« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Strange Bedfellows Block Dem Effort to Extend Surveillance Bill
Well, that wasn't expected. An odd collection of Republicans, liberal Dems, and Blue Dogs banded together this afternoon to shoot down the House leadership's attempt to extend for 21 days the administration's surveillance bill, the Protect America Act, which is set to expire Friday.
I suppose everyone had their reasons. The Republicans because they want to help the administration put the squeeze on the Dems and pass the Senate's version of the intelligence bill. The liberal Dems (e.g. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)) because they opposed the Protect America Act in the first place -- see Holt speaking on that here. And the few Blue Dogs (e.g. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) and Collin Peterson (DFL-MN)? I suppose they don't want any more delay on the issue. The full catalog of Dems, 34 in all, is below.
In any case, now it's time to see whether the administration's squeeze play will pay off. Either the House Dems will fold and the administration will get its prized retroactive immunity for the telecoms, or the dreaded time lapse will occur. And what happens then? From CQ:
As difficult negotiations begin over electronic surveillance overhaul legislation, Republicans are raising the specter of a hobbled intelligence community if a temporary surveillance law expires and a Senate-passed measure does not become law.But legal experts say the implications of any expiration are mixed. They note that any spying orders already in place would stay in place long after a temporary law (PL 110-55) dies on Feb. 16. At the same time, most experts agree that the administration would have to go back to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511) for new warrants in cases where foreign-to-foreign communications are routed through the United StatesÂ’ telecommunications infrastructure. That poses little immediate threat, they say, but if a backlog of warrant applications were to build, as happened last summer, it could begin to cause problems.
Stay tuned.
The Dems:
Jason Altmire (PA)Dan Boren (OK)
Leonard Boswell (IA)
Michael Capuano (MA)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Peter DeFazio (OR)
Lloyd Doggett (TX)
Bob Filner (CA)
John Hall (NY)
Maurice Hinchey (NY)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Dennis Kucinich (OH)
Barbara Lee (CA)
John Lewis (GA)
Tim Mahoney (FL)
Jim Moran (VA)
Christopher Murphy (CT)
Patrick Murphy (PA)
Frank Pallone (NJ)
Donald Payne (NJ)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Steven Rothman (NJ)
Loretta Sanchez (CA)
John Sarbanes (MD)
Jan Schakowsky (IL)
Jose Serrano (NY)
Tom Udall (NM)
Tim Walz (MN)
Maxine Waters (CA)
Mel Watt (NC)
Lynn Woolsey (CA)
David Wu (OR)





Comments (10)
The "Amnesty" is more about stopping accountability on the telecoms. "Amnesty" will not end the Presidentially-directed retaliation against those discussing the illegal activity.
Real "immunity and amnesty" would include provisions to end all telecom-directed efforts to target pubulic discussion of their illegal activity. A serious "amnesty" wouldn't just include protections for the telecoms, but for those in the media, unions, and private industry who have provided evidence of the illegal activity.
Time for the Telecoms and InfraGard to stop using the "discussion of this illegal activity" to "justify" targeting Americans. This means end the lawsuits, stop the discovery, and tell the lawyers to back off. If the legal intimidation doesn't end, then the Amnesty has been a sham. The public needs to forward the evidence of the continued abuses to international actors who show some interest in civility.
The public should not be targeted because it is openly challenging illegal US government-telecom activity. Time for the InfraGard contractors/law enforcement to have a leash, stop their abuses, and no longer used public discussion as a pretext to intrude, harass, and surveil innocent US citizen conduct. Otherwise, there is no real amnesty, only a breather for InfraGard and the telecoms to redouble their efforts to retaliate against the public for the needed oversight of this illegal activity.
February 13, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting that those who defended the illegal spying by crying "If you haven't done anything, what do you have to worry about?" are the same people who are now fighting for "amnesty" or "immunity".
If they haven't done anything wrong, why do they need either one?
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they haven't done anything wrong, why are they using illegal intimidation to silence discussion of that "good" thing they were doing? Everyone would want to know "how good" they were doing "their job". But they don't want anyone to know.
February 13, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand what some democrats (in the House and in the Senate) would gain from passing the immunity provision. I ask seriously, as a lay person, and quite naive politically.
February 13, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "place long after a temporary law (PL 110-55) dies on Feb. 16. At the same time, most experts agree that the administration would have to go back to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511) for new warrants in cases where foreign-to-foreign communications are routed through the United StatesÂ’ telecommunications infrastructure."
needs to gain mass media exposure.
adyacent, let me suggest one reason: poilitcal contributions.
February 14, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions;
1- What does retroactive immunity have to do with protecting the public from terrorists?
2- To use a trite political argument; What kind of message does retroactive immunity send to those telecoms that refused to break the law for the Bush gang?
As to the "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry aobut" bullshit, often presented by the brain dead, mile wide Rush Limbaugh fans;
Just last week, again, a man was freed from prison after spending 15 years there for a crime he didn't commit. I'm sure the police and prosecutors at the time told him;
"Well, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
February 14, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like that argument ought to work for the telco companies, too.
February 14, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, there's the rub.......they 'DID' do something wrong. :-)
February 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of message does retroactive immunity send to OTHER companies and/or groups of companies? By validating Bush's promise of immunity for these companies, isn't Congress now saying that the president can ask (order) ANY company to break the law as long as he somehow manages to connect their illegal activities to "national security"?? Next thing you know a couple of guys from Halliburton will show up at my front door just to take a look around.
February 14, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see the DNC hire psychologists or psychiatrists to analyze our elected representatives (Democratic and Republican)to see what makes them tick.
I'd like to know why Democrats cave to Republicans all the time, even when they're doing things that are illegal, and why Republicans march in lockstep all the time, even when they know what they're doing is illegal.
A good one could write a book...
February 14, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink