×
A bunch of you have e-mailed to ask what I think of the FISA "compromise." Well, I don't think it's a compromise at all, but rather an example of Democrats getting totally rolled. But since I don't know that much about FISA, I've been loathe to get in the weeds. Julian Sanchez, however, suffers from no such deficits:
A "compromise" usually involves parties in conflict each giving something up to seek a middle ground. So it was strange to see the term bandied about on Friday, when the House of Representatives -- after holding strong for months against White House demands -- passed a surveillance reform bill that will grant legal amnesty to telecoms that participated in the National Security Agency's program of warrantless wiretapping, and give George Bush carte blanche to continue listening to our international calls with only the most anemic court oversight. A vote in the Senate could come as early as today.One might think, as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) does, that the proper word for this is "capitulation." After all, Republicans got precisely what they had wanted all along, and Democrats seem not to have wheedled even a mess of pottage in trade for the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment. But give the House leadership points for at least accidental honesty: "Compromise" can also mean "to make a shameful or disreputable concession," which fits the deal brokered by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to a tee. That hasn't stopped supporters of the compromise from trying to cast the white flag as a victory banner, pointing to a number of purported improvements in the latest House bill over the Senate version Democratic leaders blocked in February and March. Almost none of their arguments stand up to scrutiny.Julian goes through the changes to the bill one by one, and demonstrates what an absurd, and even insulting, farce it's been for the Democrats to call this some kind of victory. They opposed the original FISA bill because it allowed for warrantless surveillance of Americans and legal immunity for telecom companies who turn over information to the government. The revised FISA bill, as Julian explains, allows for warrantless surveillance of Americans and legal immunity for telecom companies who turn over information to the government. So there are two options here: Either the Democrats were lying about why they opposed the bill in the first place, or they're lying about having extracted meaningful concessions on the bill now. Whichever you choose, it's been a shameful, saddening performance. But don't take it from me. Read Julian.
