What's behind the FISA compromise?

Behind the scenes at CSCC we've had a running conversation about whether to make a big push to engage our members and our representatives in the debate about FISA--the Foreign Intelligence Suveillance Act. On one hand, it's not one of those priority issues (3 national, 3 state/local) that we identified for this year. On the other hand, it goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy: if the president can ignore the law, get the cooperation of the telephone companies (or at least some of the biggest ones) for unfettered access to all international communications, and then get the companies that knowingly broke the law retroactive immunity from any punishment, how can we believe in the protections stated in the Constitution?

Congressman Chris Carney, whom CSCC endorsed in 2006, voted to support the so-called compromise legislation that, in effect, grants retroactive immunity but restores court protections of various kinds. Many groups on the left, particularly MoveOn.org, have been fighting against retroactive immunity.

Now that Barack Obama, Jim Webb and many other Democrats have voted for the compromise, this issue seems resolved at least until next year. Here's a link to an article making the case that the compromise is better than no bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?ex=1373256000&en=d4807dea94410bce&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

(Morton Halperin, "Listing to Compromise," NYTimes, July 8, 2008)

From the reading I've done, all I can say is that we don't know whether this compromise is going to be a good thing or a bad thing. We may come to regret the message that has been sent here.

Was this issue worth taking on for CSCC, when we have our big three national issues of Iraq, Health Care, and Energy/Environment/Global Warming hanging out there? Perhaps our reps were counting on our limited attention span. For our elected officials, the danger of being blamed for a terrorist attack is probably a greater political danger than being blamed for an erosion in constitutional protections. Still, we should appreciate the efforts that Sens. Dodd and Feingold make to stop the retroactive immunity provision.

One hopeful sign: MoveOn.org encouraged its members to contact Barack Obama to let him know that there are steps he can take if he becomes president that could help to limit the damage. I contacted him through his website and got an automated response almost immediately (which was expected). TEN MINUTES LATER, I got an email specfically about FISA laying out his position and stating what he would do as president. Compared to other operations, which take days to respond or never respond (that's you, Sen. Specter) to electronic communications, the Obama team seems to be in the 21st century. Perhaps they also understand why electronic freedom and privacy matter.