FISA deal near?

posted at 12:30 pm on June 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post reports that a bipartisan compromise could come out of Congress within a week approving the badly-needed FISA reform legislation. The main sticking point of telecom immunity would wind up in US district courts, instead of the FISA court as the White House suggested, but would allow telecoms to argue that the written assurances they received give them immunity from lawsuits. The ACLU remains unimpressed, but with most of the orders under which the NSA conducts its surveillance on international traffic expiring in August, Congress has almost run out of time:

A bipartisan group of congressional negotiators neared a deal yesterday on controversial wiretapping legislation that could be unveiled as early as next week, according to Capitol Hill sources and civil liberties advocates monitoring the talks.

Lawmakers have been wrangling for months over how to extend warrantless surveillance that Bush administration officials consider central to national security. Agreement has proved elusive because of privacy concerns as well as questions about telecommunications companies seeking immunity from lawsuits over their role in helping the government monitor phone calls and e-mail after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. …

A key element of the new plan would give U.S. district courts the chance to evaluate whether telecommunications companies deserve retroactive protection from lawsuits. A previous proposal floated by Republicans would have put the question to the secret FISA court that approves warrants.

Discussions extended late into the afternoon yesterday as aides for Sens. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) hammered out details with staff members for House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Details in the current proposal continue to evolve, and await vetting by House and Senate leaders, according to congressional sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process is not yet complete.

Telephone and Internet service providers say they received written assurances that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal at the time they agreed to participate. The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups, however, said the telecoms should be held to a higher legal standard for helping the government eavesdrop on their customers.

The Saturday reporting on this story seems rather remarkable. This has been a hot controversy during this Congressional session, with party leaders on both sides issuing stern warnings of disaster while both sides in the House played chicken with a previous bipartisan Senate compromise. The Saturday release may indicate that the Democrats want to de-escalate this issue as they have to get this resolved before NSA goes completely dark on international surveillance through American phone switches.

The switch from the secret FISA court to the public court might convince Democrats to support the reform legislation, but that only works as long as the immunity issue remains focused on the transaction between the telecoms and the Department of Justice on the legality of the operation. If the court starts getting interested in the techniques and information that the program used and produced, the government will have to cut the telecoms loose. That will impact the cooperation that the telecoms provide in the future, as they will not rush to put themselves at huge financial risk in the future to assist in national-security issues.

The ACLU’s response notwithstanding, it looks like the White House has gone a long way to attempt to get this issue resolved. Congress needs to act soon to ensure that the NSA has all the tools it needs and the flexibility it requires to nimbly follow terrorist communications. We can only stop the attacks if we discover them in advance.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Tell them it’s pork and they’ll pass it by Monday.

LOL! So true.

backwoods conservative on June 14, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I ageree. What incentive do the telecoms have in helping national security if they’re going to be hung out to dry.

Big John on June 14, 2008 at 12:45 PM

We can only stop the attacks if we discover them in advance.

True, but remember to consider that terrorists have rights under the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.

The right thing to do is to ask the terrorists nicely not to attack us.
Then tap their phones.

Kini on June 14, 2008 at 12:45 PM

FISA still is going through the legislative process. Still?? Holy crap. Flinging Flanging Democrats.

Weebork on June 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM

ACLU won’t be impressed or happy with it until all our military decisions are routed through Al Qaeda HQ

Defector01 on June 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Excuse me, but who the hell elected the ACLU?

tomk59 on June 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Right now it is mainly the nutroots left that is pushing the issue and some of the legal arguments and moral positions they are taking are simply not standing up to testing and it is simple power politics behind it.

Even if the telcos were hung out to dry , which would make them unlikely to support more assistance, a settlement to stop all the lawsuits or a government bailout of that would only push up the costs to either the taxpayers or customers depending on the settlement method.

Either way it is a stupid waste of resources that in the final analysis is mainly just politics that endangers our security.

CommentGuy on June 14, 2008 at 2:07 PM

The Democrats appear to be willing to do whatever they need to do to lose this election. Someone should suggest to Nancy Pelosi that she should do an art project using a military uniform and menstrual blood.

thuja on June 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM

I fear the Republicans are being rolled again. You’ve got to be kidding me District Courts decide immunity or not for telecoms.

Which district San Francisco? A bunch of unelected peter players in black robes decide our national security or not?

Anyone see the lastest from the SCOTUS giving enemy combants rights American citizens don’t have?

Maybe I’m being unnecesarily paranoid here but I fear my party has lost its cajones and hasn’t a clue where to find them.

dhunter on June 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM

The ACLU remains unimpressed, but with most of the orders under which the NSA conducts its surveillance on international traffic expiring in August, Congress has almost run out of time:

That’s OK,
AQCLU has all the time in the world.

normsrevenge on June 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

This does not sound good, but I guess we need to wait for the details to come out.

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM

We can only stop the attacks if we discover them in advance.

You’re making the assumption that the democrats want to do this. The dems, en masse, tend to see the WoT as a misnomer for what amounts to our struggle against a bunch of average criminals. And you know we can’t prosecute someoneone for a crime they might commit in the future. Didn’t you see The Minority Report? The criminals need to be allowed to commit their crimes before we do anything about them.

VolMagic on June 14, 2008 at 5:45 PM

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Fat chance anything will come of it that will be more than marginal.

jerrytbg on June 14, 2008 at 7:08 PM

When the details to this agreement do come out,you can bet that the democrats will have some cut & paste accusation to confirm to the world through their friends in the MSM that Bush was wiretapping illegally and they were tricked into agreeing with the NSA program for all these years.

They just did this with the latest Senate Intelligence report that totally ignored all the democrats statements on Saddam/WMD/Al-qaeda ties before and after Bush became President so they could say Bush tricked them into voting for war.

They are doing it now with the Gitmo ruling,acting like it was Bush’s decision and his only to keep enemy combatants in
Cuba when it was Bush working with Congress (The Military Commissions Act passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote).

The MSM and the democratic parties re-writing of history
and cutting & pasting of facts to push their ideology has morphed our news agencies into one big Micheal Moore movie.

Baxter Greene on June 14, 2008 at 7:33 PM

I fear my party has lost its cajones and hasn’t a clue where to find them.

dhunter on June 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Precisely my thoughts! Either that or they don’t care what conservatives think! Personally I think it’s both but the latter is their most important consideration at this point.

Vntnrse on June 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM

IIRC, the ACLU’s position is that their alleged “victims” have no proof they’ve been harmed. They just “think” they’ve been “harmed”.

Doesn’t one have to offer proof of some type of “damage” in order to file a lawsuit?

Note to ACLU: I “think” the federal government is screwing me by taking money from me in the form of taxes. I do not believe I’m getting my money’s worth. Any chance of a lawsuit?

GarandFan on June 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM

GarandFan;

Taxation without representation = Boston Tea Party!

Lock and Load! Pitchfork and torch time to take our country back from the Communists?

dhunter on June 14, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Doesn’t one have to offer proof of some type of “damage” in order to file a lawsuit?

Yep, you must have standing.

Of course, the purpose of the lawsuit is not to make whole those who have (somehow) been damaged; the goal is to get the plan in open court and reveal the details so that it can’t be used anymore.

SteveMG on June 14, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Way past time for the IRS to audit the ACLU. Let the paper avalanche begin!

platypus on June 14, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Perhaps President Obama will pardon Bush and his corporate cronies?

alphie on June 15, 2008 at 2:38 AM

AQCLU

normsrevenge on June 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Heh. That’s on par with NAALCP.

misterpeasea on June 15, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, a true American hero.

During his confirmation process he refused to condemn waterboarding and yet was able to somehow dupe both, Feinstein and Schumer into voting for him.

As a district judge he had to reinstate a suit brought against Philip Morris Companies, Inc. by disgruntled stockholders after it was learned that in his previous work as a private attorney he had represented tobacco companies in defense of smoker litigation.

The only fault he could find concerning the despicable US PATRIOT ACT was…

”…Without offering my view on any case or controversy, current or future, I think that, that awkward name may very well be the worst thing about the statute.”

AG Mukasey believes…

“…”Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.”

“Not because they involve detainees who have been tortured or mistreated, or secret information not available to the defense. No, this respected jurist does not care about the damage done to the rule of law or our constitutional protections. Rather, he is terrified that the trials give valuable information to the terrorists.”

The rule of law be damned; is that what you believe judge?

Mukasey allowed detention of a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil without criminal charges, in the case of Jose Padilla.

“…”the power to detain unlawful combatants” without criminal charges and that it “matters not that Padilla is a United States citizen captured on United States soil.”

Finally to heap all insult on every other injury he has supported Telecom immunity…

“…Our military, our intelligence agencies, and our law enforcement agencies are forces to be reckoned with, as they should be. But we cannot fight this fight alone. We have to be able to enlist and draw upon the lawful [surreptitious] cooperation of the private sector….”

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, circa 1759

J_Gocht on June 15, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Fools, cut from the same harlequin cloth as the SCOTUS 5, denying that we are at war.

Why are people forced to take their shoes off at airports, fools?

profitsbeard on June 15, 2008 at 2:47 PM

J_Gocht-

Ben Franklin also said:

Let us all hang together, or we shall certainly hang separately.”

Fighting among yourselves, to your own injury, in the middle of a battle for your existence, is suicidal.

Plenty of time to hone soothing legal minutae once you survive.

profitsbeard on June 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Plenty of time to hone soothing legal minutae once you survive.
profitsbeard on June 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.
Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn’t raise our voice,
we didn’t make a fuss.
It’s funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

War on Errorism

J_Gocht on June 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM