« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
GOP: Dem Effort to Extend Surveillance Law That Must Not Lapse Is Unacceptable
The race is on to determine which Republican can best walk and chew gum at the same time: that is, simultaneously fear-monger about the lapse of the Protect America Act while at the same time rejecting Democratic efforts to extend it for thirty days.
President Bush, in his weekly radio address, warned: "We need to know who our enemies are and what they are plotting. And we cannot afford to wait until after an attack to put the pieces together." Bush, remember, has threatened to veto any extension of the PAA.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), face underlit with a flashlight observed succinctly: "It’s not about frightening the American people. The American people should be frightened and remember full well what happened on 9/11."
And House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) ties it all up into a neat bow: "The implications of failing to act are real. If we let this law expire, we will go back to a system that last spring kept American soldiers in Iraq waiting on D.C. lawyers before they could look for a kidnapped colleague.... Our national security is far too important for another temporary patch."
For me, I have to say that Blunt takes the cake. Not only does it rely on the by-now debunked claim that the prior FISA law prevented the NSA from wiretapping Iraqi insurgents who'd kidnapped U.S. troops, but he claims that the old FISA law prevented the U.S. from even looking for those missing soldiers. And Blunt glancingly describes the administration lawyers who deal with surveillance authority as "D.C. lawyers." Gotta love that. His full statement, which is just bursting with distortions too numerous to catalog, is below.
Note: Any other outstanding examples we didn't note? Let us know in the comments.
From Blunt:
“It goes without saying that if a terrorist like Osama bin Laden calls someone in the United States, we want our intelligence community to have both the tools and the authority they need to listen. But if this Congress does not act in passing a long-term fix to our nation’s intelligence laws, we no longer will be able to monitor or intercept as much as 70 percent of terrorist communications.“The implications of failing to act are real. If we let this law expire, we will go back to a system that last spring kept American soldiers in Iraq waiting on D.C. lawyers before they could look for a kidnapped colleague. Thankfully, responsible legislation put forward by my friend and colleague Kit Bond in the Senate and Pete Hoekstra and Lamar Smith here in the House would reauthorize FISA and ensure that companies that voluntarily helped our government track terrorists after 9/11 are given the legal protections they need and deserve against frivolous lawsuits.
“Since last August, the majority has had ample time to draft a responsible bill to ensure our intelligence agents can listen to terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, but we still have yet to see a genuine attempt at a serious bill. If they can’t come up a bill that protects our nation in six months, what makes anyone believe an extra 30 days is going to help? Our national security is far too important for another temporary patch. We’ve had enough time for excuses – now is the time for action.”
Comments (18)
Crust wrote on January 28, 2008 3:22 PM:Paul, you headline sums it up perfectly.
Mr. Purple wrote on January 28, 2008 3:30 PM:I have faith in the American public that they will see this veto threat of the 30 day extension by Bush 2.0 for what it is... playing politics with our national security.
CT Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 3:30 PM:OK, so where's the Dem response?
The Republican talking points get blasted out first, and what are the Democrats doing? Crickets, anyone?
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but how freaking long will it take Harry Reid to learn to play the PR game effectively?
Johann wrote on January 28, 2008 3:31 PM:The best thing that could happen for the USA is for this law to lapse back into the original FISA law where the Bush Administration had the authority to wiretap and then later explain to a judge why that wiretap was necessary.
Immunity for telecoms knowingly breaking the law is ludicrous.
If it passes, I will be convinced that the illegal wiretapping was directed toward sitting congresspersons for the purpose of blackmail.
GMFORD wrote on January 28, 2008 3:33 PM:The republicans are too stupid to realize that the American public isn't falling for their lies any more.
I hope they keep it up until November when we will run, not walk, to the polls and step into booths all over the country to prove it to them.
Duckman GR wrote on January 28, 2008 3:46 PM:"The American people should be frightened"
Pretty much shines a light on Harry Reid's good and esteemed friend, Mitch McConnell.
Too bad Harry Reid sucks so completely as a LEADER, a real leader might wrap that statement around McConnell's neck and squeeze the worthless life out of him with it.
Rhetorically and politically speaking of course.
TW wrote on January 28, 2008 3:57 PM:Does anyone think terrorist are still using sources we can tap easily? Extending it will only get innocent people, ok there is a exception to everything, but how stupid do we think terrorist are?
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 4:03 PM:Memo to Mr. Blunt -
"DC lawyers" also said (or wrote) that torture was acceptable. Yet the solders that did the torturing are going to pay the price.
So are you saying the DC lawyers are wrong? Always?
Dennis wrote on January 28, 2008 4:04 PM:Just watch. The Democrats will cave into letting the telecoms off the hook and pass the buck to the American goverment, who will then shut down all appeals up to the Supreme Court; which inturn will play the political game it is supposed to do and legalize all kinds of spying on Americans.
Roberts and Alito weren't put on the Court for nothing.
Forget the law, the Supreme Court is nothing but just another political tool.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
TEL wrote on January 28, 2008 4:06 PM:I also would like to congratulate Paul Keil and TPM on one of the most creative and appropriate headlines I've seen.
HipHopLawyer wrote on January 28, 2008 4:14 PM:How about the fact that although FISA will expire, a provision in the current law (enacted at the end of last summer) specified that NOTWITHSTANDING any expiration, wiretapping programs put in place prior to expiration would continue in place for UP TO ONE YEAR following the date of expiration, the exact time period to depend upon the duration of the program when put in place. In other words, any spying that is currently taking place can continue to take place, regardless of expiration. I don't have time to find links or quote the statutory language, but anyone can look it up (this was the subject of blogs over on Balkinization among other places back when the current FISA fix was enacted).
phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 4:21 PM:This law has nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorists. The law is required for one purpose only...to grant immunity to the telecoms.. and for no other reason. Very early in the game the terrorists figured out everyone's lines are tapped and they have been communicating by other means. The whoel thing is a farce.
SeeDee wrote on January 28, 2008 4:32 PM:RE the current pic displayed on TPM's web-site of McConnell, Hutchinson, et alii:
Why am I reminded of a gaggle of geese led by a 'goosey' gander? Mitch McConnell is a good human cariacture of a goose in appearance, IMHO.
His morality and regard for the betterment of the U.S. of A. are likewise comparable.
Martin wrote on January 28, 2008 4:32 PM:President Bush, in his weekly radio address, warned: "We need to know who our enemies are and what they are plotting. And we cannot afford to wait until after an attack to put the pieces together."
Hmmm, methinks President Bush should have been thinking exactly this back in Jan.-Aug. 2001.
kenga wrote on January 28, 2008 5:19 PM:"... face underlit with a flashlight, ..."
Hee!
Also:
How about the fact that although FISA will expire,
Umm, I'm pretty sure this is not accurate.
Lonny wrote on January 28, 2008 8:40 PM:The changes to FISA will expire, not FISA itself. I.e. the year extension notwithstanding, FISA will revert to the form it was in prior to the PAA changes to it.
There will be no lapse. It'll only revert to the previous FISA law that has oversight. Something that is anathema to Dick and Dubya.
phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 11:26 PM:Picky. Picky. Picky. Sure FISA won't lapse but you have to trust that Bush would never let the truth get in the way of making a critically important point about what the public really needs to truly believe to further his not-so-hidden agenda. People jus' love that Bushco snake-oil.
mari wrote on January 29, 2008 3:01 AM:All this palaver by Republicans is either hysterically funny (but this is no laughing matter) or it is just plain hypocrisy. The Republicans lost their control of both the House and the Senate. Go ahead and have a tissy fit or a filibuster. Any rule trumped up this way will not let any Republicans off the hook. I insist that people who broke the laws pay the price. There is no excuse to enter into illegal behavior no matter who suggests it and I am sure every Republican and every Democrat who still thinks it was fine with the electorate, well they are far, far wrong!! I am a Republican and I cannot remember a Congress and Presidency that was so ineffective as the all Republican controlled branches of the government. Watch out all of you standing for election this next cycle. Lots of moderate Republicans are just plain disgusted with any who attempt to subvert the Constitution like you plan to do. You will have to deal with us then, and it looks like we can even add a recession to your wild spending habits to make voters a lot more disgusted. Remember, YOUR earmarks were double those of the Pelosi spending bills. Bush truly looks like a huge hypocrite. Please do not annoy us further by trying to act like you are all so pure on this subject. The Bush snit fit does not scare me in the least. I am watching, watching to see if they will push me right out of the party. I have already been attending Democratic meetings. Seems like both parties go the same way when they get too much control of the government. Switching parties works for me.