Behind The Scenes, Liberals Ponder Supporting FISA Legislation
Things are in flux tonight behind the scenes as House Dems struggle to decide whether to support the FISA legislation that two House committees unveiled today. So here's what we're able to gather about the state of play right now.
The entire House leadership is supporting the bill, confirms Stacey Bernards, a spokesperson for House Dem leader Steny Hoyer. But where are the House liberals? They are the key group to watch, because their mini-revolt against the legislation last week was taken as a sign that there would be heavy pressure on the House leadership not to capitulate by giving the administration too much power over wiretapping.
So where are they? According to House Dem aides, House liberals appear to be leaning in the direction of supporting the legislation -- though nothing is at all certain. Earlier today, an aide says, an internal count of House members showed very strong opposition among liberals to the bill unveiled today. But later in the day, some liberals appeared to be privately concluding that many of their demands -- which they unveiled amid last week's revolt in hopes of influencing the process -- had been met, this aide says.
Indeed, one key House liberal who'd taken a stand against earlier manifestations of the measure -- Jerrold Nadler -- announced today that he would support the bill. In a statement his office claimed the bill "reinforces the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in regards to electronic surveillance programs," and "requires that FISA warrants are required when targeting domestic communications," though it doesn't require them for foreign ones.
Still, things are in flux, and the aide cautions that a key sticking point for liberals remains -- the measure's embrace of "basket" wiretapping. House liberals are meeting behind closed doors as we speak to debate what their stance should be on the legislation. The House liberals' efforts are being coordinated by Bill Goold, an aide to Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-CA), one of the key House libs behind last week's mini-revolt.
What's more, some voices on the left are strongly urging House liberals to hold the line on "basket" warrants. As Matt Stoller noted over at Open Left, the ACLU issued a statement today blasting the legislation over this provision, saying that it is "a crucial sticking point. There is no specific target when you use basket warrants, which contradicts the heart of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, a basket warrant really means no real warrant." A spokesman for Rep. Nadler was unable to immediately say why he backed the legislation despite this feature.
I'm told that House liberals are privately discussing refusing to yield on this point, but it won't be clear how willing they are to hold the line on it until some internal decisions are reached and the House libs start taking public positions in earnest. We'll know more in the A.M.
Comments (53)
Daniel wrote on October 9, 2007 8:03 PM:Democrats are idiots. This is scandalous. Seriously, this was a huge scandal when the NYT story came out, and now everyone is approving it? Ugh!
Political analysis at Campaign Diaries
I can't believe I was excited in 11/2006 wrote on October 9, 2007 8:09 PM:Pathetic. Any sign of whether the "progressives" are also planning to cave in on non-accountability for the telcos?
mkolb wrote on October 9, 2007 8:24 PM:Not to sound cynical or anything but exactly how much money have the telecomms, their lobbyists, their pacs, and their individual employees spread around to the RNC, DNC, individual campaign chests, etc for the 2008 election?
busdrivermike wrote on October 9, 2007 8:29 PM:I would be more than happy to have the REthuglicans win everything in 2008, so we can have a democratic party with principled leaders that support the US Constitution.
Arabflora wrote on October 9, 2007 8:31 PM:Jerrold Nadler... Lynne Woolsey... Now THOSE are household names!
Any peeps from those on the left side of the aisle who might be, say, RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT??
A stunning, baffling absence of leadership on behalf of the Dem party candidates, to be sure. This American citizen, and if the polls are in any way an accurate reflection of the American electorate generally, is waiting, BEGGING, for a candidate and a party that will stand up for our rights as written in the constitution.
Why won't they take Yes for an answer?
jawbone, aka Rabid Lamb with Venoumous Fangs wrote on October 9, 2007 8:33 PM:BIG problem with reThugs winning everything in '08 is there would be a completely fascistic Supreme Court.
Intolerable.
MarcNYC wrote on October 9, 2007 8:34 PM:What an utterly pathetic sell-out. These cowards are dumping our civil liberties for yeasr to come because they are afraid that the Decider will call them nasty names.
The surrender will, if the past is any indicator of the future, be immediately followed by an announcement that the DCCC and the DSCC that this was a huge win and that we should celebrate by sending them money. Not me, not anymore.
wtf wrote on October 9, 2007 8:36 PM:Land of the free, home of the Brave...not so much.
What is it with these Democrats? How come they never defend these capitulations to the White House? We all see this happen time after time and are left to wonder and assume. Let's call them on. How and Why would ANY democrat defend immunity for Telcoms? I want to hear them say why. We never do so we are just left to postulate. We are probably right in this but I want to hear everyone of the say why they vote this way. I want to hear their own words in their defense of the indefensible.
bellesouth wrote on October 9, 2007 8:40 PM:This is brilliant, really. The Pugs have vowed to block every bill, so the Dems offer a bill just like they want -- now what do the Pugs do?! Why the hell not! Otherwise the pugs win. HA!
oleeb wrote on October 9, 2007 8:57 PM:They are nothing but cowardly, sniveling, whining...
W-H-O-R-E-S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With this capitulation they may as well begin to whore themselves to the Chinese or Russians because to sell out the Constitution for any reason or any price is treason. Scumbags.
Dennis wrote on October 9, 2007 9:06 PM:i have no plan to vote Republican and looks like I won't vote Democrat as well. It's because of occasions like these that both partys fear having on the ballot, "None of the above."
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
markg8 wrote on October 9, 2007 9:10 PM:Glenn Greenwald actually thinks this is a pretty good bill as his sources have it. It pays to know what you're talking about before ridiculing it. It's gonna take a lot of maneuvering and probably a veto or two to defeat the Bush administration on this. It's my guess why they're doing this early.
eli wrote on October 9, 2007 9:15 PM:
It's football season, Charlie Brown. You let me eavesdrop on anyone I want, and I promise I won't snatch away your oversight with a signing statement.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on October 9, 2007 9:26 PM:markg8,
I will also withhold criticism until I know for certain whether to be dismayed or just slightly disappointed. Republicans goosestep, but Democrats have problems with kneejerk reactions.
Everything done by the Dems now can be undone later, but as far as bush is concerned, he'll do whatever the hell he wants, the rule of law be damned. I'll look for legislation in the future which creates retroactive penalties for his current criminal activities. Probably not going to happen, but there needs to be accountability in one form or another.
lambert strether wrote on October 9, 2007 9:28 PM:New slogan:
Putting the "Ho" in "Hoyer"!
The plan seems to be to trade information on what laws the telcos actually broke for retroactive immunity.
Leaving aside that nothing Bush trades could possibly be trustworthy, what happens to the rule of law if corporations can run to Congress for a get out of jail free card whenever they feel like it? (And they will feel like it.)
Of course, if this were something important, like a blowjob, we'd be hearing about nothing else from the Village for years. Since it's only the Fourth Amendment and Constitutional government, who cares?
DonnaG wrote on October 9, 2007 9:34 PM:mkolb at 8:24pm: you ask exactly the needed question. Who is benefitting and how.
Sometimes I think this Washington crowd is just playing a variant of 'good cop, bad cop' to the American people, with the 'good cop' spiel getting old. For how long are we supposed to think that this is a matter of 'good cop' dems just being 'wimpy' instead of a matter of receiving pay-offs to re-election campaign chests?
Fr33d0m wrote on October 9, 2007 9:43 PM:Wha???? Am I missing something here?
It sounds like things are headed in the right direction here. Yes the basket warrants are troubling and should be a show stopper, but I want to believe there is a group of folks on our side flexing their power.
There needs to be a strategy here though. The repugnicons are backing them against the wall, trying to make them look the fool. And they aren't finding it too hard to accomplish that task. Failure here will be a big problem for Dem control in '08
wtf wrote on October 9, 2007 9:43 PM:markg8,
"Glenn Greenwald actually thinks this is a pretty good bill as his sources have it. It pays to know what you're talking about before ridiculing it."
Maybe you should go re-read Greenwalds blog before casting aspersions on those of us who see the Dem leadership acting like they are about to capitulate once again...
The Fourth amendment should not be up for debate and this should be a no brainer for Dems.
From Greenwald:
"Their bill would be a vast improvement over the current law passed at the President's urging, and it is much more protective of any of the bills considered in August." Martin goes on to emphasize, however, that even this current bill violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to require individual warrants for every international call (Russ Feingold's statement made a similar objection)."
Congressional amnesty for the Telcoms will be tantamount to a presidential pardon. It would be the act of a totalitarian state. Break laws with impunity, in knowledge your crimes will be absolved. The democratic party will betray the rule of law should they let those corporations off the hook.
P J Evans wrote on October 9, 2007 9:51 PM:
Memo to House Dem Leadership:
Get those promises from the telcos in writing, signed and dated in blood and witnessed by everyone you can round up.
Otherwise you're going to end up with nothing, *again*. And you'll deserve it.
Remind us again why the h*ll we voted for you guys last fall? I don't remember doing it so you could give BushCheney everything he wanted, so you could continue an endless occupation of Iraq, and so you could not issue subpoenas and not impeach those @#$%^&*s. You want our votes, you might want to, you know, find out what we really voted for, so you could do it some more.
margaret wrote on October 9, 2007 9:56 PM:Democrats should write on the blackboard 100 times, "Why the Fourth Amendment Matters."
OCPatriot wrote on October 9, 2007 10:00 PM:I sent Hoyer and his cohorts a fax that stated that I was against their bargaining with Bush over this bill. I doubt if it will have any effect. So I will begin to look for alternative politicians who can stand up to Bush, since the Democrats have been abandoning what I voted them in for. They don't know how to fight; Hoyer and Pelosi compromise before they have to; Bush "spits in their face", according to one prior comment I read. They, frankly, disgust me in their ineptitude.
phil james wrote on October 9, 2007 10:04 PM:Give it a rest. The corporations didn't dream up this totalitarian state, Bush, Rove, Cheney and the neo-cons did. Sure they want immunity,as would anyone who has being doing Bush's dirty work lo these almost 7 years. Thing is. Whatever provisions are worked out to satisfy the liberals and get the bill through and signed, it's still going to be the same old story. Like the Hoyer provisions for reports on the telcoms. Reports? Oh yeah. We'll get those to you real soon. When? Oh. Real soon? Sorry, the dog ate the reports. Don't you all ever get it? This president and his gang will never, ever, ever, ever, be accountable to anyone on anything. You want accountability? You had one remedy to put back on the table. And you had your chance early to actually move on that possibility. Now it's too late. Only other way to stop him is to simply NOT authorize any surveillance and that's not going to happen either. Dems continue to try to swallow this administration and to do that you have to keep chewing and chewing and chewing and it just is never going to go down. There. I feel better now. Do you Steney?
litigatormom wrote on October 9, 2007 10:26 PM:I should have bought property in Canada when the loonie was still worth less than the U.S. dollar.
I cannot believe this crap. I am beyond disgusted.
dopey-o wrote on October 9, 2007 10:30 PM:The telecoms are just the beard in this little drama. They probably have National Security Letters filed away for any future inquiries. The retroactive immunity would shield any administration flunkies from prosecution, should the matter come up under a Democratic attorney general.
In this way, it is a tactic remarkably similar to Bush I's pardon of Casper Weinberger and his diaries that might have implicated Bush I in criminal activities surrounding Iran-Contra.
The reason the Republicans are winning is that they learn from their mistakes. The reason the Democrats keep losing is ... well, the current crop are just a bunch of pathetic losers. That's all there is to it.
Any member of congress who supports a bill which patently violates the Fourth Amendment (in case you don't know, that means a requirement for a warrant and the establishment of probable cause) must be replaced. Call them and tell them you will not vote for them if they support this bill. It is not good enough.
Will this nightmare ever be over? I have spent the better part of every night for the last 6 years writing to senators and reps, writing to my newspaper, and warning people on blogs.
What kind of idiots do we have in Washington? They don't read, they don't know the constitutional requirements, they are cowed by fear of whatever threats Bushco can pull out of their butts. I am sick of it. And very tired.
Paja27 wrote on October 9, 2007 10:47 PM:Gosh I wish Jack Balkin would post on this "Basket Warrant." Fast.
miss marple wrote on October 9, 2007 10:58 PM:I'm an Independent and no Democrat is going to get my vote if they continue to act like spineless jellyfish. I will simply stay home on Election Day. I'm old and I am afraid for my grandchildren as we all should be.
CalD wrote on October 9, 2007 11:17 PM:Word on the street is it's a good bill.
According to Steve Benen at the Carpetbagger Report, the word on the blogs is that the NYT got their wires crossed (again) and this is actually a pretty good bill.
tl wrote on October 9, 2007 11:41 PM:We voted for change and this is what we get? I have often read, and heard that democrats are weak, well this and other compromises seem to proved that they are. This infuriates me.
With the majority of the people behind them, the majority of military personnel behind them, the congress still act like losers. I just don't get it.
tl
The Obnox wrote on October 10, 2007 12:22 AM:This is some great reporting. Thanks.
anonymouse wrote on October 10, 2007 12:43 AM:Okay...
I belong to a party which I believe has an excellent chance of taking the presidency as well as majority in congress and senate.
My choices:
1. Be faithful to the United States Constitution as well as the balance of power between the three branches of government... follow the laws to ensure our heritage is followed.
2. Throw away the constitution as well as the balance of power and laws, making my life easier and ensuring I can do whatever I believe necessary to both protect my interests and place in history and possibly stopping any attack upon the nation.
Problem with #1:
The Constitution may not protect the nation enough to prevent an attack
Problem with #2
We become the same kind of nation our ancestors fought for two hundred years to protect our citizens from
Our leaders are choosing #2 simply because it ensures them a place at the top of the heap when the country disintegrates into chaos...
IMHO
People, don't just write a comment here, FGS. Write or call or e-mail your congresspeople, early and often. Jam their phone lines. Contact them right now and express your outrage. Tell them that you won't vote for them ever again if they sell out the American people. Ask them how much the telecom industry has contributed to their campaign coffers. The Democratic Party has to be forced to represent its voters. Why are they selling our country down the river? Why are they in league with the fascists? WTF!!!!!!!!?????
parrot wrote on October 10, 2007 1:51 AM:Perhaps seven years of illegal wiretapping has taken its "toll" on the "Democratic leadership"...
daphne metaphorous wrote on October 10, 2007 2:24 AM:The entire Congress needs our wind in their backs right now and all day tomorrow. Call Hoyer, the Progressive Caucus, Pelosi--everyone-- and tell them you expect them to uphold and fight like hell for the fourth amendment.
We can sort through the pros and cons of the details of this wretched bill later on. They need to know, meantime, that we are appalled and watching.
Of course Bush will continue to break the law but it's still vital to not give him and his underlings, legal cover.
DGar wrote on October 10, 2007 2:36 AM:Um, so what IS in Darth Cheney's man-sized safe, anyway?
Helena Montana wrote on October 10, 2007 4:10 AM:What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats again? I keep forgetting.
starwheel wrote on October 10, 2007 5:04 AM:I tried to warn my Republican friends that this wasn't just another issue we were using to bash Bush.
I told them we would not want a Democratic President to have this unfettered & unchecked power either.
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 7:29 AM:Helena Montana asked:
"What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats again? I keep forgetting."
"Not a dimes' (Roberts) worth of (Alito) difference between the two." - Ralph Nader, 1999, Commenting on George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
I hear Nader might be taking time away from tracking his stock portfolio on the internet to maybe run again this time. Get your resume in now!
Wouldn't this bill pass in the House even without the support of these progressives? Perhaps they pin their hope on the Senate?
DraftGoreNE.com wrote on October 10, 2007 7:58 AM:Okay, a quick show of hands...
How many of you that are whining about this have actually picked up your phones to change it?
Call you Rep. Call your Senator.
It's no harder to type at your computer than it is to type on your cell phone.
Mac
expat wrote on October 10, 2007 9:21 AM:Question: What's the difference between the Boy Scouts of America and the Democrats? Answer: The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.
marilyn delson wrote on October 10, 2007 9:26 AM:Yesterday I met with my Representative, Michael McNulty (D-NY). I wanted to know why Dem leaders (Pelosi, Hoyer, committee heads) won't defund the Iraq War. Why not use the ONLY TOOL AVAILABLE that will definitely end the WAR? Refuse to send Bush's military authorization bills and supplementals to the floor for a vote, thereby KILLING them. The majority party in Congress (Dems at the moment) make the RULES. They get to decide what bills die in committee or go to the floor for a vote. Period. McNulty's persona changed. He got defensive, said his brother died in Vietnam, said he voted against the Vietnam/Iraq Wars, asked me if anybody in my family died in a war, said Pelosi's hands are tied by the Blue Dogs, said "WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES. I hope an independent runs against him - - they've got my vote!
joe Xdemocrat6pak wrote on October 10, 2007 10:05 AM:Fact is, the Democrats for the most part are bought just like the entire RNC. They just are not as good at it....yet.
The only decent Democrats left are few and fewer.
Joe GreenParty wrote on October 10, 2007 10:08 AM:For those of you who are fed up with the Democrat betrayal, should look in the mirror for blame.
Next time..VOTE GREEN.. VOTE FOR CHANGE..
Or settle for the same backstabbing Democrats in Congress..
Michael wrote on October 10, 2007 10:46 AM:The thing I don't get about this whole fisa isssue is why aren't the repukes up in arms as well. They're supposed to be "conservative," right. Everyone in congress should be livid not just "liberals." This is the constitution you know. Also, it is so gd easy to get a freaking warrant, its not even funny. FISA, as originally drafted, was way to lenient anyway. It shouldn't be changed. If they can't jump through the simple gd hoop of getting a warrent, they shouldn't be wiretapping PERIOD. What on earth happened to the constitution??? You know that quaint document. Is it lost somewhere??? Will somebody please find it and quick.
eric wrote on October 10, 2007 11:14 AM:It has to be one of two things:
1) Democrats are just as evil as bush and want to spy with impunity; or
2) Democrats are profoundly afraid of standing up against this program because they know that they will be blamed when some kind of terrorism happens and bush will say that the Democrats prevented him from stopping it.
RobbyLove wrote on October 10, 2007 11:27 AM:I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate if they were all more like Nader. That is, an articulate, aggressive straight-shooter who doesn't spew whack-job talking points every other sentence. Someone with appeal who can articulate the importance of their platform.
But I think what turns many people off is what they actively see from these parties. It's not the platform or principles the parties stand for, it's the fact that people don't want to vote for a party whose leaders and supporters look and talk like "Milton the neighborhood vagrant". Go to a local festival and take a look at the people who are sitting at the Green and Libertarian booths, then judge for yourself.
You cannot get elected if you don't appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Image, sad to say, is extremely important and our 3rd parties have a scruffy image. That certainly sucks and is shallow but it's also the truth.
benjoya wrote on October 10, 2007 11:32 AM:are they caving, hoyer-like, on retroactive immunity? that's the question.
moondancer wrote on October 10, 2007 11:32 AM:In their greedy look to the 08 elections, they dont want to do anything that could upset their gains.
That and the fear of being tarred with weakness on home security has turned the "cocks into capons".
What they need to remember is who hired them in the first place. And if your boss is displeased with your performance, no matter how pretty your portraits are, you'll get fired.
Seriously, why does this even get out of committee and onto the floor for a vote??
Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 5:36 PM:DNC and GOP are acting as if nothing will happen. Small problem: We the People have the power -- outside Congress -- to revoke their powers. Any. Time. We. Choose.
A government that will not enforce the law is not legitimate. Time for the public to stop reacting to the DNC-GOP combined assault on the rule of law; and discuss a new sytem of governance. Revoking their powers is on the table.
Hit This Link wrote on October 12, 2007 12:51 AM:Before TPM readers believe the world is ending on this FISA immunity for telecoms, I would encourage all to hit the link above; and consider: State level litigation against the telecoms would not be affected by a Grant of Immunity by Congress.
Congress has no power to change State privacy laws, the subject of ongoing State AG litigation against the telecoms. yes, Congress may choose to do nothing; but the court has opened the door for the States to conduct discovery against the telecoms.
How is this ongoing litigation getting factored into the Member of Congress statements on the current bill; or whether the "immunity" will mean anything given all 50 states can still bypass Congress ane enforce State privacy laws against the telecoms?
