On Monday, the Connecticut Republicans put out a press release regarding FISA and the Protect America Act Reauthorization that is laughably inaccurate. Since there are so many inaccuracies, I’m going to go line by line (my comments in bold):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JANUARY 18, 2008
Unless the CT GOP wrote this release a month before the events described, it is safe to say that this should read February. If I am wrong, then I’m hoping they call me with a completed NCAA Basketball Bracket, I would like to win a pool this year.
CONTACT: CHRIS HEALY 860-966-8468
DEMOCRATS PUT TRIAL LAWYERS BEFORE NATION
The headline is a pithy summary of the release, so obviously I think its false, and I will debunk it point by point below – I just wanted to point out how offensive it is to accuse Democrats about caring more about their supporters than they do about the safety and security of America. Implying that people you disagree with are traitors may make you feel good, but it doesn’t actually make you right.
Washington – Connecticut’s Congressional Democrats’ failure to set a vote for reauthorization of wiretapping terrorists is pay back to their financial supporters and not in the interests of national security, according to Republican State Party Chairman Chris Healy Monday.
“For Democrats in Washington, money talks even when it comes to this nation’s security,” said Healy. “Congressmen Larson, DeLauro, Murphy and Courtney have failed a basic test of leadership by their failure to act to protect his nation.”
Whose nation?
The current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expired Saturday
False. FISA did not expire on Saturday and will not expire. What expired Saturday was the Protect America Act- but, it expired in name only! The protections of the PAA extend for one year. Here is the relevant statute: “Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.”
Don’t believe your lying eyes? Here is Intellegance Analyst Timothy Lee of that pinko think-tank, the Cato Institute: “‘There’s no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006,’ said Timothy Lee, a scholar at the Cato Institute, explaining the original FISA rules contain the tools necessary for thorough government surveillance.”
How about Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell: “Well, Chris, when the law was passed — updated last August, part of the provisions that were authorizations that were put into place August, September and so on, would extend for a year. However, that is something that you already know about, something that you have planned for. … Let me make one other point just — very important. The entire issue here is liability protection for the carriers.”
To sum it up, while the PAA expired on Saturday, its key protections did not. Nothing was different on Sunday at 12:00am.
and Democrats have stalled a simple vote on its reauthorization.
Again, false. For all the reasons stated above, it was the PAA, not FISA, that was not reauthorized – but the protections of PAA extend for a year. Meanwhile, Democrats offered a short-term extension to PAA, which the Republicans rejected and President Bush threatened to veto.
Want to lay blame on why the PAA expired (even though the protections are still in force)? How about on the party that refused to allow a three week extension to work out a deal? If this was about security and not the telecoms, one would think they would have voted for the extension – unless they are willing to Let.People.Die. in order to protect the telecom companies.
The vote would make permanent the current FISA law,
Again, FISA is permanent, has been permanent, and always will be permanent. The vote would have reauthorized PAA…
leaving our intelligence community hamstrung with 30-year-old laws.
… whose protections extend at least until August or September (according to DNI McConnell) anyway. Also, Cato Intelligence Analyst Lee thinks, “the original FISA rules contain the tools necessary for thorough government surveillance.”
Update: Also, Matt B-H points out: “FISA has been modernized many times since 1978, including post-9/11 to include changes in email and cell phone technology. To wit, in October 2001, following a FISA modernization passed by Congress, President Bush himself said:
This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones. As of today, we’ll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.
But Healy, like the rest of the anti-Constitution GOP, won’t let the facts get in the way of a fear-based argument.”
One of the key provisions in the FISA proposal would provide legal protection from lawsuits against telecommunications companies that provide technical assistance to monitor calls from potential terrorist threats.
False. The existing FISA law (the one that did not expire) provides that legal protection from lawsuits in 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B): …if the Attorney General certifies in writing that “that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required.”
Got that? The existing 30-year-old FISA law contains all of the immunity necessary to protect the telecoms. The problem here is presumably the administration didn’t (or couldn’t – remember the attempt to get AG Ashcroft to sign off on something when he was in the hospital because the acting AG wouldn’t?) follow the law and the telecoms went along with it!
“It is easy to see why the Democrats oppose this reasonable tool to prevent attacks on America – special interest money from trial lawyers,” said Healy. “As they say ‘follow the money’ and the truth will be revealed.”
In normal English, trial lawyers would mean lawyers who go to court, but in the commonly accepted media shorthand that it appears Healy is using, trial lawyers refer to plaintiffs’ attorneys who file borderline-frivolous lawsuits to suck companies of money. Unfortunately for the good Chairman’s polemic, the suits currently pending against the telecom companies are not actually being brought by trial lawyers, but by two non-profits, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. As MacRonin of the Privacy Digest put it: “ACLU attorneys aren’t suing the telecoms for the money. They’re suing the telecoms to protect the rights of Americans whose phone companies violated their privacy rights. These people deserve their day in court, and the White House and its Republican cohorts want to deny them that.”
I’m pretty sure that, as non-profits, the EFF and the ACLU can’t actually receive compensation for pursuing the cases against the telecoms.
The following are records of the total amount each Connecticut Democrat has received in campaign contributions to date:
Larson : $329,000 in career receipts from law firms http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?CID=N00000575
DeLauro: $404,000 in career receipts from law firms http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?CID=N00000575http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsector.asp?CID=N00000615
Murphy: $283,000. in career receipts from law firms http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=CT05&cycle=2006 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00027566&cycle=2008
Courtney: $250,000 in career receipts from law firms: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00024842&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/races/sector.asp?ID=CT02&cycle=2006&special=N http://www.opensecrets.org/races/sector.asp?ID=CT02&cycle=2002&special=N
Two things here (three if you consider the awful formatting – what’s with the massive URLs?): 1) “Law firms” include plaintiffs’ firms, defendants’ firms, firms that exclusively do transactional work, etc. In other words, the point being made and the evidence used to back it up have little to nothing to do with each other; and 2) You know who takes buckets of money from “law firms”? Noted trial-lawyer coddler Rep. Chris Shays to the tune of $335,364 (if you are keeping track at home, that is more than Murphy, Courtney, and Larson)! What, was the Chris Shays link broken over at Open Secrets when the Chairman was over there?
“In case Democrats don’t know it, we are at world with an enemy that knows how to use modern technology to communicate,” said Healy. “The failure of Congressmen Larson, DeLauro, Murphy and Courtney to see it and act should give every Connecticut reason to be outraged.”
In case Chairman Healy doesn’t know it, the expiration of PAA doesn’t actually change the ability of the U.S. to conduct electronic surveillance in order to protect us from terrorism. Every Connecticut Republican should be outraged that the Chairman of their party is so terrified that he would rather burn the Constitution, wrap himself in the flag, call his opposition traitors, and hide under his bed than take the time and expend the effort to inform himself of the law and discover that, “the original FISA rules contain the tools necessary for thorough government surveillance.” On the other hand, we are at world!
If I was meaner, and more willing to get into the spirit of the CT GOP’s press release, I would insinuate that their opposition to the the rule of law was not due to a (false) concern about safety, but due to the campaign contributions Republicans receive from telecom companies ($61.5+ Million to Republicans since 1990 – 56% of their total). After all, “[t]he entire issue here is liability protection for the carriers.”
H/T to MBH
74 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...
You must log in to post a comment.