Rumor: FISA Deal Reached in the House
Posted on March 1, 2008
There is a rumor floating around thats got the hard left upset.
To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill’s second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles.
In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.
Really… it’s a good idea. The hard left will never be satisfied, but this should make most folks happy. It accomodates those that are against telecom immunity by giving them an opportunity to put a vote on record appeasing the netroot ACLU types, and still look like they care about the country a little by voting for the other. They will both pass of course, but it gives the hard left Housers an out with their lawyer lobbyists.
Karl is just as amused as I am.
I agree for the most part with Captain Ed:
This mechanism makes sense for all involved. It puts everyone on the record for the two parts of the bill separately, which allows the few who strenuously object to the immunity to make their record clear. It’s a compromise that will satisfy all but the hard Left, who by this time have to finally wonder exactly how far out of the mainstream they are.
I agree with everything except the part about the hard left realizing they are out of the mainstream. The ACLU are still screaming about this.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, Politics As Usual, Stupidity, U.S. House, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Rumor: FISA Deal Reached in the House”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Set aside the fact that you’re getting what you want. How is this a good thing? This is the kind of political manuevering that both parties use to sell out their constituencies.
It’s exactly the same kind of BS that allows McCain to be a member of the senate for decades during which the government quadrupled in size and then run for President as a fiscal conservative.
If you support this approach, you’re supporting BS, two-faced politicians. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Congratulations on your dirty victory. I’ll have the kleenex ready when you come up on the short end of the stick next time.
This all could have been avoided if the Bush admin. had gone to the FISA court in the first place. The FISA court does not have a history of denying warrants for wire taps and was created for the exact reason of getting a wire tap quickly and quietly. The rules of the court have been amended many times and if the NSA or FBI found it was not meeting their specific needs it could have been dealt with. It is the Bush admin. desire for secrecy and avoidance of oversight that brought on this mess. Oversight could have been carried out by the Senate Intelligence Committee who have all the proper clearances. Checks and balances, remember that from civics class?
I don’t see anything dirty about this. No one could come to agreement with the bill combined. What difference does it make when they seperate it? It still allows people to vote what they believe.
They took real votes and made them symbolic votes. Like you said, they’re appeasing their constituents instead of actually standing up for them.
As it stands right now, those opposed to telecom immunity are “winning” because a tie goes to the status quo. With this deal, they’re giving up the fight in a way that looks just good enough that they won’t lose reelection. It’s like a boxer taking a dive, but making it look very real to the casual observer.
Since most of America consists of casual observers, we all lose when we tolerate such tactics.
Well its the Democrats that came up with this process, so many of them must find the bill important enough to get some kind of compromise on. Obviously, the majority of both parties think so on both parts of it. Thats how it works.
I think it is naive to assume that the folks wanting to vote against immunity for the telecoms were doing so on principle and not to appease their constituents and lobbies to begin with. Whats the difference? Their vote is symbolic either way.
Yes, I know that’s how it works. I also know that Congress’s approval rating is close to the single digits, so I’m pretty sure I have company when I say I’m not happy with the way things currently work.
This is a perfect example of why Congress is viewed so poorly as a whole despite the fact that each individual Congressman has a reasonably high rating. They use tactics like this to go along with something their constituents hate without catching any of the flak for it.
If the lightbulb hasn’t gone on yet, I’ll make sure to point it out next year when your party does it to you.