by James Oliphant
As promised, the White House is not happy with the FISA bill passed by the House Friday. Here's deputy press secretary Tony Fratto:
Today, the House of Representatives took a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism and passed a partisan bill that will please class-action trial lawyers at the expense of our national security. Their bill would make it easier for class-action trial lawyers to sue companies whose only “offense” is that they are alleged to have assisted in efforts to protect the country after the attacks of September 11.These companies already face multibillion-dollar lawsuits, but even the status quo -- which our intelligence professionals have said is undermining our ability to get cooperation from the private sector -- is better than the alternative proposed in the House bill, which would preserve these lawsuits and give trial lawyers more weapons to attack companies for doing their patriotic service. The good news is that the House bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate and, in any event, would be vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk.
And to provide counterpoint, we give you Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I commend the House of Representatives for passing its amendment to the Senate’s FISA Amendments Act of 2007. It is a step forward, and a good bill. The Senate-passed legislation has a number of serious failings and does not adequately protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. The House bill adds several crucial protections without interfering in any way with this important new surveillance authority.
For the last month, the House has worked with Democratic Senators, and House leaders have repeatedly sought to work with congressional Republicans and the administration to fashion reasonable compromise legislation. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and the administration have refused to engage in meaningful discussions or negotiations about the legislation.The White House has tried, again, to treat Congress like a rubber stamp.
Sigh. Have we mentioned how we are looking forward to the recess?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"10TH CIRCUIT COURT SPEAKS"
HERE COMES THE JUDGE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE AND IT'S FLIP ALRIGHT!
IT'S EITHER THE CAGED SIDE THAT GETS THE "SECRET" ARGUMENT OR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARM OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT GETS TO HEAR THE "SECRET" CASES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
MUKASEY SAYS LEAN TO THE RIGHT OR YOU WILL PAY. "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" SAY LEAN TO THE LEFT AND YOU MIGHT GET PAID.
"SPITZER" SAYS LEAN TO THE RIGHT AND YOU MIGHT GET CAUGHT." IN A FEDERAL BUILDING USING FEDERAL WIRETAPS.
SO HERE COMES THE JUDGE, IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHICH JUDGE GETS TO HERE ALL THE "SECRET" STUFF CONSTITUTIONALLLLLLLLLY NO DOUBT!
"BECAUSE THE STAKES ARE HIGH"
Posted by: Roger Morris | March 14, 2008 4:08 PM
I LOVE IT!!!
I love watching Republican Prez 19% throw his little childish temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way.
http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/worse_than_watergate_bush_scor_1.html
Posted by: John Hussein E | March 14, 2008 4:10 PM
How about this compromise? Grant immunity from 9/11/01. Anything before 9/11/01 take them all to court, including the biggest liars, GWB & Co. As part of the agreement, GWB and his gang will have to testify before the American people, under oath, in public. They will also have to provide any requested documents. Let’s hear their excuses about spying prior to 9/11/01, or why immunity should be granted for time prior to 9/11/01.
Posted by: rcca | March 14, 2008 5:05 PM
These lawsuits are pointless, unless you are a trial lawyer in line to profit from them. They will not settle any issue of law, as the Senate has already addressed future involvement with telcoms in their bill. The Senate also concluded, after extensive hearings, that in relying on the AG's assurance that their actions did not violate federal law, that the telcoms acted in good faith in a time when no one knew if another attack was imminent. If the Senate bill already addresses future involvement of telcoms, which the House and Administration substantially agree with, what purpose is there to these lawsuits? Line the pockets of some attorney? Stick it to some evil rich company? Give me a break. House Democrats have backed themselves into another corner, and are going to look worse than usual when they eventually back down on this issue.
Posted by: Herbie H. | March 14, 2008 7:23 PM
It seems to me that the Dems are using this for political gain and don't get two shits about the American people.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | March 14, 2008 7:27 PM
-- the Senate has already addressed future involvement with telecoms in their bill. --
.
Not fully. The Senate bill permits civil lawsuits, just like the old law. The old law also contains the same "prospective" immunity provisions as the Senate bill, but the administration finds the prospective immunity of the old law to be inadequate. Ergo, the prospective immunity of the Senate bill must also be inadequate. Applying the rationales for demanding retrospective immunity, as long as there is a risk of a civil suit (as long as there is a law on the books that permits suits), there is a risk of non-cooperation and a risk of disclosing government secrets.
Posted by: cboldt | March 15, 2008 9:51 AM
The Democrats are drawn to trial lawyers and do their bidding like a moth drawn to a flame.
Abortion, civil unions, environmental wackos it's all in the DNC playbook.
Keep America secure it's not in the Jackass policy book. Who'd a thunk it? Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | March 15, 2008 11:03 AM
MBSs for treas. bonds tells me bernanke is a quack
Posted by: rawdawgbuffalo | March 15, 2008 6:24 PM
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080327_the_fog_of_fisa.htm
Posted by: Blaine Kinsey | March 28, 2008 4:57 PM