Reid on FISA: It’s Up to the President
Harry and Nancy had some SOTU pre-buttal fun at the Press Club today. And while there, Reid made it very clear that the President will be responsible if PAA lapses next week.
The president has to make a decision. He’s either going to extend the law, or he will…which is temporary in nature, or there will be no wiretapping.
We have worked very hard to try to come up with a way to proceed on this but it’s up to the President.
The amendments that were offered in the Senate … they would have passed. The majority of the senate favored these amendments.
They refused to allow us to vote on what we call "Title 1′ which is a procedural aspect of this, and then they never even dreamed of our going to the second part, which is the retroactive immunity. Which is…there is real controversy over that and there should be a vote in the United States senate as to whether or not there should be retroactive immunity. They won’t give us one.
So again, it’s up to the president. He can either continue the present law for an extended period of time, we would agree to two weeks, we would agree to a month, and we would agree to a longer period of time than that.
But it is up to the president. Does he want the law? It’s up to him.
If it fails, he can give all the speeches he wants, including the State of the Union, about how we’ve stopped things, if he does that, it’s disingenuous, and it’s not true.
I’m intrigued by this for two reasons.
First, it suggests Reid has done some vote-counting and has some degree of confidence that the cloture vote will fail on Monday. Also note that Reid claims that some of the amendments would have passed–I’m curious if he has whip counts on the amendments, too?
But this is also an important first step in messaging this issue. With the nearly unprecedented obstructionism of the Republicans on this issue, we should be able to win the messaging battle. But we’re going to have to work hard at it.
It’d help if everyone followed Feingold’s lead and called the Republicans out for their shameless conduct.
Well, I think it was Christy (this morning) who had a whole commercial scripted out: telco money changing hands, Republican whining and duplicity, etc.
I have no idea how to do YouTubes or videos beyond sliding the cassette into the machine – I’m way behind the times, though I suppose a DVD can’t be too hard to use – but I’m sure some of the readers here, or over at The Lake who are video-capable (you all have such nice videos from time to time) could put together an ad, or even a whole series of ads over the weekend.
I mean, for some of the readers, it would be as a five-finger exercise is to a pianist, I’m sure.
Why does bush want a ‘law’ of immunity to cover the telecoms? He’s never paid attention to a ‘law’ before. Why does he not just grant a pardon to any and all cases of possible transgressions? Is it that he cannot pardon himself?
He’s actually the first and foremost person in this mess that he wants to see pardoned.
If I recall correctly, he cannot pardon himself (unlike, say, the Governor of Kentucky), and he cannot pardon the telecoms because it’s a civil lawsuit, not a criminal offense. (That’s not to say that criminal offenses won’t be uncovered in the course of pursuing the lawsuits, but the particular immunity they’re trying to write into law is against civil liability.)
I’m wondering about this:
“No wiretapping”? If the bill doesn’t pass, doesn’t the law revert back to pre-August law, with FISA warrants? Or is there something I’m missing?
Yes.
To which EW responded, “Yes”
My problem is that Reid wants to extend the PAA, right?
I say let the dang thing lapse. We already have a law on the books (the pre-August law, with FISA warrants), and the PAA was a bad deal. So if the Republicans want to block any new legislation that they don’t like, fine. Let’s just let the PAA lapse. Let Bush try to veto that!
Bob in HI
Actually, I may be wrong about whether the president can pardon himself. I think, rather, it falls into that category of “things that are not explicitly prohibited but no one has ever tried them.” You know, like half the stuff Cheney and Addington have done over the past seven years…
ACLU up with an analysis of the FISA battles over at dKos. Comments here?
Bob in HI
I agree with the ACLU. I wonder, is it possible? did the Dems “set up” te reps? I just don’t think our guys are capable of the bait and switch, but if this was coming from the other side, I would swear it was a sleight of hand.
The Dem Leadership is not capable of that level of ‘Bait and Switch’ tactics… Just before SOTU? Tho, Dodd would certainly capture his 15 mins of fame… *g*
Just posted this over at the Lake…
Does not add “content” to the discussion here. However, it does reinforce your points EW, especially to call out the Repugs shameless conduct…
January is an interesting month in terms of history and rights. A month symbolic of the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King and the birth of the first written words of American independence:
It is also a month marked by oaths taken with national interests turned into destructive self-interests…
My hope is that January 28th, 2008 goes down as another famous January date that stands for constitutional liberties and not false oaths or empty promises made by selfish, power-hungry, ruthless politicians.
It’s a day of substantial actions needed to protect the Constitution. And as Thomas Jefferson wrote one January:
People, keep making your calls. I hope Edwards does something more to support Dodd.
Thanks for keeping us well informed EW, Christy and Jane (along with all contributing to our understanding through the threads).
Not to mention the month when the president takes the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently, Bush met with the Repubs on Wednesday, and my bet is he told them to obstruct. So, yeah, it’s not up to him, it is him.
Just got a blast email from Reid. Gee, if EW is right and Reid has his votes wouldn’t he look like his netroots action , wow, did the job. I think EW is on to something here. But we should keep calling until we know the outcome. maybe sucess is still within reach.
Plaes note he is paying public lip service to not telecom immunity.
The phrase “FISA gap” that Dana Perino tosses around seems misleading. What exactly IS this gap? I don’t think the Bush Administration has made a very strong case for the existance of a gap.
Why are we having to struggle to protect rights we already have, while the Bush Administration is not being asked to prove that a gap exists?
And second, why can’t legislation be cut into two bills – one for FISA changes and another bill for telecomm immunity, so that GOP lawmakers are forced to argue solely the need for immunity? Issues of immunity seem separate from issues of national security.
NO CLOTURE, let’s force the GOP Senators to argue this thing out.
why can’t legislation be cut into two bills – one for FISA changes and another bill for telecomm immunity
You answered your own question. If the issues are separated, telcom immunity won’t pass. Forcing them to be attached is an old legislative sleight-of-hand trick.
Arrgh… Harry, please get your facts straight…!
Don’t let Chimpy out of the bag on this one!
No Immunity for Spying on Our Community!
The Goopers won’t stand by Toxic Bush – Let’s Fight the Good Fight!
The section of the SOTU calling out the Senate Dems is already written. DO NOT WANT McConnell got his orders to stage-manage this.
The big question: why the fuck is the minority dictating the Senate calendar?
why the fuck is the minority dictating the Senate calendar?
The timing of the cloture vote is mostly directed by Senate rules, and any group of 16 Senators has the power to file a cloture motion. It’s okay to harsh on Reid, but not for the timing of the cloture vote — unless you want to ding him for taking up Indian Health Care on Tuesday, instead of FISA. If he’d taken up FISA on Tuesday, the action would be completed by now.
Hence, the list of 17 Senators(IIRC all R’s) was read into the register by Mitch…
Hence, the list of 17 Senators(IIRC all R’s) was read into the register by Mitch…
Yes. Actually read by the clerk of the Senate, but all R’s on that one. And all D’s on Reid’s cloture motion. At any rate, Reid can’t stop 16+ GOP from filing a cloture motion, and the rules set up the timing of voting. The rules can be overridden by unanimous consent (increasing post-cloture debate time beyond 30 hours can be overridden with 60 votes), but UC to have a vote before or after Monday wouldn’t be likely found on this cloture motion.
Mitch did mention every Repug Senator when he was pontificating at one point, but, you’re right, too… Now, if they kill it out of the gate, at 1630 or there abouts, debate would commence on the Amendments right?
Now, if they kill it out of the gate, at 1630 or there abouts, debate would commence on the Amendments right?
No. Assuming that cloture on Bond/Rockefeller SSCI version is defeated, the next vote, and it is immediately following, without intervening debate (well, maybe 5 or 10 minutes, at most), will be to invoke cloture (to limit debate) on Reid’s amendment that extends the PAA by 30 days.
Then the SSCI bill comes up on another day, and the question of what amendments are permitted, the thresholds for passing amendments, etc. is negotiated from scratch.
How did it come to be that the SSCI bill was deliverated and not the SJC bill? Did Reid control that? Was it a setup to get us here?
Dunno Neil, but I’d be willing to bet a Beamish that was a setup.
If so, it sure looks clever.
How did it come to be that the SSCI bill was deliberated and not the SJC bill? Did Reid control that? Was it a setup to get us here?
The first bill (amendment) up this week was the SJC version, and that was tabled. I do think the legislative posture is biased in favor of the administration’s and SSCI position, but I think the reasons for that were beyond Reid’s control.
But I also think 60+ Senators WANT to pas the administration’s version. Congress doesn’t care any more about privacy rights (except their own) than the president does. They want to put the monkey on somebody else’s back, etc. for the eventuality a terrorist attack occurs.
Reid contolled which bill would be the base bill. The defeat of SJC version is absolutely Reid’s doing. Read Greenwald on this issue–I believe this is his take and I found it convincing.
The lefty blogs seem convinced that Reid is caving to the Republicans, but it looks to me as if he’s playing a smarter game.
These tea leaves might call your assumptions into question:
Summer of 2007, GWBush promised Harry Reid that he would not make any recess appointments. Harry called the Senate into recess, which gave Junya a chance to honor his word like a real man.
So what did Junya do just as soon as Harry Reid left town….?
Junya made recess appointments.
Notoe that the US Senate has now remained ‘in session’ (on one technicality or another) over Thanksgiving, and also over the Christmas break — specifically so that Junya could not abuse the recess appointment option again.
Those tea leaves suggest that Harry Reid doesn’t hold Junya’s promises in much regard.
Harry, Feingold, Dodd haven’t won yet, but to get to this point is definitely progress.
Lefty-blogs also draw attention to OpenSecrets.org and their rundown of Harry’s donors which include ATT.
I don’t buy that Harry is being smart. I think he THINKS he’s being clever.
The most cynical read I have seen is that Reid is actually setting up Dodd, et al to look ineffective and vain. The gist of it was that these defenders of the Constitution are simply not liked very much by the rest of the Senate. This was news to me. Anybody know if there is substance here or not?
Dunno; I watch these things (mostly online, sometimes through associates with DC biz) from afar. Your guess is as good as mine, but FWIW it seems like a safe bet that if Reid has to choose between the Dems, or the lawlessness of GWBush, that Reid will support Dodd’s efforts.
We’ll see soon enough.
But there’s reason for optimism.
Making it clear to the GOP and Bush Dog Dems that if they stand by Dumbya on this one they go down with him, should also be part of the pitch. If Mitch McConnell wants to match Dumbya’s approval rating in his own state, I’m all for it.
Oh, and having the pre-buttal on a Friday afternoon is useless. It’s guaranteed to pass by unnoticed. The point has to be made on the Sunday shows, before the SOTU ‘Legacy Boogaloo’ leadup begins.
ACLU up with an analysis of the FISA battles over at dKos. Comments here?
The analysis you linked understates the issues associated with FISA, pre-August 2007. The administration’s most effective story line was that the pre-August FISA bill did not permit the warrantless access to switches in the US, where foreign-to-foreign traffic passes. That’s an accurate statement about the effect of the law, as it stood at the time. The extent of that effect is wildly overstated by the administration; and the administration is in fact seeking statutory authority for warrantless snooping on communications involving Americans (see, e.g., TSP, one end in the US, one end out of the US, one party suspected terrorist).
It would be wonderful if Reid somehow changed his stripes, reversed course, turned a page, and decided to stop aiding the White House in gutting FISA.
But I simply don’t see that happening. The long and proven record of capitulation to the President continues–right to this week, when Democrats caved to the President on the largely useless and highly ideological ‘economic stimulus package’ (see Krugman).
I saw Reid’s comments at NPC as well. Yes, he made some tepid FISA comments. But he has made such sounds regarding the president many times, and then shamefully capitulated. That is his pattern, and I’ve seen nothing–absolutely nothing–to indicate he will act any differently in this case.
Deja vu, all over again…
deliverated = deliberated = debated
Good to see this from Reid.
Not shrill, not abusive; simply quiet and conversational. But firm.
It only stands to reason that he’s got the votes counted up.
Who are people going to believe? A quiet man who reminds you of your high school history teacher, or that reckless aging frat boy, GWBush?
Bullseye.
It is up to the Democrats to step up and do the right thing.
We can’t control the President.
Vote for a bill that protects this country from the terrorists,
and stop playing politics with such a volatile issue.
This would be a perfect time for Larry Flynt to let loose with a doozy.
They control the vertical, the horizontal, …
You better cut the your set off and get your foil hat.
22 – The administration’s most effective story line was that the pre-August FISA bill did not permit the warrantless access to switches in the US, where foreign-to-foreign traffic passes. That’s an accurate statement about the effect of the law, as it stood at the time.
No access, or no access except with respect to foreign powers and their agents? I’ve never understood how they are making the argument under “old FISA” that does not require warrants for foreign power and agents surveillance, that this was a problem.
Here’s where I thought perhaps that problem came in – and it might go to the “massive” liability issues as well. I’m wondering if there was a ruling (FISA CT) after the that they couldn’t mass collect foreign-to-foreign traffic that would include traffic that was NOT foreign power or agent traffic.
If that is the case, then I have to wonder just what the issues may be with resepct to the telecoms and foreign countries and their citizens. This was the issue with the SWIFT transfers – the EU privacy regulations and privacy court required that for the financial transactions to be rifled, there had to be some kind of warrant process and when the US agencies went running amok with no warrants and inhouse drafted up some kind of “administrative” authorization – handing off “oversight” to Booze Hamilton – the EU privacy court went ballistic and said those were not valid and IIRC, some of the physical locations of some of the financial institutions even moved to get them away from the run amok US President and his DOJ thugs so they wouldn’t have more Yoo patented testicular crushes getting their info without real warrants.
I really have to say, it’s interesting that there has been so little European “word” on the fact that the US is now ready to say there is no foreign power or agent requirement, and just that the US can tap in to all foreign to foreign conversations, any agency, any reason, anytime, any purpose, with no privacy requirements on the intercepts.
You know, those telecoms do business places other than the US.
Quite. That presumption in all these conversations is so immediately strange if you’re not a U.S. citizen.
Slàinte mhath. Happy Burns Night to all. I hope you all have your fresh-caught haggis and a wee dram or two of the finest single malt to hand.
Whew. Great thought. Not just intercept American and “Jihadi” intercepts, but own discussions world-wide.
This has got to be stopped.
41 – & when you get right down to it, Reid and other Dems could have twisted Rockefellers arm to not allow a bill out of his committe with immunity for that matter.
I mean – why DOES Rockefeller have that slot? I’m thinking gov oversight, judiciary, intel and armed services are three freaking big committees that decent leadership would make sure get decent chairs who aren’t sitting in pockets.
And why would anyone wait for him to get a pissass bill OUT OF COMMITTEE before paying attention to it? I’m seeing a bottom line of Clinton and Obama together, with Reid, are saying they can’t keep 40 Dems on the same page. Seriously.
Anyone who thinks we need to have a Dem President to get better judicial appointments needs to keep that in mind. Neither Candidate and, indeed, both candidates together, can produce a 40 vote block with the Dems at 50. They can’t pull ONE Republican. They can’t keep 80% of the Dems on board. ANd they can’t really even get off their egodriven campaignmobiles to put up a pretense of working together to block this.
All that “I’ll get things done” crap, whether it is Clinton’s ‘hands on managing, know how to fight’ or Obama’s ‘I’ll have all this personal charisma that will make everyone on both sides of the aisle want to sit next to me’ looks like just so much crap to me.
Mary, we can thank the arcane seniority rules and bizarre and mysterious customs of the Senate Tribe, I guess, in re: Rockefeller.
I guess the ultimate cause of all this–the behavior of all except Dodd and Feingold–is fear. Fear of WH, fear of GOP, fear of media, fear instilled in them by whoever is doing their strategic thinking on these issues, fear of blowing the ‘08 election opportunity.
They are truly pathetic.
Meanwhile, the Narus machines and the other processing equipment and software will keep on running. Programs for organizing, storing, sharing, and making use of collected personal data will continue to be developed. If a FISA overhaul doesn’t pass Congress, surveillance might not be changed much. Failure to pass telecom immunity would bring the wrath of the telecom industry lobbies, but that wrath wouldn’t be the only source of anxiety. Sooner or later some person(s) adversely affected by illegal surveillance would raise a stink; without having in place a new law containing “reasonably believed” and similar conveniently malleable language, there would be insufficient cover for perpetrators and their enablers. Matters could get messy not only for involved corporations and for the executive branch, but also for certain Members of Congress. I expect compromise for cover’s sake to be coming.
Yes, I think ignoring the Constitution will be the new litmus test for federal and Supreme Court appointments.
All three branches are fighting, so that when the next attack happens, they won’t get blamed.
I’m still going to vote for the Democratic nominee, but the political pressure on the Democratic President to prevent attacks will be exponentially more than on a Republican. That’s why it’s so important to win now.
Progressives need to make the case that we are safer when ordinary citizens feel safe in coming forward with information. The deadly cocktail of warrantless wiretapping, rendition, and torture only encourages silence, which is the real friend of unpreparedness.
That bears repeating:
Therefore:
I don’t buy your argument that the ordinary citizens don’t feel “safe” from wiretapping, rendition and torture.
I feel perfectly safe.
You post from behind a pseudonym.
LMFAO.
wcsally @ 49
“First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.”
Pastor Martin Niemöller
You SURE you feel safe…..?
wcsally @ 49:
You’ll feel perfectly safe right up to the moment Bush declares you to be an enemy combatant and ships you off to god knows where.
Remember that Hillary voted against both Roberts and Alito, and against cloture on both. Given both candidates’ stated beliefs about executive power, the judges they will pick will be less extreme. The question is whether the Republicans will have enough chutzpah to filibuster them. The answer is likely yes.
Djokovic: set #2
Djolovic pretty darn good, but you gotta love the heart of Tsonga. Hoping for a fifth set here; but I think Djokovic is going to break it out. Currently 5-4 fourth set. I lucked out and woke up at the start of the third set somewhere around 5 in the morning; going to be a mess tomorrow now….