The US Congress settled on a deal this week to overhaul the rules governing the US government’s ability to wiretap voice and data network communications. If that’s not disturbing enough, the same members also agreed to provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations that actually perform the eavesdropping.
The deal allows the US government to wiretap the communications of foreign nationals without warrants and to warrantlessly eavesdrop on domestic communications for up to a week in emergency situations where national security information might be lost. In non-emergency situations, or after a week of an emergency, the administration would be required to obtain a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.
The one glimmer of good news? The brokered deal, negotiated with the Bush administration by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), will expire at the end of 2012 unless Congress renews it.
The US House of Representatives, after having held out against granting immunity to the telecoms, passed the bill yesterday, 293-129. The US Senate is expected to pass the bill quickly, perhaps as early as Monday.
And just where on the issue was Barack Obama, the presidential candidate promising politics as unusual? As recently as late January, Obamba “strongly opposed retroactive immunity” and co-sponsored Senator Chris Dodd‘s amendment to remove the immunity provision. This week, when the legislative rubber hit the proverbial road, Obama was at first stunningly silent and suspiciously politics-as-usual-like.
After all, Obama was expending a lot of energy retracting his promise to seek public funds for his election campaign. Because when all is said and done, passing on nearly US$85 million for a chance at raising US$300 million (or more) is certainly more important than working to protect the US citizenry’s civil liberties.
Then, yesterday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee announced he would support the legislation. “It is not all that I would want,” Obama told Congressional Quarterly. “But given the legitimate threats that we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”
Kevin Bankston, a senior lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, that the agreement is “not a compromise; it’s pure theater.”
Update: Saturday, 21 June 2008 4:37PM CDT: By far the best coverage of this issue is provided by Julian Sanchez writing for Ars Technica. Exceptionally well done.
Update: Sunday, 22 June 2008 12:59PM CDT: Lawrence Lessig has published a plea to simmer down about the FISA compromise and keep our collective eye on the ball: “you don’t sacrifice a pawn because you want to kill pawns.”
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.