The House Does the Right Thing? Maybe So!

[UPDATED]
It figures. As soon as I get so busy that I can't spend the time I'd like to writing here, the Democrats get all bold on us and start standing up to the Prez. On Wednesday, the House tried to pass another extension of FISA, but Republicans (and some Democrats) voted it down. (Some of the Democrats seem to have voted against the extension not in acquiescence to the Prez and the Senate Republicans but because they don't want any FISA bill to pass in the first place.) On Thursday, Democrats in the House stared down the administration and refused to go along with whatever it was that the Senate voted in about FISA [and surveillance]. Perhaps more surprisingly, Friday came and went, and the Democrats hadn't changed their mind and caved, instead. Sure, the House basically had to adjourn in order to hold themselves to that, but whatever is necessary to make it work.

In protest, House Republicans walked out of the House session, which was, unfortunately, not their finest hour. In fact, the post I linked to earlier demonstrates that the whole protest was pretty muddled to begin with--not everyone was sure exactly why they left the chamber. It was thought for some time that it was perhaps because the House was about to vote on contempt citations for presidential staff who refused to appear before Congress, that Republicans were so contemptuous of the rule of law that they'd rebel at the mere thought that they had to be answerable to anyone.

The current surveillance law remains in effect until midnight Saturday night. The pressure will continue to mount on House members to do their patriotic duty and vote to allow the Prez to ignore the law. Will they cave? History says they might, but let's remain optimistic while we can.

UPDATE--Reading over this in the morning, I realize that I should've clarified that I used FISA as shorthand for the surveillance and telecom immunity bill that the Senate passed and that should've been headed to House-Senate conference to work out the differences. FISA itself, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that has had jurisdiction over surveillance and intelligence gathering since 1978, remains in effect after midnight Saturday. It is in no way under consideration for change. The new warrantless wiretap program sets FISA's legal protections aside, and in turning that program away, the House is actually reinforcing the original FISA. Bush and the Republicans insist that the House is putting an end to surveillance, but that's a ridiculous charge. Instead, this is making sure that somebody in authority--a FISA court that itself works behind closed doors and whose decisions generally remain classified--keeps an eye on the intelligence community and what it is doing. As far as has been made public, the FISA court didn't turn down any intelligence warrant requests from the 1970s until 2003 (Josh Marshall has some details from a few years ago). Although the court asked for some warrants to be modified, as of 2005, it had only turned down four outright. The Bush administration seems to think that these people are too lax in protecting the country. That should tell you all that you need to know.