Greenwald has a little different take (0.00 / 0)

on the FISA Bill that is worth a read.

http://www.salon.com...

But at least thus far, from everything I can tell, the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests, and the defeat is not yet a fait accompli. To begin with, the bill to be proposed today by the House Democratic leadership actually contains some surprisingly good and important provisions. - Greenwald

For those who do not want to read the entire bill as posted at  TPM here is a summary from Thinkprogress that Greenwald provided.

http://thinkprogress...

---

by: talex @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 17:18:49 PM UTC

are you going to bother to mention (0.00 / 0)

that the House Judiciary Committee just rejected retroactive immunity by a 21-14 count?

Can we jump on the Democratic Caucus when they do something wrong, not when they're doing something right?

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

---

by: dday @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 18:55:54 PM UTC

Not so fast (0.00 / 0)

Headlines like "FISA Capitulation Update" are not helpful. The more cynical and pessimistic we are, lowering our expectations and preparing for the worst, the more likely we are to get a garbage bill. Things to consider:

* FIRST OF ALL, Sargent's piece was written yesterday...

* we know at this point that NYT article mischaracterized the RESTORE Act - it is not *that* bad and adds plenty in terms of rigorous oversight

* the House has kept telecom immunity out so far

* the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill today with 3 amendments by progressives that add additional protections

* the ACLU probably, if not definitely, had a hand in writing the competing FISA Modernization bill by Holt, which probably doesn stand a snowball's chance in the long run and may provide a clue as to why the ACLU came out swinging so hard against RESTORE (which does seem to provide for the "individualized warrants" that are so crucial - I am waiting to see more in-depth analysis... one of the amenments today may address that)

* House Republicans (and presumably the White House) HATE this bill, saying the same old crap about how it "helps the terrorists"... and most progressive members are getting behind it and delivering some substantive justifications for doing so

The REAL dangers are that:

* Dems in the Senate looks more ready to capituate, especially on telecom immunity - rumors have it that Feinstein might be on board with immunity and she is on both Judiciary and Intel (uh oh)

* the House R's (and prob Senate too, IF the Dems take a stand) look poised to use every procedural tool they can to stop the bill or add all their PAA nonsense as well as telecom immunity (including totally sinking the bill on a motion to recommit)

* Some Dems in the House (possibly Hoyer by some indications, but that flap has not been completely substantiated in my book) may be willing to sacrifice our liberties on the altar of "compromise"

I am troubled that our starting point - if we do need to stomach ANY sort of compromise in the end - is the Conyers-Reyes RESTORE Act, but from what I can tell, the bill actually does a ton to *restore* FISA. And, of course we shouldn't hold our breath, but there's always that outside chance that the bill could get better.

Anyway... I understand the frustration and the expectation that the Congressional Dems will sell us out, but they have not sold us out yet from what I can tell.

This stuff is outrageous. The Repubs should be ashamed and so should every Dem that voted for the PAA. But this fight's just getting started - I'd rather join the fight than assume the worst and gripe about it (there will be time for that later).

 

---

by: benny1368 @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 20:56:47 PM UTC

What fries me... (0.00 / 0)

  The White House's latest security leak to Fox News is as ripe a hanging curveball over the plate for the Democrats as can be -- they can loudly and publicly assail the compromise and legitimately tar the Republicans as the party that's careless about national security. You know, that ONE BIG ISSUE that the Dems are always so terrified of being called "weak" on. 

  But they whiffed on it. Again. They didn't even SWING.

  The "we can't be seen as weak on security" excuse for the ingrained Culture of Impotence is just that -- an excuse. The Dems have had PLENTY of chances to assert themselves on security in a way that doesn't gut whatever remains of our Constitution.

  I am embarrassed that Steny Hoyer maintains a residence in my home state. Heck, I am embarrassed that I share the Homo Sapiens designation with the likes of Steny Hoyer. Out of 300 million Americans, we somehow managed to select the 535 most gutless, morally bankrupt possible people to occupy Congress. How'd we manage THAT?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 00:28:41 AM UTC