A Nice Touch

This line from The Washington Post's account of the Democrats' impending FISA surrender really brings it all home:

Democrats are wary of being called weak on national security. That concern is exacerbated by the government's withholding of details on its surveillance activities that would enable Congress to gauge whether expanded powers are needed, said Mark Agrast, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Yes, indeed, the fact that the government is withholding details on its surveillance activities that would enable Congress to gauge whether expanded powers are needed certainly makes me more inclined to give the executive branch more discretionary power. What a nightmare. I guess the silver lining (of sorts) is that the administration has given every indication over the years that it doesn't consider itself bound by the law anyway, so in practice even a better law probably wouldn't accomplish anything.

Comments

Yeah, maybe, but the retroactive immunity stuff is pretty bad and totally defeats that line of reasoning. Not only does the administration not view itself as bound by the law, but Congress is perfectly happy to protect it and its clients from repercussions after the fact in cases where it does clearly act outside the law.

Posted by Marshall | October 9, 2007 3:40 PM

Democrats are wary of being called weak on national security.

So wary they'd throw over the Constitution and vote to support a dictatorship to um, save the country?

so in practice even a better law probably wouldn't accomplish anything.

Except perhaps preventing this from going on in the future?

max
['You ok'ed it then, so it must be ok now!']

Posted by max | October 9, 2007 4:03 PM

Whatever happens in the Senate, the House version of the bill does not include retroactive immunity.

Posted by NCProsecutor | October 9, 2007 4:03 PM

I hope everyone is not simply giving up on this, since the House bill is pretty reasonable.

Posted by David in NY | October 9, 2007 4:37 PM

Dollars to donuts the final version includes retroactive immunity. Otherwise once and future Democratic donors could go bankrupt. Or to jail.

The "they will break the law anyway so why not legalize it" line of thinking is absolutely insane. For one thing, future administrations may not be so inclined to break the law, so it may actually matter what the law is. Second, once these assholes currently in office have the levers of power pried from their cold, politically dead hands, it might be worthwhile to prosecute some of them, or many of them. Which will be hard to do if all the activities you might prosecute them for have been made perfectly legal in the meantime. Finally, if they will break the law anyway, go ahead and let them continue breaking the fucking law, right? The law is not stopping this vital spying that is keeping us all from being murdered in our beds, so why do anything about it at all?

Posted by Jeff in Texas | October 9, 2007 4:38 PM

"Democrats are wary of being called weak on national security."

By who? AIPAC? The thirty or forty percent of the stupid public who didn't vote for them anyway and never will because they're right wing morons?

When you see consistent behavior like this, it's hard to explain it as "being wary."

It's easier to explain it as "we like these sorts of laws because it means WE can break the law, too, when WE want to."

I'd say that's a much more likely explanation than simple fear on the part of the Dems.

No statist EVER refuses to enhance his own power, even if it means enhancing the power of his opponents.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 9, 2007 4:51 PM

Democrats are wary of being called weak on national security.

Would someone please, please, please explain the concept of "sunk costs"? Democrats will be called weak on national security because they are democrats. The subject in the madlib will change, but the outline is already written.

So, trying to avoid that criticism gives us the double-whammy of being ineffective in that goal, and making democrats substantively weak.

Seriously boys and girls, please stop being such wusses, and punch back.

Posted by Pooh | October 9, 2007 5:16 PM

>>Democrats will be called weak on national security because they are democrats.

They just can't grasp that, can they? I'm trying to remember why I voted for the Democrats in 2006. Oh yeah, I wanted mass capitulation to White House law breaking and fear mongering. That was it.

Ron Paul sounds less insane by the day.

Posted by jim | October 9, 2007 5:23 PM

What’s really interesting about the Dems’ apparent shivering terror that the voters will turn on them for ever favoring essential liberties over temporary security (to quote Ben Franklin) is that the polls themselves show quite the opposite. Consider Rasmussen’s Sept. 12 poll ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/64_agree_with_court_ruling_on_patriot_act ), which showed citizens agreeing by a teensy 64-16 margin that “that a search warrant should be required before the government can ask Internet providers to turn over customer records”. The Dems are not only cowards on civil-liberty issues; they’re STRATEGICALLY STUPID cowards into the bargain. Properly handled, this could easily be not just a harmless issue but a WINNING issue for them.

(Unless, of course, Richard Hack is right for once, and the Dems actually have visions dancing in their heads of winning the 2008 election on other issues and then having all that dee-licious authoritarian power available for their own use...)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 9, 2007 5:29 PM

This is bad, bad, bad. To be charitable, maybe these politicians just want to be able to point to this after the next terrorist attack and say, look, we did this, we did all we could, so they don't get pilloried like Bush did after 9-11 or like how the rightwing tried to do to Bill Clinton.

I see Rahm Emanuel behind it. And 20 years down the road, when we get another Nixon or worse, we can thank Emanuel and his fellow Democrats or caving, as the country slides into dictatorship and one-party rule.

Posted by Peter K. | October 9, 2007 5:33 PM

The Republican'ts have exposed 3 undercover operations, and 9/11 occured on their watch but Democrats are soft on National Security?
How'd that happen?

Posted by merlallen | October 10, 2007 3:02 AM

merlallen:

"9.11 occurred on the Republican's watch"

Repubicans:

"That's because the softy Democrats won't give us warrantless surveillance."

Good argument merlallen! Keep up the good work!

Posted by Peter K. | October 10, 2007 9:45 AM

""That's because the softy Democrats won't give us warrantless surveillance."

Good argument merlallen! Keep up the good work!"

Say what? Because Bush came into office begging to reform FISA prior to 9/11? Because Bush EVER asked to reform FISA prior to the illegal spy program being made public? Please.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | October 10, 2007 10:38 AM

Back in 2000 or so the Free Republic complained that the Clinton Administration had a abused the power of a secret court - FISA - and had thus violated American civil liberties. They sure changed their tune, didn't they?

Posted by Reality Man | October 10, 2007 2:08 PM