False Hope On FISA?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:44:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Greenwald has hope on FISA:

But at least thus far, from everything I can tell, the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests, and the defeat is not yet a fait accompli. To begin with, the bill to be proposed today by the House Democratic leadership actually contains some surprisingly good and important provisions. . .

But that bill will never see the President's desk. As Glenn himself notes:

It is definitely possible that this is all just deceit, that House leaders introduced this bill strictly to placate their Progressive Caucus and their base and that they have no real intention of fighting for these provisions, but instead will give Bush what he wants once Mike McConnell starts accusing them of Helping the Terrorists and they begin negotiating in secret again.

Yes, that is exactly what will happen. We know the cast of characters already. This is a repeat of the Iraq Supplemental fight in March. The House bill will be eviscerated. More.

Glenn hopes for this:

But it seems that there are important House Democrats really ready to fight on these issues, to prevent Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel (who unfortunately seem to be the real Speakers of the House) from conniving like they did in August to manipulate their caucus into supporting something far worse.

Here is where Glenn and I part company on strategy and tactics:

The real problem here seems to be that the wretched, principle-free, administration-revering Democratic faction on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- particularly Jay Rockefeller, joined by the Dianne Feinsteins and Bill Nelsons -- is eager to reach a "compromise" with their Bush-loyal "colleagues" (such as "Kit" Bond and the Responsible, Honorable, Serious Mike McConnell). And they are, as always, even more eager to deliver bountiful gifts to their generous contributors in the telecom industry and their sleazy friends in the Clintonite-telecom-lobbying-circle.

No, they are what thye are and they do what they do. The problem REMAINS, as it is on Iraq, in the House. The inability to say NO to Rockefeller, Feinstein, et al. The inability to say NO to Bush.

The House does not have to accede to anything. It can say no to the Senate. It can say no to Bush. The problem has been it will NOT say no.

As Glenn himself acknowledges:

The question, then, is to what extent the more principled members of the House Democratic caucus -- and they do exist -- can exert influence over the House Democratic leadership to prevent the worthless Senate Democratic caucus from enacting the bill the White House wants, complete with amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms and massively expanded warrantless eavesdropping powers.

How much worth is there in the House Democratic Leadership if pressure needs to be exerted on them to do the right and smart thing? Sorry, that is the problem. Greenwald does get this part very right though:

If the Democratic Congress capitulates yet again, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for all sorts of recriminations. I think it is quite encouraging that much of the "netroots" is now devoting its energies and resources not to supporting Democrats, but to opposing Congressional Democrats who merit defeat.

(Emphasis supplied.) Exactly right.

< OnStar Joins the Police | Supreme Court Rejects CIA Kidnapping Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

False Hope On FISA? | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

if this is a repeat... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by selise on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:43:10 AM EST

if this is meant as a repeat of what happened in the house in august, then the more reasonable bill will be subject to different (and more difficult) rules inorder to make sure it fails, while smoothing the way for the senate bill.

i'm going to be watching the house rules committee very carefully.

for the details on the august house rule kabuki - see here.

That was great work Selise (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:44:51 AM EST

I'll be looking for your reporting on this.


thanks BTD (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by selise on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:36:28 AM EST

i will try to follow the process this time too (as best i can).

you may be interested to know of this important markup hearing just scheduled for tomorrow (i just got this via email from Siun - it's not even posted yet on the HJC website):

Wednesday, October 10, 2007
10:15 am - House Judiciary
Markup of: H.R. _, the "Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007"

i've updated my weekly hearing list (a bit more details there) and plan to make an audio recording from the webcast (for posting as a podcast) if c-span does not cover it.


: wrong link! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by selise on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 11:00:18 AM EST

shoot. here's the correct link for the weekly hearings list.

seconded (none / 0) (#11)
by leewesley on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 06:53:55 PM EST

I just read your reporting on the august bill and it was phenominally enlightening. Thank you.


How much worth? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Edger on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 11:55:35 AM EST

How much worth is there in the House Democratic Leadership if pressure needs to be exerted on them to do the right and smart thing?

If they are going to continue to pursue the same policies as Bush and the Republicans... what difference is there?

To be fair, it has been pointed out to me many times that the Iraq Occupation and the FISA amendment are only two issues of many, on most of which the Democrats are incrementally better than Republicans, and this has been used as an argument against the conclusion that there is no difference between them.

They are incrementally better. Is that a reason to give them a pass for being complicit in the mass death caused by the Iraq Occupation and in the bankrupting of America? Or a reason to give them a pass for hacking away at freedom and privacy?

I think not.

I think that Glenn Greenwald was close with "It is definitely possible that this is all just deceit, that House leaders introduced this bill strictly to placate their Progressive Caucus and their base and that they have no real intention of fighting for these provisions, but instead will give Bush what he wants"

I think it is definitely likely. They still are confidant that they will win the presidency and the Congress next year simply on the strength of peoples fear of Republicans.

Sadly, if that happens "rethugs" will be back in power for another for or eight years, dressed up as and self-labelled as "democrats". And the shell games will continue.

And it all can be turned around - if enough people quit whining about how powerless they feel, and remember that they have the power.

If every time a Democratic candidate met with constituents or knocked on peoples doors or phoned them looking for money or votes they heard...

"If you Democrats defund and end the occupation of Iraq before November 7, 2008 I'll contribute to you and vote for you.
If you don't, I won't. Is that clear?
Don't waste my time with excuses. Come back or call back when you're done and you'll get my money and my vote. Have a nice day."

... they would quickly sit up and listen. And the Iraq occupation would be history. Along with the FISA amendment. And along with all the bullsh*t of the past seven years... if enough people quit whining about how powerless they feel, and remember that they have the power.

And use it.

I don't understand why Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 05:58:46 PM EST

can't just say "Look, this is the bill that we're supporting. Take it or leave it. If you take it, great. But if you leave it, then there will BE no other bill, period. This is IT.", and then live up to this promise--i.e. simply DO NOT offer or allow to come to the floor ANY other bill, period, and direct Reyes and Conyers to not even bother to debate in committee let alone vote out of committee any other bill. Does she not have the procedural power to do this, does she not have the political power to do this, or does she simply not have the guts to do this?

If she caves in on this, she's lost whatever moral right she might have to remain speaker. Of course, Hoyer--the effective speaker--would only be empowered if he took over. But if she caves in, we will have no choice whatsoever but to replace her. Even if she MEANS well, lacking the guts, smarts or whatever to fight for this makes her utterly unfit to be, and quite dangerous as, speaker, and we need to start looking at aggressively promoting rising star progressives who WILL NOT YIELD (my vote is for Tim Ryan, for obvious reasons).

Hoyer is open to retroactive immunity (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 06:10:54 PM EST

i.e. caving: "A top Democratic leader opened the door Tuesday to granting U.S. telecommunications companies retroactive legal immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders, but said the Bush administration must first detail what those companies did.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Democrats introduced a draft version of the new law Tuesday _ without the immunity language.

"We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done, for which we've been asked to give immunity," Hoyer said."

That's some hardball they're playing in the House.


What a jerk (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by kovie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:29:23 AM EST

Hoyer that is:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority.

So, in order to get Bush to sign a weak law that permanently extends his power, Dems will have to provide immunity to telcos. Huh?

That's like saying that the price of getting you to sell me a POS lemon is for me to pay you 50% above sticker. Huh?

Is this guy a total moron, or does he just think that we are?

And having heard him speak on multiple occasions this past year, I'm inclined to believe that it's both. He's clever and canny--like all successful politicians (e.g. Bush). But he's also a moron--like most politicians.

The real question is how stupid ARE we? And how are we going to fight this?


House Judiciary has markup in the AM (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Ben Masel on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:34:06 AM EST

bypassing, it would seem, the Subcommittee process. This does not bode well.


Isn't Harmon chair of the judiciary subcommittee (none / 0) (#17)
by kovie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:38:28 AM EST

that would normally markup this bill, and hasn't she come out strongly against extending this August FISA bill and really done a bit of a turnaround on intel oversight since being passed up for the intel committee chair position (in which Reyes has not distinguised himself, to say the least)?

Interesting. Is Conyers going to cave as well? He's history if he does. We're still waiting for his promised action on USA scandal.


Nope. (none / 0) (#18)
by Ben Masel on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:28:34 AM EST

She's on Intel, not Judiciary.


: Actually, she's on neither (none / 0) (#19)
by kovie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:38:17 PM EST

Accoring to her web site, she's the Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, not the Intelligence or Judiciary committees.
But she does appear to have done a credible job of questioning the warrantless surveillance program since Pelosi gave Reyes the intel chair.

Feingold's Statement (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Ben Masel on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:21:16 PM EST

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/10/20071009.htm

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feinogld
On Efforts to Amend the Protect America Act
October 9, 2007
"Congress's hurried consideration of the Protect America Act was legislating at its worst. Congress must fix the fundamental flaws of that legislation - the utter failure to protect the privacy of Americans at home and abroad, and the complete lack of meaningful judicial, congressional and administrative oversight. Congress must act responsibly and not be intimidated into giving the administration unnecessary powers it could too easily abuse. We can aggressively go after suspected terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets while still protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
"The House Democratic leadership is right to refuse to grant immunity for alleged cooperation with the President's warrantless wiretapping program -- it would be irresponsible to grant immunity when the Administration still refuses to provide Congress with its legal opinions justifying that program. But any legislation to amend FISA also must protect the privacy of Americans in the U.S. making international communications. Americans are communicating with people overseas more than ever before. If an American businessperson wants to contact a foreign customer, or a student wants to email a friend she met while studying abroad, or a journalist wants to call a foreign source, they should not have to give up the protections granted to them by our Constitution."

(emphasis mine)

Who is keeping track? (none / 0) (#6)
by chemoelectric on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:13:18 PM EST

Who is keeping track of which bloggers the Pelosi regime remains able to bamboozle? At least with Glenn Greenwald one can argue, truthfully, that he is in the habit of presenting best case scenarios that he doesn't count on coming true.

i'm begining to think... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by selise on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:39:13 PM EST

i'm begining to think that pelosi's job is to present a happy face to the progressive base, in order to distract us while hoyers and emmanuel __ us over.

and i so hate to write that... it is so incredibly sexist, i hate even thinking it. but i just don't see any other way to understand the last 6 months. hopefully someone smarter than me will explain it all....


: Pelosi's job is to present a happy face (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:55:13 PM EST

Or to make and present excuses.

: Either that or she's weak and stupid (none / 0) (#16)
by kovie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:34:43 AM EST

beyond compare. She never did strike me as the swift type, more of a hard-working, determined, steady plodder who's managed to please enough higher-ups and get enough done to get to where she is, than a true leader who has a clue as to how to govern during crises. I don't see her as complicit or cowardly, actually, so much as I see her as clueless and out of her league. It's folks like Hoyer and Emanuel who are the complicit and/or cowardly types. But when you're as cynical as they are, cowardice is almost besides the point.
Milo Minderbinber comes to mind.

NYT article on FISA overhaul: (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:57:17 AM EST

NYT

Note: ATT is 2nd largest donor to candidates.