FISA "Compromise" Reached [Updated]

by Deb Cupples |  When politicians use lines about imperfect "compromises," fighting terrorism and protecting Americans' civil liberties -- all on the same page -- you can't help sensing that they're trying to sell something that cannot sell on its own merits. 

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer said the following in a press release today regarding the FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304):

"'This bipartisan bill balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans’ civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements,' said Hoyer.  'It is the result of compromise, and like any compromise is not perfect, but I believe it strikes a sound balance.  Furthermore, we have ensured that Congress can revisit these issues because the legislation will sunset at the end of 2012.'”

All six paragraphs of the press release are vague and platitudinous.  Noticeably absent from it is any mention of Telecom Amnesty (retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that had helped the Bush Adminsitration illegally tap Americans' phone calls and emails).

At least the press release helpfully links to a 100+ page document containing the bill's text, for those who feel like slogging through needlessly complex and poorly punctuated prose. 

As I anticipate thoroughly reading it, I get a sense of foreboding.

Update: I still haven't read the new FISA bill: frankly, the prospect just bums me out, so I'll need some time. Below, however, are comments from people who have read it.

Sen. Russ Feingold stated:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

"Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power.

"Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”

Sen. Feingold is pretty clear: we taxpayers are getting screwed -- not only by President Bush and the congressional Republicans who support him, but also by a number of Democratic politicians.

Glenn Greenwald went into more detail:

"The provision granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, Title VIII, has the exact Orwellian title it should have: "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Section 802(a) provides:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was."

Greenwald also said that Obama's campaign staff is reviewing the FISA bill and that Obama will likely make a statement soon.  This will be interesting.  If he opposes FISA, he'll please Sen. Chris Dodd (who endorsed Obama and opposed Telecom Amnesty).

If Obama takes a even a light stance against Telecom Amnesty, he'll be countering Jay Rockefeller (who endorsed Obama in February and led cheers for Telecom Amnesty).

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Domestic Spying & Telecom Amnesty: the Bigger Issues

* Domestic Spying Started Before 9/11, and Money Changed Hands

* Bush & Senate Republicans Protect Telecoms, Soil Privacy Rights

* U.S. Intel Chief Made False Statements re: Domestic Spying

* Who Stands Where On Telecom Amnesty? (plus Olbermann video)

.

Comments

[Adam]

Greenwald goes on to actually analyze the content:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html
Warning: it ain't pretty. A quick excerpt:

"So basically, one day in the near future, we're all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we're never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits."

I share Greenwald's deep disappointment that Obama didn't show leadership on this issue. I know he opposes this action, but he could have made a much better effort to stop it. As you know, I was planning on advocating that he do just that. It may be a moot point now.

It absolutely boggles my mind that the Democratic leadership has engineered this. It's beyond absurd, for so many reasons.

[Deb]

Adam,

I just read Glen's 2d piece (via your link). Thanks.

None of this surprises me, because Telecoms are well funded and tres influential. They did manage to get the Telecom Act of '96 passed (which did terrible things to media ownership).

That and they already have been mining data (and likely already have emails and phone calls belonging to politicians). If J. Edgar Hoover wasn't above it, I doubt that Telecom execs are above it.

On what, precisely, do you base your "knowledge" that Obama opposes Telecom Amnesty and expanded FISA powers?

As I've pointed out on various issues, Obama's words and actions have been known to conflict. When that happens, one must evaluate the actions, I think.

The only way to actually oppose FISA/T-Amnesty is to step up and and publicly say so (i.e., exercise leadership).

Silently waiting in a dark corner for fear of losing conservative votes is the opposite of leadership.

[rawdawgbuffalo]

and they still dont have it right, i mean from what they say the desire to do, but im just a serf

[Adam]

It's not that Obama's words and actions conflict. He stated his clear opposition to this bill the first time around in January, and I'm quite confident he'll vote against it if/when it comes to a vote. That's words and actions in concert, not in conflict. That said, he's not aggressively fighting this.

I can think of three or four explanations why:

1) He's a Trojan Horse candidate, an evil tool of the telecoms wearing the trappings of a progressive. His opposition to the bill is pure lip service.

2) He just doesn't think the issue of telecom immunity is very important.

3) He thinks this is a losing cause even with his best effort so he doesn't want to try and fail publicly.

4) He's triangulating for the general election and fears that opposing this bill loudly, and/or going into the fall without a new FISA bill on the books, will give the Republicans too much ammo.

Taking those one at a time:

I reject (1), as you could guess. For all the things you have talked about, I've seen a pretty darn consistent set of policies from Obama. There have been issues like NAFTA where the tone of the rhetoric has changed from month to month, but the core policies have been solid and unchanging. And civil liberties are certainly one of those core policies.

(2) seems pretty plainly absurd and I only include it for completeness. Basically everyone on both sides of this issue sees it as important, and Obama has issued press releases where he has clearly articulated WHY this issue matters.

(3) is certainly a possibility, and perhaps the simplest and most reasonable explanation. But damnit, I'd feel a lot better if he tried. And it would be really depressing to think that congressional Democrats are so hell-bent on this ridiculous policy that they would stand against their own nominee and the likely next POTUSA, in order to please the current administration. I guess I just explained why this issue makes me so depressed.

(4) is also a reasonable possibility, I suppose. It's not really his style, though. There aren't many issues where Obama has blatantly compromised principles in order to avoid a likely Republican attack; gay marriage is the only one that immediately springs to mind. We can quibble on this, but I think the majority of his centrist/moderate positions are sincere rather than a product of some sort of political focus group testing.

That said, and I want to emphasize this: rolling over on this issue is FUNDAMENTALLY INCONSISTENT with the way Obama has handled the majority of contentious foreign policy and national security issues.

Going back to 2002-2004, the majority of Democrats have been afraid to draw meaningful contrast between themselves and Bush on national security. Dean's primary campaign criticism of Kerry as "Bush lite" was spot-on in my opinion. This attitude was both terrible for Democrats and terrible for the country.

Obama has represented a break from this style of rhetoric. On issues from Iraq, to negotiating with Iran and Cuba, to surveillance and detention, Obama has been eager to draw a clear contrast between his policies and those of GWB. In doing so, he's shown that Democrats CAN stay principled and still win these issues. This is a large reason why, in my opinion, he has generated such a strong movement and sort of gotten the party out of the doldrums. He's shown that Americans actually do like peace and care about the Constitution.

So, with that in mind, choosing to avoid a fight here just strikes me as odd.

---

Basically, that was a very long way of saying that no matter the real reason, it's disappointing.

I suppose there's still hope for a last stand here, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Deb]

Adam,

You forgot a possible reason: Jay Rockefeller (who has made Telecom Amnesty his baby) endorsed Obama in February as a way of giving Obama a foreign-affairs and national-security vote of confidence. Perhaps a deal has been made.

About #1: You're euphamizing re: NAFTA (as are Obama's campaign spokespeople). The mere "tone of his rhetoric" hasn't changed. His ENTIRE MESSAGE changed from the one he spoke at the debate before Ohio.

In short, Obama just confirmed that Goolsbee accurately conveyed Obama's position to Canadian officials.

About #2, 3 and 4: I really don't know what's on Obama's mind, as he seems to say different things to different people (or at different times).

RE drawing a "clear distinction" between himself and Bush (or McCain): I don't think Obama did that re: Iraq.

He gave the IMPRESSION that his stance was different at some points, not at others. I ran a clip from a 2004 Chicago TV interview in which Obama says he didn't support troop withdrawal.

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/06/media-and-blogg.html

Video is on second page toward bottom.

Also, Obama is careful to NOT give the impression that he supports an occupation, but his own words (website) indicate that he does plan an occupation of Iraq. It's in the same post as the YouTube video (above).

I think Obama generated a "strong movement" by being vague (even disengenuous at times) about what he plans to do.

"Change you can believe in" is a great slogan, as all listeners can interpret it to mean changes that they want.

I'll give his campaign people snaps for brilliance.

[billkav]

I'm glad you are commenting on the FISA sell-out Congress is engaged in. We should all be sounding the alarm on this, however unlikely it is that Hoyer, Rockefeller, and Co can be stopped.

Clearly, the price the Democrats are willing to pay for not being called soft on terror is our Bill of Rights.

The more things change...