Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DEMOCRATS PREPARE TO CAPITULATE ON FISA.
Brian Beutler of the Media Consortium reports:
After Democrats stood their ground and refused to pass a series of draconian FISA amendments in February, negotiations over the wiretapping law went behind closed doors. In the months since then, news reports have occasionally suggested that another Democratic party sell-out was imminent, only to be superseded by other reports indicating that negotiations were ongoing. Until today.
A few moments ago, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer released what he refers to as a "bipartisan" "compromise" bill: The FISA Amendment Act of 2008, which he authored along with Jay Rockefeller, Kit Bond, and Roy Blunt (respectively, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee, and the House Minority whip). The word "bipartisan" is technically indisputable. The word "compromise", by contrast, is a total farce.
The most controversial elements of the February legislation were provisions that would have allowed the White House to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, and that would have immunized telecommunications companies from participating in the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program back in the halcyon days when warrantless wiretapping was unquestionably illegal.
Here's how the new bill deals with the immunity question.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of
the United States in which such action is pending that...the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007.
That's the game. Non-profit groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation can sue the telecoms if they want, but if Attorney General Michael Mukasey says "presto", the lawsuits must be dismissed.
As for the nitty gritty of surveillance powers the bill authorizes, here's what the ACLU says: "This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications.... The process by which this deal has come about has been as secretive as the warrantless wiretapping program it is seeking to legitimize." And the media blackout over the last few months is testament to that. None of Congress' civil liberties stalwarts partook in these negotiations. Neither John Conyers, nor Patrick Leahy--chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees respectively -- got a say. Nor did Sens. Chris Dodd or Russ Feingold. Nor did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Leahy says "the legislation unveiled today... is not a bill I can support."
Nonetheless, it looks very much as if Pelosi -- who has substantial power to control what does and does not appear on the floor of the House--will allow this to come to a vote.
--Brian Beutler
COMMENTS (17)
So, now that Dems have a majority, the GOP's policies have been completely rejected by the nation, and the news media is feeling a lot more sheepish these days about equating the preservation of the republic with treason.... why is this still happening?
Posted by: Matt Sandwich | June 19, 2008 2:09 PM
The questions remaining are:
1. What are the chances that Leahy can keep this bottled in a committee?
2. What will Reid do about scheduling a vote?
3. What are the chances that the suits can be dismissed prior to Jan 20, 2009? If Mulkasi is no longer AG then, then the chances of the "preso" moment are seriously diminished
Posted by: William Smith | June 19, 2008 2:16 PM
There is little doubt that Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are pretty goddam liberal.
Now, if they are getting behind this bill, and the Democratically controlled congress may pass this, then you need to take a hard look in the mirror to understand that it is *you* that is on the fringe of the Democratic party and out of the mainstream. (ouch!)
Posted by: El Viajero | June 19, 2008 2:32 PM
Call the Majority Leader's office:
202-225-3130
Call the Speaker's office:
202-225-0100
Posted by: T. Paine | June 19, 2008 2:38 PM
There is one man who could put a stop to this. He has the will of the people. He has the dollars to spend. He claims to be against it.
Where is he?
We could not vote for Clinton because she voted incorrectly on the war. Next to the war, FISA and warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity were also critical issues to the netroots.
Where is he?
More importantly, how come the netroots at the Prospect are not pressuring or beseeching our savior?
Posted by: jerry | June 19, 2008 2:44 PM
Sweet! I'm such a kook that I think the law should be applied without prejudice.
That *was* a joke, right, Traveler?
Posted by: Matt Sandwich | June 19, 2008 2:48 PM
The Senate's the premier deliberate body, hopefully they will deliberate...
Posted by: American Citizen | June 19, 2008 3:13 PM
"Now, if they are getting behind this bill, and the Democratically controlled congress may pass this, then you need to take a hard look in the mirror to understand that it is *you* that is on the fringe of the Democratic party and out of the mainstream."
ROFL.... No, dear, we're not, as poll after poll demonstrates. I know that you have a need to believe that people agree with you but the simple truth is that they don't. And the simple truth about this bill is that it is not a "compromise," by any meaningful definition of that word. It is, instead, a complete and total capitulation designed to overturn the rule of law and to hide clearly illegal behavior.
Posted by: PaulB | June 19, 2008 5:22 PM
"The Senate's the premier deliberate body, hopefully they will deliberate..."
Don't count on it. Remember that the Senate has already passed a complete immunity bill; it was the House that formerly blocked that. Absent a miracle, I don't see any chance to derail this abomination.
Posted by: PaulB | June 19, 2008 5:24 PM
This sounds like a brilliant attempt by would-be centrist Democrats to take national security off the proverbial table, and I suspect it will work as well as when Gephardt tried it in 2002. You'd think they would've realized by now that the GOP will ALWAYS find a new national security issue with which to irresponsibly bash Democrats. More of this strategery and the Blue Dogs may manage to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.
Unfortunately, you go to Election Day with the caucus you have, not the one you might want.
Posted by: Patience | June 19, 2008 5:28 PM
Matt, because the Democrats are corrupt. They are beholden to the same wealthy corporations as the GOP, and it shows. This is likely to herald an era where neither party retains congress for more than 1 or 2 cycles.
As with the MCA and Kyl-Lieberman, I won't vote for any Democrat who votes for this for anything, ever again. no matter how vile the Republican they are running against is or how important the office is. I'd rather have a real Republican in that position than a traitor.
Posted by: Soullite | June 19, 2008 5:58 PM
I mean that too. I don't care how much time I've spent defending and working for Obama. If he votes for this in the Senate, I'm not going to vote for him.
Posted by: Soullite | June 19, 2008 6:01 PM
Non-profit groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation can sue the telecoms if they want, but if Attorney General Michael Mukasey says "presto", the lawsuits must be dismissed.
Gosh, I wonder what Attorney General Mukasey would do in that instance.
Posted by: ed | June 19, 2008 8:49 PM
Why? Why? Why? I am not getting this. Can someone please figure this out? They successfully quashed this in February, with positive political repercussions -- why bring this travesty of a "compromise" now?! What is Steny Hoyer afraid of? Has he gotten money from the Telecoms? Do they really think this is still November 2002? What am I missing?
Posted by: Great blue | June 19, 2008 9:13 PM
El Vaj: There is little doubt that Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are pretty goddam liberal.
I'll let others say what they will about Pelosi. But Hoyer's been my Congresscritter for the past decade. He's a K-Street Democrat, and no liberal.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 20, 2008 12:49 PM
the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation can sue the telecoms if they want, but if Attorney General Michael Mukasey says "presto", the lawsuits must be dismissed.
OK, but seven months from now, Mukasey will no longer be AG. How much freedom would Obama's AG have to not say 'presto'? If s/he could do that, then the ACLU and the EFF could withdraw their suits now, and file them again next January.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 20, 2008 12:54 PM
What are the chances that the suits can be dismissed prior to Jan 20, 2009? If Mulkasi is no longer AG then, then the chances of the "preso" moment are seriously diminished.
Yeah, but the answer to that question is a practical matter. Better to not put the decision up to someone in an administration appointed slot like the AG, regardless of which party controls it.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 2:09 PM