FISA: Here We Go Again in the SenateExpect the Senate to take up the bad House FISA bill on Wednesday. Whatever lipstick Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer tried to put on this pig, it's still a bad bill. While it might be better than the Rockefeller/Cheney bill the Senate tried to ram through, "better" doesn't mean "good." That provided a fig leaf for 105 Democrats in the House of Representatives last week, but we should make it absolutely clear to our Senators that that argument carries very little credibility.
Russ Feingold provides a quick, non-legalistic summary of the bill--including it's very few good points--showing just that in this fact sheet from Sen. Feingold. In synopsis:
On retroactive immunity, the bill virtually guarantees it, despite the fig-leaf of a district court review.
In their infinite wisdom, Hoyer and the negotiators set the bill to sunset in the fall of 2012--just before the next presidential election. This bad bill should not be in effect for that long, and shouldn't be subject to election year politics, again.
The protections against reverse targeting are inadequte--the guidelines for targeting someone in the U.S. are not subject to judicial review, or the requirement of a court order for that surveillance.
The bill doesn't prohibit bulk collection--"the collection of all international communications into and out of the U.S. to a whole continent or even the entire world."
The bill contains a far too broad "exigency" exception to the idea of FISC exclusivity--the Attorney General or DNI can certify that they don't have time to get a court order.
Even if the FISC determines after that fact that the surveillance violated the law, the government can still keep and use any of the information it obtains under those illegal warrants.
The bill doesn't provide additional checks and balances for Americans at home whose international communications are obtained because they are communicating with someone overseas.
Contact numbers at the link.