Since Congress’s website is always a day behind, I got these results from the Washington Post. Likely the new updated FISA bill is going to sail through Congress. Boy, it’s a good thing the Democrats got into control of Congress so that they could… continue to do whatever Bush told them to do, just like the Republicans whose jobs they took. Go here to throw spitballs at the battleship.
I do not claim to be a bona-fide expert in this area, as I’m not on the Senate Intelligence Committee or a member of the Bush Administration and as such I cannot evaluate the veracity of all of the claims I’ve read regarding the wholesale surveillance of the telecommunications network by the NSA. I don’t know how many serious terrorist plots have been disrupted by this program (there have been claims of “many”), I don’t know exactly what the possibility is for misuse for information gathered by this program (although the capabilities of the technology are pretty staggering, and the mind boggles with the consequences of the misuse could be, there is no real way to evaluate the checks and balances in place).
I do know, however, that one of the central arguments against the Dodd-Feingold amendment to this bill is heavily flawed. I heard today one senator (Democratic, unfortunately I did not catch the name) quoted as saying, “If we don’t include the immunity provision, in the future companies will be reluctant to cooperate with the government.”
This is demonstrably false. Not all telecommunications companies complied with the government’s request to tap their lines, but the majority did so. Those who did so have very, very competent legal departments staffed by lawyers who are intimately aware of federal communications law. It is simply inconceivable that these companies would provide this level of access to the government without being fully aware of the fact that they were violating those laws.
Moreover, it’s a false dichotomy: we want companies to adhere to the law, don’t we? If someone representing a federal agency shows up at your doctor’s office and demands to see your medical records without a warrant, wouldn’t you want your doctor to refuse? Isn’t that the whole point of having illegal search and seizure laws in the first place?
In the interests of full disclosure, it’s my firm belief that the entire bill is bad, and that the push to “updating FISA” is a bunch of baloney. However, I recognize that this is just a belief, and I cannot state this as a solid intellectual position precisely because much of the relevant evidence is being withheld on the basis of “National Security”. Take my complaints about this particular amendment with that in mind. Also, there is a subtle additional point to this whole discussion in that some of the people who voted “no” may have voted for Arlen Specter’s alternative amendment (I’ll try to dig those up later edited -> they’re here, the only differences are that Specter voted for his amendment and “no” on Dodd; and Bacus, Biden, Dodd, Dorgan, and Klobuchar all voted “no” on Specter and “yes” on Dodd; and McCaskill, Nelson, Stabenow, and Webb voted “yes” on Specter and “no” on Dodd), which allows the lawsuits to continue but takes all the liability off of the telecom companies and puts in on the federal government. Personally, I can’t see any reason to vote “no” on that one, even if you buy into the whole “reluctance” argument.
As a tangent off on the topic of political hypocrisy, it is intellectually fascinating that if you intersect the list of “no” voters with a list of senators who voted against immigration reform solely on the position, “I don’t believe in amnesty, they broke the law, they should suffer the consequences” you’ll find more than one commonality…
State |
Yes |
No |
Not Voting |
Alabama |
|||
Alaska |
|||
Arizona |
|||
Arkansas |
|||
California |
|||
Colorado |
|||
Connecticut |
|||
Delaware |
|||
Florida |
|||
Georgia |
|||
Hawaii |
|||
Idaho |
|||
Illinois |
|||
Indiana |
|||
Iowa |
|||
Kansas |
|||
Kentucky |
|||
Louisiana |
|||
Maine |
|||
Maryland |
|||
Massachusetts |
|||
Michigan |
|||
Minnesota |
|||
Mississippi |
|||
Missouri |
|||
Montana |
|||
Nebraska |
|||
Nevada |
|||
New Hampshire |
|||
New Jersey |
|||
New Mexico |
|||
New York |
|||
North Carolina |
|||
North Dakota |
|||
Ohio |
|||
Oklahoma |
|||
Oregon |
|||
Pennsylvania |
|||
Rhode Island |
|||
South Carolina |
|||
South Dakota |
|||
Tennessee |
|||
Texas |
|||
Utah |
|||
Vermont |
|||
Virginia |
|||
Washington |
|||
West Virginia |
|||
Wisconsin |
|||
Wyoming |
Clearly, you haven’t met Snuggly the security bear. He explains this all quite well.
http://gizmodo.com/356837/snuggly-the-security-bear-explains-warrantless-wiretapping-is-all-about-love-and-freedom?autoplay=true
You are welcome.
Vinnie
Pingback: Warrantless Wiretapping, Part VI « Pat’s Daily Grind