« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"Things Will Be Fine"
The dreaded hour is nigh upon us!
You heard President Bush yesterday, didn't you? The "lives of countless Americans" are in the balance!
That's because this Saturday, the administration's sweeping surveillance bill, the Protect America Act, lapses. Several American cities are sure to be in flames by Monday.
That, at least, was the idea behind the administration's vintage surveillance squeeze play. House Dems were supposed to be in such an alarmist tizzy that they'd have no choice but to accede to the Senate's version of the surveillance bill. Faced with the terrible choice of exposing the American populace to imminent danger or simply letting a couple telcos off the hook for doing what the President told them to do, the choice was supposed to be clear. The failure of an effort to extend the law for 21 more days yesterday in the House should have closed the deal.
But if more people start thinking like Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), maybe that won't pan out. When the Protect America Act lapses and the old FISA law kicks back into effect, he says, we won't be any more vulnerable. "Things will be fine.”
Or, as The New York Times explains:
The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Apparently the necessary fear hasn't quite set in. The Wall Street Journal reports that House and Senate negotiations "are expected to stretch past Saturday." Don't they know what's at stake?
Josh
Zachary
Rep. Jerry Nadler this am on Cspan said he hopes the current law is allowed to expire so they can all just start over. Rep Hokstra on the floor of the House this am damn near had a fit over the House not bringing the Senate version up for vote. I do love watching him twist in the wind like that, he turns so red...
February 14, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM: "Apparently the necessary fear hasn't quite set in."
Instead of the fear bush wants to gin up (to get his "get out of jail free" card), people are focussed on the fear of falling home values, of going bankrupt or losing their home, the fear of losing their job, the fear of having a major health problem and having no money to pay for it.
bush can no linger gin up the fake fears (he loves) because his terrible policies have burdened the American people with too many other pressing and *terribly real fears*.
February 14, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh - why has no one pointed out that this is the Bush administration ... does any sentient being think they're going to stop listening just because some pesky law expires? C'mon, laws are so 9/10.
February 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've got bills to pay and other things to worry about.
And another thing, why is the US in such imminent danger? With the war going on in Afghan and the surge working in Iraq, one would think that we would be completely safe from any attack.
Why won't one of those reports ask him about that?
February 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real americans in this country have to take it back again.
February 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet Jeebus I hope it expires..along with the bs and fearfactoring that BushCo has been spouting for five years. I know..ain't gonna happen but a girl can dream right? ;)
February 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House is contradicting itself on an illusory timeline with an artificial success. Notice the absurdity:
1. First, the DoJ AG says that he will not enforce violatoins of laws which the DOJ OLC has "determined" are lawful. This means, going forward, if the Congress does not pass any changes to FISA, then theh President could "determine" that the continued illegal surveillance is "lawful," and the DOJ isn't goign to do anything about it. There is no reason to accelerate a timeline to pass "new rules" when the DOJ AG says he will not prosecute violations of those rules.
2. Second, the President now reverses himself, and ignores the DOJ AG statement on "Not prosecuting violations of the law," and says that the Congress has to pass changes to the rules. That makes no sense. The President again, can say without a change to FISA, that he has "determined" the FISA violations are "lawful," and the DOJ AG will not prosecute the violations. The President does not need a change to "the law" when his DoJ AG says DoJ will not enforce violations of any laws DoJ OLC says are not relevant to the President.
The President's problem is that he would have us believe that he's "really concerned" about the "legality" of the FISA updates. This is non-sense. He could determine there is a "new threat" that would "justify" ignoring the law; and the DOJ OLC and DOJ AG have jointly issued guiadance, memoranda, and findings that the President is above the law.
What's most absurd is the House Majority Leader Hoyer suggests that we don't know the full scope of the FISA violations. That is meaningless in that he and Pelosi have stated if the President violates the law, does not cooperate with the Constitutional requirements, and ignores FISA that the House will not impeach the President. Hoyer has no credible leverage to gather facts or determine the full scope of the FISA violations.
Why should anyone believe that even if the Congress were not to pass FISA changes, the President will change his conduct? There is no reason. By removing impeachment as a tool to challenge the President, and not challenging the DOJ AG's decision to "not prosecute violations of the law," the Congress is, in effect, a rubber stamp.
Why should anyone believe the President is "concerned" about delays in updating FISA? There is no reason.
Is it not more reasonable to assume the DOJ AG stated poicy of "not prosecuting violations of the law if DOJ OLC says its legal" would outweigh whether or not there are updates to FISA? Indeed, even if Congress passes no changes to FISA, the President will continue to violate the FISA knowing DoJ AG will not enforce violations the President or telecoms make.
Is it not more reasonable to presume that the illusory "concern about needed changes to FISA by this weekend" are irrelevant, that the DOJ AG will not enforce violations of FISA after the weekend, and the President's claim of a "new problem is possible" is meaningless? Yes, they are moving along an arbitrary timeline that is not connected with the law or a possible new threat, but attached only to the goal of reducing the time Congress can have to review the amnesty-immunity request.
There is nothing before us to suggest that even if the DNC were to control the White House, that the GOP non-sense -- as a minority party -- would not continue, and intimiate the DNC to continue to respond to illusory threats after 2009. The DNC doesn't need more power, it needs leadership within the existing power structure. Remove Pelosi as Speaker, and make way for an impeachment investigation.
February 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue here is not that complicated. Everyone in Congress seems prepared to pass the new law with one exception. Telecom immunity. THAT's the real issue.
In that case, call them out on it. It's simple. Take immunity out of the bill. Period. Make it a non-issue by saying in the bill that this issue is not addressed either way (status quo as of now). That issue can be addressed in a separate bill which can be introduced at the same time and subject to debate and an up and down vote.
If the base issue is truly security, then everyone will vote for it and telecom immunity can be fought over later. If the president Vetoes it because there IS no immunity, then we know where the real priority is, and its completely obvious.
February 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to wiretapping continuing under the normal FISA rules, telecomms will still enjoy immunity from prosecution after the current law expires if the government wiretaps are requested under the existing law. This was clearly explained on a piece on All Things Considered this afternoon: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19055475.
February 14, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink