« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Judiciary Cmte Must Mark Up Surveillance Bill -- or Shut Up
Inside Roll Call's (sub. req.) overview of legislative maneuvers on the two Democratic surveillance bills is this bit of analysis about how the Senate Judiciary Committee will lose influence over the Senate bill if it doesn't mark up what the intelligence committee has reported out:
If Judiciary doesn’t act on anything, the panel could forfeit its right to weigh in and the Rockefeller measure would proceed as-is to the Senate floor. (There’s no guarantee Reid would bring it up if that happened, however.)“If [Judiciary members] want to stay in the game, they’re going to have to mark something up,” pointed out one civil liberties activist.
The panel's top senators, Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), suggested yesterday that the committee might not act on the intelligence committee's bill if the White House doesn't allow it to see documents outlining the legal basis for the Bush administration's surveillance program. But that implicit threat might backfire. To be out of the legislative process over surveillance programs that Judiciary has struggled for nearly two years to oversee would be a huge blow to the committee's prestige. Furthermore, it might be a missed opportunity to modify what civil libertarians consider the bill's excesses, including retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies and a diminished role for the FISA Court over foreign-to-domestic surveillance.
If Judiciary does take it up, two Intelligence panel Democrats who also sit on Judiciary — Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) — may seek changes even though they already voted for the Rockefeller measure.A Whitehouse spokeswoman said the freshman Senator is concerned the bill does not ensure that law enforcement agencies properly handle and dispose of information on innocent Americans that may be collected in the surveillance dragnet authorized by the bill. Whitehouse wants the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to assess the government’s compliance with procedures designed to minimize the collection and dissemination of innocent Americans’ information.
All this suggests that the White House is in a more commanding position not to release documents that Judiciary has subpoenaed than it may appear
Comments (8)
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 23, 2007 10:45 AM:How hard could it be to write:
"Congress hereby repeal both PATRIOT Acts, Military Comissions Act and all legistation affecting FISA since 1999."
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 10:51 AM:Perhaps "Leaky" Leahy could write ANOTHER strongly-worded letter to the White House ; )
TheraP wrote on October 23, 2007 11:01 AM:Thank you, Richard L. Adlof! It seems that if elected representatives faithfully carried out their oaths of office, that would be a necessity.
tekel wrote on October 23, 2007 11:37 AM:I don't understand. If Fred Fielding and his merry band of liars have already sent the docs to Rockefeller, why can't Pat just stroll over to Jay's office and make a fucking copy?
Or he could amble. Or he could, you know, send a goddamn secretary to do it, because it seems like all that is required here is a xerox machine and someone with a stiff enough index finger to make use of it.
Is there some rule that says democratic senators can't share George Bush's lies with each other?
LEK wrote on October 23, 2007 12:26 PM:This whole mess is the inevitable result of originally allowing the executive branch to create the secret, Star Chamber-like FISA kludge. How can a court that operates in secret and that never allows the subject of its action to appear in front of it or appeal any decisions constitute an equitable form of justice?
Bullsmith wrote on October 23, 2007 12:35 PM:So mark up the bill by striking the retroactive immunity the White House wants.
Since when did it become so popular to be weak on the rule of law, anyway? Same time as it became good politics to be against the restrictions of the Constitution, I guess.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 6:15 PM:When will Whitehouse drink the Kool-Aid? He doesn't understand his real place, yet.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 10:26 PM:If this bill is "so bad," where are the holds? No committee is irrelevant: All Senators on any committee have the power to hold any bill and filibuster.
It's an excuse to say that a committee will "lose prestige". Baloney. Each Senators -- individually -- can do what no DNC Committee has done: Stand up to this tyrant in the White House.
The Senators needs to assert their power, or they risk losing it. Mid-term. With prosecutions and removal. It's absurd to argue "inaction" is to be celebrated. That's a violation of the oath: The duty to act when it is difficult; not blaming difficulty as the excuse to do nothing.