FISA Fight

Julian Sanchez has a good summary of the legislative fight over FISA legislation that's going to unfold today as Harry Reid introduces the Bush administration supported Intelligence Committee version of the bill.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has, naturally, a very long and information-rich analysis of some of the latest revelations about run-amok NSA surveillance combined with some warranted outrage at the members of congress who aren't standing up to this crap.

Comments

Democrats will cave in on this issue quicker than a China coal mine.

Posted by steve duncan | December 17, 2007 9:19 AM

I will never vote for the Democratic party again. Not for President. Not for Senator. Not for city councilman.

i'm going to vote straight R from now on. I'm going to do anything I possibly can to kill the Democratic party so a real opposition party rises to replace them.

Posted by Soullite | December 17, 2007 10:11 AM

Sadly, Mr. Duncan is correct. How truly depressing to recognize this fact. Almost as depressing as the possibility that the government is likely keeping track of who posts material for Dodd to use during his filibuster.

It's hard to get my head around the fact that I may be spied on for the rest of my life.

I wonder if Orwell saw his insights as inevitabilities or merely possibilities? They sure look like the former to me.

Posted by Kurzbein | December 17, 2007 10:25 AM

What I see little noted is that Bush initiated all this surveillance almost from day one of his presidency. The public thinks it was done in response to 9/11. Supporters would say it shows Bush dealt with the threat of terrorism sooner than critics allege. Yet Bush famously ignored the August PDB raising alrms about a pending attack. His cabinet downplayed intelligence regarding foreignors taking inordinate amounts of pilot training with no apparent aspirations beyond the ability to take off and guide a jet. If terrorism wasn't the object of his surveillance what was? Well, he'd just survived a nasty election. He (and the entire Republican power structure) probably saw enemies at every turn. They needed to crush dissent and challenges. Who gets surveilled when those are your objectives?

Posted by steve duncan | December 17, 2007 10:37 AM

Steve Duncan -

Exactly - who decides? That's the issue here. These Senators can tell themselves that it's necessary and won't be abused, but that's a fantasy, and it's monumentally presumptuous (not to mention idiotic) to think that every future elected official will be benevolent.

Posted by Kurzbein | December 17, 2007 10:54 AM

This issue is flying well under the radar for most people, unfortunately. My sense of this is that the many of the key Dems who are providing support for TelCo immunity (yes, I'm looking at you, Dianne Feinstein) are motivated not so much by fear of being portrayed as soft on terror but more because the Telco industry is one of the most powerful lobbying presences in DC.

Posted by Jeff S. | December 17, 2007 10:57 AM

democrats aren't going to cave in on this issue: by bringing this version to the floor, reid already has caved in on this issue.

it was the great misfortune of someone to call looking for money from the democratic congressional committee on friday after i learned what reid planned to do. i told the poor soul that i sure hoped someone new was going to give money because i sure wan't....

Posted by howard | December 17, 2007 11:01 AM

".....motivated not so much by fear of being portrayed as soft on terror but more because the Telco industry is one of the most powerful lobbying presences in DC."

Posted by Jeff S. | December 17, 2007 10:57 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tin foil hat time: How much of Democratic cowardice on this issue might be motivated by fears of blackmail? No one has any way of knowing who knows what about whom. There are loads of skeletons in every single elected official's closet. Every one. A late night phone call from an unidentified person telling you to vote a certain way or else would have a very chilling effect. And the watchers are watched. They won't speak up. Case in point Sibel Edmonds. We started out thinking this surveillance issue was related to post 9/11 intrusions. Now we read it started much sooner. Safe money would be placed on the entire can of worms being more aptly described as a barrel. This is much, much bigger, more pervasive, more intrusive and all encompasing than any of us can conceive. After immunity for the telcoms we'll move on to immunity for a host of other individuals and institutions. And Democrats will cave right on down the line. They have to. Or else.

Posted by steve duncan | December 17, 2007 11:12 AM

Jeff S -

I'm sure you're right about money being the key factor here, which only makes this fiasco sickening in addition to depressing. It's staggering to consider how often self interest trumps any notion of duty or principal for US Congresspersons. How can anyone who supports this legislationsay they're defending the Constitution? I guess they have to betray it in order to save it. Or something.

Posted by Kurzbein | December 17, 2007 11:15 AM

Steve Duncan -

The fact that I can't rule out your scenario speaks to the depths we've reached.

If only Dick Cheney hadn't chaired Bush's VP search committee...

Posted by Kurzbein | December 17, 2007 11:20 AM

If you're looking at Feinstein, you'll burn your eyes out, because she's the most corrupt Senator since Hermann Goering, as everyone in San Francisco knows.

"And the watchers are watched. They won't speak up. Case in point Sibel Edmonds."

Yup. Sibel is ready to go on any national broadcast new show and reveal the dirt - but none will take her up on it. And Waxman promised her that her case would be number one when he took control - now he won't return her calls.

The fix is in, people. Like Justin Raimondo says, the Dems are just one side of the "War Party".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 18, 2007 1:46 AM