Rep. Michele Bachmann has an op-ed in Saturday’s Strib in which she chastizes the House Democratic Leadership for letting the Protect America Act lapse. Here’s how she states her case:

One of the critical tools that has allowed us to keep the homeland safe after 9/11 has been the Protect America Act. It updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with new, deadly challenges in this age of terror — enabling intelligence services to immediately listen to phone calls made between foreign terrorists.

But on Feb. 16, the Protect America Act expired — even though the Senate voted to reauthorize it with a strong, bipartisan vote, and even though the same bipartisan support exists in the House as well.

Why, then, has it expired?

Because the House Democratic leadership has simply refused to allow a vote, knowing it will pass. In fact, 21 House Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging her to bring the bill to the floor.

While this inaction may score cheap political points with the fringe elements of the Democratic caucus, American families are needlessly imperiled. This is not an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. This is fact, confirmed by our intelligence community and agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The House Democratic leadership won’t pay attention to their own representatives because they’re interested in having their trial lawyer friends sue the government. The reason why they want that is for the documents they hope to unearth during discovery. They’re hoping they’ll discover some damning document during discovery.

Meanwhile, our intelligence-gathering agencies can’t operate at peak efficiency:

We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here’s why:

• Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our
  telecommunications companies. They’re already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.
• It has already happened, briefly. “[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act,” Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

DNI Director stated forcefully during congressional testimony that his hands were tied because of the FISA Appeals Court judge’s ruling. The Protect America Act rectified that problem. Now that it’s lapsed, we’ve returned to operating with one eye shut.

It’s important to ask if there are other reasons why Ms. Pelosi wouldn’t let the Senate bill come to a vote. The answer is a resounding yes. To have this bill pass over her objections would make her look weak, unable to control her own caucus. She can’t offord to look weak or ineffective heading into the white-hot spotlight of the election season.

If Ms. Pelosi can’t control her minions on this vote, they might well rebel on other votes, too. At some point, she’ll have to give in. The telecommunications companies won’t cooperate without immunity. When the first commercials get shot of Mike McConnell testifying that his hands are tied because the Protect America Act lapsed, when that commercial shows the Senate passing the PAA renewal with immunity by a 68-29 vote, the average voter won’t side with Ms. Pelosi. They’ll side with Mike McConnell in a heartbeat.

Rep. Bachmann is right on the money in pointing out how the Democratic leadership has failed in its primary responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Technorati Tags: FISA, Michele Bachmann, National Security, Intelligence, Mike McConnell, Sylvestre Reyes, Nancy Pelosi, Immunity, Terrorism, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Seriously! Just look at the rampant terrorism happening now that FISA has expired. I can’t even walk down the streets without terrorism showing up. Just the other day, I saw a suicide bomber down the street, but then I realized it was just a Mexican. Bush promised that he would fight the Al-Qaeda he created in Iraq so we wouldn’t fight them here, but in order to do that, we need to grant telecoms immunity.

   If we don’t grant telecoms immunity, then they will be sued, which as we all know, prevents us from fighting terrorism. But hey, at least we’ll have the democrats to blame for it, and that’s what matters most.

   Comment by Liem — March 17, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

2. Keep thinking that Liem.

   And sooner or later, we will have another eye opening, and then you can scream bloody murder because nobody connected the dots.

   Mean time you can conveniantly continue ignore the fact that you, yes you, are fighting an enemy that really doesnt give a shit whether you want to protect his fictitious “rights” or not, because he really doesn’t even care if he survives. That wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t so committed to taking out you an as many of us, wherever and when ever he can. And its not just here at home that have to worry about him, because the silly bastards are all over the world.

   Yep, got yourself a win-win situation going for ya there.

   Even if yop are about as ignorant as a oyster.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — March 17, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

3. Your arguments have been repeatedly refuted and proved simply wrong. To whit:

   - The NSA and CIA have unfettered authority to wiretap at will outside the United States. FISA only regulates domestic spying. No matter what, in an emergency situation, the government can begin a wiretap immediately. Probable cause is a very low evidentiary threshold, so if the government does not have enough of a justification to obtain a judge’s approval (within 72 hours) there is probably not a very good reason for them to believe there’s an emergency in the first place.
   - James Baker, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review: “I just want to explain that the reason we do it that way is because we’re under a 72-hour clock… The point is, there’s been no loss of foreign intelligence information. That’s the key thing. … The American people have not been put at any risk because of this process going on. The collection was not ready until it was ready, and once it was ready, we went and got the attorney general’s approval. I’m not saying that we can always do it in one minute, but we can do it pretty quick, and we know how to do it, and we’ve done it many, many times.”
   - The day after writing the letter to Congress (a February 22nd letter to the House Permanent Select Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell), Mukasey and McConnell backtracked and admitted that telecom cooperation with surveillance under existing orders is continuing.
   - Any delays or loss of intelligence rests squarely on the shoulders of the president who refused to sign another extension of the Protect America Act.
   - If the government is having trouble compelling its “private partners” to help in its intelligence gathering, it is most likely because the government is asking them to do something that is not authorized under the law.

   Speaker Pelosi is, therefor, doing what her constituency wants her to do, and standing up for the Constitution.

   Meanwhile, nothing has changed in terms of our capabilities to track, monitor and continue to prevent whatever terrorist attacks we can. The Bush cabal
   

   …just has to get a FISA warrant, the same way it did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Indeed, Bush himself praised the changes Congress made to FISA in the wake of the September 11 attacks, noting that they “will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones” and makes the intelligences community “able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.”

   If anyone should be ashamed, its you and your fear-mongering attempts to continue the divide in this country.

   This debate must pose quite a conflict for bin Laden (if only we knew where he was!). Would he want to see us lose more of our liberties, or be at greater risk for being found?

   Comment by Rocky — March 17, 2008 @ 8:50 pm

4. So tell me again why immunity for telecoms is so important to prevent terrorism? And are you really going to keep bring up doomsday scenarios to convince everyone in getting what you want?

   You see, the difference between you and me is that I’m not terrorized by terrorists. You can call it ignorance if you want, but people like you have been wrong entirely way too many times to be taken seriously.

   Comment by Liem — March 18, 2008 @ 12:02 am

5. And people like you were the reason guys like Hitler and Tojo rose to power too any times. So get off the pedestal.

   Why wouldn’t we want to know what potential terrorists are planning and plotting against us? Forewarned is forearmed and all that stuff. Or is that just too much militarism for you?

   Immunity for telecomms has nothing to do with this as much as the desire by the whinny silver haired hippies from Marin and Sausalito who prop up Pelosi in power to cripple Bush.

   He signed a 15-day extension of the PAA AS REQUESTED BY THE CONGRESS – presumably so it could get its act together and vote to make the PAA provisions permanent.
   The Senate was up to the task, but Nancy Pelosi, wanted no part of that, and instead went on a call a 12-day vacation for her minions without bothering to vote on the FISA Amendments Act passed by the Senate just two days earlier. And two days after the House adjourned, the PAA expired.
   Pelosi did all of this “despite a letter she received from most of the ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats telling her they’d vote for the Senate bill. Added to Republican numbers, the Blue Dogs’ votes would have enabled Pelosi to pass the bill on a simple majority vote.”

   Whatever happened to, “I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership not partisanship, and look forward to working … with you on behalf of the American people.”

   I guess that goes in the same file as “Peace in our time”

   And you wonder why Congress’s popularity numbers are two decks below Bushes??

   Comment by T. A. Gray — March 18, 2008 @ 9:20 am

6. I was wondering when the comparisons to Hitler would come out. I don’t know though, don’t you find it kind of weird how I’m the one who doesn’t want the government to do whatever they want to give the government more authority?

   “Immunity for telecoms has nothing to do with this.” I accept your apology and thanks for playing.

   Comment by Liem — March 18, 2008 @ 10:16 am

7. Oh thats cute Liem. ha ha ha

   But yes, I do happen to have a big problem with a political psychosis like yours that finds it perfectly OK for a government to freely filch my pocket for its own self aggrandizing and pet schemes to keep the helpless in their place, yet doesnt have the guts to defend itself, or come to grips with life outside its pacisfist moral relativism.

   Your wanting the government to not have more authority only seems to apply when its fits your agenda, rather than actually doing its constuitutional duties.

   But hey, thats what we are about as America, you have the freedom to think like a fool and hypocrit.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — March 18, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

8. Before I call you out on your presumptions and avoidance of the issues I brought up, would you care to tell me what exactly is my agenda?

   Comment by Liem — March 18, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

9. The issues or presumptions your Royal Smugness wants to bring up or “call me out on” are not what I opinioned here, or did I miss your name as the author of the above article? Your agenda is your agenda, and none of my business, except from what is obvious from reading your remarks.

   But OK, I’ll try to be intellectually honest and give my opinions sans the sarcasm and snide remarks. You can take them or leave them, because, frankly Im rather tired of your drek and this is the last Im going say about this.

   You may not be terrorized by terrorists.
   Thats most commendable, and guess what, I don’t presume to be either. I do not know how old you are, or whether you spent time fighting a war as I did which some considered immoral, or had the honor of being spit on by some filthy punk high on hash with flowers in his hair for doing what I believed in. I suspect not, since I can almost smell the youthful and intellectual arrogance of your comments, but I could be wrong.

   I would be among the last person that wants this or any “war” to continue one minute more than necessary, or revive itself in some other country, because I know first hand what a real war is, and have dealt with the psychological and physical trauma of watching a shipmate turm into a pile of bloody goo in front of my eyes.

   See, its all very clean and clinical and for you and I to sit here and split hairs over the constitutional niceties of wiretapping someone who may, or may not be plotting another 9/11. And while it would certainly be swell, if we could just do the same thing over a cup of tea and a nice buttered muffin with a muslim radical, I just cant see that as very realistic, knowing the nature of his fanatic beliefs.

   So all I’m trying to impart to you is this: if we have to have to this God awful war, then lets be smart enough and sagacious enough, and even underhanded enough, if thats what it takes, to know what the hell we are up against, and if that means some one who may be an enemy disguising as Joe Niceguy looses a few rights, so somebody else doesnt have to loose a comrad or a shipmate or a neighbor, or God forbid, a relative in the same way I did, dont you think it might just possibly be worth it?

   This right that you so zealously want to defend is not absolute. You know that.
   Nor is suspending it without precedent.
   Whethe we like it or not, a government has to do what it has to do sometimes, and no, its not very pretty and its not theoretically clean, it may not be legal, and it may not even be constitutional. Emerson wrote that laws are nothing more than memoranda we write to ourselves. And if enough fools can be convinced to adopt one that is insane, it will be.

   Now if you think you’ve “won”, or called me out on something, as if that what life is all about, Fine! Score one and buy yourself a beer. With all due respect to you, I remain unconvinced of Nancy Pelosi’s statesmanship or wisdom.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — March 18, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

10. Instead of throwing out political talking points and attacks, you’ve talked like a real person, so for what it’s worth, I appreciated that post. I hope your future posts are the same.

    You’re right in that I’m young, but I’m also respectful enough to avoid resorting to labels and assumptions. What I’ve experienced is seeing these leaders destroying the future that is my America. When these leaders resort to scare tactics of imminent terrorism to get what they want, I remember Iraq and WMDs and gag. When these same leaders tell me that because I believe differently than they do, I will be somehow responsible for another terrorist attack, I feel as though I’m being forced to conform or face the consequences. You’ll have to understand then that I don’t trust these leaders for shit in the face of everything that’s been done.

    In regards to FISA, I’m not splitting hairs; retroactive immunity for telecoms has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with corporate interests. I could care less about Pelosi.

    So to fix what’s wrong with America, I’d buy you a beer, TA Gray.

    Comment by Liem — March 18, 2008 @ 11:04 pm

11. Inasmuch as we are both shooting rounds past each other at completely different targets, I now see the angst on your part.

    Whether or not retroactive immunity is a matter of corporate interests is debateable. Yes there may a special interest, involved, but there is also the possibility, that it is an honest attempt to protect them from other non-corporate interests that may not have the best of intentions as well. Unless you know for a fact which case it is, (which I dont) you cant just write it off another case of corporate intrest.

    If you want to fix the country, and I think we’d both agree its in a fine mess right now. I’d tell you the same as Im telling my daughter.

    Believe no one, in politics, academics, or the news media until you’ve done your own homework.

    Go find a history text written before 1960, if you can and read it well, because its free of political correctness and unabashed in its own recollection of what this country is really about.

    Do the same thing with a good geography book because the crap are trying to teach or taught you already is just that, crap.

    Ever watch J Leno interview young people on the street? Its deplorable the lack of history and geography they show. They’ve been brainwashed on sports, Hollywood and sex. I hope its not typical, but I have a chilling feeling it is.

    There are forces in the world and in our own country that are successfully pairing us against each other for the goal of simply watching us self destruct. Whether it is because they are jealous of our power, our freedom, or wealth I dont know. Whatever the reason, they are doing a damned good job of it, and if they are successful, it will be our own damned fault for 3 reasons;
    1. We’ve been gullible fools, in letting a government and political system that has grown corrupt tell us what to do.
    2. We have allowed a press and news media to become dominated by a cartel of a few owners.
    3. We have made unquestioned demi-gods of anyone with a PhD.

    But dont take my word for all this, check it out yourself, read conservative editorials as well as the liberal. We’re not a bunch of i9th century throwbacks, We’re not all white, and were not all octogenarians longing for the good old days of .35 a gallon gas.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — March 19, 2008 @ 1:10 am