FISA surprise: Why legislators not reading a bill before they pass it can be a good thing.

[DogPoundPup]

FISA Surprise: Bill Amendment Could Mean No Telecom Immunity for Months (corrected)
By Andrew Cochran

CORRECTION, July 8: The amendment referred to my original post refers to an amendment to be offered during Senate debate, and not to Section 301 in the House-passed bill, as I first reported. The error is mine and I regret any confusion I might have caused by my original post. The post below now reflects the correction.)
-----------
The U.S. House passed the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008" right before the July 4 recess, which provided a mechanism for immunizing telecommunications companies from possible lawsuits resulting from cooperation provided for the NSA wireless surveillance program after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At the time, it was characterized as a victory for the telecoms, and the White House supported it. The Senate will vote on another provision to the bill which guarantees that immunity wouldn't become effective for months after the President signs the bill, and the White House is now demanding that the Senate remove that provision.

Under the amendment to be offered by Sen. Bingaman, at least four Inspectors General must review the entire program, starting from the 9-11 attacks through January of this year (corrected), and report to the Congress; the immunity becomes effective 90 days after that report is sent to Congress. The requirement has drawn a veto threat from the Adiminstration (see this letter to the Congress).

I worked for over 10 years as a supervisory auditor in the Commerce Department Inspector General's office, and I can guarantee that such a report as contemplated, presumably to be prepared and written under generally accepted government auditing standards, cannot possibly be completed in any less than 15 months, and perhaps not for as long as two years. The original Section 301 in the House bill gives the IGs a year after enactment but does not delay the implementation of the bill for the report. The Bingaman amendment is expected to be defeated.
July 7, 2008 05:08 PM
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/07/fisa_surprise_us_house_bill_me.php

In the meantime, let's just pounce on Obama and his every move so we lose this election too cause the McCainiacs are loving it, okay? :sarcasm:

[NattPang]

1. I don't think anyone is reading this.

Too busy screaming about
losing their constitutional rights
that were lost long ago.

[DogPoundPup]

4. Well, (sigh) thanks for your support

We's gots to keep tryin' though, eh?

[midnight]

2. At fisrt blush this makes me ponder. I ask why would another

15 month stall be acceptable when it comes to passing an unconsitutional bill? The answer is-I don't know. I want my lawmakers, behaving consitutionally. I want my right to question this action respected. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”M.L.K.

[DogPoundPup]

3. Dems will control Congress AND FISA if we get our act together?

:shrug:

[vaberella]

6. I know...I thought your post was rather obvious as well. Some people would just prefer

not to understand I guess.

Shoot, a 15 month stall would be fantastic. Because by then Obama would most likely toss out FISA and the Dems have enough time to write up a better bill and I hope get rid of the Patriot Act while they're at it.

Shoot, I loved that choice of a 15 month stall, if that doesn't work, then strike the amendment and if that doesn't work, we wait until it passes. Because no matter if Obama chooses yes or no, it will pass since a good amount of Dems support the bill and the Repubs like it (immunity included), and the Repubs own the House anyway. When we get Obama in and his peeps, I definitely they'll abolish the FISA if not abolish definitely change it a great deal.

[DogPoundPup]

11. Sometimes it just takes constant pecking at peoples brains ...

to help the light come on in there so they figure it out.

[On the Road]

5. I Feel Differently About the Bill After Having Read It

prompted by Merh's insistence on another thread that the immunity provisions were being misrepresented. (It looked to me that they were.)

Some of the other provisions are not as clear. The bill gives a lot of authority to the Attorney General and intelligence heads, although I believe everything is subject to judicial review.

The bill makes a sort of sense as a general structure. There is going to be surveillance, and in the process of collecting overseas data, some of it is going to involve US citizens. So a provision has to be made for what to do with that when it occurs.

There are some provisions on emergency situations which are dicey, but they're still under the court. A lot of the questions IMO have to do with how a better law might be written, and that requires familiarity with the intelligence, surveillance, and judicial aspects.

I think what bothers a lot of people is the possibility that Bush will simply continue to break the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean the law is bad. As far as I can tell, the bill does not in any sense give blanket authority to spy on US citizens or blanket immunity to telecoms and provides remedies from infractions by the executive branch.

The way Steny Hoyer worked the bill was shameless, but I have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this. I think he read the bill, and it's a reasonable take on it.

[vaberella]

8. *APPLAUSE* This is what I've been talking about and had to give MERH credit for!!!

Ugh, people were going all nuts without reading the damn thing and not bother to understand the FULL language. Once you read it, it says otherwise.

The problem is that we've bought into talking points and hearsay when WE bash Repubs and the "non-enlightened" for doing the very action so many on this board are doing. We quote various MSM, or people with special "qualifications" because we believe that they have some damned authority. This is the reason I'm even voting for Obama, no one has authority over us---equality and we're the citizenry. We can very well understand like the next person because it's not written in a foreign language.


It's not perfect, but that's been established, but the hoopla associated with this bill was not necessary either. We actually bought into more divisive tactics.

For those interested in the understanding of FISA as MERH mentions on various threads here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3570855

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6464503&mesg_id=6464707

Some more understanding of FISA
http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments

[PM7nj]

9. Hey! Don't be getting all reasonable now!

We are trying to lose another election here!

:sarcasm:

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. Cool. The Bush assministration was violating FISA LONG before 9/11

We can still jail the traitors for that.

[vaberella]

10. Exactly. That's why I was with Kucinch and had issues with Pelosi. K&R

[merh]

12. precisely.

The monitoring began before 9/11. That is clearly outside of any "protection" afforded by this bill.

[NattPang]

13. I'm glad I read this thread.

It help give me
a further understanding
on this FISA bill.

Thank you