FISA Followup

Two more points on FISA. One, it's not correct to say that companies need to can "get off scot-free if they can produce evidence that the Bush administration promised them (cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye) that their illegal request was, in fact, legal. " In fact, all they need is for the Attorney-General to state that this happened. That's less than nothing.

Second, one shouldn't say that "the Democrats" caved on this. Enough Democrats did cave for it to pass, but others didn't cave. Distinctions matter.

Comments

But it was hardly a Dem show of force...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | June 19, 2008 9:35 PM

The Democratic leadership caved. This couldn't happen if they hadn't.

Posted by phil | June 19, 2008 9:38 PM

Distinctions DO matter. And if Pelosi and Hoyer had opposed adoption of this iteration of the issue in any meaningful sense, it would not be on its way to being voted on tomorrow. So, "the Democrats" may not have caved in the sense of every House Democrat caving on the issue, but "the Democrats" in the sense of the leaders chosen by House Democrats to make these decisions for The Democrats have most certainly caved, capitulated, surrendered - call it what you will. And it is disgusting and infuriating.

Posted by mf lehman | June 19, 2008 9:44 PM

...and though others have said it, it bears repeating:

Where the fuck is Obama?

Posted by ed | June 19, 2008 9:50 PM

Can we stop using the term "cave" already. A lot of the democrats who voted for this measure had been aligned with the telecomms from the beginning but only moved back-and-forth as they felt pressure from the left. Once they felt a suitable fig leaf had been found they were more than happy to move back into line. This is much different from 'caving' to outside pressure.

Democrats need to remember that sometimes our leadership is actually defeated by those wascally wepubwicans and other times they are captured by other groups or interests....

Posted by sven | June 19, 2008 9:54 PM

re "cave"? are you high? "cave" is always used in exactly the situation we had today: enough of one party or caucus, is cowardly enough not to stand with their own party, and breaks ranks to vote for a given bill. It is most apt in this specific case: the leadership "caved," pure and simple.

It is almost never the case that a majority, or even a large number, "caves." In that case, the narrative of the legislation would be entirely different--it would be a bipartisan measure.

Posted by along | June 19, 2008 10:00 PM

The Democratic Leadership caved and the leader of the Democratic party has gone AWOL. How about that?

Posted by southpaw | June 19, 2008 10:03 PM

Hoyer only looked scared after fellow telecomm BFF Al Wynn lost his primary. His stance never changed. We have had the ugly spectacle of him lying about his role all week, but that's just for consumption by a public Steny really believes just isn't smart enough to participate in democracy. Fatti maschi, parole femine.

Posted by mf lehman | June 19, 2008 10:12 PM

Who knows where this precedent of retroactively immunizing illegal conduct will lead us.

Ummm,aren't Republicans using the same argument against amnesty for illegal aliens? Maybe not the most persuasive point

Posted by dcwolverine | June 19, 2008 10:21 PM

The Democrats CAVED.
They are the majority party. A bill they should be fighting tooth and nail to fillibuster is actually going to pass? They CAVED.

This is pretty much the one legislative gain we've gotten since the 2006 election, and they're CAVING.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 19, 2008 10:22 PM

Opposed to both retroactive telecomm immunity and illegal immigrant amnesty here.

Posted by Julian Elson | June 19, 2008 10:25 PM

"Ummm,aren't Republicans using the same argument against amnesty for illegal aliens? Maybe not the most persuasive point"

Amnesty for immigrants is a statutory, rather than constitutional issue. The essential question is one of policy.

Retroactive FISA immunity prevents us from discovering that important constitutional protections were violated. The essential question is one of rights.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 19, 2008 10:30 PM

Opposed to both retroactive telecomm immunity and illegal immigrant amnesty here.

Ditto.

But there are different principles at stake. Restraining the executive augments rule of law concerns here . . .

Posted by southpaw | June 19, 2008 10:30 PM

It's not caving if you support the measure as Hoyer does, or are afraid of the repercussions of having known about Bush's spying all along and having said and done nothing like Rockefeller.

It IS caving if you know this is a bad bill and you abandon your authority and let someone else take the heat as Pelosi is letting Hoyer do, or if you figure the courts will wipe this out eventually as many Democrats did with the Military Commissions Act, or if you believe there will be retributions after the next terrorist attack for any support of civil liberties.

So overall, maybe the Democrats have not caved. Many will vote against this outrage. Many will vote for it, not because they have caved but because they support it. But the Democrats who matter most - Pelosi and Reid - HAVE caved because they know it's an outrage, but are letting it go forward anyway.

BTW - does anyone else think Nancy Pelosi is getting increasingly incoherent? I saw her speak at AIPAC - jumbled, choppy, themeless - as if she had made it up between the ladies' room and the lectern. Now this troubling statement.

Posted by mf lehman | June 19, 2008 10:41 PM

We are running out of ways to say "pathetic."

Posted by Alan in SF | June 19, 2008 10:44 PM

Well, from what I gathered, Matt is not opposed to both retroactive immunity for telecoms and immigrants, so maybe its not the most effective argument for him to make.

And to suggest that the difference is policy versus constitutional law is distinction without a difference. FISA is a policy, as is immigration.

Posted by dcwolverine | June 19, 2008 10:49 PM

It's always amusing to see people who think that politicians are somehow motivated by "principles" get SHOCKED! SHOCKED! when those "principles" are routinely ignored.

None of this is a surprise to anybody watching the Democrats for years now. I only started watching since the Iraq war started and I can see the Democrats are exactly what Justin Raimondo calls them - a wing of the "War Party".

And the fact that there are a few "mavericks" such as Kucinich, Gravel or Paul is irrelevant to the outcome.

Ron Paul Claims Pelosi Spiked Iran Bill
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/paul_pelosi_AIPAC/2008/06/18/105652.html

Money Quotes:

According to Paul, Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted the bill designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy, but during a revision of the legislation excluded the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran.

“She [Pelosi] removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

Paul implies Pelosi, desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation, bargained away the proposal that would have been the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

According to John Nichols, who covered the story about Pelosi’s capitulation at the time for “The Nation,” Pelosi was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).”

Paul's allegation is corroborated by 'The Asia Times', which in another article published at the time says AIPAC was strongly against attaching "a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would require President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option 'off the table.' The provision was killed."

The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying [Pelosi's] decision was due to AIPAC.

Next check out this idiocy from Henry Waxman. While Waxman babbles about "diplomacy", clearly he's an idiot on the subject of Iran.

A missed opportunity with Iran
US Representative Henry A Waxman
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF19Ak03.html

Money Quotes:

Inter Press Service: What would you suggest for the next administration regarding its policies toward Iran?

Henry Waxman: I think a Democratic administration would take the position that they want to have more open conversations with Iran, perhaps without any preconditions. It may be wishful thinking that it would induce positive results, but I think it's important to pursue direct discussions. The United States has to keep the pressure on Iran, working through the UN to stop the developing of nuclear militarism, and sanctions have to be kept in place, but it should be pursued at the same time there are actual negotiations. I think we were better off with North Korea having actual discussions with them even though it involved multi-party discussions.

Also we need the threat of war, even though I hope to hold that off. We should never drop it, take it off the table, because it is always something you want on their minds.

PS: What is the message that you're getting from the Iranian-American community in your constituency?

HW: I get very mixed messages from my constituents became some say don't even talk to these guys, we don't want to work out anything with them - we want a regime change. And then more often than that, I get "don't go to war, don't use military against Iran, that would be the worst thing to do". [On the other hand], my Jewish constituents do not like the fact that he [Obama] wants to talk [to Iran].

IPS: Do you think Bush administration will launch an attack, or an air strike, against Iran before the general elections?

HW: No, no. Send the message to the Iranians [laughing].

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 10:53 PM

Well, the Democratic leadership did “cave”. Just not to the Republications or the telecom lobbyists but to the grass roots of the Democratic Party.

I would also just like to say, as someone who is a strong Obama skeptic and a former supporter of Edwards and then Hillary, this is a real opportunity for him to win over people like me. Clearly, if he were to call Pelosi and Reid and tell them that he was totally opposed and was prepared to: (1) publicly denounce the bill and call for Pelosi to be replaced as Speaker if the bill passes the House; and (2) suspend his campaign and return to the Senate to lead a filibuster and also publicly call for Reid to step down that would kill this bill dead and also go a very long way to reassuring people like me.

But, more likely, its time for more triangulation ----- publicly (but weakly) oppose the bill and vote against it but not use his status as the party’s leader to kill it. Change you can believe in but only if you close your eyes and clap really, really hard.

Posted by Mitch Guthman | June 19, 2008 11:03 PM

The leadership caved. That is all that matters. They are worthless on this issue.

They are also worthless on Iraq, as tomorrow they will appropriate another $165 Billion to continue Bush's (and their) illegal war.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure they're worth a whole lot on any issue I care about.

Posted by HipHopLawyer | June 19, 2008 11:09 PM

Matt, when it comes to matters of law, you're a complete imbecile.

Are you sure you graduated from Harvard, because you've never act like it, not for one minute.

If the fourth amendment is eviscerated THAN distinctions don’t matter one wit, Jeebus.

Where is Jeff Cooper when you really need him, over and over again in the case of your stupid blog.

Posted by Me-again | June 19, 2008 11:28 PM

Me-again: Matt graduated from Harvard with a degree in philosophy, not law. So I'm not surprised about many of his opinions demonstrating cluelessness.

He believed in the Iraq war because the "Big Dog Democrats" did and even now he still thinks they're people worth listening to.

What else can you call that but cluelessness?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 12:06 AM

BTW, Henry Waxman is the guy who promised Sibel Edmonds that he'd make her whistle blower case the top priority when the Dems won the elections in 2006.

We're talking a major case of national treason here - something that could sink the neocons, and a number of Republicans, and put people in Federal prison for life - including "senior elected officials", to quote Edmonds.

Since then, his office won't take her calls.

Can you say "gutless rat bastard sell out"? I knew you could.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 12:09 AM

So, what's next? Extend qualified immunity to cover all white collar boo-boos, as long as, like, the President says it was OK?

My rep is on record as opposing the FISA amendment. Having griped via s/email and phone, about all I can do is see how she votes.

Posted by cmholm | June 20, 2008 12:10 AM

Well, it's not that *all* Democrats caved, but it was *Democrats* who stopped this in February, and it was *Democrats* who greased the skids for it this time (Hoyer, Reyes, Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, etc.; to say nothing of the (so far) impotent protests of Leahy, Obama, etc. -- y'all want the bill not to pass? Then *do* things to keep it from passing, instead of just saying, primly, "Well, *I* certainly won't be voting for it!" -- while your colleagues get rolled by the usual Bush/Bush-Dog coalition).

By the way, though, what the hell happened to the expectation that the Republicans should stand up for the Constitution, or for any kind of limitation on government? We bitch about Democrats caving in, or capitulating, or doing a shitty job of negotiating... but if you read the Constitution to most of today's GOP, they'd call you a fucking communist for defending terrorists. Actually, that's not even really a hypothetical any more.

(special shout-out for Arlen Specter, for his short-lived bravery and subsequent silence. You, sir, are a fucking joke.)

Posted by Chris | June 20, 2008 1:15 AM

Second, one shouldn't say that "the Democrats" caved on this. Enough Democrats did cave for it to pass, but others didn't cave. Distinctions matter.

Do or do not. There is no try.

I'm not sticking Russ Feingold's report card on the refrigerator because he was opposed to all of this stuff from the start. At a certain point competence in opposition needs to count with competence being defined as actually achieving any of your stated goals.

I support a nice romantic weekend with Scarlett Johansson. Should I get credit for being a ladies man? No I should not. Because that weekend isn't any closer to happening today then when life first evolved from shallow pools of methane on a primative Earth.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 20, 2008 1:20 AM

hurry up and vote for the bill, the telecom industry is waiting to know who to send their *cough*bribes*cough*, I mean, campaign donations out to. The telecom industry needs to know the congressional rollcall.

Posted by Ramza | June 20, 2008 1:50 AM

It's good to see so many outraged people. Unfortunately, some of those Democrats who caved in are receiving massive establishment support. I'm still dismayed that Obama made a radio ad for Georgia Representative John Barrow, given not only his conservative voting record, but the knocks against his own party.

For anyone who's still a bit murky on this issue and wonders how the Democratic-controlled Congress could ever pass such legislation, Glenn Greenwald has top-notch pieces which detail everything you need to know, including key Democratic appeasers:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/18/fisa_campaign/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/obama/index.html

I hope those who are outraged will know what to do with the following:

To reach the [Obama] Campaign Headquarters by phone, please call: [phone]

You can contact us by mail at:
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

There's also a section on Obama's site to email comments:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

Naturally, the individual Congress(wo)men should be contacted as well.

Posted by chris09 | June 20, 2008 2:46 AM

Retroactive FISA immunity prevents us from discovering that important constitutional protections were violated. The essential question is one of rights.
Posted by Anthony Damiani

Horseshit. The matter is one of law and whether trying to get communications on deadly radical Muslims overseas and who they were calling inside the US was proper.
It is nice and all that A. Damiani cares so much for the rights of foreigners in distant lands out to kill us or US traitors overseas or in Jihadi cells in the USA. Most Americans don't, and from Griffin Bell at the FISA signing and every Administration AG after that have made formal legal findings that FISA cannot infringe on the President's Constitutional powers to monitor and check foreign agents.

Phrase: "Shredding the Constitution."
Def #1 - What Lincoln, Franklin, Washington, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ,
and Nixon did worse of than the milder security measures of the Dubya Bunch.

Def #2 - A Hard Left phrase that substitutes for "We reject the Constitution and Co-Equal Branches. We support a new Jewish Sanhederin of lawyer-priests that stands supreme above the other Branches of Government and The People and does what it wants to create new Constitution or nullify existing parts of the Constitution."

Def #3 - A phrase used by those who wish to tear down the Lincoln, FDR Memorials, plus the Washington Monument - and replace them with non-"Constitution shredder" memorials to the likes of Che, Saul Alinsky, Sojouner Truth..

Posted by chris ford | June 20, 2008 2:48 AM

It's good to see so many outraged people. For anyone who's still a bit murky on this issue and wonders how the Democratic-controlled Congress could ever pass such legislation, Glenn Greenwald has top-notch pieces which detail everything you need to know, including key Democratic appeasers:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/18/fisa_campaign/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/obama/index.html

I hope those who are outraged will know what to do with the following:

To reach the [Obama] Campaign Headquarters by phone, please call: [phone]

You can contact us by mail at:
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

There's also a section on Obama's site to email comments:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

Naturally, the individual Congress(wo)men should be contacted as well.

Posted by chris09 | June 20, 2008 2:50 AM

>Enough Democrats did cave for it to pass, but others didn't cave.

Where is the Democratic Whip, and why can't this person maintain any party discipline?

[BTW, this is a rhetorical question.]

Posted by bartkid | June 20, 2008 3:03 AM

Chris Ford-

"Horseshit. The matter is one of law and whether trying to get communications on deadly radical Muslims overseas and who they were calling inside the US was proper."

No, it isn't. Nobody is actually opposed to wiretapping terrorists. That's a straw-man argument.

The Supreme Court holds that listening in on Americans' calls constitutes a legal search, as, obviously, it does. The fourth amendment means you can't do that without a warrant, even if the target happens to be the devil himself-- as long as he's on American soil.

Recognizing that foreign intelligence can sometimes require special circumstances, we established have a top-secret court to govern the relevant warrants, and allow them to be issued up to three-days retroactively. It is the SOLE legal means by which such may be conducted.

That wasn't good enough for the Bush administration, and they broke the law. They spied-- on Americans-- without warrants.

The current FISA fight is about whether or not we'll ever get to see the documents that prove it. It's also about whether organizations in the future will ever have reason to obey the law if an administration asks them to do otherwise.

It's great that the AGs have made legal findings, but in an executive branch that practices a unified executive theory, their findings are meaningless as a check on the President's power-- they will innately reflect his policies. That's tautologically what a "unified executive" means.

And with regards to your "definitions"

1) Other people having committed injustices in no way legitimizes future wrongdoing, as you should know well.

2) CO-EQUAL? You're telling me that I'm abandoning our system of co-equal governance on an issue where the President has bypassed the courts and flat-out ignored the relevant legislation?

3) Pure identity politics. Grow up.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 20, 2008 3:33 AM

Chris Ford appears to believe that Benjamin Franklin was president at some point.

Posted by mad6798j | June 20, 2008 7:36 AM

Mitch Guthman, are you under the impression that Hillary would have done any of those things if she were the nominee? If so, what's stopping her from doing them now?

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 8:53 AM

Chris Ford appears to believe that Benjamin Franklin was president at some point.
Posted by mad6798j

No, before there was a President and the Constitution Franklin reviewed and commented on, he headed the Revolutions Committee on Secret Correspondence.

Which:

1. Ran the US spy network in the Colonies and in England, Continetal Europe with a big assist from the French Franklin arranged.
2. Orchestrated the burning of printing presses and publishing houses that opposed the Revolution.
3. Regularly opened mail and dispatches without warrant to assess the loyalty of suspect people, even double-checking on loyalty of Washington's officers.
4. Kept what he learned and did privy only to 6 other Reps in the Continental Congress, Washington, and Washington's high staff.
5. Helped lead the effort to arrest and imprison without lawyer access or trial, loyalists and suspected loyalists for up to two years.

In short, a great man who helped win the war while teaching us a lesson that all the "rights" and freedoms loved and wanted in the abstract are worthless if the enemy defeats you.

Posted by chris ford | June 20, 2008 9:24 AM

all the "rights" and freedoms loved and wanted in the abstract are worthless if the enemy defeats you.

Oh, go back to hiding in the pool of urine under your bed, ford, you contemptible lily-livered coward. (But make sure to check for those murderous darker-skinned folk first.) And when we're fighting a revolution against our Islamist masters with no Constitution in force, we'll get back to you about your currently mendacious / stupid analogies with Franklin.

Posted by mds | June 20, 2008 10:42 AM

If enough Democrats don't vote for it, then they have caved. There's no point to having one Democrat who fights for our side while the rest vote the Republican way or are too big of pussies to say anything.

Posted by Julene | June 20, 2008 11:45 AM

If you think things are bad now, wait until after the election. The seats that are most likely to swing will be for areas with a more Republican friendly base, so it's unlikely that any solid pro-civil liberties votes will be picked up. The shift of the composition of the caucus will dillute the support for pro-civil liberties leadership, making Pelosi and Reid even less likely to use their positions to try to stop bills like this. Add a Dem in the White House and there will be less of an incentive to oppose presidential overreach.

If you care about these issues, the main thing you can do is support primary challenges next time around (in both parties - making a few Republicans feel heat from Ron Paul type challengers would help as well) and a movement in the Dem base to get Reid (and Pelosi if she keeps this shit up) demoted. The former won't be relevant for a couple years, but the later can be acomplished right now - even if it's not successful, it will put pressure on the leadership.

Posted by MattXIV | June 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Add a Dem in the White House and there will be less of an incentive to oppose presidential overreach.

Less of an incentive among Democrats, maybe, but I expect a significant number of Republicans to suddenly remember their staunch commitment to civil liberties, almost as if it were the Clinton era again.

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 12:33 PM

Second, one shouldn't say that "the Democrats" caved on this

Matt, that's an absurd statement. When the Democratic Party leadership not only allows this bill to come to a vote, but votes FOR the bill ... the Democrats, so much as they have an identity, pushed the bill through.

This wasn't the Democrats "caving in" - because the Democrats actively pushed the bill through.

This is as much a Democrat-created law as it is a Bush created law.

How is that a "cave"?

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 1:49 PM

Well - we expect Republicans to act in lockstep as authoritarian, Constitution-shredding, civil rights-ignoring, spying on U.S. citizen lunatics.

We expect better from Democrats - which is why given today's FISA capitulation, today is a damned shameful day to be a Democrat. What an absolutely pathetic showing from Pelosi, Hoyer, and the powers that be.....if my Congressman (Jim Moran) had voted for FISA, I'd vote against him in the next election just to protest. Fortunately, he's usually on the right side of the issues - but when will some of these Congressional Dems get a pair and stand up for our civil rights?

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 20, 2008 2:16 PM

Why do you expect Democrats to stand up for our civil rights?

I don't get it.

They don't ... repeatedly. They are not interested in standing up for our civil rights. It's been repeatedly demonstrated.

At this point... to expect them to stand up for something they don't stand for ... borders on mental illness.

Posted by jackifus | June 20, 2008 2:21 PM

Repeal FISA is up and running. Anyone who wants to is welcome to sign up and become a Poster on it. The purpose of the blog is to organize a drive to repeal the FISA laws and all laws that pardon or give immunity from prosecution anyone who has violated the Constitution during the Bush Administration.

That is why we want everyone to be able to Post so they can start a conversation about an idea they have to make this happen.

Stop on by and check it out. By all means leave a comment and sign up to blog with us as we figure out what needs to be done to return our Fourth Amendment Rights and our rule of law.

If you have a blog already and you become a poster we will link to your site.

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/

Posted by xoites | June 22, 2008 5:13 PM