That giant clicking sound heard round the world late yesterday -- that was the sound of Al-Qaeda hanging up the party line as the Senate passed FISA.
The House had previously passed the bill, which gives immunity to telecommunications that help the government eavesdrop on conversations with terrorists. The president indicated that he will sign the bill quickly. All that is great, but long overdue. Too long.
We cannot recover the five months for which Congressional Democrats stripped our government of this most basic tool of intelligence gathering. All those conversations that occurred between Islamofascists who want to kill us have concluded. We have no way of knowing what was said. Their plans are made, and are that much more likely to succeed due to the five months it took the Democrats to finally reenact FISA.
When the Senate called its final vote on FISA, only 28 opposed. Barack Obama voted with Republicans to reenact FISA with telecom immunity; Hillary did not.
Obama has infuriated the Demo-blogs, like the DailyKos, for this flip. By the same token, Hillary has improved her standing with the "nutroots" whom originally pushed the Obama candidacy. It's hard to know whether Hillary cast her vote with a view to enlivening the upcoming Democratic convention, or positioning herself for 2012.
As for Obama's "change" on FISA, it is an improvement. If there was a chance that his vote aligned with his beliefs, it would be an epiphany. It did not. Obama arrived at his opposition to FISA long ago, before he won the nomination, when he needed the support of the nutroots. All this latest flip underscores is that Obama will say anything, do anything to get elected.
Showing posts with label FISA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FISA. Show all posts
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
WSJ Features McConnell
The Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy interview with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell today. Just the amount of ink of the feature -- it covered nearly half a full page -- underscores his power. Here are a few excerpts:
On the legislation to address the housing crisis:
There's no way to repeal the laws of economics. Just like we had to work our way through the high-tech bubble, we're going to have to work our way through this. There have been a lot of housing speculators, and I worry that we might craft something that benefits people who were basically engaged in housing speculating.
Regarding the use of the cloture rules (requiring 60 votes to force the Senate to consider a bill), McConnell uses the Republicans 41 votes:
to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful . . . or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.
On the Democratic vision for the country, McConnell charges that
Democrats, led by candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are promoting the Herbert Hoover plan: tax increases plus trade restrictions.
Specifically, the Democrats have passed a budget that would include a tax increase three times larger than the biggest previous tax increase in U.S. history.
And the Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement hurts the U.S. economically, "because Colombian goods come into the United States now virtually duty-free", . . . but the U.S. has "not had the same kind of access to Colombia." The agreement would also support an important ally in the country next to Hugo Chavez.
Regarding the lapse of FISA (which granted immunity to telephone companies for assisting the government with wiretapping and is opposed by trial lawyers and Democrats):
It would make you believe that they'd rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail. . . . this is a private-sector activity. We're not in the phone business. There will be no terrorist-intercept program without the cooperation of the private sector."
Summing up McConnell's power, the Journal observes that "Across a range of issues, McConnell has lately been particularly influential."
The Journal notes in passing that McConell "is among those on the ballot next year," but makes no mention of W. Bruce Lunsford or the other seven Democrats seeking to challenge McConnell; the obvious inference is that the Journal views McConnell's reelection as a foregone conclusion.
On the legislation to address the housing crisis:
There's no way to repeal the laws of economics. Just like we had to work our way through the high-tech bubble, we're going to have to work our way through this. There have been a lot of housing speculators, and I worry that we might craft something that benefits people who were basically engaged in housing speculating.
Regarding the use of the cloture rules (requiring 60 votes to force the Senate to consider a bill), McConnell uses the Republicans 41 votes:
to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful . . . or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.
On the Democratic vision for the country, McConnell charges that
Democrats, led by candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are promoting the Herbert Hoover plan: tax increases plus trade restrictions.
Specifically, the Democrats have passed a budget that would include a tax increase three times larger than the biggest previous tax increase in U.S. history.
And the Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement hurts the U.S. economically, "because Colombian goods come into the United States now virtually duty-free", . . . but the U.S. has "not had the same kind of access to Colombia." The agreement would also support an important ally in the country next to Hugo Chavez.
Regarding the lapse of FISA (which granted immunity to telephone companies for assisting the government with wiretapping and is opposed by trial lawyers and Democrats):
It would make you believe that they'd rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail. . . . this is a private-sector activity. We're not in the phone business. There will be no terrorist-intercept program without the cooperation of the private sector."
Summing up McConnell's power, the Journal observes that "Across a range of issues, McConnell has lately been particularly influential."
The Journal notes in passing that McConell "is among those on the ballot next year," but makes no mention of W. Bruce Lunsford or the other seven Democrats seeking to challenge McConnell; the obvious inference is that the Journal views McConnell's reelection as a foregone conclusion.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
FISA Can't Wait
It's been nearly two months since Congressional Democrats let the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expire. That gave terrorists two months to chat with each other on the phone without fear that anyone -- say the U.S. government -- was listening. Two months to plot God knows what.
Those conversations between terrorists have come and gone. Whatever they said, whatever they have planned, we cannot know. What's worse, while the terrorist's phone calls were secret, our lapse in intelligence was not; the whole world watched the Democrats go on vacation while FISA expired.
The issue that the Democrats seize, in an attempt to justify their failure to renew FISA, is whether those telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. government listen to the terrorists can be sued for their assistance. Democrats like to call that immunity.
There was a time when it was considered patriotic for citizens to assist the government during a a time of war. Americans voluntarily grew victory gardens and rolled bandages, simply to help the war effort. No one would have thought of suing the women and children who rolled the bandages if the military doctor who subsequently used them did so negligently. (Indeed, no one would have sued the doctor).
That was before the trial lawyers learned how much money they could make on contingency by convincing juries to return verdicts with punitive damages that bore no relation to the harm allegedly suffered.
Unlike the civilians who rolled the bandages in World War II, the telecommunications companies really had little choice but to help the government eavesdrop on terrorists. If it's unfair to penalize someone for voluntarily helping the government in the war effort, it is doubly wrong to penalize these companies that were, in essence, commandeered.
Not surprisingly, some individuals who were not terrorists were surveilled by mistake. Their loss of privacy pales in comparison to the loss of life on 9/11 and in the war against Islamofascism. If those people who were mistakenly wiretapped cannot bring a cause of action due to FISA, all they forgo is a little money (their trial lawyers are the ones who would really lose -- thus the lobbying effort against FISA).
When our government is prevented from eavesdropping on terrorists, in contrast, we lose the ability to foil future plots. This is not a hard issue. The Democrats' unspoken fear -- that they will lose big contributions from the trial lawyers -- is misplaced; to whom else can that lobby give? Not to Republicans, who want to cap punitive damages and reform tort law.
Eventually, the Democrats will cave on this issue. They need to stop delaying the inevitable, because every day they posture on FISA -- every day they vacation in recess -- gives al Qaeda a free pass to reach out and touch someone.
Those conversations between terrorists have come and gone. Whatever they said, whatever they have planned, we cannot know. What's worse, while the terrorist's phone calls were secret, our lapse in intelligence was not; the whole world watched the Democrats go on vacation while FISA expired.
The issue that the Democrats seize, in an attempt to justify their failure to renew FISA, is whether those telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. government listen to the terrorists can be sued for their assistance. Democrats like to call that immunity.
There was a time when it was considered patriotic for citizens to assist the government during a a time of war. Americans voluntarily grew victory gardens and rolled bandages, simply to help the war effort. No one would have thought of suing the women and children who rolled the bandages if the military doctor who subsequently used them did so negligently. (Indeed, no one would have sued the doctor).
That was before the trial lawyers learned how much money they could make on contingency by convincing juries to return verdicts with punitive damages that bore no relation to the harm allegedly suffered.
Unlike the civilians who rolled the bandages in World War II, the telecommunications companies really had little choice but to help the government eavesdrop on terrorists. If it's unfair to penalize someone for voluntarily helping the government in the war effort, it is doubly wrong to penalize these companies that were, in essence, commandeered.
Not surprisingly, some individuals who were not terrorists were surveilled by mistake. Their loss of privacy pales in comparison to the loss of life on 9/11 and in the war against Islamofascism. If those people who were mistakenly wiretapped cannot bring a cause of action due to FISA, all they forgo is a little money (their trial lawyers are the ones who would really lose -- thus the lobbying effort against FISA).
When our government is prevented from eavesdropping on terrorists, in contrast, we lose the ability to foil future plots. This is not a hard issue. The Democrats' unspoken fear -- that they will lose big contributions from the trial lawyers -- is misplaced; to whom else can that lobby give? Not to Republicans, who want to cap punitive damages and reform tort law.
Eventually, the Democrats will cave on this issue. They need to stop delaying the inevitable, because every day they posture on FISA -- every day they vacation in recess -- gives al Qaeda a free pass to reach out and touch someone.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Guthrie Gets It
Republican candidate for Kentucky's 2nd Congresssional District Brett Guthrie understands that the House of Representatives has endangered America by allowing FISA to lapse (see posts below).
In a statement today, Guthrie said:
Yesterday, the U.S. House adjourned without voting on a new terrorist surveillance law despite the fact that our current law expires on Saturday. It is beyond me, and I suspect most Kentuckians, why the House leadership cannot figure out that our federal government’s top priority should be protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.
. . .
A large, bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators—including both of Kentucky’s—passed a good bill that modernizes terrorist surveillance law and protects our civil liberties. The Senate and the President are waiting for the House to act while Speaker Pelosi puts the interests of trial lawyers ahead of our National Security. The U.S. House is shirking its most important duty. Its leaders should be ashamed, and all Americans should take note of their monumental failure.
In a statement today, Guthrie said:
Yesterday, the U.S. House adjourned without voting on a new terrorist surveillance law despite the fact that our current law expires on Saturday. It is beyond me, and I suspect most Kentuckians, why the House leadership cannot figure out that our federal government’s top priority should be protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.
. . .
A large, bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators—including both of Kentucky’s—passed a good bill that modernizes terrorist surveillance law and protects our civil liberties. The Senate and the President are waiting for the House to act while Speaker Pelosi puts the interests of trial lawyers ahead of our National Security. The U.S. House is shirking its most important duty. Its leaders should be ashamed, and all Americans should take note of their monumental failure.
Guthrie is running for the seat that will be vacated when Congressman Ron Lewis retires at the end of this session. The Kentucky delegation -- and the House of Representatives -- would be much improved by sending Guthrie to Congress, and sending John Yarmuth packing.
The House of Reps.' Priority Problem
FISA, that piece of legislation that allows the government to eavesdrop on terrorists who'd like to kill us, will expire tonight at midnight because the House of Representatives failed to vote on it -- even though a bipartisan majority of House members approve of it.
Meanwhile, the House is in recess for a week so it can celebrate President's Day, which is to say, so members can campaign for reelection.
The responsible, adult way to reconcile the FISA expiration with the upcoming vacation would have been to vote before leaving town. But the House was otherwise engaged.
Take Congressman John Yarmuth, for example. He was busy investigating whether Roger Clemens and other baseball players took steroids. For all Yarmuth's grandstanding about Congress asserting its constitutional powers -- recall his "article 1" button -- Yarmuth shows little understanding of the role the framers envisioned for the House. There is no baseball penumbra in article 1.
To be sure, Congress can investigate almost anything under the ambit of interstate commerce. It doesn't follow, however, that invesitigating a private institution like baseball is a good use of taxpayers' time or money -- particularly when a critical national security law is set to expire within hours.
Other members of the Democratically-controlled House were busy issuing contempt resolutions regarding Republicans Harriet Miers and Joshua B. Bolten. Leaving aside the merits of the contempt citations, there was no justification for focusing on a witch hunt while neglecting to vote on FISA. Like the baseball hearings, the contempt hearings could have been postponed; the FISA vote could not.
The expiration of FISA has real consequences for our safety, as Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained:
Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline. Under the Protect America Act, we obtained valuable insight and understanding, leading to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. Expiration would lead to the loss of important tools our workforce relies on to discover the locations, intentions and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad.
Al Qaada must be gleeful: John Yarmuth rubs elbows with the Boys of Summer while FISA expires. We can't afford to suffer his childish antics. We need to send Anne Northup back to Congress.
Meanwhile, the House is in recess for a week so it can celebrate President's Day, which is to say, so members can campaign for reelection.
The responsible, adult way to reconcile the FISA expiration with the upcoming vacation would have been to vote before leaving town. But the House was otherwise engaged.
Take Congressman John Yarmuth, for example. He was busy investigating whether Roger Clemens and other baseball players took steroids. For all Yarmuth's grandstanding about Congress asserting its constitutional powers -- recall his "article 1" button -- Yarmuth shows little understanding of the role the framers envisioned for the House. There is no baseball penumbra in article 1.
To be sure, Congress can investigate almost anything under the ambit of interstate commerce. It doesn't follow, however, that invesitigating a private institution like baseball is a good use of taxpayers' time or money -- particularly when a critical national security law is set to expire within hours.
Other members of the Democratically-controlled House were busy issuing contempt resolutions regarding Republicans Harriet Miers and Joshua B. Bolten. Leaving aside the merits of the contempt citations, there was no justification for focusing on a witch hunt while neglecting to vote on FISA. Like the baseball hearings, the contempt hearings could have been postponed; the FISA vote could not.
The expiration of FISA has real consequences for our safety, as Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained:
Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline. Under the Protect America Act, we obtained valuable insight and understanding, leading to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. Expiration would lead to the loss of important tools our workforce relies on to discover the locations, intentions and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad.
Al Qaada must be gleeful: John Yarmuth rubs elbows with the Boys of Summer while FISA expires. We can't afford to suffer his childish antics. We need to send Anne Northup back to Congress.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
McConnell-Led Senate Overcomes "Obstructionism" Regarding FISA
The Courier-Journal should be writing an editorial that praises Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for helping achieve bipartisan consensus to overcome "obstructionism" with respect to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That is because last evening, as the National Association of Manufacturers explains, the Senate forged
[a] strong, bipartisan majority to pass S. 2248, allowing the legitimate use of foreign surveillance to protect Americans from being killed by terrorists. Senators of both parties also voted for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that took their obligations as corporate citizens seriously, assisting in proper, legal intelligence gathering.
The roll count was 68-29, NAM reports:
Republicans: 48 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent (Graham of South Carolina) (Including Lieberman as a Democrat.
Democrats: 20 yea, 29 nay, 2 absent (Obama and Clinton)
This is not what is normally called a "largely party-line vote" as Reuters described it. A "largely party-line vote" is when one or two or, at most, three members of a party split with their partisan colleagues.
And how interesting that of the Democrats, only the presidential candidates missed the final vote. The vote occurred between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., hardly an inconvenient time.
Obama did vote on the cloture motion -- against -- which passed 69-29, which puts him on record as against the legislation.
Coming on the heels of the economic stimulus package, adopted by a bipartisan majority under the leadership of McConnell in the Senate, the FISA bill is another example of productive results that can happen in Washington when level-headed Democrats work with their Republican colleagues instead of grandstand for re-election (or the Democratic presidential nomination).
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
[a] strong, bipartisan majority to pass S. 2248, allowing the legitimate use of foreign surveillance to protect Americans from being killed by terrorists. Senators of both parties also voted for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that took their obligations as corporate citizens seriously, assisting in proper, legal intelligence gathering.
The roll count was 68-29, NAM reports:
Republicans: 48 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent (Graham of South Carolina) (Including Lieberman as a Democrat.
Democrats: 20 yea, 29 nay, 2 absent (Obama and Clinton)
This is not what is normally called a "largely party-line vote" as Reuters described it. A "largely party-line vote" is when one or two or, at most, three members of a party split with their partisan colleagues.
And how interesting that of the Democrats, only the presidential candidates missed the final vote. The vote occurred between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., hardly an inconvenient time.
Obama did vote on the cloture motion -- against -- which passed 69-29, which puts him on record as against the legislation.
Coming on the heels of the economic stimulus package, adopted by a bipartisan majority under the leadership of McConnell in the Senate, the FISA bill is another example of productive results that can happen in Washington when level-headed Democrats work with their Republican colleagues instead of grandstand for re-election (or the Democratic presidential nomination).
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)