Time ticks on FISA fix for America’s security

By Doug Carlson - Jul 8, 2008 - comment

While it appears Congress is skilled in the business of leaving things unfinished, that body is set to finish this week what it left undone months ago: an update of a law on intelligence gathering to help keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. If a few elected leaders have their way, however, key national security protections would be stripped from the measure under debate, possibly exacting a heavy cost to telecommunications companies that have stood in defense of our nation since September 11.

In the wake of the horrific attacks on the United States, telecommunications companies heeded requests from the U.S. government to monitor phone and fax communications with those suspected of plotting future attacks on our nation. No doubt in large part to the cooperation of these companies, our country has enjoyed nearly seven years without another attack.

A House-passed bill, now awaiting Senate action, would reauthorize a 1978 law—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—to allow our intelligence community to monitor foreign terrorists’ communications and give retroactive immunity to companies that have helped fortify national security by assisting the government through monitoring foreign terrorist networks.

But some senators are in no hurry to move on the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) chose to send the Senate home for its July 4 recess without considering the renewal of the law, pushing the issue aside for another day. That day is expected to be today—and action on the bill could not come soon enough. Beginning Aug. 1, several surveillance-monitoring provisions will expire, including the ability of companies to monitor communications between some overseas foreign terrorist suspects without first obtaining a warrant from the special FISA court.

It appears leadership in the House and Senate has been playing games with the measure for months. The Senate first approved a reauthorization of FISA in February with broad bipartisan support, 68-29, but weeks and months passed without its consideration in the House. Now the House has drawn up a compromise in concert with the White House. That bill passed the House June 20 by another strong margin, 293-129.

The centerpiece of debate is whether to shield telecom companies from lawsuits. The issue has divided the liberal bloc, even placing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama at odds with many supporters and those within his party. The Illinois senator is backing the House-passed bill. He promises, however, to fight to strip retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

The back-and-forth political delays help only a few special interests, namely the trial lawyers who have leveled some 40 lawsuits against the telecom companies to the tune of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, our national security is at greater risk as our foreign enemies can more easily pass information into our country without us knowing it. During this time of war, it would be both dangerous to hamstring our intelligence community from intercepting foreign communications and reprehensible to punish telecom companies for their cooperation.

It is our understanding that three amendments are being proposed addressing immunity for the telecom companies that assisted the U.S. government in its efforts to identify terrorist suspects. Amendments will be offered by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). None of these amendments, however, is helpful to our efforts to keep the American people safe from terrorists.

If you agree that the telecom companies should not be held liable for their efforts to work with the U.S. government in helping to keep our country secure, please contact your senators immediately and express your opposition to these amendments.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Legislation, National

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com