"The Bush Party Passes FISA Compromise Bill"

Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Opponents assailed the eavesdropping program, asserting that it imperiled citizens' rights of privacy from government intrusion. But Bush said the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans' security.

"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planing," he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote.

"This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a "pig in a poke."

But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill's most vocal champions, said, "This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters."

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The measure effectively dismisses about 40 lawsuits that have been bundled together. But at least three other lawsuits against government officials will go forward.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California civil rights organization, intends to challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provision.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.  Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok.  But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course. 

     The Bush party (the partisan Republican party and the spineless Democratic party) capitulates to President Bush in giving retro-active immunity to the FISA lawbreaking telecoms (and by implication the FISA lawbreaking President Bush) and, as I see it, greatly weaken the current civil liberties protection of the FISA law. Senator Barack Obama, despite the fact that many of his own supporters requested him to vote against this compromised FISA bill, voted in support of the bill, while voting not to give the telecoms immunity in a separate bill amendment (Sen. Russ Feingold did the right thing in voting against this FISA bill completely).

     As I see it , there is no longer a two party system in America. The major difference between the parties is that Democrats will tax the rich to give a few bones to the poor and Republicans will  give the rich more tax cuts. Both parties are more than willing to trample the civil rights and liberties granted to American citizens by the Constitution for national security, corporate profit or political expediency. Both parties are more than willing to continue "Big government" deficit spending when the gross national debt is edging closer to ten trillion dollars. Both parties are more than willing to fight a war somewhere, if not in Iraq then Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran ( in harmony with the will of the neoconservatives now dictating American foreign policy).

    This year I will be among those American voters who will vote for a third party, something America desperately and ultimately needs, in my opinion. My third party of choice will be the Libertarian party and Bob Barr. There is also Ralph Nader, the Green Party and Cynthia McKinney, the Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin and others. (If by some miracle Congressman Ron Paul rests the GOP nomination from John McCain, I will vote for him). At the same time, knowing full well no third party candidate can win in '08, I will also be an advocate for Senator Barack Obama, as the "lessor of two evils" (John McCain being the "greater evil") within the GOP/Dem two party system.  In other words, if you can't see yourself voting for a third party candidate, then vote for Barack Obama. What a blessing to be an American, even in these very trying times. God bless America and God damn the Constitution trampling "Bush Party".

tags: fisa  bush  barack obama  john mccain  bob barr  ron paul  2008  politics  takebackamerica  us  america  president  libertarian party  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit