Congress and the FISA Law

In another act that defies logic and calls for a willing suspension of disbelief, Congress, predominately the democrat controlled House, has refused to make permanent, or even temporarily extend, the law that allows the US intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on telephone conversations overseas.  These are the same people that eviscerated the capabilities of the intel community to recruit in the 80s and then were surprised that we didn't have the intel to stop the attacks of 9/11.  Actions have consequences.

As far as I can tell by reading the news reports, there is a fair degree of unanimity that some sort of action should be taken.  The hang up seems to be protecting telecommunications companies from lawsuits if they cooperate with the government--the democrats want to allow lawsuits while the republicans do not.  Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if the reports are true,it is an example of idiocy at the highest levels.  The comments of Steny Hoyer and Ted Kennedy that the President's push to get the bill extended is purely "fear mongering" and that there has been no harm done by the laws lapsing are the height of irresponsibility.  There is no way for either of these fine gentlemen, nor even the intelligence community, to know what harm (if any) has been done as they have no idea what they didn't learn from missed opportunities.

I cannot see how making the FISA law permanent causes any harm in any way to America.  In fact, not passing the law and not having the ability to perhaps catch some intelligence that would stop another attack on the US, or any country, is ludicrous, but typical of our elected representatives.  They would rather show how much they hate President Bush than make any attempt to protect the country.  That even some of the democrats believe the law is reasonable but that allowing lawsuits against the companies whose cooperation is necessary is beyond my comprehension.  Listening to conversations by potential adversaries overseas does not significantly violate privacy of American citizens and is certainly worth the small risk.  The protection of Americans is the highest responsibility of the government, a responsibility for which the democrats clearly get a failing grade at this point.

Comments

[Jerry Scarborough]

Timo,

Well said.

I still don't like the idea of immunity for companies that cooperated with government requests without a warrant. That's just wrong. The problem is, since there was no warrant, how do you know if you have a cause to sue? The courts have already said that, if you can't prove you were targeted, you have no standing. FISA provides that transparency.

So, the current situation is Harry, and Nancy playing games. That's just wrong too.

[Vic Jackson]

In my view, it is not just Harry and Nancy playing games, its also the President. Based on the technical descriptions, court documents,and NSA's known capabilities, it appears likely that every phone call, e-mail and Internet search made in this country is under surveillance by NSA. This means the President, or anyone else privy to the NSA could easily obtain a list of every phone number you have called in the past few years and every number that has called you. The same for e-mails. The surveillance can also include not just possible terrorists, but political enemies or who knows what. This administration has a history of not being truthful with the public and this situation is no different. I'm not against fighting terrorism, but I am not willing to trade some basic civil rights to do so. Otherwise, the terrorists win.
Phone company immunity from lawsuits is giving them a blank check to do whatever bad business they desire. Which they have also been known to do in the past. e.g. remember the 1983 breakup of the Bell System?
Yes, Harry and Nancy may be playing politics, but they also may be keeping the President from some dirty work under the table.

[Jerry Scarborough]

Vic,

I agree. This administration has mangled Constitutional protections badly. It originally did that by ignoring FISA. Congress (Democrats and Republicans) finally made Bush toe the line.

That's why I feel FISA is so important. It allows necessary national security measures to be undertaken. And, it protects you and me from Bush/Cheney.

I am not a national security risk. And, I have friends in Bermuda. The President doesn't need to know the details of my conversations with them.

I am not fond of the immunity for the telecomm companies either. But, I do want to see FISA renewed.