Feingold and Schumer on FISA

Russ Feingold gave a great speech today about the FISA bill and providing amnesty for illegal actions.

This legislation has been billed as a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. We are asked to support it because it is a supposedly reasonable accommodation of opposing views. Let me respond as clearly as possible: This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation.

This bill will effectively and unjustifiably grant immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program – a program that more than 70 members of this body still know virtually nothing about. And this bill will grant the Bush Administration – the same administration that developed and operated this illegal program for more than five years – expansive new authorities to spy on Americans’ international communications.

If you don’t believe me, here is what Senator Bond had to say about the bill: “I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get.” And House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said this: “The lawsuits will be dismissed.”

There is simply no question that Democrats who had previously stood strong against immunity and in support of civil liberties were on the losing end of this backroom deal [...]

And Mr. President, we have other alternatives. We have options. We do not have to pass this law in the midst of a presidential election year, while George Bush remains President, in the worst possible political climate for constructive legislating in this area. If the concern is that orders issued under the PAA could expire as early as August, we could extend the PAA for another six months, nine months, even a year. We could put a one-year sunset on this bill, rather than having it sunset in the next presidential election year when partisan politics will once again be at their worst. Or we could extend the effect of any current PAA orders for six months or a year. All of these options would address any immediate national security concerns.

He minced no words. Vacuuming up the communications between persons in the US and the rest of the world, NOT EVEN RELATED TO TERRORISM, is unjustifiable. And setting the precedent that the right piece of paper from the government allows a corporation to break the law is horrific. It was a great speech. If the Senate were actually a debating society, Feingold would be the leader of it.

Chuck Schumer may do the right thing on this bill as well.

Chuck Schumer's spokesman tells us that he's going to oppose the current version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation, which immunizes telcom companies for past implementation of Bush's requests and expands the government's capacity to surveil without court approval.

If Schumer backs an effort to remove the immunity provisions, that could be a big deal. Obama has come out against those provisions, but Schumer is a strategic signal caller in the Senate. The key question: Will Schumer support a filibuster on removing immunity from the bill?

At the end of the day, that's the key question. We aren't going to have the votes to do much beyond delay. But as Atrios notes, just one Senator can block legislation all by himself - unless it's something that the White House desperately wants. All Sen. Reid has to do is follow the same rules with the Dodd-Feingold filibuster that he does with respect to Republican obstructionism.