Here's how some of the editorial boards around the country are talking about FISA.
The Oregonian, last week...
After journalists reported that the Justice Department had simply ignored the warrant requirement and had persuaded a set of telephone companies to quietly turn over their phone records to the government, a wave of privacy lawsuits against the telecom companies followed. With those pending, the White House has insisted that the telephone companies be protected from legal liability for helping the executive branch avoid complying with the law between September 2001 and January 2007.
On this point, House and Senate Democrats caved. The president won the legal immunity he sought in exchange for agreeing to tack some domestic spending bills on to his war appropriations bill. His concessions were minor: Congressional Democrats surrendered too much. The phone companies and their lobbyists are ecstatic. And Americans won't get the chance to learn what information the administration might have collected about their telephone and e-mail habits.
and today:
Possibly, of course, everything the Bush administration ever did, dropping in on all those phone calls without court order, was entirely legal. If the Senate Democrats cave the way the House Democrats did, we'll never know.
Which is, of course, exactly the point.
The Connecticut Post:
The basis for opposing this bill is simple: The United States is not a tyranny. The president, even in times of emergency, must follow the law. And everyone, including corporations, even when asked by the government, must themselves uphold the law....
[T]he bill before the Senate would pre-empt the debate, and declare the companies' actions beyond the power of the courts.
That, quite simply, is not how we do things here. Dodd was smart enough to know it when he was running for president, even if most of his fellow Democrats did not. He promised to do what he could to see that the retroactive immunity clause was stripped from the otherwise necessary legislation. (Incidentally, Sen. Barack Obama made a similar pledge.)
Maybe it wouldn't be enough, maybe the bill would go through anyway, after which President Bush would sign it posthaste. But Dodd — and Obama — should try to stop it. The law has to mean something. The executive branch can't simply direct a person or company to break laws — that's the stuff of tyrannies. And a promise, too, should mean something. Dodd must fight this bill with all he has.
The Seattle PI:
The Dems comfort themselves by saying the law requires warrants from FISA courts. Except that the 1978 FISA law already gave the government 72 hours to do so. They can spy on us for a week without a warrant. Worse yet, the bill legitimizes the administration's spying program.
Sen. John McCain supports warrantless spying and voted in favor of granting telecoms immunity in February. Heck, he loves telecoms -- he keeps hiring their lobbyists on his staff. And Sen. Barack Obama, who approves of the compromise, said that as president, he would "monitor the program." Come again, sir? The last thing we need is another "just trust me" president. We need a return to checks and balances. Obama also said he'll try to strip the immunity language out of the bill, but how effective will he be, given the House's overwhelming approval and the fact that the president vowed to veto any version of the bill that didn't let telecoms off the hook?
In this case, both parties have failed us.
The Philadelphia Enquirer:
The cover-up is nearly complete. With congressional approval, the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mail for nearly six years will be spared the third-degree treatment by any judge or jury.
At the same time, Bush or his successor would have virtual free rein to continue the massive antiterror surveillance sweeps of communications to and from this country.
Whatever the risk from another terror attack, Americans' privacy would be the assured casualty from these antiterror tactics....
It's incredible to hear Democrats try to justify their capitulation on grounds that they forced Bush to accept an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending. Unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans, great stuff. But since when is it right to horse-trade over the cherished, constitutional right to privacy?
There's still time for the Senate to stand up for the Constitution and reject this deal.
The Albany Times Union:
The revised surveillance law approved last week by the House is good news for the telecommunications companies that are facing lawsuits from customers over breaches of privacy. But it provides scant assurances to Americans that their privacy will be respected in the future.
The Senate must not allow itself to be rushed into signing on to the House version before adjourning. There is too much at stake to act in haste. At the very least, the Senate should fine-tune the House measure to safeguard basic liberties....
THE ISSUE: The House approves new legislation on government spying.
THE STAKES: The Senate must fashion a far better version.
And even the insider CQ Politics:
Democrats want to remove the issue from the fall campaign, and Republicans rarely miss an opportunity to hyperventilate over scary things, for which fewer civil liberties seems to be the prescription. Democrats, including ones who should know better, capitulated in fear of being blamed for not doing enough to stop a terrorist attack because of an overly developed concern for civil libertarian niceties.
The legislation is bad enough. The reasons people offer for supporting it would be embarrassing, but for the fact that few people are paying much attention, and for the fact that the attentive few will have short memories. However, the legislation is too important to be regarded as a mere political bargaining chip. It is the most ambitious legislation of its kind in nearly 30 years, and the political calculus that it won’t matter that much in the end underestimates the extent of its flaws....
Given these defects, it is little consolation to ordinary Americans that Congress gets some additional opportunity to look over the shoulder of the executive branch.
Equally unsatisfying is Obama’s closing argument in support of the bill. His promise is that "as president, I will carefully monitor the program." No less than the congressional oversight promise, this promise misses the point of the constitutional guarantee of civil liberties protected under the rule of law.
Good laws are ones designed to withstand bad rulers. It is not enough that candidates for the presidency promise to be good. I would prefer to put my bet on good laws.
All excellent talking point for when you call your Senators. Special target Senators below the fold. Particularly Diane Feinstein, who clearly has a warped vision of what this bill does.
