Are The Democrats Close To Seeing The Light On FISA?

According to this report, it appears that way:

To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill’s second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles. In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.

House Speaker Pelosi said that Democrats hope to have a solution worked out by March 8. But she also indicated that Democrats want language included in the bill that would clarify that FISA is the exclusive means under which the government can conduct electronic surveillance. The White House and some congressional Republicans have argued that the 2001 authorization of military force to launch the war on terrorism gave Bush the authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. They also say the president has inherent constitutional authority to do what is necessary to protect the country. Senators have battled over whether to include so-called exclusivity language in their FISA bill. In the end, an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that states FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance failed to win a needed 60 votes in a roll call that split mainly along party lines.

Matt from Hold Fast has this point of view:

This is not a good sign. If Title I and Title II of the Senate-passed Intelligence Committee bill are voted on separately in the House, the Blue Dogs have the ability to vote with the Republicans and pass the Senate bill in two parts. Title II, of course, is where retroactive immunity for big telecoms resides. And I’ll repeat - this style of voting on the Senate bill would make it more likely the retroactive immunity would pass through Blue Dog Democrats voting with the Republican caucus in the House.

Karl has this take on it:

If this scenario plays out — as it ultimately will in some form — left-liberals will be distraught. You might think that people who claim to value fairness would realize that the State Secrets Act renders the telcos unable to properly defend against the FISA-related lawsuits. Moreover, the fact that lawyers in just one of the dozens of class-action suits already filed against the telcos seeks $7.243 trillion in non-punitive damages– an amount roughly half of the GDP of the US — tends to make them seem a bit less than altruistic.

These facts — along with the understandable desire to have the telcos cooperate in the Terrorist Surveillance Program — may explain why both houses of Congress want to pass the FISA amendments. Accepting these inconvenient truths, however, would require some people to recognize that they are fringe left-liberals, far out of the mainstream of American politics.

Compare and contrast each arguement, take a look at what is at stake, and then ask yourself if a Blue Dog Democrat voting with Republicans is the worst that could happen with regard to national security.

Bookmark to: