Are The Ds Developing Backbone?

Or are they simply setting up veto challenges for President Bush, like a Republican Congress did to Clinton?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved (10-9) a bill "modernizing" FISA that does not grant immunity to telecos that cooperated with the Bush Administration's non-FISA-authorized wiretaps, and the House approved (227-189) its own FISA-modification bill, also without immunity.

President Bush has declared he will veto any legislation that does not provide immunity from the Bush Administration wiretaps that courts have ruled unconstitutional.

This week's defiance is a (tactical? strategic?) reversal. For example, in August, Democrats capitulated to the threat of a Bush veto and temporarily (for a six month period) legalized warrantless wiretaps. And last month, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved a FISA bill with the requested immunity.

Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) will have to decide which bill to bring to the floor. It's almost certain Senate Republicans will filibuster the bill that does not provide immunity, although Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is reportedly attempting to broker a compromise.

Why should you care? From AP:

[Chair Patrick Leahy] said granting immunity would give the Bush administration a "blank check." Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's top Republican, said court cases may be the only way Congress can learn how far outside the law the administration has gone in eavesdropping.

As a former constituent, I'm disappointed in Specter. (Not for the first time.) In 2006, when he was chair, Specter believed the wiretaps were illegal: "There is a specific statute on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says flatly that you can't undertake that kind of surveillance without a court order."

Now he says it may take the courts to determine the extent of the illegality? So why is he providing cover for the telecos and, by association, the White House?

If legal action is the only way to find out what the Administration has done, in order to make a judgment about the legality of those actions, then I think it's clear that no one -- telecos or Administration officials -- should be talking "immunity." Remember, Qwest refused, on the advice of heir legal counsel.

Information on bills, votes:

• S.1927, PL 110-55. The interim bill passed in August.
  
  
• HR 3773, To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. Prime Sponsor: Rep John Conyers, Jr. [D-MI-14].
  
  Roll Call Vote, 227-189. Democrats voting no: 5, Barrow, Capuano, Lampson, Michaud, Serrano. Republicans voting yes: 5, Duncan, Flake, Gilchrest, Inglis (SC), Jones (NC).
  
  
• Senate Intelligence Committee, S 2248, An original bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes (pdf) . Press Release; committee vote, 13-2. Chairman Rockefeller--aye; Feinstein--aye; Wyden--no; Bayh--aye; Mikulski--aye; Feingold--no; Nelson--aye; Whitehouse--aye; Vice Chairman Bond--aye; Warner--aye; Hagel--aye; Chambliss--aye; Hatch--aye; Snowe--aye; Burr--aye.

Updated: For humorous commentary on this headline, see Spinocrat.