Holt said all the right things. If I went only by his statement, I’d think they’d really fixed the RESTORE Act. It was a very good, if too short, statement.

But… I just don’t see it in the language of that amendment. Maybe that’s because they have to hide what they’re doing, with vague, obtuse construction, because of the TOP SECRET nature of the spying, so that it’s just not obvious via a surface reading. Dunno. Would like to know if Tierney’s on board too. Looks like it’s going to pass the House later today, no matter what, though.

But back in our world – I hope you have a blast with Marcy on Saturday, selise! That ought to be fun. You’ll both have someone informed to vent to in person, since you’ll probably be looking back at dastardly deeds by our Congress, that seem to be unfolding at lightning speed today – SOP for this Congress with another two-week vacation about to start (I checked the House Rules Committee site late last night sometime – I’m quite positive no mention of an 11/14 meeting on RESTORE was listed – in fact it still isn’t today, although notice of the new rule is now included on the site, which have visibly fewer listings than late yesterday’s ‘Recent Actions’ page listings).

http://www.rules.house.gov/

Prairie at 18 — Because they would not have been briefed by just someone at the WH — it would have also come from intel professionals with longstanding connections to the committee and to the intel community. There is so much about all of this that we don’t know publicly, but I do know that whatever was in the briefing was enough to give even Feingold pause for quite a while. That Whitehouse has agreed to parts of this is telling in terms of what was presented being both very serious and needful of careful consideration — but retroactive immunity is a step that has long-term, ripple out consequences and should not be given without a LOT of very careful, very considered thought. And even then, I’d be very reluctant to do it because of the message it sends that they can get away with repeatedly breaking the law without recourse from the public.

In one of my messages to the Senators, I pointed out that the President could have done everything in a lawful manner, if he would just have deigned to make nice with his own majority Congress (although I did point it out more artfully than I just did.) One of my points being that the precedent set by allowing the President to operate for long periods of time outside of the law, and even approving it officially retroactively, would have severe implications for the form of government that we will have in the future.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, an alien not permitted to be in or remain in the United States.

And how, pray tell, will the government go about identifying “undocumented workers” who, by their nature, are virtually invisible to th government? By blanket spying on all communications and fishing for undocumenteds?

All the guv’mnt need do is say “but we thought there was an illegal living with them!” and that gives them a free pass to spy on anyone?

My first-glance impression of the Rules Committee-adopted amendment to the RESTORE Act: this seems to be tinkering around the edges of the program warrant provisions, in an attempt perhaps to strengthen minimization procedures, without actually calling them that. Not very impressive, as far as I can tell. The secret FISA Court continues to be cut out of a meaningful supervision role, and to have its hands tied when it comes to an independent check or enforcement of Executive Branch actions executed behind a unilateral claim of “national security” need.

Very little actual change in language is included – the program-based, no-probable cause, year-long data-mining FISC order provisions of RESTORE remain, along with prospective immunity, and all the mumbo-jumbo of the re-arranged PAA language. I doubt very much whether the ACLU (or the courts if ever given the opportunity) will conclude that this passes Constitutional muster.

Rush Holt knuckled under, I’m afraid, for a few tokens thrown his way by the leadership.

damn.

no youtube for holt then.

but thanks for the quick analysis pow wow… i will plan to call holt’s office tomorrow if i can get wrap my head around the meaning of the language.

p.s. i get to meet marcy saturday!

Oh man, selise @ 55. If Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and John Conyers, et al, decided to listen to Rush Holt and John Tierney’s careful, principled, competent, constitutional work re FISA, that development would be just huge.

I’m sorry I missed Holt’s speech – but we can access it by tomorrow at the latest, we know. [Edit: THANKS, cboldt @ 58 and 60. They sure sprang this floor action on us - I’ll take a look.] Holt and Tierney were blazing the trail ahead on FISA for both the House and Senate, from their positions on the House Intelligence Committee; yet the House’s committee-passed RESTORE Act (in lieu of the Holt bill) needed a lot of revision to get away from the cotton-mouthed PAA language. Holt certainly sounded like he was sticking to his principles in the face of leadership opposition, so I sincerely hope this is as good as it sounds…

Maybe Chris Dodd’s hold will work its magic before Harry Reid has to decide to find his principles – yes, Tim T., let’s hope.

holt’s floor statement this morning (realplayer file – possibly a temp file):
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/…..25_117.ram

i didn’t see a statement from tierney…

i may make a youtube…

Very little actual change in language is included – the program-based, no-probable cause, year-long data-mining FISC order provisions of RESTORE remain, along with prospective immunity, and all the mumbo-jumbo of the re-arranged PAA language. I doubt very much whether the ACLU (or the courts if ever given the opportunity) will conclude that this passes Constitutional muster.

Rush Holt knuckled under, I’m afraid, for a few tokens thrown his way by the leadership.

A more direct link .. House Report 110-449. See Text of Amendment to be considered as adopted.

thanks!

cboldt @ 58

The RESTORE Act changes are visible at H.Res.824

i think that’s just the rule – not the amendments.

Go to the far right column on that page and follow the links to the amendments.