The FISA fight: Nutroots lose, America wins; Update: Senate passes FISA reform bill
Scroll down for updates…
I’ve been keeping you up-to-date on the FISA fight in the Senate (see here and here). This morning, a series of votes took place and you’ll be happy to know that the defeatist Dems were defeated.
Carter Wood at the NAM’s ShopFloor blog sums up the votes:
The Senate has just rejected an amendment to S. 2248, the FISA amendments legislation, by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) that would have stripped out the retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies.
The vote was 31-67. Roll Call vote here.
This is a clear statement in favor of effective, legal surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas, and an endorsement of good corporate citizens aiding in the protection of Americans. A very important vote…
…UPDATE (12:13 p.m.) Second string of Kos commentary here. Quotes e-mail from Senator Reid’s office: “If, as appears likely, none of the amendments to strike or modify the provisions of the bill concerning retroactive immunity are adopted, we expect Sen. Reid to oppose cloture and oppose final passage of the bill.”
UPDATE (12:34 p.m.): Cloture invoked, 69-29. Senate now breaks.
The Senate Roll Coll votes are here.
Dow Jones dispatch reports:
The U.S. Senate Tuesday voted down an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that aimed to strip out immunity for telecommunications companies alleged to have cooperated with the government’s warrantless wiretapping program.
The result of the vote makes it increasingly likely that phone companies will receive retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits over their involvement in the controversial wiretapping program.
The development comes even though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other senior Democrats have argued in favor of the amendment.
The vote was 67-31 against removing the immunity provision.
The Senate has been divided over the legislation underpinning the warrantless wiretapping program for weeks. At the heart of the debate has been over whether the phone companies should be sheltered from the dozens of lawsuits they potentially face.
The amendment was backed by Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
In last-minute arguments before the vote, Dodd pointed out that three out of four Congressional committees that had considered the immunity issue had decided against granting retroactive legal cover to the phone companies.
Only the Senate Intelligence Committee’s version of the FISA legislation includes an immunity provision. It is that version which is currently on the Senate floor. Last year, the House approved legislation which made no mention of immunity.
Even if the final Senate bill includes immunity, the matter will have to decided at a meeting between leaders of both houses of Congress to resolve differences over legislation.
The White House has threatened to veto any bill that doesn’t include immunity for the phone companies.
Lawmakers hope to conclude voting on the FISA legislation later Tuesday.
The nutroots are despondent. Profanity-spewing despondent. See here and more here.
***
Telecom immunity should have never taken this long to approve. The immunity covers companies who received assurances from the Department of Justice that their cooperation broke no laws, and they cooperated to help defend the US from attack. Their reward for trust and assistance should not be billion-dollar class-action lawsuits, which would have been nothing more than a back-door attempt to kneecap intelligence operations that kept this nation safe for more than six years after 9/11.
The House has to put this bill into motion now, and the clock is ticking. The Democrats set up these sunset provisions as a means to pressure the White House, and once again they have had the opposite effect. Faced against bipartisan agreement in the Senate on immunity, expect the House to quietly acquiesce.
John Boeher’s office sent me the following this morning:
It speaks volumes about the national security priorities of congressional Democrats that they have failed to permanently close the terrorist loophole. And it certainly speaks volumes that they have failed to do so because they have bowed to the demands of those on the Left seeking to derail common sense terrorist surveillance laws that would help keep our country safe from attack.
With the deadline coming this Saturday, will Democratic leaders finally work with Republicans to permanently close the terrorist loophole in our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws and extend appropriate liability protections for third parties who have stepped up to the plate in the interest of our national security? Or will the Majority’s allies on the Left demand that Congress backs down from this responsibility once again, kicking the can even farther down the road while the safety of Americans at home and abroad hangs in the balance?
Update 7:30pm Eastern. The Senate passes FISA reform. 68-29, with three not voting (Clinton, Graham, and Obama). Roll here.
The 68-29 Senate vote Tuesday to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act belied the nearly two months of stops and starts and bitter political wrangling that preceded it. The two sides had battled to balance civil liberties with the need to conduct surveillance on potential adversaries.
At issue is the government’s post-9/11 Terrorist Surveillance Program, which circumvented a secret court created 30 years ago to oversee such activities. The court was part of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law written in response to government abuse of its surveillance authority against Americans.
The surveillance law has been updated repeatedly since then. Congress hastily adopted a FISA modification in August in the face of dire warnings from the White House that changes in telecommunications technology and FISA court rulings were dangerously constraining the government’s ability to intercept terrorist communications.
Shortly after its passage, privacy and civil liberties groups said the new law gave the government unprecedented authority to spy on Americans, particularly those who communicate with foreigners.
That law, already extended once, expires Feb. 16.
Doubtful they can work out the differences in the bills by then, Democrats in both the Senate and the House prepared short-term extensions that would keep the law in effect for several more weeks. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky blocked an extension attempt Tuesday. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Republicans in the House would fight another extension and said Bush would not sign it.
On the way to passage, the Senate rejected by a vote of 67-31 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies. It also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.
One of the amendments, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecom companies in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.
The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the United States the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general.
While giving the White House what it wanted on immunity, the Senate also expanded the power of the court to oversee government eavesdropping on Americans. The amendment would give the FISA court the authority to monitor whether the government is complying with procedures designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans whose telephone or computer communications are captured during surveillance of a foreign target.
The bill would also require FISA court orders to eavesdrop on Americans who are overseas. Under current law, the government can wiretap or search the possessions of anyone outside the United States — even a soldier serving overseas — without court permission if it believes the person may be a foreign agent.
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
- Senate Rejects Feingold FISA Amendment. : American Pundit
- FISA Update: One small step for the Senate, one big hissy fit for the Left
- Wake up America-
- Macsmind
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » FISA — A Win for American = A Loss for Democrats
- Plumb Bob Blog » FISA Vote Highlights Democrats’ Realpolitik
- BelchSpeak » Post Topic » Congress to EFF regarding FISA: STFU, STFD
- Senate Votes on Telecom Immunity: Clinton Absent | SeattlePoliticore
- Telecom Immunity Passes — Pirate’s Cove
- Neocon News » FISA victory round up. Dem amendments fail, cloture invoked.
- Breakfast Scramble | BitsBlog
- Michelle Malkin » FISA fight: No more band-aids
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Al Qaeda, Ally McBeal approach, FISA, Homeland Security
American Thinker
» Mary Landrieu Takes Louisianans for a Ride
The Other McCain
» Ho-hum: Another day, another 'Doug Hoffman, far-right extremist' spinMudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowRedstate
» The Great Global Warming FraudMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part Two)Mudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!
Wile – Please explain why there has yet to be a criminal prosecution if, as you say, the White House violated those laws.
I can give you an explanation. Those laws were not violated because they do not apply to enemy combatants in time of war.
I’m glad you weren’t on our side during WWII. We’d now be speaking eiher German or Japanese.
Never thought the day would come when I’d hear Americans dissing freedom.
Here ya go. Of course you don’t really want to see one; you thought you could get away with the challenge since illegal wiretapping is done in secret.
Sorry for the absence. Had to step out to put up some more Hillary ‘08 yard signs.
But seriously…the telecoms are not facing civil lawsuits because of any criminal wrongdoing. Criminal acts are prosecuted in the criminal court system. Torts are pursued in civil suits.
If I slip and fall on the sidewalk in front of scooter’s trailer, I can hire John Edwards to sue scooter even though scooter broke no law.
So give it up scooter. It’s a trick question. The telecoms are exposed in the civil court system even though they broke no laws.
I do so miss my freedom to make unmonitored phone calls to my Al Qaeda buddies. Boo hoo hoo.
Alphonse,
But is there any indication of whom the calls were to? Again, there may issues there that we do not see. Mind you, anyone who has seen my site or knows me understands full well how I think about this centralized form of government that has invaded our lives and eroded our rights. However, there is no indication of what the phone calls were about or whom they were with.
If it involved calls to countries in question, I would have to agree with the actions. Again, our sovereignty and the protection of these Independent but United States of America is one of the very few rights or responsibilities that the federal government does actually have.
Again, as is the case with me, there are law-abiding citizens whose calls and actions need to be monitored even when they have done nothing wrong. Just living in the same house with my Mother when I was growing up, I know I learned about many things I should not have known about.
What if? What if I happened to enjoy too much of a refreshing adult beverage one night (The beer in the Philippines is very good and cheap too) and I was speaking to one of my friends who happens to be Muslim? A very innocent conversation could reveal things that should not be known.
While my actions may have been completely innocent, what if some of my friends had other friends or connections which were not so innocent? I am not saying that I hold any state secrets in my head. To suggest that would be ludicrous. However, if anything were revealed that could potentially cost the lives of thousands of Americans, wouldn’t you want the people “protecting” (Government Protection sounds like an oxymoron coming from me but … there are always exceptions) you and your family to know about it before any disaster befell you or the ones you love?
Should I force my wife to quit doing business in order to satisfy that same government? Should I attempt to get the government here to kowtow to meet my needs the way many foreign invaders do in America? (I doubt it would be so successful here though)
There have always been abuses of power within the government. I could start with the current administration and count back to Lincoln and list abuse that has taken place, often at the cost of innocent lives and our money. I am no supporter of the federal government as it stands.
What I do expect is that they leave We The People to live our own lives and take care of the VERY FEW Constitutional responsibilities they do have. When abuse is discovered, that too should be brought to the attention of We the People and those fattened bureaucrats should be held fully accountable to the law. That is just one of the many things that are currently lacking in our (illegal) centralized government.
Hold them to account yes, but let them (Make them?) do their damn jobs on ALL of our borders, cyber or otherwise.
You would never believe it, but I moved here to become politically apathetic … sorry for another long post!
As I was reading the article, I was looking for clear evidence that no warrant existed. I am not arguing either way, but the article did not present a factual position that this was ‘warrantless’, only the position of the lawyer representing the plaintiff (above).
I agree it is like proving a negative, I suppose, but it still seems like there is a lot more to this case.
Story still seems suspect…
Here’s my read, from a very casual understanding of the issues…
people use words or phrases that flag their calls, which pass through a super-computer sieve that looks for certain key items…
or they are making calls to or from known bad guys or their support people overseas.
This leads to actual recording of their calls, mostly limited to and from people of interest.
IF that is the scenario, there is PROBABLE CAUSE all over that,
…but NATIONAL SECURITY interests don’t really require that level of showing before they can conduct surveillance…and they don’t require a warrant…even from a FISA court…
according to my very limited knowledge of such things.
See HERE
Thanks, lee…
but that was hours ago, and the cloture vote wasn’t up when I was trying to find how he voted; hence my senior moment.
I find it “interesting” that both Clinton and Obama were absent for the final vote.
Damn weasels! Graham was also absent. Another weasel. All other Republicans voted YES for the final bill. Senators Dodd and Feingold should be hung out to dry !!!
There is precedent for intercepting communications into and out of the country in time of war that dates back to the revolution and before. It’s been done in EVERY war, and oh by the way, without judicial oversight or even ‘probable cause’. Just because the technology has changed from flowing copper plate calligraphy on velum sealed with wax and carried across the ocean on a square rigged ship made of wood, to VoIP calls from a dingy internet cafe in north west Pakistan to a mosque in Dearborn makes no difference. Furthermore, just to put in in a personal frame of reference, if some fumble fingered jihadi dials my cell phone by accident, NSA damn well better be listening in on that and every other call he makes.
Yes. It’s quite impressive stuff, capable of splitting a percentage of the light traveling down an OC-X fiberoptic pipeline and then analyzing that incredible torrent of traffic looking for pre-programmed keywords.
We’re talking about domestic warrantless spying, as restricted by the Fourth Amendment.
I’m not arguing semantics here; I am arguing legal technicalities. We are not at war! Only Congress has the right to declare ware and that has not happened. We are engaged in what could best be called a “police action” in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was a specific declaration of war by Congress, then your points would be valid.
The President cannot arbitrarily decide what laws the executive branch will ignore and not expect there to be some outcry. As far as why there has been no prosecution, all evidence has been deemed “National Security” and no one, not even a judge, has been allowed to review that evidence. Checks and balances are written in the constitution.
And, thanks for the personal attack. We were at war with both Japan and Germany during WWiI. Ergo, using that situation to bolster your argument for this case is moot.
Uhmmm… No. Despite the democratic party talking points constantly referring to ‘domestic warrantless spying’, the program under discussion involved at least one end of the communication being outside the country and therefor international not domestic.
In USA v Romm the 9th circuit ([irony on] that bastion of conservative jurisprudence [/irony off]) upheld that on crossing an international border even the data on your hard drive are not exempt from border search authority (ie search with neither warrant nor probably cause when crossing an international border)