FISA fight: Will Senate play “kick the can” with terrorist surveillance?; Update:Clinton and Obama vote against FISA reform; Update: Cloture vote fails, Dem band-aid fails
Scroll down for updates…4:44pm Eastern - cloture vote is underway…4:54pm Eastern…as anticipated by the nutroots, both Clinton and Obama have voted no on cloture (e.g., voted to block press on the Rockefeller-Bond FISA reform bill)…5:12pm Eastern. Motion is not agreed to. Vote is 48-45….McConnell’s on the floor, next vote is on the 30-day extension…urging a no vote on cloture for 30-day extension…extension measure also fails 48-45…Roll call votes will be here…The clock is ticking…
***
As I reported last week, today’s the day the Senate votes on cloture on the FISA reform bill. The vote is scheduled for 4:40pm Eastern. GOP Sen. John Cornyn is on the floor now rightly castigating Dems for playing “kick the can” with terrorist surveillance. The temporary band-aid on FISA expires Feb. 1.
Sen. Jim DeMint’s office e-mails: “If the cloture vote scheduled for today fails, the Senate will immediately vote cloture on a mere 30-day extension of FISA filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senate Republicans should reject this proposal for two specific reasons: 1) the bill needs to be modernized to account for changes in technology and 2) should include retroactive liability protection for the private carriers involved with FISA since the attacks of 9/11 so that the government can continue to contract with them in the future. Earlier today the director of National Intelligence sent a letter to Sen. Christopher Bond, vice chairman of Select Committee of Intelligence, recommending the FISA Amendment Act (S. 2248), which grants immunity for private carriers and has already passed by committee, as a positive step in the right direction.”
The nutroots are ecstatic that Democrat presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will both reportedly vote no on cloture. (Obama: Give a pass to illegal alien drivers, but not to telecoms that cooperated with the government after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack.) Joining them? Arlen Specter.
Shopfloor blogs about a conference call with Sen. Kit Bond of the Intelligence Committee, who is co-sponsoring the bill up for the vote today. Sen. Bond addresses the big picture with regard to telecom liability issues:
From the conference call Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) of the Intelligence Committee had with bloggers this afternoon, with the question coming from Shopfloor.org:
Question: Is there a broader issue here, as well? We can talk about the specific telecom companies, but I wonder whether there isn’t a broader issue of being a good corporate citizen, being a citizen of American with certain obligations and responsibilities, as well, if you’re a telecom company or another company all together.
Bond: I think you’ll find regrettably a few in the Congress and some on the outside who are vocal who think there is no such thing as a good corporate citizen. They view any business that creates jobs and provides goods or services to be inherently evil. But I think the point of the matter is, that the carriers – telecommunications companies – are a vital link in our national security, both working with us when ordered to listen in on communication from terrorists abroad, and for the longer term, in working with us to ensure cyber-security – protect not only our government but private institutions and individuals from hackers.
So, we have many areas of cooperation with carriers and others. And if anybody who cooperates with the government can be sued by the radical fringe, so-called public interest groups that contend we shouldn’t have any secret intelligence, we ought not to do anything that isn’t totally disclosed – thus, in my view, (will) leave us totally vulnerable to the kind of attacks like the disaster of 9/11.
The Foundry examines progressives’ hysteria over FISA reform:
In their more honest moments some progressives will admit that FISA needs “a single uncontroversial technical correction.” The way many of them gloss over the details of that correction and instead throw around provocative phrases like “warrantless eavesdropping powers” betray how unserious they are about national security. …
…Congress has had since August 2007 to make the needed temporary changes permanent. The remaining issue hanging approval of a permanent change is the issue of immunity for the telecom companies that cooperated with the government before the changes were made. But responsible legal scholars agree that due to the state secrets privilege, all of these lawsuits will be thrown out anyway. The only people who benefit from punishing the cooperative companies are trial lawyers and politicians eager to score points at the telecoms expense. Congress has had five months to address this issue. Another month is not going to accomplish anything. They need to permanently update FISA now.
The WSJ boiled the fight down last August:
Opposition from the Democratic left to this intelligence program isn’t merely part of the partisan blood feud against a weak President near the end of his term. It is part of a far larger ideological campaign to erode Presidential war powers. Goaded by the ACLU and much of the press corps, many Democrats want to use the courts and lawsuits to restrict Mr. Bush and future Presidents in their ability to gather intelligence in the war on terror…Democrats blocked any retroactive liability protection for companies that thought they were doing their patriotic duty by cooperating with the National Security Agency after 9/11. The goal here isn’t merely to open another rich target for the tort bar. It is to use lawsuits to raise the costs for private actors of cooperating with the executive branch. Even if they lose at the ballot box or in Congress, these antiwar activists still might be able to hamstring the executive via the courts.
That’s also the explicit strategy in trying to expand the reach of the special FISA court to all wiretaps, foreign and domestic.
***
Update 4:33pm. Harry Reid is lambasting Republicans as “cynical” and “counterproductive” and “shooting for cheap political points.” He bleats: “None of us want the law to expire except Cheney and Bush.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Why Liberals Can’t Be Trusted With National Security
- AMERICAN NONSENSE » Democrats Putzed Around Until the Last Minute, Yet Again
- 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
- Michelle Malkin » The FISA fight: Nutroots lose, America wins
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 9/11, Al Qaeda, Ally McBeal approach, FISA
Blog Maverick
» My FCC Presentation on the Future of Digital Media
JustOneMinute
» The Surge Started Before The Surge? Well...NewsBusters.org
» Letterman: 'Bush's Administration is Clearly Guilty of War Crimes?'Gateway Pundit
» Obama's Wailing Wall Rally a Bust--- Turns Into Mob Scene-- Worshippers Scream at Obama!! ...Update: VideoWeekly Standard
» McCain Defends Statement on the Surge and the Anbar AwakeningJustOneMinute
» Klein v. KleinNewsBusters.org
» CBS Frets Obama Can't Escape 'Hussein' Middle Name in IsraelPower Line
» Three Related StoriesBetsys Page
» The Obamas should make up their minds if they're for or against exploiting their children
Yes, they will kick the can, just like Billyjeff did with osama, obama er um yomama.
You know, this almost makes me wish we did have another 9/11 serious threat. But they probably still wouldn’t wake up.
Sigh
So Hillary and Obama believe that terrorists have “constitutional rights” to plot terrorist attacks on American citizens and that their conversations should not be monitored.
No wonder they want a Republican candidate who will not be “negative.” They don’t want these things pointed out. And McCain won’t.
You mean the senators will actually vote on something?
Wouldn’t you know it would be to weaken our country.
And people will vote for them and the race will be close.
WTH!
The issue is immunity for telecoms. Those companies may have broken the law by allowing wiretaps without warrants. The holdup is over telecom immunity: should those companies be granted blanked immunity regardless of what they may have done?
If FISA were so terribly important to national security, Bush would not insist on vetoing any bill with immunity. If he did not conspire with telecoms to break the law, he and they have nothing to worry about.
To me it looks like the Republicans are willing to put the country at risk by refusing to pass the Democratic bill.
lmao, Obama voting?
Now that’s news!
Times like this it would be great if you could just beat some sense into these crapweasels.
We should defend this nation at all costs even if grandma’s oatmeal raisin cookie recipe is in danger.
Our wonderful elected elites in DC seem to be in favor of a Mexican-America or a Muslim-America. Both sides are cratering our country with this crud.
It amazes me we have done as well as we have so far with so many in the MSM and DC against us.
L
Let’s see how this week is shaping up:
1. No to the Bush tax cuts
2. No to FISA
4. Yes to more welfare
5. Yes to illegals getting licenses
6. Yes to we were just b’sing about draining that swamp
And Bush is to congratulate Reid and Pelosi tonight?
I see lgm. So, the telcoms should have to worry about ACLU lawyers who want to take them to court for violating terrorists “rights”? Is that what you think is wrong? I see your point. Much like I see Al Gore who was screaming against wire taps until 9/11. Then, he was screaming “we should have been listening in”. Liberal mindset: it is bad until it gets bad but, it is never bad enough to allow anything good (unless it is for illegal activity - which is bad). Circular reasoning can drive you nuts and make one a liberal.
AJ - YOU be the one to tell Grandma her oatmeal raisin cookie recipe is in danger - get enough of those revved up, and we can just sit back and relax - the country’s security will be in good hands!
Isn’t there a 527 group that can run ads about this crap? Since the MSM isn’t going to report about anything that makes the dhimmicrats look bad, paid advertising is the only way to get it to the mainstream population (but I don’t think we are going to get much of a discount from the NYSlimes).
These guys are giving our country away and the masses don’t know about it.
So WE want those two Dem’s as a potential President? The Rep. are as bad to defend us as President. I am keeping my fork, and other things, to defend me. I feel I need to get more ‘other’ things. It may come that neither will be enough to save us.
L
We were on this same topic a couple of days ago. I could almost follow lgm’s logic about why would we have the need to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms if they hadn’t done anything wrong. And the follow-on about how the President and the telecoms already have immunity for legitimate intelligence gathering activities. But then I thought about the Legal Commerce in Firearms Act, and realized that no matter what the law says, you will always have left-wing zealots dragging somebody’s ass into court, even in cases without merit.
Then I thought about another commenter’s impassioned diatribe about his God-given right to privacy, and I thought, so you would rather have some terrorist group take away your God-given right to life, and the right of several thousand others, instead of listening in on a phone conversation plotting another as yet unknown attack?
It’s a question of priorities. I don’t suppose any of our liberal commenters would wear a Mohammed cartoon T-shirt in Iran, and organize a freedom of speech rally. Or maybe a gay pride parade in Saudi Arabia? Let’s remember who the real enemy is here, and not take our eye off the ball.
Let’s punish these naughty telecommuncations companies by moving them to Quantanimo. (Then we can listen in on any calls we want to.)
I’ll be convinced these politician are really concerned about our privacy and freedoms when they stop the IRS from collecting personal financial information from employers without the employee’s permission.
It sounds so warm and fuzzy. Like apple pie and fireworks. “patriotic duty” and “cooperation.” Except that there is no duty (”patriotic” or otherwise) to violate the law and help the government violate the Constitution. Indeed, seeing how government officials (as well as all voters in my state, at least) take an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, it would seem a very unpatriotic act. The enemy of America’s enemy is not necessarily America’s friend. The Constitution holds true and supreme even in times of war or “military force.” The idea that we can just bend and circumvent the Constitution temporarily is dangerous. Terrorists aren’t going to surrender to us. We can’t win this conflict in any sort of traditional or definitive way. What conceivable milestone is there to herald the resumption of the supremacy of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as the restrictor of governmental force? And who is to say we’ll even remember our deviation if it happens?
If telecom companies wanted to do something patriotic, they would have refused (as some others did) to cooperate with any illegal programs, and they would have publicly exhorted the Legislature to change the law (within the bounds of the Constitution, naturally) so that surveillance could be conducted legally. They didn’t, and they should face the consequences of their actions. Anything else is tacit approval of future law-breaking.
Mark, - #16
What illegal programs did the telecom companies cooperate with? Specifcally, what, in the Constitution was violated?
Please be specific and provide proof.
Michelle: from that Reid quote that can be found here:
Well, he probably can’t remember it happening because it wasn’t the republicans, it was him, as reported by Michelle
To be fair, you should have let him know what the COTUS is..
These disloyal democraps are playing with fire on this one. This is serious stuff. A one day laps in our ability to monitor new contacts could lead to disaster. Someone better call the grown ups in, this needs to be dealt with post-haste.
I am calling Specter’s office right now, it won’t do much good, the lousy RINO, but I have to do my part.
Mark #16
You, sir, are a fool.
…because, as you know, our enemies stay within the bounds of the Constitution. You sure can’t “prove” they violated the Constitution by hijacking planes (or, if you believe Ron Paul this never happened).
Preach to the dead about the Constitution. Preach to the heroes who gave their lives about the Constitution.
Goodness, let’s keep our heads buried about what our enemies are talking about. HEY! Last I heard the Constitution was for the citizens and NOT about protecting our enemies.
I smell a Paulbot.
1. Bush isn’t interested in fighting terrorism or he would secure the border.
2. Since he has not interest in fighting terrorism, it can be concluded that his illegal monitoring activities are related to his hatred of our freedoms.
Huh? I think you need to Logic 101. First, President Bush IS interested in protecting us, and he has done a good job infiltrating terrorist cells and MONITORING terrorist conversations, something you liberals don’t want to do.
You liberals think a terrorist has constitutional rights and that if he is plotting to blow up a building, that is his constitutional right and should not be monitored. To do so would be an infringement of his freedom. Whenever liberals start lamenting the loss of “freedoms” and “constitutional rights,” they are ALWAYS talking about terrorists’ freedoms and constitutional rights.
Yes, President Bush has been weak on the border (because he feels the other methods are effective, which they are), but liberals are no better. Obama and Hillary even want to give them driver’s licences.
If there is another 9/11, and of course there will be, each one larger than the one before until we surrender, the only concern of the democrats will be if President Hiloma (Obamton?) can escape blame and pin the tail on the Republicans. That is why Bush, in a sense, will never be “leaving” office. He will always be there for the democrats, his good buddies, to curse and bemoan. It’s a highly workable strategy. The MSM, the teacher, the Bureaucracy, the democrats in congress will all agree they were completely innocent. It worked last time and it will work in the future.
You are kidding - right?
1. They have been listening in for over 30 years. It is the hatred of Bush that is making this an issue not the idea computers are and have been listening for years.
2. Charges? Have not seen any and if Bush was doing something illegal, don’t you think with as many people who hate him (including you) he would not be in jail already. There is no way the people of this country who hate our own president would stop at nothing less than putting Bush in prison.
3. I can conclude you are an idiot by your statement but there might be a chance you are not. So, your conclusion is just your own and better left that way.
4. Hates our freedoms? You are free to do whatever you like - even hate your POTUS. I do not see any “evidence” that he “hates” your freedoms. But, hey, if you don’t mind your neighbor planning your demise and the idea he should be monitored - fine. That makes you incredibly stooooopid.
Some of the pilots may have trained in my own town. I wish to GOD they had been more monitored. Who knows, there may be more people alive today.
On-my-soap-box said (#10):
No. ACLU lawyers want to take them to court (if they do, I’m not sure on this one) because they violate your and my rights by tapping our phones. According to FISA, if you know the guy is a terrorist, tap away.
J S Ragman said (#14):
Yes, America is better than Iran and Saudi Arabia because we have freedoms and rights that they do not. The ACLU wants to keep it that way. Do you?
When was either your or my phone tapped?
Wow, WOw WOW. You really think the ACLU cares about anything but power? Man, are you living with your head in the sand. You really think the ACLU makes America better? Are you misguided.
If listening to my conservations is keeping America safe - listen in! You will be safer for it. You have lost more freedoms by having a credit card and income tax return than you will ever have by Big Brother listening in. The chance of Big Brother listening in is nil unless you give them a reason so you give up nothing. Like standing in line and having your luggage x-rayed. What are you giving up? NADA unless you are just in the mood to argue. I travel international all of the time (12 trips last year) and you are safer because of the precautions not because your rights are being violated. Of course, we can go back to the way it was. I, for one, do not share your enthusiasm for destruction at the hands of terrorists whose rights might be violated.
Liberals, though, are more like the Saudi and Iranian oppressors. They love the “religion of peace” and the freedom for Muslims to plot terrorist attacks and not monitored, while infringing on Americans’ rights to practice Christianity.
Like in Iran and Saudi Arabia, liberals think that Islam should never be criticized and is the number one religion, especially since 9/11. Why else would liberals refuse to show the Mohammed cartoons? Islam and Muslims are not to be portrayed as violent, but America and American soldiers are. Liberals love Islam as much the Iranian mullahs do, and like the mullahs, the ACLU’s goal is to destroy American freedoms, not uphold them.
That pretty much sums it up.
lgm said (#27)
Oh please - Moussaoui’s hard drive search was denied by FISA because of privacy right’s arguments made by the likes of the ACLU. If his hard drive had been allowed to have been searched - 9/11 may never have happened. This thought that the FISA court always gives permission is crap - and its rules are outdated.
Mark Jaquith said (#16)
Similar to the tacit approval of millions of law breakers who cross the border illegaly each year? I will bet that you are one of those who are more than willing to give amnesty to those illegals - you speak of enforcing the law, unless of course it is inconvenient for your point. Illegals are doing more harm (economically, socially) than if the telecomms were to tap everyone’s phone in America…and yet - you are willing to turn a blind-eye to one and endanger our security through both.
I’m about as conservative as they come but I think that if the telecoms broke the law by performing illegal spying acts for the NSA then they should be punished. I’ve read numerous articles on several of the tech websites about the AT&T spying case in San Francisco over the past year or so and it is very troubling to me.
I certainly don’t want another terrorist strike in the country but that doesn’t mean that the telecoms like AT&T should just throw our constitutional rights over the bridge to illegally cooperate with the NSA and give them unrestricted access to all the data that goes across their network. Breaking the law is not patriotic! That’s the same kind of lame reasoning that the nutroots would use.
reptevye (#32) said:
This was bureaucratic bungling, not the ACLU. Recall that before 9/11/01, certain people in the FBI and elsewhere had “hair on fire” about terrorism but couldn’t get the bosses interested. The warrant, for a specific named person for a specific credible reason, would have been well within existing FISA rules.
On-my-soap-box said (#29):
The ACLU mainly is a bunch of high powered lawyers working pro-bono on issues they believe in. They have more “power” in their day jobs.
Gabe asked (#30):
cks and not monitored, while infringing on Americans’ rights to practice Christianity.
Because people find them offensive.
Republican politicians have taken offense at the way Christ is portrayed in certain art works. The Mayor of New York (now presidential candidate) wanted to close an art museum.
I spent over half of my life in the uniform of this country’s military, protecting the right of imbeciles like you to make idiotic statements like that. Ragman, out.
J S Ragman said:
Well, that’s a conversation stopper. Get some rest.