home

Pelosi Promises Dem Capitulation By The Fourth On FISA

Via mcjoan:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the [FISA] matter settled before Congress breaks for Independence Day at the end of next week, suggesting she is ready to bring the issue to a head. "We want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president," she said. "And that will happen before we leave for the Fourth of July.

(Emphasis supplied.) How bad a Speaker has Nancy Pelosi been? Even now she craves the chance to cave in to the most unpopular President in history. Just unbelievable.

Speaking for me only

< Poor Pooch | A Bad Photo Array and Concealed Evidence Calls Conviction into Question >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This will get the money flowing for the (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    convention in Denver.

    A friend of mine from her district in SF, who has known her somewhat, has always said Pelosi's forte is fundraising.

    hmmm "was" known for her fund raising (none / 0) (#48)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    is more like it. i don't hear that the dnc is doing so well in the money department. now she might be a real peach with corporate donors but the little guys, remember them, i don't see.

    Parent
    If she can't be a good speaker, and she can't, (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    then I don't think the Democratic Caucus can produce one. They might as well just drop the pretense and install Steny Hoyer.

    What does that (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    say about Democrats? Vote for me, I'll cave in a minute. Jeez.

    Parent
    Get rid of both (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    b*tches - Hoyer and Pelosi.

    They're worse than useless.

    Parent

    interesting thought! i wonder if steny (none / 0) (#53)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    is preparing to replace pelosi. i know she isn't popular in the country but the caucus is another question.

    Parent
    Well, I don't necessary (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by dk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    blame Pelosi entirely.  For a decision like this, it takes more than just the leader saying what will happen.

    In undemocratically handing the primary victory to Obama, the Democratic party showed that it is rotten to the core.  Why should, therefore, these kind of shenanigans in Congress come as any surprise?

    Where is Senator Dodd on this? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    And what about arch-nemesis Olbermann?  Will he do a hit piece tonight?

    Parent
    More to the point, where is Obama? (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    It's his party now, right?  And he's expressed opposition to blanket immunity re: FISA, right?  So where the &%^$* is he on this?

    Parent
    Finger in the wind (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:56:19 PM EST
    looking to keep his powder dry perhaps?
    You'd think it wasn't his party now.

    Parent
    If he had his finger in the wind (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    he'd be leading opposition to this bill, since polls show most Americans oppose telecom amnesty.

    Parent
    Fogged in (none / 0) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:48:32 PM EST
    he's got real problems of his own right now. Wonder if knowing about the mortage deal is how Obama got Dodd to endorse him?

    Parent
    What mortgage deal? something about Dodd? t/u (none / 0) (#60)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    He got a special interest rate from (none / 0) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:38:16 PM EST
    Countrywide. Another Senator also did. It goes against the "Gift" rules and will probably go to ethics committee.

    Parent
    Oh geez (none / 0) (#82)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:03 PM EST
    Why do these people do this sort of thing?  They're Senators - they're paid decently; they get an excellent retirement and benefits package; they're pretty much guaranteed a lobbying type job afterwards if they want one; they're powerful, well-courted, high-status people.  Why do they risk all that for so little return?  "Thousands of dollars", one article said Dodd saved on the mortgage terms.  It sounds like a lot, but I'll bet it wasn't more than the cost of a couple nice cars.  Hardly worth a Senate career.

    Parent
    The approval rating of congress is (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    a direct reflection of how happy the country is with the poor policies and performance of the democratic group that holds the majority.

    If it's too late this election year to challenge the weakest out of office, I sure hope in 2010 some democratic local leaders in those districts take the initiative to challenge those who have shown to be whimps out of the race.

    Not sure Cindy Sheehan is capable of knocking Pelosi out of the race.

    Parent

    i blame pelosi. i am not giving her an excuse. (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    she'll have plenty of those already.

    Parent
    And this is why (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    so many of us have pretty much hit the wall in terms of the Democratic party. The handling of the primaries etc was just the icing on the cake after the big 2006 win and the promise of all these things which never came to pass.

    Pelosi has time to strong arm all the Congressional superdelegates and open her mouth about Unity, but she doesn't have the time or the testicular fortitude to actually do her job. Unbelievable. And I thought Dick Gebhardt was wimpy...

    At Least Hillary's Gas Tax Proposal (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    was DOA.  Now, if only that would ever apply to GOP initiatives or corporate favors.

    I've said it many times, the primary was only the last straw because it confirmed all my worst thoughts about the Democratic Party.  

    Parent

    And UHC (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    is also DOA.

    But telco immunity?  Gotta have that!

    Parent

    Gebhardt was wimpy (none / 0) (#11)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    it's just that they are so much worse now.  Oh well.

    Parent
    Never thought (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    it would be possible. Considering how low the approval rating is for Congress, you'd think maybe someone would wake up and, I dunno, do something that people asked them too.

    And yes, I was foolish enough to believe that there would be some positive change after the 2006 elections. Won't make that mistake again!

    Parent

    Was so happy in 2006 (none / 0) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    to have taken the majority and have a female Speaker.  It was amazing.

    And now -- I think the reason Pelosi spent to much time stamping her feet at the SDs is because they were the only ones she could have any effect on.  They were like the household staff of a deposed dictator -- lost control over the country, but continue to be imperious with the few you do control.

    What a raging, sad disappointment.

    Tell me again, what was the goal of the 50-state strategy?  To win Democratic seats and then ... do nothing at all?

    Parent

    Apparently so (none / 0) (#81)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    Tell me again, what was the goal of the 50-state strategy?  To win Democratic seats and then ... do nothing at all?

    I think this is why I'm so terribly depressed about the entire political landscape these days. It really felt like we were finally getting out of the 6 years of Bush-nightmares. Instead, they just got us in higher and deeper while promising us the moon.

    Parent

    Ha ha (none / 0) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:16:06 PM EST
    "They promise you the moon but can't deliver a pizza"

    Heard that for the first time a few months ago.

    Parent

    I'll have to remember that one. n/t :) (none / 0) (#84)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:42:07 PM EST
    Spent a lot of money and time in 06 (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:50:42 PM EST
    helping the Dems get the majority only to see the capitulation Dems waste my gift and their opportunity. I'm now on a pay as you go plan. You perform and I'll pay. So far, I've saved a lot of money.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    Gephardt looks like a dream compared to these losers. And we're supposed to jump at the chance to vote for their annointed candidate?Puleeze!!
    Can you imagine this stuff writ large?


    Parent
    I would have thought (none / 0) (#63)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:37:33 PM EST
    that all the money supposedly flowing from the Obama campaign would enable the Dems to act with a bit more independence of Telco $.  

    To parrot "Big" here, where is Obama on this? Where is his outcry against "politics as usual"?

    Parent

    There's the party I know and love (and left) (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    Set up a false deadline.

    Enact draconian measure to "meet" that deadline.

    HOLIDAYS!!!!

    Worse than useless, really. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    An utter disappointment.  Turned "caving" into an Olympic sport.

    Any bill that Bush will sign will give him what he's been asking for - otherwise he won't sign it.

    As for Chris Dodd, I had a lot of respect for him on this issue, but his star dimmed for me a little more (the light started to fade over those very nasty comments he made about Hillary getting out of the race) when I read over the weekend that he also got some really good mortagage deals from Countrywide.  Guess those Banking Committee contacts do come in handy.

    Caving is old school, Now they spelunk (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    They divide the overt caving among themselves.

    This way, they can cave en masse behind the scenes, have the Oh No! BS photo op claiming not enough power -- whether in the minority or majority -- to resist the meanie Repugs, but take turns publicly in clumps over who caved.

    Then if they get letters or complaints, some belligerent Dem like Rahm Emanuel swaggers out showing the kind of macho nowhere evident in congress to b!tch slap supporters:

    it's our fault for not [winning more seats, the White House, more money, rowing harder, selling our offspring to human traffickers].

    Because expecting Dems to do something principled and/or actually win -- the way Repugs do whether lockstepping in majority or using every procedure open to them as a minority -- is what's "really" offensive.

    Parent

    Spineless (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by This from a broad on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    Thankfully, Pelosi has at least 2 challengers for her job this year.  Cindy Sheehan is one and Shirley Golub is another.  I would vote for either one of these women.  Pelosi wanted Obama in the Whte House so that she could put her hand up his behind and move his mouth.

    Uh, Pelosi has absolutely no (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    serious opposition.

    Parent
    You don't take out a powerful incumbent with TWO (none / 0) (#61)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    or more challengers in a primary. Need one, who is capable of winning.

    Parent
    Right! Reminds me ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    ... of people here suggesting that Clinton should run as an independent.

    Simple math: With 2 candidates, 51% beats 49%, but with three, 49% wins if either of the two challengers gets more than 2%. And two "strong" challengers are even more likely to lose.

    But maybe it's asking too much to expect Democrats to grasp the principle of "divide and conquer." It seems to be a peculiar blind spot.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#80)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    but i did feel a tingle up my leg when i voted against her.  even though i was just 1 of 10000.

    But at least 10 percent of folks felt the need to vote for a can't-possibly-win opponent.

    Parent

    Tell me again (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by stillife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    how exactly are the Dems different from Republicans?

    And I had such high hopes after the 2006 election.  I can't say I'm surprised by this.  It's been one capitulation after another.

    But that is a different question (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:06:31 PM EST
    than the OP asked about Speaker Pelosi.

    IMO, she has been a mediocre Speaker who hasn't accomplished much, especially given the public's opinion of the administration and Republicans in general. She bears much of the blame for the same opinion polls indicating that the public holds only one group in more contempt that the President and his minions - that, of course, being the U S Congress.

    Thank goodness for the elections, and the anticipation of lots of new faces.

    jccamp, you are far more optimistic than I (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by miriam on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:19:47 PM EST
    And perhaps more than you have a rational right to be.  Pelosi and Reid have hurt the Democratic party as much or more than Dean.  Substantiation  for this is what Gallup says today:

    "Although the margin between Obama and McCain is now similar to what it was in the last few weeks of the Democratic primary race, the structure of the race looks slightly different than at any other time this year as a result of the relatively high percentage of voters -- 15% -- not favoring either major-party candidate. This includes 7% of voters who say they are undecided and 8% who say they will not vote for either candidate (including 1% who volunteer they will vote for another specific candidate)."

    This should make pretty scary reading for Democratic leaders.  Considering Bush's ratings, Obama should be leading by double digits at this point.  The fact that he's not is a reflection of the unpopularity of the Democratic congress as much as his own shortcomings and probable unelectability.  I can't understand why anyone feels hopeful of a Democratic winning the White House this November.  And much of the blame can be placed at the door of the do-nothing Democratic congress. Accomodating Bush and the Republicans is not why we voted for Democrats in '06.  And forcing a weak presidential nominee on us is unforgivable.

    Parent

    how can anyone be optimistic about (none / 0) (#49)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    democrats. i dare anyone to tell me. waiting! sad really! the party of fdr is now this.

    Parent
    bubble (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    ...the answer is, they're bubblebrains...in a bubble they can believe in.

    And that's the trouble with 'believer people.'  Once you can be convinced to believe one unbelievable thing, the rest is duck soup.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    That's the question.  Why does she want a bill?

    Three possible reasons come to mind:

    1. Pelosi and other Democrats are evil and want this bill because they really do think it is a good idea.

    2. Pelosi and other Democrats are terribly afraid of being exposed should there be some kind of terrorist event.  They are afraid the blame will be focused on them because they stopped "spying on the terrorists".

    3. Pelosi and the other Democrats need money and support from the telecommunications industry.

    Which is it?

    Follow the money (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by stillife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    That's hope and change for ya!

    Parent
    Conspiracy theorist that I've become... (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    ...as a result of this administration, I've been thinking privately for years that the spying has proven fruitful in getting dirt on all our congress people.  And that dirt is being held by the Bush people.

    Presto!  Compliant Dems.

    I have absolutely nothing to base this on but watching what they do instead of what they say.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#54)
    by tek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    rejected this theory a long time ago because I believe Americans are so fed up with Washington that they don't care about these pols' skeletons in the closet.  Americans just want someone in the government to be representing their interests.  Who care who they've slept with or anything else.  If they would just stand up and DO the right thing.

    Parent
    Dem Leadership Has Stood Firm Just Recently (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:13:04 PM EST
    Of course, they stood firm against Democratic voters ( FL & MI) and a Democratic candidate.

    Standing firm against Republicans.  No way. SOP is leaning over and grabbing their ankles.

    Parent

    money, money, money! (none / 0) (#51)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:08:18 PM EST
    Ick (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:24:29 PM EST


    This is (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    the 'new progressive Democratic Party.'

    It's official.

    The old politics is vanquished.

    Just in time to be historic.

    I can hardly wait for the movie.

    (Yes.  Snark).

    FISA isn't broke, it doesn't need fixing (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM EST
    We don't need a new law. Let the time run out. There's nothing wrong with the law we have now (unless it's that it is too easy to get a wiretap.)

    TChris and I have both written many times on this.

    Let it die a natural death. FISA's not broke, it doesn't need fixing and it certainly doesn't need weakening at the expense of the Fourth Amendment.

    The Dems are falling for the Republican soft on terror line.

    As much as I dislike Speaker Pelosi (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    maybe she really believes the U S Government needs the intelligence capability of FISA, albeit with some of the more intrusive parts removed.

    This isn't the Senate judiciary investigating the New England Patriots and their video guy. I hope everyone involved in the decision making is being the responsible professional we wish they were all the time.

    a cave in, yo0u are still writing junk.

    There is NO NEED for a capitulation at all. PERIOD.

    Parent

    You have your facts wrong (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by eric on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    FISA is still here, will be here in August, and isn't set to expire.

    This issue here is whether the Congress will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly collaberated with the Administration to spy on Americans outside of and beyond the authority of FISA warrants.

    Parent

    WHAT? (none / 0) (#3)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    To pass a bill that will be signed by Bush it has to include full telecom immunity, correct?

    Telco immunity = BushCo immunity. And if Pelosi (none / 0) (#62)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    felt this was important prior to this recent announcement, she could have had the House vote for it at any time.

    Why is she doing this now? And putting a deadline just before the Glorious Fourth? C'mon, this is almost funny. Except it's tragedy, not farce.

    Parent

    Actually, the telcom immunity issue may (none / 0) (#13)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    be shoved out to the Federal District Courts.

    Quoting:
    "A key element of the new plan would give U.S. district courts the chance to evaluate whether telecommunications companies deserve retroactive protection from lawsuits. A previous proposal floated by Republicans would have put the question to the secret FISA court that approves warrants...

    Telephone and Internet service providers say they received written assurances that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal at the time they agreed to participate. The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups, however, said the telecoms should be held to a higher legal standard for helping the government eavesdrop on their customers."

    This via the Washington Post.

    Given the wide variance of thought among District Court judges, this compromise almost certainly would end up in the Federal Appellate ladder. I suppose this way, neither side would have to admit backing away from their respective positions.

    There is a time factor, since current wire orders expire in August. Trying to find some middle ground strikes me as responsible behavior by both sides. Sending the matter to the courts for resolution is probably where the issue would have ended up anyway.

    The language (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by eric on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    about letting the Court decide after review of the evidence was already rejected by the administration.  They don't want compromise language, they want imunity.

    Parent
    Excuse me (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    There is nothing stopping the issuance of new wiretap orders in August. this is absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE of the Dems.

    And dare I say it, undemocratic, little d. Let the NEW PResident decide what to do here.

    This is absolute nonsense from Pelosi and frankly you.


    Parent

    Some provisions do sunset (none / 0) (#40)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:33:34 PM EST
    as here:

    "A number of FISA bills have received recent attention in the 110 Congress.
    On August, 5, 2007, the Protect America Act, P.L. 110-55 was enacted into law.
    This measure, in part, construed the term "electronic surveillance" under FISA not to include surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside
    of the United States, and provided authority for warrantless acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be located outside
    the United States where certain criteria were satisfied.  As originally enacted, the measure was to sunset on February 1, 2008."

    My recollection is that Congress could not reach a workable compromise before the sunset date, so they simply extended the sunset date until the summer (July?) and adjourned.

    Here's a link to changes from the 1978 law. These changes have already expired, and current intercept orders written under the new provisions expire in August. A new law does need to be passed and signed before the current orders expire, at least, so say both parties in Congress and the President. I chose to believe them in this rare confluence.

    You certainly may disagree with the details of the compromise - assuming the rumors are true - but the essential nature of some provisions being made law seems apparent.

    Parent

    Sure some of the (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by eric on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    provisions of the "Protect America Act" are set to expire, but this isn't about that.  This is about FISA.  Specifically, as I stated elswhere, the issue here is whether the Congress will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly collaberated with the Administration to spy on Americans outside of and beyond the authority of FISA warrants.

    Perhaps there is a debate to be had about whether there need to be some changes or updates to FISA.  But that isn't what the administration wants.  They have specifically said so.  Without immunity for telecommunication companies, Bush will not sign it.  They really don't care about these updates and/or changes to FISA (although they love to scream about it because it sounds SCARY to have things expire).

    FISA isn't expiring.  It will live on.  Talk of compromise about FISA is completely unnecessary.

    Parent

    I assume to believe what I know to be true (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    That the Ag can extend them for another 6 months.

    Parent
    I haven't found that yet (none / 0) (#46)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:46:37 PM EST
    but I'll defer to you on it. If the AG can simply sign his name and extend the 2007 changes until the election, then that's what should be done.

    However, if the government legally granted immunity to the telcom's right after 9/11, a new ex post facto law cannot abrogate that. The issues would be litigated in the Federal Courts anyway. It seems reasonable to recognize that and move on.

    Parent

    I can't find any provision for the AG to (none / 0) (#52)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    unilaterally extend the 2007 law.

    The AG and DNI can jointly certify that conditions exist to comply with the 2007 amendments to FISA for warrantless monitoring of foreign nationals not believed to be with the U S.

    Everything I can find says that when the current intercepts expire in August, all intercepts - foreign or domestic, citizen or non-citizen - must have a court authorized warrant. That's the issue, not requiring a FISC court's approval prior to foreign intercepts.

    Whether the government can monitor persons within U S territory - without a judge's approval -is already settled (the answer is no.). As you point out, the immunity for telcoms has been the sticking point as I read the legislative history.

    If the rumors are true, the issue remains unsettled.

    Parent

    The wiretaps (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    Not the law.

    Parent
    Oh... (none / 0) (#59)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    That explains why we were at cross purposes.

    There is some proviso about a minimum beginning date for any wiretaps to be extended - that I skipped - but that sounds right. However, no new intercepts can be started without a court order. The government claims - and no one disputes - that the wiretap order process is cumbersome and time consuming, and counter-productive when seeking intercepts for foreign nationals outside
    U S territory.

    That seems like a legitimate concern, and even if it's not, it also seems like a political sound bite waiting to happen.

    Parent

    This is good - knowledgeable (none / 0) (#67)
    by songster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    arguments about what is really going on instead of "those bad Rethugs!  Those spineless Dems!" (with tasty sexist insults thrown in for good measure oh yum).  However, as a totally naive layperson, I'm not sure I quite get the bottom line, if one was agreed on.

    Is it

    1. Yes, there is urgency because no new intercepts can be started without a court order, which is too cumbersome and time-consuming, putting the security of the nation at risk.

    or

    2. No, the urgency is bogus because existing wiretaps can be extended, and new ones can be obtained with a court order, although that might be less than ideal and force Justice Dept. lawyers to work overtime.

    or something else entirely?

    Parent

    I'd say you hit (none / 0) (#72)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    the bullseye in defining the immediate difference of opinion on the urgency of a new law. If I may speak for BTD, he thinks that the Dem controlled Congress should lay off and wait for a new administration and a new Congress to make changes in the 1978 law (FISA).So he would be closer to #2.

    I agree with #1, and would like to see a compromise on ancillary issues so we can get on with listening to all those bad guys out there in the Khyber Pass.

    What I just called "ancillary issues" is the question of telcom's liability or immunity for co-operating with the administration's actions after 9/11. The rumored compromise would have this issue (supposedly) sent to Federal District Court for resolution. This previously had been the main substantive disagreement between Democrats and Republicans.  

    Because of the telcom immunity disagreement, there was a deadlock on the entire 2007 revision which had expired and needed to be renewed by vote of Congress and signature by the President. Bush said he would veto any bill which did not include the immunity, and the House (but not the Senate) would only approve a version which did NOT include the immunity. The anti-immunity House could override a veto, but the Senate could not. Stalemate.

    I suggest that the House and the Administration are both being responsible for seeking a compromise which neither really likes, but which gets the new bill passed.

    In my personal experience, getting court authorized wiretaps is not just working overtime. it is a weeks or months long process, because the final product has to be vetted by any bureaucrat remotely connected to the end target. It's investigation by committee, if you will. Getting a judge to sign is usually the easiest part. Getting all the morons with a nameplate on their desks to stifle the ubiquitous urge to make changes as a means of asserting authority is the hard part. To be fair, I have zero experience with national security or FISC orders. But the bureaucracy remains unchanged, regardless of venue.

    Parent

    Digby has (none / 0) (#78)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    a straitforward report on this; claims the Dems have agreed to a compromise whereby Federal Courts would be given authority to decide the very narrow issues of whether the telecoms should be protected because the Bush administration told them the wiretapping is lawful.  Assuming this summary is correct, this is a compromise the Dems should not agree to.  

    Parent
    Even if it is a legit concern (none / 0) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:28:19 PM EST
    I don't understand why the Dems are blinking.  So let the deadline run out, and Bush loses his new intercepts ability.

    Parent
    The problem with that analysis (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:18:38 PM EST
    is that it won't ever get decided.

    The habeas issue decided in Boumdiene last week had to be decided because habeas is specifically guaranteed in the Constitution and the petitioners (captives) were "parties aggrieved" by the denial of habeas and therefore had standing to sue.

    And there was no way for the Court to finesse them into a non-standing situation.

    In the warrantless wiretapping cases, the last decision I heard of (the Sixth Circuit's, in the case brought by members of Congress, authors, lawyers and people who believed they had been tapped), the case got tossed on a lack of standing issue.  It went like this:  if the government said the state secrets prevented them from telling the Court whether or not the plaintiffs had actually been tapped, and the plaintiffs could not prove (absent evidence which would be a state secret) that they had actually been wiretapped, then the plaintiffs could not prove they had suffered an "injury in fact" - the legal prerequisite for having standing to sue.  Thus, the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

    Roberts, particularly, is a big one for finding plaintiffs challenging government have no standing to sue.  It's something he inherited from Rehnquist.

    So, regardless of the principle enunciated in Boumediene, the standing to sue issue will foreclose appellate review of the FISA cave and it will stand.

    And, the political branches will, contrary to the words of the Boumediene decision, have found "a way to switch the Constitution on and off at will".

    Which is, I suspect, what Pelosi really wants.

    Parent

    Interesting, thanks. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    I wonder if there isn't some potential exposure for those who provided the written assurances, if the courts end up finding to the contrary.

    Parent
    I don't know (3.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    but I'm sure glad my name isn't on those blanket "It's All OK" cards.

    Parent
    Looks like that's a "no." (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    From what I'm seeing over at the Great Orange Satan, the get out of jail free cards are going to be just that.  Nobody will be able to establish standing against their writers.

    Parent
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    Chris Dodd will save us!

    He might yet (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    depending on the mechanics of how this is supposed to get through the Senate. If the House just passes the Senate version of the bill, which is what Bush wants, he can do nothing.

    Parent
    But we should all get in line and be.. (none / 0) (#57)
    by AX10 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    good little Democrats?!?  NOT!

    Yet another issue that the Democrats cannot use against McCain.

    That's why Bush has a higher job approval (none / 0) (#65)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    rating than congress.  They have an 18% approval rating.  Ouch!  Maybe because they promised to do something about this war if they were elected.  

    Pelosi ready to capitulate (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yotin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST
    She is ambitioning to be the first female President of the US. She helped bring Hillary down among the superdelegates. Now, she wants to make sure she doesn't antagonize the right who she'll need for a national office try.

    I discussed the FISA deal w Feingold Friday (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:12:25 PM EST
    at the WI Dem Convention.

    He and Dodd will continue to fight it, but he didn't seem optimistic. (Obama's name conspicuous in absence.)

    Here's the letter Feingold and Dodd sent to the negotiating group.

    ... As this legislation moves forward, please know that we will strongly oppose any legislation that includes a grant of unjustified retroactive immunity and that does not adequately protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.


    That's very interesting in that (none / 0) (#76)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:21:26 PM EST
    the latest rumors are that the question of telcom immunity being decided by the FISA Court has been rejected, and that the current agreement anticipates determination in District Court.

    Maybe the Senators' opposition paid off in some small degree...or not, depending on your view of court determination instead of statutory fiat.

    Parent

    Sorry, but I just have to say this... (none / 0) (#77)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:32:20 PM EST
    "at the expense of the Fourth Amendment"

    The central thrust of the revisions to the 1978 FISA are relating to electronic intercepts of foreign nationals, not located within U S territory. I do not see that as a 4th Amendment issue, unless you extrapolate some further erosion of rights by the law as written (and now expired) and the suggested language of the newest revision.

    The previous conduct of electronic intercepts of either U S citizens and/or foreign nationals within U S territory has already been rejected, and in any case, was not explicitly written into the 2007 law.

    But I think your political analysis is correct. I grant a reasonable person could logically agree with your position, and further, the House Dems may be caving in for reasons of politics, not national security. I hope not, but sure, anything's not surprising coming out of Washington these days.

    The strings on the puppets are getting clearer (none / 0) (#86)
    by SeeEmDee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:41:53 AM EST
    all the time.

    The vast majority of rank-and-file members of the Democratic Party can't understand why the 'leaders' they elected in 2006, with a mandate to hold this Administration accountable for its' actions, haven't been doing their jobs, and have instead been cringing and scraping before the Elephant and begging to devour its' feces.

    Might it not be because of the fact that the top 'leadership' of both 'parties' belong to the same Rich White Men's Club?

    The carefully crafted facade masking corporate control of supposed free and democratic institutions is wearing so thin now, you really can  look behind the curtain' and watch the levers and buttons being worked, with the result that those purportedly 'hired' to do 'the People's business' are instead ramming Business's corporatist agenda down the People's throats. Meanwhile, the rank-and-file Democrats scratch their heads in disbelieving wonderment why the folks they sent to Warshington aren't doing what they were told to do.

    But, in point of fact, they are. It's just that said politicians are not obeying their supposed masters, only their true ones...

    Rocky Horror FISA Show (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:17:43 PM EST
    Looks like a done deal.

    Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) predicted Tuesday that there is enough support within the Democratic Conference to approve a contentious overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

    [snip]

    The development comes after Rockefeller, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and the Bush administration reached an accord late last week to break a weeks-long stalemate
    over balancing electronic surveillance with the right to privacy for American citizens, according to several people familiar with the talks.

    "Breaking the stalemate" can only be understood as caving in to the corporations. From what we can gather they've agreed to ask a court to issue an opinion as to whether the Bush administration told the Telcoms they were immunized. If so, then that's that. It's not a compromise. It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

    digby