- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 2
Seriously, I see nothing in the way of safeguards here. The president can replace the IG any time he wants. If he can't get someone he wants, he can just dither with no one there. So I see no protection there.
"exclusivity"? Hah! A signing statement takes care of that (unless our brave congressmen will finally challenge the signing statements. Yeah, I'm holding my breath on that one).
2-year sunset? Well, that's certainly preferable to six years, or no sunset, but really a fairly minor quibble. Ditto the re-review in '09.
What it really comes down to is whether telecom immunity is included. If that's in there, then FISA has no meaning. It will have been stripped of every meaningful protection. The only remaining possibility at that point would be challenging the constitutionality of immunity (based on there being no corresponding compensation fund).
I have heard it suggested by a lawyer (but IANAL, so I don't really know if it's legitimate) that the retroactive immunity that will likely be passed tomorrow would not pass constitutional muster, due to not having any sort of victim's compensation (a la the 9/11 victim's compensation fund).
Can you speak to that? And if that does seem true, would you all pursue that line of attack?
