Andrew McCarthy on FISA Bill

This is just a laugh.

Steve Benen at C & L notes National Review's Andrew McCarthy and his latest editorial calling House Democrats out for playing partisan politics by not passing the horrible FISA bill with retroactive telecom immunity, which he admits is a bad bill, but what other choice do we have?

Here's another choice. No immunity. As Kevin Drum points out: , "...if it’s that important, there’s a simple answer: pass the bill without telecom immunity. Then come back and introduce immunity in a separate bill. If you’ve got the votes for it, fine. If not, too bad. I’m against immunity myself — though hardly hellbent on the subject — but whichever way the vote went, in the meantime we’d have the FISA extension and surveillance could continue normally."

Drum also notes that the "FISA extension" is shorthand for the Protect America Act, which passed last November and extended (i.e., changed) the then-current FISA legislation in various ways. PAA sunsets on Saturday if a new bill isn't passed, but the original FISA legislation will stay in place. It just doesn't magically disappear thereby materializing nasty Muslims on the streets who want to kill us for our freedoms.

As I said before, if it were truly a matter of life and death, why would the president effectively veto the bill by threatening to do as much without the immunity provision? Answer: Because there's no "there" there. The only reasons the administration wants immunity passed is so they can get away with the further erosion of the Constitution, protect corporations yet again while screwing its citizens and hide the crimes they have committed. Immunity equals no investigation.

So who's playing political football with national security? The Democrats who are trying to preserve Fourth Amendment rights for US citizens, or the Republicans who walk out of Congress, holding their breath til they get their way, crying "it's my ball and I'm going home"?

This false argument that we need to protect the telecoms from lawsuits or else they won't help us is complete bullshit. Case in point were the telecoms who stopped providing the information because the FBI failed to pay their phone bills! If they were really doing it "in good faith", then the information would have kept on flowing. So there goes that argument.

If the US government has a warrant, then the telecoms HAVE TO comply and no lawsuit would stand up in court. But the fact of the matter is that the US government doesn't want to pick and choose who they need to surveil on real facts and real leads. They just want to look like they're doing something so they record and read EVERYTHING from EVERYONE... how in hell can they effectively sort through all that data? It's the equivalent of the "no-fly"watch list being 800,000 people long (and including Senator Ted Kennedy). If everyone's on it, then it's absolutely useless.

I'll have more on this later because in skimming through McCarthy's editorial, it reads like your basic GOP talking points memo through and through, so I feel the need to stab a few holes in it when I have more time... much more time.