GOP eager for FISA fight

Roll Call reports today that congressional Republicans, anxious to move away from the S-CHIP debate that hurts the party, are eager for a debate this week over FISA, wiretapping, and surveillance programs. As they see it, healthcare for poor kids plays to their weaknesses; domestic spying programs play to their strengths.

[U]nlike Bush’s veto of the SCHIP bill — which was supported by a number of Republicans in the House and Senate and subsequently has caused significant heartburn for in-cycle GOP incumbents — Republicans are much more comfortable backing Bush on national security. […]

Specifically, Republicans are planning to use the kidnapping and subsequent murder of three U.S. soldiers in Iraq earlier this year to put a “human face” on the issue, the House staffer explained. According to this aide, while Democrats’ arguments about privacy may resonate with some voters, Republicans believe using real-world examples of how a weak FISA has put U.S. troops in danger will help galvanize public support for their position.

“We’re content to have the Democrats make these abstract and obtuse privacy arguments,” the aide said. “As long as we make this debate … about real world, human examples,” Republicans believe they can maintain party discipline on Bush’s veto and effectively fight Democrats in the public arena.

Now, some of you may be wondering about that kidnapping story and what it has to do with the FISA debate. As it turns out, it’s far less clear than the GOP lets on.

As long as congressional Republicans plan to keep this at the top of their list of talking points, we might as well go to the trouble of explaining why the example isn’t quite what it appears to be.

In September, DNI Mike McConnell told a congressional committee about a kidnapping in May in which Iraqi insurgents captured three U.S. troops. McConnell said we were prepared to conduct surveillance on the kidnappers, but FISA’s burdensome checks and balances delayed the process. This is the “real-world” example Republican lawmakers plan to use to highlight why the administration should have broad and unfettered abilities to conduct surveillance on anyone, with minimal oversight.

The kidnapping example, however, doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny. Here’s an AP report from a few weeks ago, exploring a timeline of events that unfolded in response to the kidnapping.

The timeline, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, showed that the Bush administration held “internal deliberations” on the “novel and complicated issues” presented by the emergency FISA request for more than four hours after the National Security Agency’s top lawyer had approved it.

Indeed, there’s ample reason to believe it was a disorganized bureaucracy, not FISA regulations, that led to delays.

To be sure, there are still angles to this that are unresolved, but if Republican makers hope to use this to justify giving the administration unfettered surveillance power, they may need to revise their talking points.

Update: Saytam has more:

1) Gonzales’ DoJ unprepared for battle. Alberto Gonzales’ Justice Department “wrangl[ed]” with intelligence officials on whether there was “probable cause” for surveillance. Filled with inept political cronies, the DoJ said it encountered “novel legal issues” that it hadn’t considered, necessitating a four hour delay.

2) DoJ missing in action. Mired in scandal, Gonzales was speaking to a group of U.S. attorneys. “Deputy AG Paul McNulty had resigned already; Solicitor General Paul Clement ‘had left the building‘; and the other responsible official, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein was not yet authorized to approve the emergency order.”

3) Emergency warrants obtainable in ‘five seconds.’ McConnell claimed an earlier FISA court ruling requiring warrants for foreign-to-foreign surveillance had caused the lag time. But to “get an emergency warrant, you just have to believe the facts support the application that someone is an agent of a foreign power,” according to a government source. “That takes approximately five seconds to establish if you’re going after an Iraqi insurgent.”

I think the GOP needs a new “human face.”

People die from terrorism! And the Democrats want to tie my hands!

Yeah. Bush would have this thing licked, if it weren’t for all the restraints placed on him.

  • “We’re content to have the Democrats make these abstract and obtuse privacy arguments,” the aide said. “As long as we make this debate … about real world, human examples…”

    Abstract and obtuse privacy arguments? That kind of attitude is EXACTLY the problem! (Now lets see YOU just drop them pants…)

  • Oh let me guess, now they’ll say that they would have caught Osama bin Laden but for the meddling Democrats and their trial lawyers. Bush held back at Tora Bora because John Edwards threatened to sue his pants off if he spied on the people Osama was giving out his coordinates to on MySpace.

    Of course logic and reason won’t enter the picture, because we’re talking about Republicans who are looking at a looming extinction event.

    It’s going to be a very ugly year, rabid dogs being collared have better manners than these guys.

  • I’ll be waiting to see how the Republicans tie the kidnapping to their request for retroactive immunity for the telcos.

  • To a Republican that would make sense. Because the GOP is filled with deviants, liars and perverts who would use surveillance to spy on political enemies as well as terrorists, these soldiers died. Is the solution to elect better politicians who will appoint more honorable people to oversee the program, who won’t be absent or forced to resign in shame? NO! Amend the law so no one ever has to get permission to spy on anyone ever!

  • If they were drug addicts, I would say they are exhibiting typical drug-seeking behavior – lie and manipulate and say and do whatever you have to to get what you want…

    Sadly, they will likely have the full cooperation of much of the media, which will dutifully read off whatever script is written for them, and not bother much with digging into or engaging in typical truth-seeking behavior…

  • Democrats don’t have to be abstract. What’s abstract about saying, “Terrorists win when our President’s break the law”? Or “Terrorists and Presidents aren’t above the law”. Or, “What’s wrong with making sure any future President must listen to the calls of terrorists, rather than their political opponents?”

    If you let them listen to the calls of the opposition and journalists, I doubt they’ll devote much time to listening to terror networks.

  • I was listening to Rush for a little while at lunch this morning and he was complaining about a 10 hour wait for the FISA court.

    I don’t understand the entire mess.

    I thought that the old FISA law allowed you to set up a wiretap as long as you got court approval within 72 hours.

    If that is correct then why did anyone have to wait for anything? Did it take 82 hours to get FISA court approval?

    Can someone explain why I am nuts? (besides the fact I listen to Rush for 15 minutes a few times a week.)

  • Neil@8
    That’s what we call a lil’ ol’ lie-of-omission.

    The 72 hour window to obtain retroactive approval makes FISA just too darn reasonable. It’s quite the thorn in neo-cons sides.

  • The reason for the “failure” was the usual reason for every failure at every thing since January 20, 2001: Republicans were in charge.

    They really are proof that there are two species of bipeds on the planet: homo sapiens (us) and homo sap (them).

  • Amnesty for the Telecoms! Amnesty! Amnesty! AT&T only broke the law because they were “patriotic”! (According to Fred Hiatt, Washington Post)

    Meanwhile deport those Mexicans, por favor?… thanks.

  • ***neil wilson*** Rush lies all the time. Just makes things up. Pulls it out of thin air like it’s a fact and Rush cannot stand scrutiny or fact checking.
    You are right…it’s 72hrs after wiretapping to show probable cause. It would be a difficult feat to find an instance where a FISA court did not approve a wiretapping request and Bush knows this. All of this is just to get power to tap whenever and wherever they like without oversight or accountability.

    Remember, this administration was seeking to get this power before we were attacked by terrorists…from day one of the start of his administration…and it wasn’t to track terrorists…but democrats and democratic donors as well as the press or any other potential political adversary. Terrorist is just an excuse for a major power grab+. FISA has been updated and works, but Bush wants to use it as his won personal monitoring system on democrats.

  • Like a virus that feeds off it’s host until the host dies thereby killing themselves too, The republicans are nearly there and now it’s coming down to holding it all together with tape, string and band-aids till it can be dumped on the next democrat president. The economic collapse is already happening matched by chaos, destruction and war and it is being hidden from us for as long as possible and rather than dealing with it now by changing policies the GOP wants to run this country further into the ground till they can find someone to blame it on. If we let it continue only the wealthy and the military corporation will survive.
    Why are we even debating on the continuation and enhancement of what was illegal to begin with and trying to justify breaking the law. While we are at it why not make stealing legal as long as it is justified like for food, clothing or shelter? Is it that laws should be changed because they get in the way of those trying to break them?

    This administration has pushed everybody and everything to the limit to where we just want to throw up our hands, shake our heads and abandon our principles. This is the point where we say we’ve had enough and start throwing the bums out because there is no longer any point to trying to reason with them…they just throw Coulters and Malkins and Rushs and Hannitys at you like biting roaches that should be stomped. This is the most destructive, venomous, vicious group ever to come into politics and public discourse. They should be denied any further power like in the FISA Protect America act simply because it’s them…Nothing should be given to them based on their history of abuse…Just because it’s them.

  • Changing or removing the FISA law will do nothing to protect the troops. As the law stands the information gained is already available for use. FISA simply enforces a check and balance after the fact.

    As for the Republican example, troops are killed in combat everyday. If you don’t want them harmed bring them home.

  • Comments are closed.