« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Dems Circulate Draft of Surveillance Compromise
Democratic House leaders have emerged from negotiations with their Senate counterparts on the new surveillance bill with a draft proposal, a senior House aide says. See update below.
The proposal, the contents of which the aide described to me, does not contain a measure granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms for their participation in the warrantless surveillance program. The aide also stressed that the bill "is in the exact same ballpark" in terms of civil liberties protections as the RESTORE Act, the bill which the House passed last year. The draft as described by the aide:
-- requires an audit by the Department of Justice's inspector general of the administration warrantless wiretapping program (not in the Senate bill)
-- has a two-year sunset, as opposed to the Senate's surveillance bill, which has a six-year sunset
-- has an "exclusivity" provision, which specifies that the President cannot circumvent the bill with claimed Constitutional powers (not in the Senate bill)
-- has guidelines to prevent the NSA from tapping foreigners' communications into the U.S. when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, which is called "reverse targeting" (not in the Senate bill)
-- requires pre-approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the "basket warrants" (surveillance of entire terrorist groups, as opposed to just individuals) allowed by the House and Senate bills, except in emergency situations, where the government must seek approval within seven days after initiating surveillance. (also in contrast to the Senate bill)
Of course, just because the House bill does not have retroactive immunity does not mean that the final bill to arise from the process will not. As the Politico reported last night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) now favors a strategy of "ping-ponging" alternatives back and forth between the two chambers. What that means is that the House could vote out a bill that does not contain retroactive immunity, but that the Senate could vote to add it back in, sending that back to the House, where such a modified bill might pass with the help of moderate Democrats. Of course, such a strategy could also lead to stalemate, as the Politico points out.
At the very least, it's clear that the process is far from over. We'll have more on this in a bit.
Update: Stop the presses! Wendy Morigi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) spokeswoman, tells me that Rockefeller would not agree to a bill that fits the above description, but would give no specifics. All she could say was "we continue to work with the House to try and find agreement and resolve the differences between the House and Senate bill."
We'll have more as learn more about what is going on here. Rockefeller, the Senate intelligence committee chairman, is obviously the lynch pin of any possible compromise. The only logical inference for now is that House Dems are circulating a draft bill without having hashed out every detail with him.
Josh
Zachary
has an "exclusivity" provision, which specifies that the President cannot circumvent the bill with claimed Constitutional powers (not in the Senate bill)
FISA had an exclusivity provision, and the White House violated that. And nothing happened.
And, it is the White House's opinion that the President's inherent Article II power's cannot be limited by Congressional statute. So the President will either issue a signing statement saying this, or will just continue to violate the statute as happened with FISA.
And why not? Nothing will happen. Even if this doomed exclusivity provision makes it into the final law, nothing will happen if the President issues a signing statement nullifying the exclusivity, and nothing will happen if the President goes outside of the statute -- not that we'd even know if that happened considering the oversight boards are vacant.
The only means of congressional oversight in cases where the President asserts Article II authority to override Congress is impeachment. And Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table -- ironic considering she's pushing this "exclusivity."
Lets not call it impeachment. Lets call it "enhanced congressional oversight technique." I hear you can justify anything with a little word play these days.
March 7, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are they finally growing a pair?
March 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im so tired of these republican-lite politicians like Pelosi.
Oversight is powerless. Subpoenas go unenforced. Dem leadership* caves on damn near everything.
March 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could there be a more pathetic bunch of losers and cowards than the Congressional Democrats? They have majorities in both houses and the power to hold any bill they wish.
They should be setting the terms of this legislation unequivocally. Instead, they find them bargaining with themselves for a compromise they find acceptable so they look like they're standing up to the tyrant in the White House whom they continue to fear for no apparent reason.
Meanwhile, even the most casual observer knows that no one in the Democratic leadership in Congress has the balls to actually refuse to pass any legislation with telecom immunity in it. Thus, it's pretty easy to predict that the spineless Democrats, for all their posturing, are getting ready to cave in and include telecom immunity. The excuse will be the Democratic Senators approved.
I am ashmaed to call myself a Democrat when I think of the worms we have representing us in Congress.
March 7, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Immunity is a given. The Democrats don't have the backbone not to cave-in.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
March 7, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose something is better than nothing, but it will take a new Democratic president. Stop fighting you people over at Kos, and other blogs, we have two excellent candidates( I can hear the yelps from the partisans) and focus on getting rid of the dictatorial republicans. As the New York Times article pointed out today, we have a real chance of winning a veto-proof majority. Imagine what we can accomplish if we get those 60 Democratic senators. Now can't you all learn to get along. FISA and all the zillion fiascoes created by King George and his band of nitwits,including the fact Bush could bring us into not a recession, but a Depression. Hope
not. Cheers
March 7, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One has to wonder if those illegal wiretaps were used on all members of Congress . . .
March 7, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One comment I have yet to see regarding the spying is this: Are the candidates and party leaders calls being picked up? Isn't that what brought down that rat bastard Nixon?
March 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
When is Rockefeller up for election? Can he be primaried out? At least, can he be kicked off this committee next year? He is a POS.
March 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet and sour Jesus do I loathe Jay Rockefeller's egregious complicity in enabling the horrors of the Bush Administration. The man has GOT to go.
March 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Rockefeller want amnesty so badly?
Isn't stalemate the best of all possible worlds anyway?
March 7, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those unclear on the subject... this is a total capitulation by Pelosi.
Immunity is all that really mattered and Pelosi is busily arranging it so that immunity will be granted.... and meanwhile shes's hoping that lots of slight-of-hand with shiny objects will distract the bothersome public from this latest capitulation.
Pelosi has admitted that one of the reasons she's arranging these capitulations (which cave-ins, btw, she calls "leadership") is so that the Bush Dogs in the Dem party will have "cover" and supposedly can be reelectedy their supposedly near right-wing base... but instead the Bush Dogs use the threat of their "base defecting back to the Repub's" on these issues in order to literally bring Pelosi to heel... even though I've found but scant evidence that the Dog's "base" is actually calling in on these matters in the numbers I've heard reported (and repeated here) before.
So at least one reason Pelosi is capitulating right and left is in the hope that her Bush Dogs can be reelected. She apparently is unaware or does not care that the only thing her coddling this fledgling Bush Dogs power block will ensure is... further Dem capitulations in the future.
And the addition of congressional approval of the warrantless wiretaps built into the Senate bill is just icing on the regime's cake.
So, in summary, Pelosi is arranging total capitulation again... and she's being deceptive again... and she calls this "Democratic leadership".
March 7, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Brennan, another winner from team Obama and his cult, one of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy “strongly” supports telecoms immunity for spying . When will we ever see that quote here at OPM or any other leftObamastan web site.
March 7, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay Rockefeller probably wants immunity because the intelligence committee was previously told the extent of the illegal wiretapping and he's rightly afraid of what will happen to him if it is ever publicly revealed.
March 7, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compromise? It reads more like capitulation.
March 7, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not ust about immunity for the telecoms. More importantly it's about immunity for George W. Bush and even more importantly about all Amerians 4th Amendments Rights.
No Congressperson, no Senator and no PRESIDENT has the authority to take away our 4th Amendments Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Either we are a country of Laws or we aren't. Either we have a Constitution or we don't. Apparently Senator Rockefeller doesn't believe in either and cetainly hasn't read the Constitution.
Everyone should send him and Pelosi a copy as a reminder that they represent the American people, not the telecoms and certainly not George W. Bush.
March 7, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lenny Bruce said communism was like one big phone company.
March 7, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty shabby to link to a sorry Politico article (including a quote from John Boehner of all people, telling the Democrats what they must do), and not to Glenn Greenwald, who is really doing great work on this subject. Check out, for example:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/07/house_fisa/index.html
March 8, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two clauses which the bill would impose as a rquirement, but the Congress refuses to enforce the existing violations. The President ignored the FISA court, and Congress will not enforce that violation:
March 8, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are not people leaning on the House and Senate about these issues more???? Calling ... emailing... Wasn't there a moment with Dodd when many did.. and it had results. What happened. Where did that momentum of indignation go?
Why are the Dem Blue Dogs running the agenda? Nancy P's game of ping pong, is it... House gets points, but then Senate will cave... is that a House and Senate attempt to fog up what is going down?
Anybody know the lowdown on the Repubs using Qwest for something? How ironic does that sound?
Why are not Obama OR Hillary touching this FISA issue ... or the waterboarding, for that matter. Rallying the Democratic troops.... let's get the ranks on the same side of an issue. The old joke about Dems always having a circular firing squad and killing off their own leadership.
Lobbyists win again? Does FISA simply make people's eyes glaze over? Or the mainstream media's ... or are they just totally bought.
Whistleblowers risk so much to an American public that can't get excited. I guess we all have A.D.D. when it comes to our bill of rights.
For a lame duck president, I think the citizenry is much lamer. That lame duck is still walking all over us.
A lot of past patriots rolling in their graves right now.
March 9, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink