FISA Overhaul Set to Clear Senate

[brooklynite]

Source: Congessional Quarterly

Despite a deep divide among Democrats, the Senate is expected to clear legislation this week overhauling electronic surveillance rules that would grant President Bush much of what he has sought in a lengthy struggle with Congress.

With no senators threatening to hold up the bill (HR 6304), one of the last hopes for opponents faded June 20 when Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois announced he would vote for the legislation. Some civil liberties groups that oppose the measure had called on Obama to use his position in the party to derail it.

The bill to rewrite the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL95-511) would almost certainly lead to the dismissal of lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of aiding the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. In the House, the measure passed with the support of 105 Democrats and 188 Republicans.

Senators agreed to take up the measure quickly and could clear it as early as Monday.



Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002902405

[wtmusic]

1. Why is Dodd not filibustering?

:shrug:

[atreides1]

5. Or Feingold, or Leahey?

There cannot be that deep of a divide if not one Democrat is willing to fight.

[robinlynne]

21. All three of them are!

[karynnj]

28. You need 41, not 3

[robinlynne]

32. I know, but exactly the ones who ARE standing up were being questioned.

[karynnj]

39. I agree with you and it was worse in December

The people most attacked were Dodd and the 9 others who voted against cloture - because some thought they had the power to filibuster as in the old days - refusing to yield the floor.

[Changenow]

15. He doesn't need the base support anymore. nt

[karynnj]

27. Likely means that there are significantly under 41 Senators willing to derail it

that is the only way to filibuster it now - the "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" rules were changed. The cloture vote last February got 69 votes - 9 more than needed.

[wtmusic]

41. There's only one way to find out

If Dodd makes a filibuster stand himself it will force a cloture vote. Then at least we'll know who supports the Constitution.

[karynnj]

43. I'm with you on that

I still don't get what the "compromise" is as nothing I've read has explained the pieces that we got in the deal.

[atreides1]

2. Regardless of Who Wins in November

Both candidates evidently consider the 4th Amendment to be of no importance! I can hardly wait to see which amendment is next on the chopping block, maybe that one about free speech, everyone knows that with free speech comes free thought and we all know that can be dangerous and hurt national security.

[Demit]

3. Disgusting. The Democrats who vote for this travesty should hang their heads in shame.

I will take note of who stands in opposition to it, and I will donate to their future campaigns. Whoever votes for it, I'll donate to whoever challenges them in future campaigns.

[AndyA]

4. Obama is SUPPORTING this?

:wtf:

What is his problem?

Yes, and where are Dodd and Feingold?

[atreides1]

6. McCain Also

And they say there is no common ground between the two candidates!

[AndyA]

8. Not surprised about McSame - but I am surprised about Obama.

I guess he wants to have all that power if he is elected President.

Somehow, that doesn't make me feel very comforted. :shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

7. I will call them

[high density]

9. Supports FISA / Doesn't support immunity

Why are people all the sudden so concerned about FISA? The law is 30 years old, and was working fine until Bush decided to ignore it. Telecom immunity is the problem.

[wtmusic]

13. Concerned about the gutting of FISA

The bill also kills key privacy safeguards.

H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619...

[balantz]

22. The sort of thing

that would go hand-in-hand with an imposed martial law by a fascist government.

All it would take is a large enough national emergency and citizenry protests against the government to identify and begin rounding up potential "terrorists".

[natrat]

14. yet will vote for a bill gutting the 4th amendment-something aint right

[wtmusic]

10. Last ditch phone numbers:

Obama [phone]
Dodd [phone]
Feingold [phone]
Leahy [phone]

Got dammit. :grr:

[wtmusic]

12. Heard from Dodd's office:

Legislation will not come to a vote until Wednesday.

Dodd remains opposed to any legislation containing retroactive immunity and will propose amendment to bill before then.

Has not committed to filibuster legislation in its current form.

[Changenow]

16. If he is unwilling to filibuster

his opposition is meaningless.

[wtmusic]

17. True.

He had previously committed to filibuster by himself, if necessary.

I get the impression we're at a point where two days of turning up the heat on these people could actually make a difference.

:shrug:

[Zachstar]

33. If he refuses to fillibuster then screw him!

We keep hearing of these people that "might" fight one day then as soon as the bribes and other treats and blackmail flow in they fold it seems.

[balantz]

11. Hey, would somebody please

pull this knife out of my back?

[oldskool]

18. July 4th vacation

is more important. They would rather enable then do their job.

[ananda]

19. sickmaking

I don't care what Obama believes about himself
or whether he would be a "good" prez and not
abuse FISA.

That is not the point. The issue is how much
power is being co-opted by the unitary executive
at the expense of the people and the other
branches of government.

FISA is at heart unconstitutional and a serious
breach of privacy rights that people should be
able to enjoy and expect.

Sue

[Larkspur]

20. Obama won't be getting any donations from me if he doesn't filibuster this bill

and work to get the Telecom immunity provision scrapped.

[wtmusic]

23. kick. nt

[Jakes Progress]

24. DU is becoming a cheerleader camp.

Obama made a really nice set of proposals regarding energy and that gets kicked to the top with dozens for recs.

He kicks the forth amendment under the bus and we barely read about it.

It seems like this place is just a mirror of the selfish republicans. Yeah, we get cheap gas. What is the fourth amendment anyway?

America can live with $4 dollar gas. We cease to be America without our Bill of Rights.

I think we know who the most recent group to be tossed aside is - the true progressives. Got that vote, check. Now let's get the soccer moms.

I made my switch over from Hillary and was on board. If he can attack the oil companies, he should be able to stop this unpatriotic bill. It almost seems that proposals and great ideas are all we will get. He vowed to fight against FISA in this form before. Will he actually follow up on his promise about the energy companies? This is all very depressing. Not just because I have a candidate who is running as the "terra" fighter, but because so many here just don't care about the Bill or Rights.

[mopinko]

30. barely read about it?

maybe it is time to get your eyeglass prescription checked. there is a swipe at obama in every thread about this issue.

[Jakes Progress]

34. Why yes, it is time

for me to get new glasses. Thank you for reminding me.

That, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. My post pointed out that until today's Move On thread, no thread on this had reached the greatest list because people kept recing what I consider to be less vital things. My opinion of course, but I do think the Bill or Rights is pretty important.

Yes, there have been posts about being disappointed in Obama's lost leadership here. Half of those threads are like yours. Why, oh why, do you keep picking on Barack? Then there have been the "don't worry, this isn't an important thing" threads and the "but he has to do these things to get elected" threads and the "I just know he'll fix it" threads. A couple of those got reced to the top.

You like Barack. I do too. I had given up my Hillary support as she said to do. I was getting on board. I was trying to "believe" with all my heart. Then this piece of political back room crap comes up. I take it you would object to letting dick cheney tap Al Gore's phone? Would you like george to be able to capture all of MoveOn's email without having to prove to a judge that it was for keeping the "terrists" at bay? I don't trust them enough.

So I have a problem when a constitutional law instructor who has just received my party's nomination for President of the United States, takes a pass at protecting the Bill of Rights. Sorry if my taking a "swipe" at Barack bothers you. That is my other problem. Here on a supposedly progressive site, too many are willing to ignore this assault on our constitution rather than hold the man accountable for his actions. Like I said, i had switched my support from Hillary to Barack, but I remember when the most impassioned cries during the primary race were that Hillary would do anything to get elected, that she would rather pander votes than do the right thing. How is this different?

[mopinko]

35. i just find it not funny that all the hillary heads are still lining up to take

a pot shot at anything that moves. you say you are on board, but i don't see it.
as much as we are starting to think of him as our president, he can't fix everything that goes by in these last days.
and it is going to be hard. i suspect there will be a river of bullshit flowing through d.c. in the next few months, and unless he is an idiot, obama will just have to let a few turds float, and flush once he gets to the white house.
i have great faith that he understands that a large part of his mission will be mucking out the stalls. he has said several times that he intends to review the many breaches of the constitution that have been perpetrated these last 8 years, and fix them.
get on the bus people. be fair to our nominee.

[Jakes Progress]

36. You go ahead and keep you head up there.

You won't see anything, but at least you won't have to examine your convictions. Just win. Don't care how, Just be the big guy.

You can go ahead and doubt my sincerity. I just go ahead and doubt your understanding of our constitution. You want to be on the bus that gets rid of the fourth amendment? That's your call. I see my duty as an American to hold my candidate accountable for his actions. I have already sent a letter to Hillary telling her the same thing I told Barack in my letter to him. Vote for this bill and you have the last of my support.

Do you even know what the fourth amendment is? Do you have any idea what is happening with this bill? Yeah. I know. Dark all around isn't it?

[mopinko]

38. it's been dark for 8 years.

we finally have some light on the way, but people here want to crap right on it.
look, i understand the situation. but he isn't the president yet. most of us knew full well what his senate record was when we voted for him. the question is, why the fuck are you trying to hang the actions of the bush administration on our nominee.
obama can't change things until he is elected. as he has often said, he is not perfect. we should all be in the streets, chaining ourselves to the white house fence. but we aren't are we?
in the real world, he is our best hope. there is no perfect dream candidate out there for you to vote for. so, get on the bus, or enjoy president mcsame.

[Jakes Progress]

45. When you get your vote taken for granted

over and over as mine has been, it irks me to be told to shut up and let the smart guys do this. If you can't tell your candidate what you want before they are elected, what chance in hell will you have afterward. He is going along with a bill for for political points. He may be better than mccain,but he is the candidate I put my faith in. If I don't tell him now how disgusting I find his behavior here, what kind of simpleton would I have to be to think that once he has my vote and is in office that he will not continue doing these heinous things. All we have to tell us that he is better than mccain is his word. If he breaks that even before the election, why should I trust him. I mean that. Tell me how this can be made right. The whole year of his campaign was about how you shouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils, that there was a way to do things right and win. His actions are proving to be just the opposite of his words.

I can't vote for mccain. I can't support a candidate who thinks the constitution is a bargaining point. Do you find his behavior uplifting? Just where do you find any hope that his administration won't be any different than that of any other politician? I hear his speeches and they inspire me. I watch his actions and lose that inspiration.

Your logic is screwy. I'm not blaming him for the illegal actions of the bush administration. But he isn't even blaming the bush administration for illegal actions. His vote says he doesn't think unwarranted, unmonitored spying is illegal. He can't fix this after he is elected. What is he going to do? Say I now want the congress to make a law that counteracts the law I voted for? That is the point. He is a senator now. Laws are made in Congress. The president doesn't make laws. george just got the Democrats to make some laws for him. You find that admirable. That the bus that we fought for? Two weeks after he wraps up the nomination and he is already acting republican. You get on his bus. I've been thrown under it.

[Hydra]

37. "Be fair to our nominee"?

Our nominee WORKS FOR US. If he is not willing to do his job- Ie:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

If he can't be bothered to do that in the Senate, then we're likely to have a problem with that when he becomes the President. Barring election fraud, McSame stands no chance. Therefore, this is no idle question.

[whistle]

25. This will be a disaster for Democrats if it passes in the Senate

[spotbird]

29. No one but us is watching

and we've served our purpose.

[WyldRogue]

26. If Obama does not filibuster as he previously stated that he would...

... he will lose my confidence and my vote as well as the vote of my co-workers (lil over 1200 strong)

If he can't stand up for us now, then he won't stand up for us later either and I won't let him or the rest of the Democrat field have a free pass on doing their jobs. They need to keep their word!!

[midnight]

31. Yes give the president what he wants and do it quickly.......

Bail out the banks and do it quickly....The american people who are paying for this have no say. We have no representation.

[Ian David]

40. Yes! This is great news! The Republicans are falling right into our trap!

Well...

At least I HOPE it's a clever trap we've set.

Uhm....


Probably not, actually.

Oh, well.

[wtmusic]

42. Exactly. We let them think we're a bunch of disorganized, noncommittal

pushovers.

That's the genius of the whole thing. But it's almost too convincing.

[Doctor_J]

44. As one acute DUer put it last week, if this doesn't pass, the GOP will let another 9/11 happen

and blame it on the Dems. They would gladly kill another few thousand innocent americans to retain the white house.

[Jakes Progress]

46. Then Democrats should stop

pussyfooting around about it. Tell the public that that is what you fear. Sure the republicans will attack you for suggesting such a thing. But then they couldn't use that trick. I like good manners as much as the next guy, but we have way too much "My honorable and esteemed colleague" and "I bow to the estimable member of the opposition" kind of stuff. We sure didn't mind calling Democrats calling other Democrats names during the primary. I think we can let go of the Senate floor mannerisms and call our opponents on their dirty tricks.