ACLU condemns Senate FISA vote Blogburst

This is a Stop the ACLU Blogburst:

I was glad to see that he was playing hardball with the House on this, and that part of the legislation went to protect third party companies that participate patriotically in protecting America from insane lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits, of course, can be traced back to the ACLU, so it is no surprise that they were quite upset when the Senate passed this legislation.

The American Civil Liberties Union today slammed the U.S. Senate for not only authorizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program but for granting immunity to his accomplices, the telecommunications companies. By a vote of 68 to 29, the Senate passed legislation amending and, in the end, gutting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill now must be conferenced with the House's version of the bill – which contains no immunity and stricter Fourth Amendment protections – by February 16th, the recently extended expiration date of the equally disastrous Protect America Act.

The ACLU go on to give "kudos" to Feingold and Dodd for trying to make the bill more "palatable". Of course the ACLU claim to be upset over "privacy" issues, yet we know their hypocrisy on this issue. No doubt they are more upset by the protection of telecom companies from their million dollar lawsuits.

Meanwhile Bush is playing hardball on this important legislation.

A main sticking point is a provision included in the Senate legislation that would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government. Bush said the companies "won't help protect America" without such liability protection.

The president stated that terrorists must communicate with each other and exchange information to carry out their plans and argued that enlisting the help of telecommunications companies is crucial in uncovering their activities.

Indeed, this has slipped the grasp of the minds at the ACLU. They are suggesting to the House to let the Protect America Act expire.

The ACLU exhorts members of the House to let the unconstitutional Protect America Act expire and stand strong on not letting the phone companies off the hook for law breaking.

I agree with John Boehner's statement:

"Our terrorist surveillance laws are critical to keeping our nation safe from attack, and until we modernize them, our intelligence officials will be at a significant disadvantage against the terrorists who threaten our way of life. The Senate-passed bill would modernize these laws in the long-term so intelligence officials – not government lawyers – are entrusted to protect our national security. President Bush has said he will not sign another temporary measure that only kicks the can farther down the road, and I stand behind that decision.

"The Majority has played games with FISA modernization for months on end, and today, those games must end. Delaying action on a long-term modernization bill puts our national security at risk. It's time for House Democratic leaders to do the right thing and allow the House to consider the Senate's bipartisan bill so President Bush can sign it into law."

My Pet Jawa points out that Obama just may be the ACLU's candidate of choice…the dangerous kind.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup on this.

Barrack Obama's "change" is more than a silly slogan, it's dangerous. For Obama "change" means moving American to a pre-9/11 stance where law enforcement's hands were tied. 9/11 was not a failure of individuals–Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are not to personally to blame–it was systemic failure. Barrack Obama wants to take us back to that system that failed us.

WSJ:

It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.

AJ Strata breaks it down, and everything he says of Obama can be applied to the ACLU:

This upside down world, where terrorists who make it to our shores are then considered untouchable because of some bizarre fear of a new Nixon abuse of power, is what Obama voted FOR! Obama wants to give terrorists carte blanche freedom to communicate with their agents in the US once they get here. What is so wrong with the current system? Why do NSA leads have to be relegated back to some kind of impure status simply because the NSA detected them and not the FBI (who doesn't listen in on our enemies overseas)? What is wrong with the leads being passed to the FBI to assess, which then takes those which show to be troubling to the FIS Court for full surveillance? This program has stopped attacks and saved lives, and yet "Big Bird" Obama and his Sesame Street view that 'we can all just hold hands and get along' is opposed to it and wants to expose us to unnecessary risk?

And this is EXACTLY what Osama wants us to do, lower our guard again so he can hit us hard and show the Muslim world he is still relevant and not on the brink of being destroyed. Even Hillary has not been this suicidally delusional about the threat to America. The enemy is not the phone company Big Bird, it is all those Jihadis working to die a glorious death by taking out thousands of Americans in one blow. And this is why Obama is a naive and unwitting ally of Osama, as are most Surrendercrats.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup.

Posts I've trackbacked to at Linkfest and other sites:

Stop the ACLU, Tel-Chai Nation, Tel-Chai Nation, Big Dogs Weblog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, A Few Shiny Pebbles, Wolf Pangloss, 123beta, Right Truth, Conservative Cat.

. Digg!