"They added protections...that bring it closer to the bill...Judiciary Committee reported last year

[ProSense]

“With respect to the surveillance authorities, I believe the bill represents an improvement over the flawed legislation passed the Senate earlier this year. I applaud Representative Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller for their diligent work in negotiating this package. They added protections to the surveillance authorities that bring it closer to the bill the Senate Judiciary Committee reported last year. If the bill passes, I will work with the next administration to make additional improvements.

-- Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

[bunnies]

1. K&R.

Too bad people are too busy freaking out to read this.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The bill in question is also a bad bill the ACLU opposed both

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [phone] or [e-mail]

Washington, DC – With news that a surveillance bill may be voted on in the House of Representatives as early as tomorrow, the American Civil Liberties Union sternly warned members against voting for the legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has worked closely with the White House and has led the effort to gut the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and give the telephone companies what amounts to a pardon for breaking the law.

The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:

"Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some major campaign donors.

"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.

"The telecom companies simply have to produce a piece of paper we already know exists, resulting in immediate dismissal. That’s not accountability. Loopholes and judicial theater don’t do our Fourth Amendment rights justice. In the end, this is politics. This bill does nothing to keep Americans safe and is a constitutional farce.

"The process by which this deal has come about has been as secretive as the warrantless wiretapping program it is seeking to legitimize. While members and organizations who would seek to fiercely protect the civil liberties of Americans have been denied a seat at the table, one wonders how present the powerful telecom lobby has been.

"Leadership should be leading to protect the Constitution, not bowing to pressure from Republicans, the White House, and the telecommunications companies.

"The ACLU is asking Congress, as the final minutes tick by, to stand up and do the right thing."

For more information visit:
www.aclu.org/fisa

[NYC_SKP]

3. K&R

The folks freaking out right now over FISA would make terrible executive officers, salespersons, or poker players.

No sense of patience or finesse.

Please calm down.

[Catherina]

4. Don't fall for it ProSense. They're selling us out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6395356

[ProSense]

5. What Leahy is saying

is that the bill has improved. I don't think he believes that the bill is the best bill they could get. The worst part of the bill is retroactive immunity, and the Senators who have issued statements have all opposed it.

With only 49 Democrats in the Senate and only 29 voting for against closure during the last round, the reality is that this bill will survive a cloture vote.

It'll be a miracle if they stop it, but I also doubt the measure will be stripped from the bill.

It's frustrating.

The other point Leahy makes, and what must be taken into consideration, is that this bill is going to wind up like the torture bill. The difference is that this time, Bush's term is almost over and a Democratic President and Congress (we need to pick up at least 6 seats) will be able to fix, reverse these flawed bills.

[Catherina]

6. I hope you're right but you obviously have more faith in the Democrats

than I do, especially people like Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer. Did you read my link?

How are they so sure that the next President will be a Democrat? While I expect Obama to win, I can't see betting the constitution on that knowing their dirty tricks and I don't think ANY President should be trusted with fixing this after the fact. They never really "fix" anything, they let it slide into status quo.

[ProSense]

8. If the next President is not a Democrat

then we're screwed, FISA or not.

We need a Democratic President and he needs to have the support of more (new) Democrats in Congress.

[grantcart]

7. thank you for the update