Dems cool to Senate FISA deal

[ProSense]

Dems cool to Senate FISA deal

By Manu Raju
October 19, 2007

House and Senate Democrats on Thursday assailed a bipartisan Senate effort to provide retroactive immunity for telephone companies that cooperated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, signaling a looming battle over domestic spying that could split the Democratic Caucus.

<...>

If the new deal stays intact, it could spark a fight between the Senate’s Intelligence and Judiciary panels. A clash is also likely with House Democrats, who plan to bring to the floor next week a bill that does not include immunity for telecommunications firms. They had planned to vote on the measure Wednesday but pulled it abruptly after GOP procedural maneuvering threatened to scuttle the bill.

<...>

For their part, Senate Democratic leaders were cautious about the Intelligence Committee’s deal. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he spoke with Rockefeller Wednesday night, but said he would withhold his support until seeing the White House documents that could explain why such immunity would be needed. Aside from the Senate Intelligence panel, no other lawmakers, including those in leadership or on the Judiciary panels, have seen the documents.

“I have to see what papers they’ve seen (to know whether) there may be justification for it — at this stage I don’t know what that would be,” Reid said.

<...>

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a swing vote on both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, said it was “good news” that the bill was done in a bipartisan manner. But without offering details, she said she still had concerns. Likewise, Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who sits on both panels, said he wanted to make changes to the measure, but would not say what they were.

House Democrats reacted more strongly.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who chairs Judiciary’s Constitution subcommittee, said: “It would be irresponsible to grant retroactive immunity for a program we know so little about.”

more

I don't get Feinstein's logic: if she has "concerns," why is it "good news"?

[Mass]

1. Except for a few ones, they are still to warm for my taste.

If those who express concerns (Durbin, Feinstein, Whitehouse) actually had concerns, why did they vote for the bill.