President Bush Is Confused

President Bush said Friday that "our country is in more danger of an attack" because of Congress' failure to extend a law that makes it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met with Republican congressional leaders in the Oval Office to discuss the impasse with the Democratic-led House. Lawmakers left Thursday for a 12-day recess without acting on the law, which expires at midnight Saturday. The president said Congress should act quickly on the measure as soon as lawmakers return.

Bush argues that without the extension, the intelligence community will not have the tools they need to protect the nation from terrorism. Democrats, equally adamant, accuse the president of fear-mongering and say he has the authority he needs to intercept terrorist communications, even if the law expires. (Link)

The issue, of course, was retroactive immunity for the telecoms that had previously cooperated with the Bush Administration.  The House version of the Protect America Act (known also as the FISA bill) did not include immunity, while the final Senate version does.  The bill is now in committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions. 

Despite the President's assertions, surveillance can still take place without the bill coming out of Congress:

For example, Richard Clarke, the former Chief National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, has stated: ‘Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.’
“And, Kenneth Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security recently said in an interview – according to the New York Times – that if the PAA expires, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law.

“We must not fall prey to fear-mongers who claim that our intelligence community could ‘go dark.’ That is simply not true. (Link)

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly suggests another option:

Look, if it’s that important, there’s a simple answer: pass the bill without telecom immunity. Then come back and introduce immunity in a separate bill. If you’ve got the votes for it, fine. If not, too bad. I’m against immunity myself — though hardly hellbent on the subject — but whichever way the vote went, in the meantime we’d have the FISA extension and surveillance could continue normally.

But the President was adamant he would not sign another extension or a version of the bill that did not include the immunity clause.

The Bush administration wants to extend amnesty to telecommunications companies that appear to have broken the law. I say “appear” because the telecoms can have their day in court, presenting evidence, and defending their decisions. Bush believes Congress should stop ongoing legal proceedings, and doing so is important enough to hold the nation’s surveillance laws hostage. (As Matt Yglesias put it, “It’s almost as if the Republican Party exists to serve the interests of large business enterprises and very wealthy individuals, and tends to use national security and cultural anxieties as a kind of political theater aimed at securing votes so that they can better pursue their real agenda of enriching the wealthy and powerful.”)

The notion, though, that telecoms would no longer cooperate with intelligence agencies is just foolish. Two things would happen without telecom immunity: 1) the companies and their teams of lawyers would defend their decisions in a fair trial; and 2) the companies would continue to cooperate because the administration (and any future administration) would get a warrant.

To hear Bush tell it, telecoms would start blowing off court orders. That’s simply not realistic — the telecoms and their lawyers are well aware of the fact that refusing to honor a warrant would bring rather drastic legal consequences. With or without amnesty for previous criminal conduct, the companies will have to cooperate — they won’t have a choice.  (Link)

House Democrats, by recessing for twelve days,  have called the President's bluff.   The Washington Post published an handy Q&A on the consequences of not passing the bill before the previous law's expiration.

The Protect America Act (PAA), approved last August, expanded the government’s ability to monitor the communications of terrorism suspects without obtaining court warrants. The law is set to expire at the end of the day tomorrow unless Congress renews it. Here is what could happen if the law expired:

* The government would retain all the powers it had before last August under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain court approval for surveillance conducted on U.S. soil or against U.S. targets.

* Classified orders allowing the monitoring of international telephone calls, e-mail traffic and other communications under the Protect America Act routinely are valid for a year, so they would not expire before August.

* Those orders cover terrorist groups or telecommunication providers in their entirety, according to government officials and lawmakers. New groups, phone numbers and other information could be added to existing orders, Democratic lawmakers say.

* If a targeted person uses a telecommunication company not covered by such an order, the administration says the government may have to obtain a new order from the FISA court. The administration views this as a cumbersome process; Democrats say obtaining emergency FISA approval is straightforward.

* Administration officials say that without the PAA, they may have to seek FISA court approval to monitor communications between foreigners that pass through U.S. switches. Democrats counter that such communications are covered by existing directives.

The consequences are hardly drastic. If lives were literally in danger without the PAA, the administration would drop its demands for telecom immunity. (Link)

Comments

[Crian]

A very good compilation here that reads like a one document, with some good points, I hope the republicans will stop giving into the president.

[A Running Commentary]

Obama may have the “Audacity of Hope” but how about George Bush’s “Audacity of Arrogance”? Whatever his role as ‘leader of the free world’, the President has hardly been a protector of individual freedoms at home. Orange alerts and clever speeches continually serve up terrorism as the unassailable rationale for executive overreach. What is so offensive about the President’s position is that it is unnecessary. Basic tenants of limited government authority already exist or could be easily adapted to accomplish what is needed without wholesale destruct of personal liberty.