About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Novak falsely suggested House Dems allowed FISA to lapse

February 19, 2008 4:58 pm ET

SUMMARY: Robert Novak asserted that "[a] closed-door caucus of House Democrats" had "instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call President Bush's bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists" and that "Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there was no danger in letting the FISA legislation lapse temporarily." In fact, FISA did not lapse or expire; what expired was the Protect America Act (PAA), which amended FISA. Additionally, Novak falsely stated that "the Democratic leadership Wednesday brought up another bill simply extending FISA authority, this time for 21 days" and that most of the Democrats who voted against the bill "intuitively oppose any anti-terrorist proposal." In fact, the House voted on an extension to the PAA, not FISA, and most of the Democrats who voted against the extension have supported other bills to allow surveillance of suspected terrorists.

19 Comments

In his February 18 column, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted that "[a] closed-door caucus of House Democrats" had "instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] to call President Bush's bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists." Novak added, "Pelosi obeyed her caucus and left town for a week-long recess without renewing the government's eroding intelligence capability." Novak also reported: "Last Friday morning, debating two backbench Republicans on a nearly deserted House floor, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer [D-MD] said there was no danger in letting the FISA legislation lapse temporarily." In fact, FISA did not lapse or expire. What expired was the Protect America Act (PAA), which amended FISA and, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. Indeed, Pelosi noted in a February 13 statement that "the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies."

The Washington Post reported in a February 14 article headlined "If the Law Expires," that if the PAA expired, "[t]he government would retain all the powers it had before last August under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain court approval for surveillance conducted on U.S. soil or against U.S. targets." Further, a February 14 New York Times article reported:

The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.

If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Additionally, Novak wrote that "the Democratic leadership Wednesday brought up another bill simply extending FISA authority, this time for 21 days." In fact, the House voted that day on a 21-day extension of the PAA, not of FISA.

Regarding the 34 Democrats who voted against extending the PAA again, Novak falsely stated that "most were [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich Democrats who intuitively oppose any anti-terrorist proposal." In fact, 28 of the 34 Democrats who voted against the extension voted in favor of the Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation Act of 2007 on August 3, 2007. That bill would have, among other things, amended FISA to provide that "a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located within the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States."

Additionally, 31 of those 34 Democrats voted in favor of the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act (the RESTORE Act) on November 15, 2007. That bill contained the same language regarding interception of foreign-to-foreign communications as the Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation Act of 2007.

From Novak's February 18 column:

A closed-door caucus of House Democrats last Wednesday took a risky political course. By 4 to 1, they instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call President Bush's bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists. Rather than passing the bill with a minority of the House's Democratic majority, Pelosi obeyed her caucus and left town for a week-long recess without renewing the government's eroding intelligence capability.

Pelosi could have exercised leadership prerogatives and called up the FISA bill to pass with unanimous Republican support. Instead, she refused to bring to the floor a bill approved overwhelmingly by the Senate. House Democratic opposition included left-wing members typified by Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH], but they were only a small faction of those opposed. The true reason for blocking the bill was Senate-passed retroactive immunity to protect from lawsuits private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation's torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.

[...]

Instead, the Democratic leadership Wednesday brought up another bill simply extending FISA authority, this time for 21 days. Republicans refused to go along because it did not provide phone companies with the necessary immunity. It still could have passed with support from Democrats alone, and the leadership surely thought that would happen when it was brought to the floor Wednesday. But it failed, 229 to 191, with 34 Democrats voting no despite pleas for support from their leaders. The opponents included three congressmen who signed the letter to Pelosi advocating immunity from lawsuits, but most were Kucinich Democrats who intuitively oppose any anti-terrorist proposal.

Clearly, opposition to the [Sen. John D.] Rockefeller [D-WV] bill shown in the subsequent House Democratic caucus derived less from Kucinich's phobia about tough anti-terror countermeasures than obeisance to generous trial lawyers. Pelosi had to decide whether to pass the bill with a minority of her party, which can be dangerous for any leader of a House majority. In October 1998, Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich passed the Clinton administration's budget with 30 percent Republican support, less than a month before GOP losses in midterm elections forced his resignation from Congress.

Nothing will be done until the House formally returns Feb. 25, and the adjournment resolution was constructed so that Bush cannot summon Congress back into session. Last Friday morning, debating two backbench Republicans on a nearly deserted House floor, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there was no danger in letting the FISA legislation lapse temporarily. Democrats hope that will be the reaction of voters, as Republicans attack what happened last week.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by magnolialover (February 19, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
         
      What are republicans attacking? That some democrats want the President to follow the law as laid out in the Constitution? Jeesh... FISA is still enacted people. It would still work, had worked, and will continue to work.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 19, 2008 5:39 pm ET)
         
      In my opinion Novak committed treason by choosing to reveal what karl Rove and Co revealed to him. I have no respect for this citizen. he can blabber what he wants and the news media moguls can give him the microphone i still don't want to hear this bozo. I turn the knob and also shut off those who appear with him.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by darkmass (February 19, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
           
        Forgive me Wolf, but in your statement the word "citizen" should appear in quote marks.  However, your usage of bozo is fine.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by edenscape246494 (February 19, 2008 6:00 pm ET)
         
      Why do Republicans hate the law?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 19, 2008 6:14 pm ET)
           
        Because Karl Rove, with the blessing of the dodo-in-chief, wanted a one party rule form of government, under the spurrious excuse of "we want to protect you from the bad guys". The constitution( which derives its power from the free people, not subjects )  got in the way of that plan.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Goodfella57 (February 19, 2008 6:16 pm ET)
         
      Typical MMfA Obfuscation...Look, the fact is the the provision that the House Dems blocked provided for immunity to telecommunications company. Without the immunity, FISA is dead - the dems know it and they used just to annoy republicans - They do so at the peril of the American public. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (February 19, 2008 6:23 pm ET)
           

        I've written my congressman and asked him to give me immunity for any crimes I "might" have committed in my past.  Just to be safe.

        But to answer your post - FISA STILL EXISTS.  It's the oversight, stupid.  Why do you hate separation of powers so much?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (February 19, 2008 7:35 pm ET)
           

        Goodfellas wrat:

        >>Typical MMfA Obfuscation...Look, the fact is the the provision that the House Dems blocked provided for immunity to telecommunications company. Without the immunity,

        Everyone knows of Goodwin's law: the longer a discussion goes on in the internet, the changes of someone bringing up Hitler become greater. Can I make up something called funnmanpants law? It states that whenever anyone uses the phrase "the fact is" no facts are coming. If people actually had facts, they wouldn't use this phrase. It is a way to say "Oh, look, I'm going to pass my opinion off as fact."

        Can you please explain why the telecommunications companies need immunity from the law in order for FISA to wok?  

        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (February 19, 2008 10:35 pm ET)
             

          somethingfunnyinmypants,

          Because without the opportunity for the trial lawyers to get their 33% from telecoms, they would begin to wonder why they have lobbied and given huge financial support to the democrat party.  And Nancy couldn't let that happen.

          Whether or not the law lapses is inconsequental to the needs of the democrat house leadership, it is about the potential loss of lawyers fees.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 20, 2008 1:21 am ET)
               

            PC,

            Why do you hate the Constitution?  Why are warrants bad especially when they can be written 72 hours after surveillance?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 20, 2008 7:10 am ET)
               
            ProudMoron since you are too stupid to know the name of the largest political party in the US I wont waste my time explaining why your post was just plain ignorant.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (February 20, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
               

            proudconservative wrat:

            >>Whether or not the law lapses is inconsequental to the needs of the democrat house leadership, it is about the potential loss of lawyers fees.

            Good job. You managed to use two cases of name calling in your thread, and didn't come close to answering the obvious question. Again, can you please explain why the telecommunications companies need immunity from the law in order for FISA to work? 

            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 19, 2008 7:51 pm ET)
           
        No it isnt. How stupid is that to even SAY. If NOTHING is done ever again FISA will simply go back to what it was since it was written it wont be dead or hurt in ANY WAY. Poor Bush will just have to get a darn warrant if he is going to wiretap Americans. WWAAHHHHHH.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Dr Rick (February 19, 2008 8:18 pm ET)
           

        "Without the immunity, FISA is dead"

        Isn't it the other-way-around? Isn't a law "dead," or at least useless, if it can be repeatedly broken with impunity?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (February 19, 2008 10:15 pm ET)
           

        Without the immunity, FISA is dead - the dems know it and they used just to annoy republicans - They do so at the peril of the American public. 

        If no laws were broken no need for immunity.

        Junior CHOOSE immunity for Corporations 1st and the American public 2nd.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 20, 2008 8:45 am ET)
           

        Well, you're wrong actually. Without immunity the so called PAA would still pass, except Bush would not sign it, because he wants to protect his corporate buddies. Bush, therefore, is endangering the country, not the House. And aside from that, without the additional provisions of the PAA, FISA still exists, and would still be effective.

        What happened to the folks who used to scream about the "rule of law"? I see that they're hiding under the bed from the bad terrorists.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (February 20, 2008 2:08 pm ET)
           

        Goodfella:

        Without immunity FISA still works.  You're dead wrong.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (February 19, 2008 6:40 pm ET)
         

      Back again GF, in your usual vein.

      If the phone companies act legally to legal requests from the government, they are in the clear. Its more likely the the FBI will forget to pay the bill again and those patriotic companies will again, pull the plug. Why weren't you shreiking in terror when it happenned last time. Hard to see from under the bed?

      I think an "it" inserted in your post might help your clarity. Don't see much that can help your grit.

      Report Abuse