[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Congress Unlikely to Meet Latest Deadline for Surveillance Law Rewrite Congress Unlikely to Meet Latest Deadline for Surveillance Law Rewrite By Keith Perine, CQ Staff As a new session of Congress begins, the Senate is preparing to resume a contentious struggle over electronic surveillance legislation — a struggle fraught with both political and procedural peril. The law governing the Bush administration’s counterterrorism electronic surveillance (PL 110-55) expires on Feb. 1. If Congress can’t clear new surveillance legislation by then, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would favor a short-term extension of the existing law, which was hastily passed last August. But the White House has made clear its distaste for that approach. “If we’re going to extend this program, it should be a permanent extension of this program,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Jan. 11. That may be easier said than done. The Senate does not reconvene until Jan. 22, and there are deep divisions among Democrats over a key provision of the legislation. If the law expires, political finger-pointing begins, with the stakes growing even higher in a presidential election year. Democrats do not want to leave themselves open to a GOP argument that they’re soft on terrorism — an argument that Fratto was happy to frame. “We’re exactly three weeks away,” he said, “from the date when terrorists can be free to make phone calls without fear of being surveilled by U.S. intelligence agencies.” The debate over the surveillance bill underscores a broader political calculation. “National security is an issue that, basically, the Republicans have a much better franchise on than the Democrats,” said Ross K. Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor. Republicans are nearly united behind President Bush, who is demanding a dramatic expansion of his spying power coupled with immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance program in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Democrats are divided. Some, led by Intelligence Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, favor retroactive immunity for the communications firms and a limited oversight role for the secret court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA — PL 95-511). Reid had planned to call up Rockefeller’s surveillance bill (S 2248) in December, but with the holiday break approaching, he pulled back in the face of a filibuster threat by Democrat Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and other opponents of the retroactive immunity provisions. Dodd is “still ready to use any and all tools at his disposal to stop any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity,” said Justine Sessions, a Dodd spokeswoman. Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., favors a version of the bill that would not grant retroactive immunity and would create a more robust role for the special FISA court in policing the surveillance. Reid had intended to allow that proposal to be offered on the floor as a substitute amendment to the Rockefeller bill, as a way to give both sides their say. That’s still Reid’s plan, according to an aide. Rockefeller last month was confident he could win 60 votes in the Senate to surmount a filibuster and pass his bill. But even if the Senate does so, it would still have to reconcile the bill with a House measure (HR 3773) passed last November — a measure that contains no retroactive immunity, a 2009 sunset date and a more robust role for the FISA court than either Rockefeller or Leahy have proposed. Leahy has complained that the administration characterizes lawmakers who favor more robust civil liberties protections as “in favor of the terrorists”; while “if you want to give all the power to the president, you’re in favor of America. And it’s such a false choice.” Outside observers say Democrats should be used to such tactics. “I think Democrats should start knowing these plays by now and anticipating them,” said Caroline Frederickson of the American Civil Liberties Union. “They shouldn’t be afraid of them.” Despite all the rhetoric, intelligence agents would not be instantly hobbled if the law were to expire Feb. 1 without being replaced by a new statute. The existing law allows the National Intelligence director and the attorney general to authorize surveillance aimed at people outside the United States — even if they are communicating with people inside the country — for up to one year, subject to some conditions. Even after Feb. 1, any such surveillance authorizations would remain in effect until a year after they were issued.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Why do people with working brains fall for that tripe? I think the defense budget will be taking higher priority since Bush did an alleged pocket veto of it.
Everyone crawl under their desks.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution Shame on you Tony.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||