My OperaWhy the senate stalls on FISA- legislation.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:54:24 PM
It's been a while now, since we've last heard the litany on how democrats stand for freedom and justice, and how republicans stand for wars and unrestricted spending (which, admittedly is partially true, at least). And somehow I can't help but wonder if some of the praise heaped on the party of change lately (that is, by democratic staffers, political strategists and lobbyists within the campaigns) simply went sour, for everyone to see, the other day.
Yes, I know this is unlikely, and I'm overinterpreting - but still..
See, the fact of the matter is that the democrats won themselves a victory this monday. Following Chris Dodd's victory over both his own and the opposition party, when preventing the passage of a FISA bill with no practical protection against abuse, and immunity for the poor telecompanies - they have once again triumphed. By not passing the exact bill Bush wanted.
Yes. I understand already from the creaking I hear when your brow is furrowing that we need more detail than that. But the case is simple. Last week, the Senate had two bills to go on. One, the senate intelligence committee's bill, left the question of immunity for lawbreaking on the president's say- so open. And otherwise removed the safeguards previously installed in FISA. Or, as they said, they made the protections in the Protect America Act (the replacement for FISA since august) permanent. To, you know, protect americans from evil and tyranny and evil horrible persons who would do anything to get their way - even kill people on the far end of the planet, just to make a political point.
Now, the other bill - the senate judiciary committee - recognised certain variants of the safeguards needed, and reiterated the language in FISA regarding how it is "the sole authority on which foreign intelligence can be conducted", or somesuch. It also suggested, at one point at least, that telecoms immunity would be out of the question. Which, obviously, follows from the initial premise - that a warrant (or, in practice, a note) must exist in all circumstances involving the president's use of his broad powers to protect the US, as well as his powers to gather foreign intelligence.
This last bill was then "tabled", as it's called, and so was dropped from consideration. Democrats and republicans voted for this. The intelligence committee's bill was then left, and it was brought to consideration. At this point, Reid (majority leader) suggested apparently in full seriousness that this bill should be considered final, just like he did ahead of the Dodd one- man filibuster, in order to ensure a swift passage of that bill back to committee and the House. With, as mentioned, no safeguards and the immunity provision still included.
Similarly, the Democratic alternative, was to pass a bill granting a 30 day extension, and leave the immunity of the telecoms up to the FISA court. In other words, giving Bush everything he wanted, except making the Protect America Act permanent. This bill then, it was promised, would be vetoed by the president for that reason.
However, on monday, when that bill was scheduled for a vote - or as it's called a cloture, in order to "stop debate" (which is a euphemism for that it's no longer possible to offer alternative language and amendments in the bill) - it emerged that several senators would volunteer new additions to the bill (I can think of two legitimate ones, one promised by Leahy regarding immunity, and the other from Feingold, about the original language in FISA), and would not accept 1. a cloture vote, and 2. the idea that 60 votes would be needed to insert amendments to a bill that was not considered final. (I.e, that any amendment would have to pass a cloture- vote in reverse).
And - at that point it became clear that it was no longer in the senators' interest to vote with the Bush- administration, as the majority has been doing at every turn. Since by doing so, they would relinquish their right to insert amendments - pork - into bills of various sorts after initial passage. And that, obviously, being at least as important as civil rights and the constitution, ensured that the bill under consideration was not forced to a vote, or sent to the House.
This then constitutes a victory for the democrats in this way - they get to have their pork. And it also puts Bush in the situation that he must either veto the alternative bill, where Bush gets almost everything he wants on paper, and everything in practice. And so not allow the bill to pass, and leave the homeland open for attack and brimstone. Or otherwise he would have to "cave" to the democrats (whatever good that would do the rest of us).
But - it coincides with others' interest in avoiding passage of this particular bill. In that it becomes increasingly clear that Bush no longer has the authority he wishes, and that it is an asset to the republicans to vote with a strong voice on separate cases. In other words, in this case there's the chance that bringing attention to this process, as has been successfully done so far, will force the republicans and the democrats to articulate their position clearly, on what might be the most important and monumental law- making process during the entire Bush- administration. And so making it necessary for those who have received lobbying money in large quantities from the telecoms, to say out in the open just why they're going to grant them immunity from breaking the law. When the inevitable time comes that the same immunity provision and the "Protect America Act" proposals arrive again.
Of course - whether this (that the Congress finally finds some of it's backbone to stand up for their pork) will in any way stop Bush from successfully ordering large scale fishing- operations on americans, well that is unknown, obviously.
Really: democracy - isn't it glorious?
addendum:
Never mind - there was a fifteen day extension proposed on Tuesday as well. In yet another attempt to get the ball rolling, on how to best capitulate.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/29/fisa/index.html
And I predict that the Democrats will cave either this week, or next week, and pass a bill with the immunity provisions - and without the original FISA language. Once again, paving the way for exclusive and independent executive power on both international and domestic issues. If these issues are deemed by the executive branch to be on national security.
I wonder - would Nixon ever have gone this far, if he had had no opposition? I seriously doubt it.
Yes, I know this is unlikely, and I'm overinterpreting - but still..
See, the fact of the matter is that the democrats won themselves a victory this monday. Following Chris Dodd's victory over both his own and the opposition party, when preventing the passage of a FISA bill with no practical protection against abuse, and immunity for the poor telecompanies - they have once again triumphed. By not passing the exact bill Bush wanted.
Yes. I understand already from the creaking I hear when your brow is furrowing that we need more detail than that. But the case is simple. Last week, the Senate had two bills to go on. One, the senate intelligence committee's bill, left the question of immunity for lawbreaking on the president's say- so open. And otherwise removed the safeguards previously installed in FISA. Or, as they said, they made the protections in the Protect America Act (the replacement for FISA since august) permanent. To, you know, protect americans from evil and tyranny and evil horrible persons who would do anything to get their way - even kill people on the far end of the planet, just to make a political point.
Now, the other bill - the senate judiciary committee - recognised certain variants of the safeguards needed, and reiterated the language in FISA regarding how it is "the sole authority on which foreign intelligence can be conducted", or somesuch. It also suggested, at one point at least, that telecoms immunity would be out of the question. Which, obviously, follows from the initial premise - that a warrant (or, in practice, a note) must exist in all circumstances involving the president's use of his broad powers to protect the US, as well as his powers to gather foreign intelligence.
This last bill was then "tabled", as it's called, and so was dropped from consideration. Democrats and republicans voted for this. The intelligence committee's bill was then left, and it was brought to consideration. At this point, Reid (majority leader) suggested apparently in full seriousness that this bill should be considered final, just like he did ahead of the Dodd one- man filibuster, in order to ensure a swift passage of that bill back to committee and the House. With, as mentioned, no safeguards and the immunity provision still included.
Similarly, the Democratic alternative, was to pass a bill granting a 30 day extension, and leave the immunity of the telecoms up to the FISA court. In other words, giving Bush everything he wanted, except making the Protect America Act permanent. This bill then, it was promised, would be vetoed by the president for that reason.
However, on monday, when that bill was scheduled for a vote - or as it's called a cloture, in order to "stop debate" (which is a euphemism for that it's no longer possible to offer alternative language and amendments in the bill) - it emerged that several senators would volunteer new additions to the bill (I can think of two legitimate ones, one promised by Leahy regarding immunity, and the other from Feingold, about the original language in FISA), and would not accept 1. a cloture vote, and 2. the idea that 60 votes would be needed to insert amendments to a bill that was not considered final. (I.e, that any amendment would have to pass a cloture- vote in reverse).
And - at that point it became clear that it was no longer in the senators' interest to vote with the Bush- administration, as the majority has been doing at every turn. Since by doing so, they would relinquish their right to insert amendments - pork - into bills of various sorts after initial passage. And that, obviously, being at least as important as civil rights and the constitution, ensured that the bill under consideration was not forced to a vote, or sent to the House.
This then constitutes a victory for the democrats in this way - they get to have their pork. And it also puts Bush in the situation that he must either veto the alternative bill, where Bush gets almost everything he wants on paper, and everything in practice. And so not allow the bill to pass, and leave the homeland open for attack and brimstone. Or otherwise he would have to "cave" to the democrats (whatever good that would do the rest of us).
But - it coincides with others' interest in avoiding passage of this particular bill. In that it becomes increasingly clear that Bush no longer has the authority he wishes, and that it is an asset to the republicans to vote with a strong voice on separate cases. In other words, in this case there's the chance that bringing attention to this process, as has been successfully done so far, will force the republicans and the democrats to articulate their position clearly, on what might be the most important and monumental law- making process during the entire Bush- administration. And so making it necessary for those who have received lobbying money in large quantities from the telecoms, to say out in the open just why they're going to grant them immunity from breaking the law. When the inevitable time comes that the same immunity provision and the "Protect America Act" proposals arrive again.
Of course - whether this (that the Congress finally finds some of it's backbone to stand up for their pork) will in any way stop Bush from successfully ordering large scale fishing- operations on americans, well that is unknown, obviously.
Really: democracy - isn't it glorious?
addendum:
Never mind - there was a fifteen day extension proposed on Tuesday as well. In yet another attempt to get the ball rolling, on how to best capitulate.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/29/fisa/index.html
And I predict that the Democrats will cave either this week, or next week, and pass a bill with the immunity provisions - and without the original FISA language. Once again, paving the way for exclusive and independent executive power on both international and domestic issues. If these issues are deemed by the executive branch to be on national security.
I wonder - would Nixon ever have gone this far, if he had had no opposition? I seriously doubt it.
