Not knowing the exact language in the FISA “compromise” that seeks to restore effective electronic surveillance authority, we glean through the writings of the official organs of outrage to get a sense of the proposal’s appropriateness.
- The New York Times’ editorial page is appalled.
- Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is enraged and calling Majority Leader Hoyer a liar to raise money to spend on political ads.
- The ACLU is fuming against a “sham” of a compromise being “rammed” through.
- Art Levine of The Huffington Post is exercised.
- Tom Burghardt at Dissident Voice: “[Congressional] Democrats are preparing to gut the Constitution by granting giant telecom companies retroactive immunity and liability protection on warrantless wiretapping by the Bush regime.”
All good signs. Any “compromise” that seeks to punish the Administration’s foreign policy by litigating against the private sector is an abuse of the legal system and a disincentive for companies to help prevent terrorists from killing you and me.
For a balanced news story with some details updating the debate, here’s Congress Daily, “Latest FISA Compromise Emerges with an Uncertain Fate.” Sens. Reid and Durbin are opposed to new language; they voted against passage of the original, superior Senate bill, S. 2248. It passed by a vote of 68-29.
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011