FISA Fight: A bad strategy

Yesterday Politico reported

House Democrats are preparing to send back to the Senate a modified FISA bill that reflects their best hope of a compromise on President Bush’s terrorist surveillance program.

After weeks of negotiations and no final settlement, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled Thursday night that she is ready to fall back on the strategy of "ping-ponging" alternatives back and forth between the two chambers. This risks more stalemate but also could provide a path for a final resolution of the issue before lawmakers go home for their spring recess next Friday.

Not that compromise is necessary--I'm not sure why Pelosi won't act on the simple fact that she's got the upper hand on this. The House is in control, Republican efforts to paint Democrats as "weak on terror" are failing, and no legislation has to be passed.

Greenwald has more. It should be noted that "A House aide disputes both the specifics of the draft and the presumed strategy" that Greenwald reports, but this is the information Greenwald provides:

The current draft does not contain telecom immunity (solely for temporary strategic reasons -- see below), but incorporates every substantive warrantless surveillance provision of the Rockefeller/Cheney bill passed by the Senate, with several small and worthless exceptions that they'll try to sell to what they obviously think is their stupid base as some vital "concessions"....

The plan of the House leadership is to pass this specific bill in the House, send it to the Senate (where telecom immunity will be added in by the same bipartisan Senate faction that already voted for immunity), have it go back to the House for an up-or-down-vote on the House-bill-plus-telecom-immunity (which will pass with the support of the Blue Dogs), and then compliantly sent on to a happy and satisfied President, who will sign the bill that he demanded.

Though this report is unconfirmed, and disputed by a House aide, it follows the general outline of the approach reported by Politico. Backing some of this information up, Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker reports

The proposal, the contents of which the aide described to me, does not contain a measure granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms for their participation in the warrantless surveillance program. The aide also stressed that the bill "is in the exact same ballpark" in terms of civil liberties protections as the RESTORE Act, the bill which the House passed last year.The draft as described by the aide:

-- requires an audit by the Department of Justice's inspector general of the administration warrantless wiretapping program (not in the Senate bill)

-- has a two-year sunset, as opposed to the Senate's surveillance bill, which has a six-year sunset

-- has an "exclusivity" provision, which specifies that the President cannot circumvent the bill with claimed Constitutional powers (not in the Senate bill)

-- has guidelines to prevent the NSA from tapping foreigners' communications into the U.S. when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, which is called "reverse targeting" (not in the Senate bill)

-- requires pre-approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the "basket warrants" (surveillance of entire terrorist groups, as opposed to just individuals) allowed by the House and Senate bills, except in emergency situations, where the government must seek approval within seven days after initiating surveillance. (also in contrast to the Senate bill)

Kiel also reports that Rockefeller's spokeswoman tells him that Rockefeller would not agree to a bill containing those provision, though she didn't specify where the problems are. It could be amnesty alone that's holding Rockefeller back. But if Rockefeller is rejecting the House proposal, all the more reason for the House to hold out.

At odds is the strategy at the heart of this: is the House sending a bill without amnesty knowing that the Senate will add it back in? Or are they just trying to buy more time to work out differences in their own caucus?

The heart of the issue should be this: if the House does anything, do what the the Republicans have been screeching about for the past three weeks--offer another extension of the Protect America Act, that law without which the sky is still maybe going to fall in on us. Make the Republicans reject it again, and make the Republicans prove again that they don't care about protecting Americans. This is all about Protecting AT&T.

Call Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Reyes, chair of the House intelligence committee, and tell them not to "compromise" by capitulation on the bad Senate bill and telco amnesty. Better that they don't pass anything than pass the Senate bill. It's now March, we're 10 months away from a new Congress and a new President. Nothing has to happen on this bill now.

Speaker Pelosi:
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Rep. Reyes:
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]