Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

Representative Tim Walz on the Protect America Act

I think its pretty nifty he is taking a stand. Granted, a few years back, I would have said, why argue over retroactive immunity, although I still would have agreed with his oversight objections.

Ultimately though, there was a 6 month sunset provision, and here we are, with a 21 day extension set to expire saturday. The requests of the Democrats are reasonable. Ie they won’t grant immuity on something without knowing what they are granting immunity for. Also, oversight is a must, bearing in mind recent history.

The resistance to these requests on the other hand is a challenge. From a constitutional violations pov, its probably a non-issue, albeit troubling, as it would come down to interpretation, and whether it falls under law enforcment, or wartime provisions. Either way, I expect its not so much an issue of criminal wrong doing, but more so power wrangling between branches and concerned parties.

From a national security point of view….things operate on a need to know basis, and having congress being privey, that could be an issue, and is a resonable concern. Yet… they routinely are briefed in committees, so for the most part, this too is less of an issue.

My guess is, its economics. Data mining technology and the like is very closely held, and all it takes in many cases is a seemingly trivial piece of knowledge to grant competitive advantage. When oversight is added, it can put ecomomic advantages at risk. When immunity is not granted, doors are opened, and apart from civil damages, again a contractors economic advantages can be compromised. Now, one could state that terrorists could use the same or similar issues to find vulnerabilities, and there is some truth in that. Yet… competition, and furtherance of the art in data mining by multiple contractors can be even more effective than a closed monopoly. Ie, it would be better to have terrorists guessing how to deal with 20+ different  approaches from different contractors as contrasted with just 3 or 4.

As far as time frame goes, a compromise should have been possible in within the original time frame ie 6 months,  or certainly within the extension of 21 days. I am not so sure I agree with Nancy Pelosi that another 3 weeks will result in a solution. One of two ways I could see that happening, is if something is already in the works, and the holes now created will force the issue. I hope I am way wrong on that analysis. The other, is that security agencies will scream like no tomorrow with the loss of these tools, and that will force the hand of the executive branch. Its sad it if it has to come to that, but if it does, it does. If anything, it shows change is needed in Washington in many areas.

The bottom line… because the branches could not come to some agreement, the sunset provisions will expire. Private entities are going to become very wary of cooperating without some level of immunity protection, and its likely they will choose to only operate under FISA. Oversight provisions  were not enacted, and thus even if provisions are there to operate outside of FISA for a few more months, its unlikely to happen due to the lack of immunity. The end result, the constitution remains protected, but at the cost of compromised national security.

Ultimately, its the executive branch that chose that path, and whether they chose to do so, due to economic pressures, to cover their tracks,  or for real concerns of national security, the end result, is that its a very sad day, and huge holes are now open.

I am pleased Congressman Walz is taking a stand for the constitution. Its a bold move for sure…. it shows he is a man of ideals. I am not pleased with the actions of my prior party, nor the executive branch. Selling out liberty for safety is not cool. Thank goodness for Congressman Walz and his fellow Democrats.