Falling Short In Spying Safeguards
On Friday, the House passed "the
most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years," and the
Senate is expected to soon follow suit. House leaders insisted
the bill was a "compromise"
with conservatives, but as the New York Times noted, it was actually "a
major victory for the White House after months of dispute." While
progressives succeeded in forcing the White House to accept some
important concessions, the deal fails to give the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court the authority
to protect law-abiding Americans from
being spied on by their government. It also essentially shields
telecoms from civil lawsuits for their participation in the Bush
administration's warrantless wiretapping program after 9/11 and almost
certainly ensures that the approximately
40 lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms for complying
with the administration's illegal spying will
be dismissed.
RESTRICTIONS ON 'CIRCUMVENTING THE
LAW': The bill is not without its positive features, including
prior court review in most cases of the government's procedures for
selecting surveillance targets, "a
prohibition on 'reverse targeting' of Americans, and a new
requirement of probable cause for surveillance of Americans abroad." It
also contains an important affirmation stating that the intelligence
restrictions are the "exclusive"
means by which the president can conduct surveillance, which House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said would prevent Bush and future
presidents "from circumventing the law." Despite these provisions, the
bill -- set to expire in 2012 unless Congress renews it -- is, overall,
a "major
disappointment" according to Center for American Progress Senior
Fellow Mark Agrast. It significantly expands the government's powers to
spy on terrorism suspects and "would strengthen the ability of
intelligence officials to eavesdrop
on foreign targets. It would also allow them to conduct emergency
wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is
determined that important national security information would otherwise
be lost."
IMMUNITY FOR LAWBREAKING: The
most controversial
aspect of the new bill is the immunity it provides for telecomms.
Under this bill, a federal district
court would be responsible for reviewing "certifications
from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies
received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to
detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork is in order, the
judge would dismiss the lawsuit." This process appears to be nothing
more than a formality; House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) predicted
that all the lawsuits "will be dismissed." Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)
speculated that "the
White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get."
Agrast also noted that
the legislation still fails to restore the role of the Foreign
Intelligence
Surveillance Act court. "Now, instead of determining whether probable
cause exists for the issuance of a surveillance order, [it] will be
reduced to reviewing
the adequacy of the surveillance procedures established by the Bush
administration."
SEPARATE SENATE IMMUNITY VOTE?:
The Senate will
likely pass the House's legislation since
it already approved immunity for telecoms last
February. At the time, House leaders
"offered to extend temporarily the other provisions of the
eavesdropping law, the Protect America Act, while the immunity issues
were debated." The deal, however, was rejected by conservatives and led
to the
current "compromise" bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
last week told Bloomberg TV
that he will "try
to have a separate vote on immunity" when the legislation comes
before his chamber. "Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm
going to try," he said. This debate will also focus the spotlight
on the two presidential contenders. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has
indicated that he plans to vote for the bill, but added that he opposes
telecom immunity and "will
work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek
full accountability for past offenses." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also
plans to vote for the bill, but has made no apologies about providing
immunity. The McCain campaign has explained that "companies who assist
the government in good faith should
not be punished." He voted
for the Senate's immunity bill in February. McCain has also
attempted to give the Bush administration a pass on its warrantless
National Security Agency surveillance program, exposed
in December 2005. "It's ambiguous
as to whether the president acted within his authority of not," he
claimed, directly contradicting the August 2006 ruling of U.S. District
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, which declared the program unconstitutional.
INTENSIVE LOBBYING CAMPAIGN:
The White House was clearly pleased with the House's bill, since
officials had worked for months to obtain telecom immunity. On
Friday, President Bush called it a "good
bill." Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell even
allowed the
Bush administration to put him in the "unusual
role of intelligence
community lobbyist" in order to pass this legislation;
traditionally, intelligence chiefs have been expected to "remain
insulated from policy issues." Throughout this process, there has been
little compromise or cooperation by White House officials, who worked
closely with the telecom industry. Not surprisingly, the Bush
administration refused to publicly release "internal e-mails, letters
and notes showing contacts
with major telecommunications companies over how to persuade
Congress to back a controversial surveillance bill." According to CQ,
telecoms and their business allies spent more than "$14
million lobbying in just the first three months of this year."
|
|
|
|
"Americans gave to charities last year at about the same rate they did the previous year, holding steady on their donations in the face of a housing-market meltdown and a crisis in credit."
NEW
YORK: Gov. David Paterson (D) reaches an agreement with legislators
on extending health benefits to 9/11 first responders.
PENNSYLVANIA:
Institutions around Philadelphia are holding a "Year of Evolution,"
with exhibitions, seminars, and lectures to celebrate Charles Darwin's
200th birthday next February.
MASSACHUSETTS:
"Governor Deval Patrick will unveil more than 50 recommendations this
week that seek to dramatically change the way education is delivered
and funded in Massachusetts."
THINK
PROGRESS: Washington Post ombudsman criticizes David Broder and Bob
Woodward's buckraking.
WONK
ROOM: Congress continues to fund Bush's failed
abstinence-only programs.
THE
CRYPT: Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson vow to press on with their
lawsuit.







