Feature

Bumpy ride for surveillance bill

Democratic leaders Wednesday withdrew a measure to strengthen oversight of anti-terrorist wiretapping in the face of lackluster support and a likely veto. Protecting civil liberties is important, said the Chicago Tribune, but the "overarching" c

What happenedDemocratic leaders Wednesday withdrew a measure to strengthen oversight of anti-terrorist wiretapping in the face of lackluster support and a likely veto. The bill would have allowed unfettered surveillance of foreign terror suspects, but required special authorization if those targets were in contact with people in the U.S. Congress is trying to revise a temporary law that was passed in August but expires in February.

What the commentators saidThe collapse of the Democrats’ bill was “a victory for President Bush,” said Jonathan Weisman and Ellen Nakashima in The Washington Post (free registration). Democrats said strengthening the surveillance court would protect civil liberties, but the White House said the measure would have hampered anti-terrorism work. Now Congress and White House have reached an agreement on another version of the bill, granting immunity to telephone companies that assist the program—as Bush wanted.

The Democrats caved, said James Joyner in the blog Outside the Beltway, but this deal isn’t all that bad. “Whatever one’s views on the wisdom or even legality of the federal government conducting domestic surveillance without a warrant,” it would be “obviously absurd” to subject phone companies to lawsuits for complying with the government orders. “If someone should be subject to lawsuits, it’s the policy-makers who ordered the surveillance.”

“Making the current law permanent is more sensible than excessive tinkering,” said the Chicago Tribune in an editorial. More court oversight would be a good way to protect the privacy of “innocent Americans,” but the “overarching” need is flexibility to allow “real-time” surveillance of suspected terrorists. Instead of sinking into “partisan political jousts,” lawmakers should all agree to make “a good-faith effort to balance civil liberties against strong surveillance.”

“As the president asked: ‘Why change a good law?’" said Investor’s Business Daily in an editorial. The surveillance program has “helped foil numerous bomb plots,” and there is no reason to weaken it.

Recommended

Erdogan orders removal of 10 ambassadors from Turkey, including U.S. envoy
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
'persona non grata'

Erdogan orders removal of 10 ambassadors from Turkey, including U.S. envoy

U.S. military says drone strike killed al Qaeda leader in Syria
A file photo showing the aftermath of a drone strike in Syria.
airstrikes

U.S. military says drone strike killed al Qaeda leader in Syria

The climate summit that could save the planet
COP26.
Briefing

The climate summit that could save the planet

The 'economics of global warming' are different in Russia
Russian Arctic.
brrrrr?

The 'economics of global warming' are different in Russia

Most Popular

The 'Trump app' will be the insurrection on steroids
Donald Trump.
Picture of Damon LinkerDamon Linker

The 'Trump app' will be the insurrection on steroids

The American 'Great Resignation' by the numbers
Help wanted sign
Help Wanted

The American 'Great Resignation' by the numbers

Archaeologists used tree rings, astrophysics to prove Vikings were in Canada in 1021
L'Anse aux Meadows
Running Rings around Columbus

Archaeologists used tree rings, astrophysics to prove Vikings were in Canada in 1021