In the Arena

Latest Column

Let the games begin.

As for FISA:

1. The bipartisan bill that was being negotiated by House Intelligence Committee members probably would have won a veto-proof majority, and would have included the most crucial civil liberties protections–the “minimization” (or blacking out) of communications from foreign terrorist targets to innocent U.S. civilians. It would also have included “basket warrants” that would force the U.S. intel services to explain to the FISA court annually their standards for selecting terrorist targets in the rest of the world. This is something Bush opposes, but would have to accept with a veto-proof majority. It would also have taken a middle path on immunity for telecoms–no blanket immunity (as is currently provided in the Senate draft), but selective immunity to those telecoms who can provide written proof that they were acting in response to a direct order from the government. That seems fair to me.

2. The current House legislation requires that every foreign terrorist target be passed through the FISA court because that target may potentially communicate with U.S. Citizens or resident aliens. It thereby, as I reported, obliquely gives foreign terrorists the same procedures as American citizens, if not the same rights…This will be very easily twisted by Republicans. Furthermore, and weirdly, I”m told that the Democratic bill actually limits the protections for U.S. resident aliens and illegal immigrants.

3. The House bill has no chance of being enacted into law. The partisan nature of it means–in practical political terms–that the expected bipartisan Senate measure will prevail in committee.

4. This is all a partisan waste of time, fodder for lawyers and civil liberties extremists. There is broad bipartisan agreement on the following principles:
–It is necessary to monitor the communications of foreign terrorist suspects.
–It is necessary to get a FISA warrant to monitor the communications of any U.S. citizen or resident alien who engages in suspicious exchanges with a foreign terrorist target.
–It is necessary to protect the identities of innocent U.S. citizens or resident aliens who are swept up in the data-mining of foreign terrorists’ communications.

You may disagree with those principles. I don’t. Most members of Congress don’t. Most people, I dare say, wouldn’t if they were interested enough to listen to the arguments. It is essential to pass a bill that combines legitimate national security and civil liberties concerns–but that isn’t happening because of blind, stupid partisan politics.

As I was saying: From Brother Lukasiak…

The bill requires court review ONLY if there is reason to suspect that a targetted person will be calling the US, or if after a targetted person has called the US and is expected to call here again.

That means, essentially, that every foreign target is subject to review by the FISA court. QED.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Brendan Hoffman / Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Congressional Budget Office: Yeah Guys, Jumping Off the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Is as Bad as It Sounds

    Breaking up partisan budgetary knife-fights can be perilous business, so in its new report on a cluster of expiring tax breaks and scheduled spending cuts, the Congressional Budget Office, home to Capitol Hill’s weary fiscal referees, exercises restraint. While most Washingtonians call it “Taxmageddon,” the CBO bean-counters refer to the event, set to take place January 1 if Congress doesn’t act, as “the Fiscal Restraint That Is Scheduled to Occur in 2013.” Catchy. But the stakes are high and the CBO’s warning is dire, so just for a second, they really let their inhibitions go:

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Iran Nuke Concession?

    The New York Times is reporting that Iran may be about to open its Parchin military facility to international inspections. This is a biggish deal, but not a complete breakthrough. Parchin is where Iran may have been conducting experiments on weaponizing its nuclear fuel; there has been speculation that the facility housed a chamber to test nuclear triggering devices. No doubt, if the inspections are allowed at Parchin, there’s not going to be anything there to inspect. (Although if uranium was present in the past, it will be detectable.) This is part of a flurry of Iranian activity on the eve of the next round of nuclear talks in Baghdad tomorrow.

  • http://rogerhollander.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/obamas-embrace-of-bush-terrorism-policies-is-celebrated-as-centrism/ Obama’s Embrace of Bush Terrorism Policies is Celebrated as “Centrism” « roger hollander

    [...] are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists — civil liberties extremists — could possibly object to any of [...]

  • http://sudhan.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/obamas-embrace-of-bush-terrorism-policies-is-celebrated-as-centrism/ Obama’s Embrace of Bush Terrorism Policies is Celebrated as “Centrism” « Dr Nasir Khan

    [...] are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists — civil liberties extremists — could possibly object to any of [...]

  • http://www.ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/2009/05/20/glenn-greenwald-on-the-myth-of-the-liberal-media-and-the-false-center/ Glenn Greenwald On The Myth Of The “Liberal Media” And The False “Center” | The SmackDog Chronicles (Ver. 2.6)

    [...] are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists — civil liberties extremists — could possibly object to any of [...]

  • http://www.willtotruth.com/2009/05/22/why-liberals-love-obama/ Why Liberals Love Obama — will to truth

    [...] policies are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists – civil liberties extremists – could possibly object to any of [...]

  • http://josiahgarber.com/blog/?p=428 Why Liberals Love Obama : Josiah Garber

    [...] policies are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists – civil liberties extremists – could possibly object to any of [...]

  • http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/do-we-burn-the-village-to-save-it-massing-versus-glenzilla/ Do We Burn The Village To Save It? Massing Versus Glenzilla « Around The Sphere

    [...] provisions say:  it’s not possible to believe in them without being what Joe Klein derisively called a “civil liberties extremist.”  Constitutional guarantees and principles are, by their [...]

  • http://quiscus.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/july-30-2009/ July 30, 2009 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

    [...] provisions say:  it’s not possible to believe in them without being what Joe Klein derisively called a “civil liberties extremist.”  Constitutional guarantees and principles are, by their [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus