First Question For YKos "Ask The Leaders" Forum: Why Did You Cave In On FISA?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:40:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Tomorrow morning is the Yearly Kos "Ask The Leaders" Forum where the Democratic Congressional Leadership will meet with the 1,500 progressive bloggers convening in Chicago. The first question they should be asked is why are they caving on FISA? Rachel Perrone reports by e-mail:

Congress could vote as early as TODAY on a bill that many of them haven't even read. According to the most recent proposal we've seen, the new language would permit warrantless wiretapping of Americans so long as they believe the person on the other end of the line is in a foreign country, and/or that the foreign person is the target of the wiretap. I believe - but am not 100% sure - it also contains a six-month sunset provision - which, we know, worked out so well in the case of the PATRIOT Act.
Democrats are preparing to cave on warrantless wiretapping simply because they're afraid of being branded soft on terrorism. Whateverhappened to "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?" Well, if that's the case, we ought to be petrified right about now, because it seems the sole motive on the Hill these days is fear. Well, politics and fear.
It goes without saying that this whole situation is about politics, not real surveillance needs. We're hearing that Democrats had hammered out a deal last night with Director of National Intelligence but had that deal voided by the White House. Why? The White House seems bound and determined to take the most confrontational, hard-line approach possible - civil liberties be damned.

Incredible.

< Some Seized Documents Ordered Returned to Jefferson | Voting Rights Panel Today at Yearly Kos >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

First Question For YKos "Ask The Leaders" Forum: Why Did You Cave In On FISA? | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This is an important enough issue (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:42:37 PM EST

for Feingold et al to obstruct with every method available. If Pelosi lets this through, I will be quite cross with her.

: Unfortunately (none / 0) (#4)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:06:29 PM EST

I don't think there is an "et al." As with the PATRIOT Act, it's just gonna be Feingold. Can he hold it down at least long enough to force the Senate to either cut into its recess or postpone any action on the FISA bill? Hopefully so, but I'm not holding my breath.

BTD clearly defines in one small post (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:46:31 PM EST

why I'm just another BTD girl ;)

Could someone please explain the distinction (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by scribe on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:13:41 PM EST

between the "Basket" "warrants" they intend to legalize through this bill, and the general warrants of the crown (and royal governors) which were so widely used and unpopular, circa 1770-1775?

I don't see any.

Helpful timeline (none / 0) (#7)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:16:06 PM EST

1770-1775 (general warrants) -- 9/11/2001 (changed everything) -- 2007 (basket warrants)

Doubleplusgood!


I was being serious (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by scribe on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:30:45 PM EST

because it's a good point on which to hang the opposition to the bill.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#9)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:00:44 PM EST

There really isn't much of a difference, if indeed there is any difference at all. I'm not sure what the latest version of the FISA bill looks like, but the only distinction between what I understand to be the proposed "basket" warrants and general warrants is that the former at least theoretically are limited in scope to where the targets that originated the search are from overseas or are believed to be al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates. General warrants, as the name implies, entitled agents of the Crown to enter ANY place to seize supposedly illegal or prohibited items. In theory, there is a narrower scope to the basket FISA warrants.
In reality, this is a distinction without a difference, because the supposedly restrictive terms are so vague and general as to guarantee their uselessness at restricting NSA wiretapping at all. Plus, it's AGAG who makes the initial determination as to whether proposed wiretapping is permissible. Hmmmm...wonder if he will take a robust view of civil liberties?
Long story short, you're right and it's a good point.

These people still believe ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by chemoelectric on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:58:20 PM EST

... that they tricked us into voting for them, by their clever positioning, rather than despite it.

Bush said if the Dir if Nat Intel approves (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by lilybart on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:51:46 PM EST

then will sign it. That is what he said this morning in the press announcement that I had the misfortune to witness.

so he lied again

Does this version of the bill (none / 0) (#5)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:07:29 PM EST

Leave the wiretapping decisions in the hands of Gonzo? If so, WTF are these people possibly thinking?!

please downrate this comment (none / 0) (#10)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:58:13 PM EST

but i still feel it's an intellectual shortcut to conclude that every time dems don't do something it's out of fear of looking like something.

maybe in this case, it's true, and i'm sure someone will be happy to reply to this saying "YES. THIS TIME IT'S TRUE."

but no one ever really discusses any other reason, because, well of course if they did then that would mean a reason could exist that could be considered by someone as legitimate.

i'm not a big fan of biden. he was on morning joe today (i don't watch it all the time, first time ever actually) and he was crappin' on obama sort of and well he says (paraphrasing of course) "something happened in politics about 15 years ago when gingrich's people took over. it used to be when i was just 29 running for the senate that if other lawmakers disagreed with you they questioned your judgment. they said you were wrong. they could disagree with you passionately. vociferously. they could be angry. but the one thing they never did is they never questioned your motive."

i think progressives picked up that bad habit from conservatives big time.

if the question is asked reid and pelosi give an answer i can only hope their answer is taken at face value and their motives aren't questioned.

that doesn't mean people can't disagree.

So, (none / 0) (#14)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:21:44 PM EST

What is the legitimate motive, in your view, for Congress broadening FISA to allow domestic surveillance, arguably in violation of the 4th Amendment, with the only check in the system being the judgment of proven liar (or monumental incompetent, or both) Alberto Gonzales?

Your general point is fair, but as you predicted YES, THIS TIME IT'S TRUE. I fail to see the harm in pointing that out. You'd probably get more milage out of your point if you raised it in a case where it even arguably applied.


I'm not the one who needs to (none / 0) (#19)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:08:11 PM EST

Answer the question, reid and pelosi are.

i'm reminded of franken on his radio show asking reid about why he voted for the bankruptcy bill, reid started talking about legitimate abuses, and all franken was waiting to hear was an explanation for why reid allows banks to write legislation.

point: if you don't think there's a valid answer, why ask the question?


Counterpoint (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:21:40 PM EST

Because I am not so closed-minded as to believe that I am always correct. If there is a valid alternative explanation, I'd be interested to hear it.

If you don't have/aren't willing to express your alternative theory, why post complaining about what you view as intellectual laziness? How can you leap to that conclusion, especially in a situation where you are not willing to posit an alternative explanation?


: you're right (none / 0) (#22)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:06:41 PM EST

i'm wrong.
my point is not to listen to what i have to say about the issue. listen to what reid and pelosi have to say about the issue, and if you still disagree, then consider that it's not cause they have bad motives, but because they have bad judgment.
but that's the wrong point. so i'm wrong.
you see i just realized yet again my point is counter intuitive blogosphere activism.
you can't change bad judgment with blogosphere activism.
but you can re-focus the motivation.
forget i said anything at all. if you could edit comments on talkleft, i'd blank all my comments out and run away squealing with my tail between my legs like the scaredy little poodle i am.

A, have you seen this? bush won't let Congress (none / 0) (#12)
by bronte17 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:05:58 PM EST

adjourn for the recess until they give him what he wants.

Bush: Congress must stay until surveillance law upgraded

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Friday that Congress must stay in session until it approves legislation modernizing a U.S. law governing eavesdropping on foreigners.
...
Bush said that he would judge any bill sent to him by one measure alone: McConnell's judgment as to whether it provides "what you need to prevent an attack on the country."
"If the answer's `no,' I'm going to veto the bill," he said.

Good (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:18:55 PM EST

Keep them in session, and while you keep vetoing the bills they sign, on the side they can keep looking into the U.S. attorney scandal and perhaps bring perjury charges against AGAG. Plus, no recess appointments.


Can he really do this though (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:35:57 PM EST

About these sort of rules and procedures I know nothing?


Yep (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:51:46 PM EST

It's in Article II. I forget the exact language, but the President is entitled to require both Houses of Congress to convene (or stay in session).


: Oh Boy (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:55:04 PM EST

Well ya all better pull out the cots or everybody is putting the check book!

THE RUSH, as explained in Air Force prose (none / 0) (#21)
by Sumner on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:31:55 PM EST

WARFARE IN THE INFORMATION AGE: (.pdf)

"Those who are possessed of a definitive body of doctrine and deeply rooted convictions upon it will be in a much better position to deal with the shifts and surprises of daily affairs than those who are merely taking the short views."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
Warfare in the information age has placed greater emphasis on influencing political and military leaders, as well as populations, to resolve conflict. Information technology (IT) has increased access to the means to directly influence the populations and its leaders. IT has distributed the process of collection, storage, dissemination, and processing of information. The Air Force goal is to leverage this technology to achieve air, space, and information superiority and to be able to operate in a faster decision cycle (decision superiority) than the adversary.
Decision superiority is a competitive advantage, enabled by an ongoing situational awareness, that allows commanders and their forces to make better-informed decisions and implement them faster than their adversaries can react. Decision superiority is about improving our ability to observe, orient, decide, and act (OODA loop) faster and more effectively than the adversary. Joint Vision 2020 describes it as "better decisions arrived at and implemented faster than an opponent can react, or in a non-combat situation, at a tempo that allows the force to shape the situation or react to changes and accomplish its mission."