FISA: More of What the Democrats Have Wrought

It was bad enough that the Dems caved on the FISA bill, but now more details of exactly what that bill entailed are coming out and they show just how much power Bush was really given by that rush to avoid looking like cowards.

Via the NYT:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

So, how did that happen, you ask? Simple: if the Democrats had actually read and analyzed the bill before they decided to please almighty Bush by dealing with it before they left for their summer vacations, they would have discovered (and some did, obviously) just how many more rights they were giving away on behalf of their constituents.

The new legislation is set to expire in less than six months; two weeks after it was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president.

“This may give the administration even more authority than people thought,” said David Kris, a former senior Justice Department lawyer in the Bush and Clinton administrations and a co-author of “National Security Investigation and Prosecutions,” a new book on surveillance law.

Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States.

And this cannot just be blamed on the so-called Blue Dogs. Dealing with this bill could have been deferred by Pelosi and Reid until the "heated debates" about what they were offering for approval were exhausted. Instead, after the bill was passed, Democratic leaders just told their angry cheerleaders to just wait six months, they'd fix it all then.

Well, now that word has gotten out about just how much they've royally screwed up, it's wait until September while Bush spokespuppets pretend they had no idea (gosh, darn, golly) that this bill would give the boy king even more power.

Bruce Fein, who has been pushing for impeachment spoke to the NYT about the possible ramifications of this bill:

At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”

And this quote certainly describes the bottom line here:

That limitation sets a high bar to set off any court intervention, argued Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who also attended the Justice Department meeting.

“You’ve turned the court into a spectator,” Mr. Rotenberg said.

I really have to wonder (and since I've almost run out of pejorative adjectives to describe the willfully ignorant congressional Democrats and their cheerleading, lapdog supporters, I won't turn this into an overly long screed) why - after these Dems have refused to impeach, refused to do everything possible to end the Iraq war, refused to stand up to this dictatorial "president" and refused to act like they work for the American people - why anyone continues to support them. Just how many second, third, fourth and fifth chances do they get to prove themselves to be the protectors of human and civil rights they claim to be?

They have failed. Continually. And the only thing they can offer is "wait".

For what??

If someone has an answer to that question, I'd sure like to hear it. And before you even think about saying that Election '08 will change everything if a Dem president is elected - think again. That's what they said about the Dems winning back congressional power in '06. Oh but this is all Joe Lieberman's fault, right? No. It isn't. When you willingly support and elect conservative Democrats who are willing to kiss Bush's ring, that's exactly what you get. Pushovers who will assure that Bush has just as much power as he wants. And when your congressional leaders play the waiting game with peoples' constitutional rights, they impact all Americans directly. Just how much of that new power do you honestly think a possible future Democratic president might be willing to roll back? Honestly.

All right. I promised this wouldn't be a long screed and I'll keep my word, but think about this: I'm a Canadian citizen. And, while only some of what your boy king does actually affects my rights (and we're feeling it here, believe me), I think it's safe to say that I'm probably more outraged about all of this than a lot of Americans who actually should be are. And I find that deeply disturbing.

h/t lyger and infowarrior.org's mailing list