« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
McConnell Not So Hot on Dem FISA Bill
The ACLU has its differences, you might say, with Admiral Mike McConnell. Its website, for instance, features a page with the sub-headline, "McConnell Tries to Scare America in to [sic] Giving Up Fourth Amendment." But they do share one thing in common: neither much likes the Democratic RESTORE Act.
To be clear, the ACLU's opposition is intense, and centered around the so-called "umbrella warrants," whereby the director of national intelligence and the attorney general submit an annual explanation to the FISA Court outlining why their surveillance methods target non-U.S. persons "reasonably believed to be outside the United States... for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information." McConnell's concerns, it's safe to say, don't center around whether umbrella authorizations violate the Fourth Amendment. Rather, he's concerned about the bill not providing retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with warrantless surveillance requests from 2001 to 2007. He's also more tentative than the ACLU, leaving himself room to negotiate with Congressional Democrats.
From McConnell spokesman Ross Feinstein:
"Our intelligence professionals will need to review the actual text of the bill. However, clearly on a couple of the points, this legislation fails to meet some of the requirements the DNI has stated he must have in any FISA Modernization Legislation. One important point is the retroactive liability protection for the private sector, which is missing from this bill."
Yesterday, as Paul wrote, chief RESTORE advocate Steny Hoyer (D-MD) conditioned retroactive liability on the administration disclosing what exactly telecommunications did when asked to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on domestic-to-foreign communications.
We're still waiting to hear what the other points of contention are from McConnell's perspective. But so far, it doesn't sound like the bill has McConnell's support. Finally: common ground between McConnell and the ACLU.
Comments (23)
dasher wrote on October 10, 2007 12:07 PM:It's veeery interesting that one of McConnell's chief concerns is that retroactive immunity.
He's a darling of the telecommunications industry, as well as one of the chief proponents of using private contractors to perform sensitive government functions. (Think Blackwater is bad enough? Think Blackwater taking over the CIA and the NSA - McConnell thinks that's the "goodness of the American system". Read this:
http://cbs5.com/worldview/local_blogentry_276210237.html
Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 12:16 PM:Good. Fuck that guy. He's a telco tool.
Michael wrote on October 10, 2007 12:22 PM:Gee, I guess we should just go back to good ol' fisa, which already makes it too easy to wiretap. Where is that constitution? I think we lost it somewhere. Maybe darth vader torched it.
workaday joe wrote on October 10, 2007 12:24 PM:Looks like he's going to get retroactive immunity for the telecoms. After all, nothing says strength like losing on every single issue.
Peter wrote on October 10, 2007 12:26 PM:Fine, let the absurd interim legislation expire. 1978 FISA goes back into effect. Bush, Cheney Gonzo and McConnell then commit felonies. All go to jail. QED. Simple.
anonymouse wrote on October 10, 2007 12:34 PM:Apparently on our new, improved Animal Farm, the pigs are no longer MORE equal... they are exempt from any equality at all...
This administration has decided to do whatever it wants and then, when caught, exempts itself from any consequences.
So far, Congress has decided to go along with the president in this respect.
The result has been exemption from an illegal war, exemption from killing civilians, exemption from torture trials, exemption from 1st and fourth amendment violations... on and on...
I may be wrong, but in history books in school, none of these acts were condoned in a democracy... were they?
Apparently, our definitions of "Democracy" and "Freedom" are now no longer valid and need to be revised along with the other terms we have already decided to change.
I hope our Congressmen are having a good time while they continue to throw away our two hundred years of freedom...
della Rovere wrote on October 10, 2007 12:36 PM:OK. Now Dems have their orders. Watch them line up. Double time.
Eric Jaffa wrote on October 10, 2007 12:46 PM:Email your Senators to say,
"No immunity for phone companies. Giving phone companies retroactive immunity will encourage them to break the law in the future. Phone companies who violated our privacy should have to pay damages."
Most Senators have an email form at their websites.
Mudge wrote on October 10, 2007 12:49 PM:We need a bill with some reasonable improvements to adjust to the times that Bush will huff and puff and veto because it is not what he wants. If the Democrats are smart, they will let it expire on January 20, 2009. That will give an even more progressive Congress and hopefully a Democratic president a chance to re-examine it again.
If he vetoes a bill, then as noted above, back to 1978 and administration lawbreaking.
Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 12:52 PM:della Rovere-Bingo.
The administration AND major corporations want this exemption. Not only will the Democrats cave, they already have. The possibility that the House bill will be the compromise position is less than zero. They only went through the motions to make believe they tried.
It is more insulting that they pretend they tried then it would be if they just admitted their plans from the outset.
J wrote on October 10, 2007 1:13 PM:What does it matter if McConnell supports this bill or not? Remember, Congress had his support for the last FISA bill which Bush then overruled.
McConnell should not even be allowed in the middle of these negotiatios.
anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 1:35 PM:Retroactive liability protection has nothing to do with national security.
Democrats should be repeatedly asking McConnell why protecting the telecommunications industry is more important than protecting America.
Long Memory wrote on October 10, 2007 1:53 PM:I hope everyone is so trusting when a Democrat comes into the White House. But I'm sure it's gonna be horrid when one of those Big Government Democrats takes over and starts to frack with the Constitution.
bwindrip wrote on October 10, 2007 2:16 PM:Eric
I e-mailed my rep Steny Hoyer to tell him that if he advocated immunity for the telcos, I would not only vote against him, I would actively campaign against him.
adsf wrote on October 10, 2007 2:28 PM:bwindrip-Hoyer isn't afraid of you. He doesn't give a damn what you think, who you vote for or even campaign for, really you don't matter to him at all.
Realist wrote on October 10, 2007 2:54 PM:"Most Senators have an email form at their websites."
Yeah, but my Senators are Brownback and Roberts. Any attempt at communicating with them would be a complete waste of time.
Steve wrote on October 10, 2007 3:09 PM:The Republicans have a great game going. They demand 70% of what they want on any given bill before they will offer enough support to pass it. Then Bush vetos it and they get another 20%-25% or the bill is dead. At the end of the day the Dems get about 5% of what they want and the Repubs get 95%. What a way to run a majority.
fractal wrote on October 10, 2007 3:59 PM:Reuters just reported that House Judiciary Committee voted to pass the marked up RESTORE bill with NO retroactive immunity for telcos. Which is good and must be the minimum Dem position. But the RESTORE bill still contains the "umbrella" warrants, which are grossly unconstitutional. Still plenty of work do do on this -- I agree it is timely to warn Bush Dog Dems that we will work to oust them from the House if they cave on FISA bull$&!&
4jkb4ia wrote on October 10, 2007 4:54 PM:I am confused. I understand that the blanket warrants are in the bill, but the text of the bill seems to say that the Attorney General and DNI must certify that if any surveillance on an American citizen is done, they have a procedure in place to go through Section 104 of FISA. Is that not ultimately an individual warrant?
Mary wrote on October 10, 2007 6:12 PM:How can there be any telecom communications liability for letting the AG paw through and listen in on foreign to foreign communications? There's no liability under FISA or the telecommunications statutes for that.
Of course, if they weren't doing that - if they were going through US stored emails or US datamined info as well - well, then, a) we have liars in the admin, including the President; and b) we have criminals who have violated statutes for YEARS.
I notice no one is asking for immunity for the leakers of the illegal program info - isn't that swell? Immunity for criminals and rewards to liars - swords over the heads of whistleblowers.
It's so much easier to be a criminal than a whistleblower with the Dems in charge. *sigh* And with disgraces to their uniform advocating for violations of the Constitutiona and law. *double sigh*
Doug wrote on October 10, 2007 8:17 PM:Good to hear about not including amnesty. Why would the TelComs need amnesty anyway; did they break a law? (That's a joke, son!)
Nell wrote on October 11, 2007 10:22 AM:Also, those "basket" warrants sound suspiciously like "general" warrants and I understood that the Constitution forbids them.
General GOP criminality.
I don't like the scenario that this piece helps set up, of RESTORE being the happy middle ground between that extremist ACLU and the lying weasel McConnell.
RESTORE is incompatible with the Fourth Amendment because of the provision allowing general warrants (I don't care what RESTORE advocates want to call them, they're not individual warrants).
litigatormom wrote on October 11, 2007 11:04 AM:I'm glad the House bill doesn't have a retroactive immunity provision. Let Bush explain to the public that he's vetoing a program that he contends is essential to protect Americans because it doesn't give a free pass to the telecom companies for possible past illegalities. Let him explain that it is imperative that no telecom company be held to account for have violated the law at the Administration's insistence.
As for the blanket warrants, I agree that they are unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment does not have an exception for surveillance of U.S. persons just because they are not the "primary target" of the surveillance. The whole frakkin' point of FISA was to impose conditions on ANY surveillance for foreign intel to the extent it required surveillance of U.S. persons. If the surveillance was NOT for foreign intel purposes (and thus unlikely to involve communications with foreign persons) then FISA didn't apply at all, and a good old-fashioned probable cause showing to a judge would be required.