Senate Passes Bush's Wiretapping Bill (sigh)

posted by Damozel | By a vote of 60-28 (all Republicans, 16 Democrats, and Joe Lieberman), the Senate passed Bush's warrantless wiretapping bill:

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order ....

Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, predicted that the bill's approval would lead to the monitoring of ordinary Americans by the National Security Agency, which conducts most of the government's electronic surveillance. "If this bill becomes law, Americans who communicate with a person abroad can count on one thing: The NSA may be listening," he said....

White House and intelligence officials have sought a broad overhaul of the act to allow spy agencies to listen in on terrorism suspects quickly, without having to apply for a court order, as is required for surveillance that targets U.S. residents. But Democratic leaders say the administration's proposals could lead to broad searches of phone calls and e-mails by ordinary Americans without judicial review. (Washington Post). 

Interestingly, the Democrats negotiated with Mike McConnell, the National Intelligence Director and had drafted a bill intended to meet his demands. (TPM)   But the bill didn't give the Administration all the "tools" it wanted, so -- according to this and this---Bush looked at what McConnell brought to him and said no. 

He then went on TV to complain---a bit disingenuously if you ask me---that the Dems just wouldn't give McConnell the tools he wanted (TPM) .  Though by "MConnell" I'm guessing he actually meant himself, Cheney, and Co.

The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has provided the Congress with a narrow and targeted piece of legislation that will close the gaps in intelligence.  In other words, he's working on the Hill and he's told members this is what we need to do our job to protect the American people.  It's the bare minimum the DNI said he needs to do his job.  When Congress sends me their version, when Congress listens to all the data and facts and they send me a version of how to close those gaps, I'll ask one question, and I'm going to ask the DNI:  Does this legislation give you what you need to prevent an attack on the country?  Is this what you need to do your job, Mr. DNI?  That's the question I'm going to ask. And if the answer is yes, I'll sign the bill.  And if the answer is no, I'm going to veto the bill.

And so far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign. We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk.  Time is short. I'm going to ask Congress to stay in session until they pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States. (White House) 

You can read the bill to which the Dems agreed---and which the White House didn't feel gave its arm enough warrant-free scope---here, and an analysis here and here.

The Bush Administration:  ""Every day we don't have [this wiretap authority], we don't know what's going on outside the country," a senior White House official said. "All you need is one communication from, say, Pakistan to Afghanistan that's routed through Seattle that tells you 'I'm about to do a truck bomb in New York City' or 'about to do a truck bomb in Iraq,' and it's too late."(Washington Post; links in original)

Harry Reid, at least, takes comfort in the fact that the plan must be reconsidered in six months (Washington Post).

Through her spokesman, Nancy Pelosi sulked---and quite right---"We did everything he wants,..and now he says he doesn't like the bill. They didn't move the goal post; they moved the stadium." (Washington Post)

Joe Lieberman: "We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us....This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection.""(Washington Post). (No?  Then when is that time, Joe?  When is that time?)

The legislative director of the ACLU saw it all very differently.   She said that Democrats "have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word 'terrorism,' they roll over and play dead." (Washington Post).

But that's a bit unfair to the 28 (compared with 16) who held out.  And I suspect that the vote reflects the views, however craven, of the American public in general.  And the Democrats did put up a fight before 16 of them caved in. (Washington Post)

But hey, look at the silver lining:  at least Americans who communicate with people abroad are on notice that the NSA may be listening!

Joe Gandelman at the always well-modulated The Moderate Voice speaks for me:

The debate will continue (and is) about whether during this era of a genuine terrorist threat it is wise and common sense to give the government all the tools it says it wants. The authority is “temporary.”

But the problem is that the Bush administration has not just shown that it skirts oversight on intelligence but it won’t reveal even to Congress what it is really doing. Its motif has been to use Congressional approvals to increasingly expand its power. This isn’t a case of a White House working in partnership with Congress but a White House that shows disdain for Congress, checks and balances, and serious oversight of its policies and actions.(The Moderate Voice)

Via  Gandelman, this pungent comment from  The Talking Dog, which 16 Dems would do well to ponder:

[M]ethinks, why was it I worked so hard to get this party in the majority again, so we could get exactly the same results as if they weren't?

Hackneyed and overplayed as it is, I guess the guy whose office happens to be a block from the World Trade Center site, as it was on September 11, 2001 (that would be me) is once again reduced to stunned speechlessness, and quoting Ben Franklin: "They who would give up their precious liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." And if George W. Bush is in charge, we will likely end up with neither anyway.

And after over 6 1/2 years of disastrous administration of our government by George W. Bush, Democratic members of Congress seem incapable of figuring this out. Remarkable. A long-- a very long-- 534 days to go.  (TTD)

Reactions worth a look:

1. Marty Lederman, More Tales from the "Unitary" Executive (or, What's Going On with the FISA Fix/Mess?) (Balkinization)
2. Spencer Ackerman, TPM Muckraker, Exclusive: Bush Nixed Dem-DNI FISA Deal (TPM)
3. Joe Gandelman, Senate Passes Bush-Backed Eavesdropping Spy Boost Bill (The Moderate Voice)
4. The Talking Dog, Party Like It's 2002

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS:
Republican Congressman Leaked Classified Info on Fox?

LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED

• Warrick and Nakashima, Senate Votes To Expand Warrantless Surveillance (Washington Post)
• Spencer Ackerman, TPM Muckraker,What's in the FISA Bill? (TPM)
• Spencer Ackerman, TPM Muckraker, Exclusive: Bush Nixed Dem-DNI FISA Deal (TPM)
• Marty Lederman, More Tales from the "Unitary" Executive (or, What's Going On with the FISA Fix/Mess?) (Balkinization)
• Bill agreed to by Democrats (To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.)
• White House: President Bush Meets with Counterterrorism Team

Comments

[jo6pac]

What happened to Jimmy Webb?
jo6pac