More FISA Bullshit.
I was watching CSPAN tonight while taking care of the boy. Gotta tell ya, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a hell of a guy. Apparently, after having their secret session concerning the FISA act, House Democrats were as incensed as ever over the Republicans’ demand to grant retro-active immunity to the telecom corporations that assisted in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.
Republicans’ argument against the Majority-supported bill went something along the lines of,”If we don’t protect these American corporations from opportunist trial lawyers’ lawsuits, then we haven’t done our job to protect the American people from the terrorists.” Throughout the counter-arguments, the telecommunications companies in question were referred to as “good Samaritans” and having “answered the call in this country’s hour of need.”
First off, let’s get a few things straight. One, while the House-proposed bill does not provide retro-active immunity for the telecom companies, it does (at least according to the CSPAN ticker at the bottom of the screen) make it “easier for telecom companies to defend themselves” should they be confronted with one of these “opportunist” lawsuits.
Second, the FISA bill, as it currently stands (and has stood for 30 years) enables intelligence agencies to obtain all the information they need with a court order or, in emergency situations, without a court order. This is what Republicans want, right? To be able to cut through the red tape to protect Americans from terrorists when the need arises? As they’ve continued to reject this bill, I’d say they want to make a law which violates Constitutional protections against “unnecessary search and seizure” by cutting out the courts altogether. Wait… didn’t they claim to be the holy defenders of the Constitution back when Clinton was in office? Tsk.
Third, and this is something I’d really like to touch on, is about the immunity for communications companies. One thing House Democrats made a point to mention is that the telecom industry already has immunity–with the proper documentation: court authorization via a warrant. It was argued that telecom companies, who have the means to full immunity for wiretapping, willingly chose to bypass the rule of law and suddenly want protection from it, when the mechanism for their immunity was already available if only they had followed the procedure.
That’s like illegally downloading something online, getting caught, then asking for a receipt as a proof of purchase without actually buying anything. The conditions for getting a receipt to avoid charges have not been met. Likewise, American citizens’ phone records, conversations and internet activity have all been handed over to the government without following the law, the People found out, and now they’re wanting immunity–their receipt–even though the conditions of getting it haven’t been met. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? The point: they had their chance at immunity and knowingly blew it.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the telecom industry actually is a victim in all this. I’ll bet they were told–or assumed–that they were being given full legal authority to do this for the Bush cabal. They were led to believe that what they were doing was perfectly legal, and maybe, just maybe, they complied out of naivety rather than complicity. I don’t think that just because their crimes were tied to the White House, that they share the same operating procedure and philosophy as the Bush regime. We don’t have all the information regarding who did what yet, so I’m willing to suspend judgment on the companies themselves while this gets sorted out in Congress. If it can be shown that they acted egregiously (and not merely gregariously), then let the chips fall where they may.
Bushie, however, is obviously by this point beyond any benefit of the doubt.
Naturally, the Senate says this is a “step in the right direction” but are still babbling about reaching a compromise. In other words,”If the House adds immunity to this thing, because we’re all getting creeped out by Dick Cheney’s evil stare and want to get this over with as quickly as possible, we’re willing to overlook any earmarks you glue to this sucker.” I’ll bet the “compromise” is at least similar to this.
Tags: FISA, House, wiretapping
March 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Not sure what the “unnecessary search and seizure” protection that you quote in paragraph 4 refers to. One can assume you meant “unreasonable search and seizure” as defined by the Fourth Amendment.
Your statement above that, “this is what Republicans want, right?” is interesting. I would hope, and I suspect, this is what the VAST MAJORITY of Americans regardless of political affiliation want. The ability “To be able to cut through the red tape to protect Americans from terrorists when the need arises.” Basic security. Democrats don’t want that?
March 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Fourth Amendment, absolutely correct. The problem lies not only in the means by which they gained the information, you see. The concern that arises in my mind and the minds of many others is this: If abuses of authority can enable the government to obtain information they’ve no business with, what abuses can lead to the inappropriate exploitation of said information. It conjures images of a 1984-style police state, Big Brother and all. It is not at all fantastical to assume that this is the logical, eventual consequence to continuous overreaching authoritarianism coupled with the eroding protections against it.
Also, you’re right, everybody wants it. Is there really any question as to whether or not the Democrats want to protect Americans? To suggest otherwise is asinine.
What I was getting at, in a nutshell, is that Republicans are asking for the more authoritarian version which cuts courts out of the process altogether while claiming that it is the *only* way to get the necessary information when our intelligence agencies need it. What they’re ignoring is that the bill already provides for that when the need is urgent enough (though, I concede, I’m not aware of what is or is not considered “urgent enough” according to the bill). It already takes care of that, but still protects Joe Q. American from being spied upon for no good reason. The last thing I’d want is an approved FOIA request on my personal conversations or download history.
Another problem with what the GOP wants is the utter lack of checks and balances that would occur without court supervision. Obviously, the GOP has been used to this from, arguably, 1998 to the beginning of 2007. There’s Congressional majority, the White House, the stacking of Supreme Court justices, the blatant politicizing of the Justice Department, all of whom worked together effortlessly with no oversight. We’re seeing the fruition of this as the Attorney General of the United States refuses to enforce mandated Congressional subpoenas and contempt charges, all because the President, who appointed him, claimed yet another so-called Executive Privilege.
Our government should not run like this. I hope that if a Democrat takes the White House next year that they’ll abide by this fundamental standard. If nothing else, it’ll help the GOP save face for not having to hypocritically decry them for doing the same thing that Republicans have been doing for the past seven years. Hopefully, it results in a balance of powers to stave off, at least temporarily, the inevitable collapse that all democracies suffer.