Linda, Cannon, and Digby on FISA

Pretty interesting to read all of the FISA analysis that's out there.

Joseph Cannon of Cannonfire has one of the better analyses I've read, and I won't go too much into it except to suggest that you read the whole thing. It's hard to pick just one bit of it to quote. One point I disagree with him on is his forgiveness of Reid on the basis that Reid voted no for the bill. But as Senate leader, Reid should never have let the thing go up for a vote. Quoth Digby:

The idea that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi supposedly "allowed" themselves to be punk'd again on a constitutional atrocity with scare stories and slick legislative strategy is indefensible and at some point you have to assume that it isn't just political malpractice or even spinelessness. When you see this legislation, on the heels of the passage of the Military Commissions atrocity last fall, you cannot escape the conclusion that the Democrats agree with the administration that the government must have unfettered authoritarian power to "keep the country safe."

Sure, a good many of them voted against it. But the Democrats control the agenda now and no legislation passes without the leadership's approval in this congress. They approved it. The pander wasn't to the red staters. It was those who voted against it who were pandering --- to us. If the Dems had wanted to stop Reid and Pelosi from putting this atrocity up for a vote they could have. They didn't.

My friend Linda, a contributor at Candide's Notebooks, replied to Feinstein in brilliant fashion below the jump.

But before the jump, I would be remiss if I didn't welcome welcome my reader from House.gov, as identified by sitemeter, who seems to be taking an interest in the FISA issue. A reader who, I should add, has been by before, or maybe someone else from the House. Welcome, and feel free to leave a comment. We'd love to hear what you're thinking.


Dear Sen. Feinstein,

As a follow-up to my two recent letters to you re your yes vote on the FISA bill, I would like to respond to the letter you received from DNI McConnell, in which he assured you that the spy agency has no plans to cast an improperly wide net.

You participated in the hearings at which AG Gonzales was questioned extensively on matters having to do with Gonzales' trustworthiness, as well as the trustworthiness of the President and his team, which includes his political appointees and McConell. By now, you must know that the Bush administration cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted to perform its responsibilities and duties to the American people within our legal jurisdictions, and it cannot be trusted to tell anyone the truth about anything it is doing. And at this point in its administration, many Americans would admit that it cannot be trusted to exercise a level of judgment and competence that we need from it.

I was also struck by McConnell's wordplay with the phrase "has no plans." This is clearly a ploy to prevent him or his staff from possibly committing perjury at any future hearings, if they are ever asked whether or not they have lived up to their promises to you in that letter. Why did he not assure you that he and the agency he oversees is committed to remaining strictly within the legal jurisdictions the American people expect of them?

This new FISA law does not give the Bush administration greater ability to wiretap suspected terorists. The 1978 version gave them that tool. What this new law does is to give President Bush the ability to conduct surveillance on Americans, even those not suspected of terrorism, and it eliminates congressional oversight and all-but-eliminates judicial oversight of their surveillance activities.

This is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is a U.S. Constitution issue.

I sincerely hope you will give this matter further study and consideration, and retract your vote.