the sunset provision, and the attendant claim that it will create a needless security risk, is, politely put, a red herring. it is blatently false as there’s a clause that provides an exception:
if l can understand the implications of that, l am assuming that the demoRAT leadership, with their legions of aides, researchers, and kennel full of policy wonks, ought to be able to. whether they choose to hold their ground, or have no real intention of correcting the flaws in the bill to something that respects the 4th amendent, as well as holding firm on telecon immunity remains to be seen.
does anyone doubt that muckasey will authorize whatever BushCo&trade tell him to? l certainly don’t. it’s well past time that the demoRATs drew a line somewhere and stood on it. this is as good, or better, a place as any.
lTMF’sA
i’ve seen that before and it means nothing to me. The cited clause doesn’t support the editorial part at all.
over and over:
Bush is playing chicken with our national security to cover up his crimes.
It is that simple.
As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen characteristics of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. This is according to Dr. Lawrence Britt a Political Scientist and author of articles such as “Fascism Anyone?”.
Dr. Britt succinctly lays out the 14 characteristics of Fascism after studying the similarities in previously Fascist European states.
These are the stakes and I believe where we are at. Sometimes the BEST and only thing to do is nothing. I am definitely much more worried about the “enemy within” than the “boogey men” duking it out for tribal power in foreign countries.
It truly is hard to accept that America’s security could possibly be in any more danger than it currently is, due to the Fascists running our government! This bill only makes Bush and Co safer – not the rest of us.
Let it Sunset… What is the difference? bush became a criminal the moment he revealed he was already spying on Americans. And as we have found out more recently, via Qwest’s statements on the matter, he had been conducting this criminal activity even before 911. IOW, LONG before the freedom stripping anti-Patriot act.
And letting it sunset will mean squat, since they have always had an easy time of getting their FISA approved taps if they were legitimate.
Giving in in any way, shape or form is not an option.
I’m sorry. I just don’t buy the political advice to cave in yet again. Bush is weak right now (least popular President in history) and standing strong will only help the Democrats. Let’s just try it . . . for once. It’s the right thing to do and let’s see if it works politically. For once, let’s stand up for the constitution and the rule of law and see if American citizens respect that or buy into Bush’s smear tactics. It’s worth a shot.
Anyway . . . the politics are simple. Every Democrat should be saying this:
“Mr. President, we encourage you to spy on terrorists. Every Democrat I talk to thinks we should spy on Al Qaeda and other foreign enemies. In fact, we don’t think you’ve done enough. So we’ve sent you a bill that makes sure you can protect America and spy on our foreign enemies. It’s there for you to sign and we hope you don’t play politics with America’s safety. What we will not do is condone your illegal and warrantless spying on innocent Americans. And we certainly will not grant retroactive immunity for any crimes that were committed against innocent Americans. Mr. President, you must stop your illegal and warrantless spying on innocent Americans. And you better not hold the safety of America hostage simply to hide any wrongdoing committed against the American people. If you spied on innocent Americans than you and your co-conspirators should be held accountable. If you care about American security you will sign this bill. If you care more about hididng your own wrongdoing and playing politics—then you will veto this bill. It’s up to you.”
OK, mark me down as against.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_barbara__071114_homeland_security_li.htm
I don’t have the old FISA bill in front of me so I can’t say this with 100% assurance, but didn’t it already allow for retroactive warrants in cases of time-sensitive intelligence coming over the wires? If that’s the case, then I think this is where we lost the battle:
Assuming those retroactive warrants were covered in the old bill, then this is a phoney talking point, and we shouldn’t be lending it legitimacy by discussing it as a real security problem.