Four Democratic congressional leaders this morning published an editorial in The Washington Post charging President Bush with using "scare tactics and political games" in the FISA debate.
"It is clear that [Mr. Bush] and his Republican allies, desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures, are trying to use this issue to scare the American people into believing that congressional Democrats have left America vulnerable to terrorist attack," the lawmakers said in their op-ed.
"But if our nation were to suddenly become vulnerable, it would not be because we don't have sufficient domestic surveillance powers. It would be because the Bush administration has done too little to defeat al-Qaeda, which has reconstituted itself in Pakistan and gained strength throughout the world."
Just after 10 a.m. today, the White House put out a 1,072-word response from press secretary Dana Perino.
The Democrats, Mrs. Perino wrote, "claim that there is no cost to Congress' failure to pass long-term FISA modernization that will preserve the vital powers provided by the Protect America Act (PAA)."
"Notably, the most critical point of dispute in the debate — the need for retroactive liability protection for private partners alleged to have assisted the nation after September 11 — barely even registers in their op-ed," she said.
"That the failure to enact long-term FISA modernization legislation is costly and dangerous is beyond any serious dispute. The intelligence community lost intelligence information last week because of the uncertainty caused by Congress' failure to act. It is unlikely that this information can ever be recovered," Mrs. Perino said.
And this is a long graph, but it is interesting:
"The authors of the op-ed reject the judgment of the Intelligence Community and say that we can and should revert back to the old FISA process — a process that everyone agrees led to delays and at times the inability to collect certain intelligence — even from foreign targets on foreign soil. In other words, the authors would have us revert back to the very same conditions that created dangerous intelligence gaps in the past and that gave rise to the need for the PAA reforms in the first place. The PAA authorities — which are preserved and improved on in important ways in the bipartisan Senate bill — were designed to give the intelligence community the speed and agility needed for today’s threats. FISA requires the intelligence community to make a finding of probable cause, even if the target of surveillance is not in the United States. Probable cause, a standard for protecting the civil liberties of American citizens, was never intended to be expanded to protect the rights of foreign terrorists overseas. Showing probable cause often takes time, is sometimes impossible, and makes intelligence officers spend valuable time convincing lawyers that this standard is met, rather than doing their most important task — hunting down terrorists and other foreign threats."
— Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times
Comments (21)
Luckily no one listens to anything the bush administration or their republican mouthpieces in congress have to say. the sky is not falling ....
Posted by paul s | February 25, 2008 11:41 AM
If the American people fall for the Republicans' line again, we will deserve what we get. Rather than the FISA process causing "dangerous intelligence gaps in the past", recent experience indicates to me that the intelligence gap that is harming this nation is between George Bush's ears. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
Posted by Les Kooyman | February 25, 2008 12:12 PM
I am an ex USAF pilot, not an unquestioning pacifist by any means but I have never heard a rational explaination for why the FISA did not work in a post 9/11 world. The FISA allowed the government to tap phone conversations for several days prior to getting a court order, just to deal with important intelligence issues where time would not allow waiting for the court. The court granted something like 98% of the requests it got from the government within a couple of days of the request, but as I said before the government was allowed to tap those phones during the time they were waiting for the court, so there was no intel gap.
I also can see no legal precedent or necessity to granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. If, as the administration claims, the entire domestic survelance opperation was legal then nobody needs immunity. If on the other hand the process was illegal then whoever violated the law should be held liable. It seems as though the administration wants the telecom companies to be compleatly comfortable with supplying infromation to the government whether or not the companies believe the request is/was legal, I think that sets a horrible precident that does not serve the American public in any way.
Posted by captbilly | February 25, 2008 12:13 PM
This government had no problem breaking the law to listen to our calls after 9-11. Now they would have me believe that unless congress gives amnesty to the co-conspirator companies that broke the law, I will not be safe.
I am not buying it.
What would you tell me if I broke a law?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
You won't be beating up congress to change laws retroactively for me to not be sued by angry taxpayers demanding I pay for my mistakes.
We the people are the government, not corporations as you would have everyone believe.
I can't send a corporation to jail for violating my rights, but I can sue them for it. Don't take away the only protection we the people have left to defend our rights.
Posted by Alice | February 25, 2008 12:24 PM
I got an automated call last week from the "Center for Individual Freedom" it informed me that the congress failed to pass important legislation over the weekend and if I wanted to speak to my congressional representative to support the legislation to press "1" if not press "2". I pressed "2" and it hung up on me. If I had pressed "1" it would have connected me to my representative.
This is the Bush administration MO. Call something say "The Center for Individual Freedom" then have people call their congressional representative asking to give up a constitutional right. Much like the Patriot Act or NAFTA or anything else, our government has been pawning off on us at the expense of their own country for personal profit.
Posted by John | February 25, 2008 12:27 PM
Can anything be more pathetic than reading what a feel-good Democrat has to say about world politics and the likelihood of WWIII never happening? The killers are laughing so hard their spotting in their shorts at the very sight of the "witch" and "The black communist kid". Has anyone noticed that thousands and thousands of illegal aliens are Arab? Hmmmmm? No? Oh ... but you will.
Posted by John R | February 25, 2008 12:32 PM
Dear Mr. Bush and the Republican Party:
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. "
"Delay is preferable to error,"
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by M. King | February 25, 2008 12:37 PM
Good grief how quixotic can the flock of lemmings get. What is going on that this is even a question. I think Newt had the best quote of all. ?..What will these people be willing to give up in the name of Civil Liberties after a Nuke is used on our soil and we have millions dead ... I am willing to bet these fools that ride the coattails of American apathy will be exposed , lined up and shot. The 24x7 hardworking Joe and Jill may not be watching right now but they had better. No grand theoretical argument of a possible personal violation, plain and simple it boils down to a group telling us to NOT LISTEN when our enemy is making plans .... When it is too late and the dead are our neighbors will anyone remember how it happened ? Will the man of change chat with these people or will the POW open a drum of kick butt ???
Posted by Kirk Brewer | February 25, 2008 1:30 PM
"beyond any serious dispute..."
"everyone agrees..."
Appeals to authority generally signal a complete absence of justification, and this case is no different. FISA allows for retroactive warrants so a significant portion of the WH's defense is bogus (at minimum). Furthermore the rhetoric about granting rights to terrorists is beneath contempt in any situation, and especially so in the present one. The PAA as it stood permitted wiretapping on domestic communications between Americans without a warrant. Such intrusiveness was unacceptable when the Bill of Rights was written, and it remains unacceptable today. This is not a GOP/Dem issue - it's an American issue.
Posted by Tim B | February 25, 2008 1:36 PM
how are we protecting our rights by destroying them? by granting immunity, we grant the right of a terrorist (bush, one who rules though fear) to destroy our bill of rights. He is destroying american. We must stand strong and say no.
Posted by devin | February 25, 2008 1:54 PM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
all the suburbanites and rural conservatives who want to give bush the right to ruin this country because they are cowards who are scared of al qaeda should be deported. you don't deserve to be american. go destroy your own way of life, not mine.
Posted by g�rcho pazza | February 25, 2008 1:59 PM
The administration wants the power to spy on it's citizens at will and without oversight. They tell you it's "hunting down terrorists and other foreign threats" but really it's you they consider a threat.
Posted by Jay | February 25, 2008 2:05 PM
The bush administration is trying to protect the illegal evesdroping of ATT, Verizon, etc. Quest, another telco, was also asked to spy on US citizens and JUST SAID NO!! ATT and Verizon should not get immunity; they should go to court and defend their actions in violating the law of the land. If they are convicted and face extreme financial sanctions, there is time for the government to step in.
Mr. bush decided to violate the law and he asked his mega-business telcoms to help him violate the law. To now demand immunity be written into new legislation just stinks.
R C Gray
Posted by Raymond Gray | February 25, 2008 2:08 PM
This is more smoke and mirrors by Bush. Only thing they are doing is just the drug companies..trying fix the symptoms and not curing the problem. The failed policies of the past 20 years is what caused this terrorist uprising..if they fix that, we wouldn't have to worry about them.
Posted by Kip | February 25, 2008 2:13 PM
Truth and Transparency are sadly absent from all aspects of the American system of law at the moment. I believe that with open independent committee light can easily be shed on any issue facing us including domestic security. There is no need for secrecy to guard us against terrorists in Pakistan, the only people who benefit from secrecy are those in our own government who would subvert the law for their own gain. When we are shrouded in secrets that benefit no one, then all you need do is follow the trail of money and power to find those who manipulate our country to serve their own devices. To those who are pretending to be partisan keep in mind that Clinton's NAFTA policies were the building blocks for the North American Union that Bush voted into existence in the 2005 Securities Act, this is not partisan this is a Coup by both parties of wealthy men to control us. We the People are allowed our secrets, those who work for us in PUBLIC office are not, if we don't get that straight quickly we will end up renting the land our fathers died for from the corporations that took over our government.
Posted by Adam R Cagle | February 25, 2008 2:19 PM
"Anybody, who does not support my policies is an enemy of the state" GWB few years ago. Sorry,
Mr. President, but no-one belevies you any anymore. Maybe, you should stop stirring beehives
so we didn't need to worry about angry bees.
Posted by Adam Witek | February 25, 2008 2:22 PM
The White House has been working hard on this campaign of false and misleading rhetoric to sell this "Protect America Act" (cynically-named to distract from its egregious dismantling of basic American values.)
FACT: the current FISA law is more than adequate...it creates no gaps or difficulties in eavesdropping on foreign communications of any sort. the bill is about covering for Fact #2...
FACT: Retroactive immunity is obviously not required for telecoms to cooperate with surveillance warrants. (who could refuse a warrant?) Retroactive immunity is being forced through in order to prevent the discovery in court of the details of their sweeping illegal domestic surveillance activities.
This fight is about whether to allow the Bush team to get away with their illegal activities, nothing more.
Posted by bstender | February 25, 2008 2:29 PM
@Kirk Brewer: plain and simple it boils down to a group telling us to NOT LISTEN when our enemy is making plans
Wrong, wrong, incredibly, incontrovertibly, unabashedly WRONG. You should at least make some effort to improve your understanding of this issue before tarring everyone else as lemmings. From my point of view, American apathy is centered squarely in the Republican Party at present; to place blind trust in any government to do the right thing, to say nothing of this one, is the very definition of citizen apathy.
Posted by Tim B | February 25, 2008 2:41 PM
Okay...for all the Dems who hate Bush....why did the Senate (last time I looked...controlled by the Dems)overwhelmingly pass the FISA renewal bill? Is it just that they are REALLY stupid? Could it be that Pelosi's refusal to address the issue (taking a vacation was SO much more important than hearings on FISA) was somehow not a backlash against her complete inability to force us out of Iraq? Please....use that gray matter just a little. FISA renewal is important and Pelosi, as the leader of the Dems in Congress, would prefer making a political statement than protect the country. As a grandmother, she may be a great one. AS a politician, she will never be great, and let's just all hope, as we sit here waiting for her to come back from vacation, that nothing slips through the cracks. She is gambling with our safety.
Posted by Jeff | February 25, 2008 10:33 PM
@captbilly:
The reason changes to FISA are needed is because of the way intelligence is gathered. Telephone company calling data is extracted and checked to find foreign calls; the exact process and algorhythms are things that the U.S. doesn't reveal, but this much we know: there is a huge amount of extracted calling data, and U.S. govt computer centers scan it to find the questionable calls (these comprise the "chatter" we hear about from time-to-time). You can't get a warrant for these callers, because the process I just described is how you identify them in the first place. The Telcos have, obviously, already been doing this, but the ACLU (and apparently some Democrats) don't want them to, and threaten them with suits. When the Dems allow the Protect America Act to be renewed (and they will), the Telcos will be immunized for providing such help.
Posted by gcoolidge | February 26, 2008 10:46 AM
The reason why this group in DC, (I have a hard time calling them an administration), want retroactive immunity is simple. If the telecoms are proven to have broken the law, that means they were ordered/asked to by this group. Of course that would mean they are all culpable and can be prosectuted when they leave office. They are asking for immunity for themselves. That's why Bush will trade our safety for immunity.
Posted by Don | February 26, 2008 12:16 PM