Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/08/sestak-on-fisa/


Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’

In an interview with ThinkProgress yesterday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) expressed his disappointment with the recent revisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Over the weekend, Congress capitulated to White House demands, and passed a FISA bill that unnecessarily expands the power of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Sestak, who was one of 183 representatives to vote against the bill, told us:

How could we have not have stood up for rights of civil liberties while ensuring the proper ability to go and listen, and just stayed during the recess if necessary. And I understand that our leadership in the caucus has to worry about how the public will perceive it, but I also know this, that ultimately, we have to, as Benjamin Franklin said, be concerned that those who give up…liberty in the name security, deserve neither liberty or security. This is a time that I strongly believe, we should have stood up and said no. Attorney General Gonzales, we’re not going to let you decide the guidelines upon which you’ll listen in on Americans.

Sestak noted that the administration had rejected a compromise bill worked out between Congressional leaders and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. “We made the three major changes that wanted,” said Sestak. “The issue here is they just don’t want to come to the FISA court. That’s enough to tell me we need them to.”

“We had voted for a bill the evening before that had actually brought together a proper balance of the civil liberties of our citizens,” said Sestak. “We should have brought that bill up Saturday, instead of the Senate bill…we could have gotten it the next morning under majority votes. And that would have meant probably that we had to stay in session this week, and that would have forced the Senate to come back and deal with it.”

Watch it/read transcript at link~

Referencing his 31-year career in the military, Sestak said he witnessed the need for surveillance when he headed the Navy’s anti-terrorism unit after 9/11. “But you know,” he said, “I also learned that press a little extra to get that information they need. And at times, constitutionally, they’ll go over the edge. That’s what Congress is to make sure, they don’t go over the edge.”

[bigtree]

1. Sestak is good people

smart as a whip too

[BlooInBloo]

2. There are good Dems, bad Dems, and in-between. The Democratic Party...

... is NOT monolithic.

[L. Coyote]

3. SO, fix it ASAP. Period!

[Booster]

4. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, didn't.

[antigop]

5. So why was the Senate bill brought up for a vote in the House? Hmmm? n/t

[babylonsister]

6. Per the ACLU, blame Pelosi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1534773

[antigop]

7. Yes, I had seen that. Thanks. I was being sarcastic. n/t

[gratuitous]

8. Yes, you should have

Another too late smart Democrat. Thanks a million, Mr. Sestak. You know, when the American people got their one last chance to make a difference on one vote back in November, we collectively smacked that sucker out of the park. Against all odds, against the predictions of the pundit class, hell, even against Karl Rove and the numbers, we placed you and your Democratic colleagues in the majority in both the House and the Senate.

And what did you all do for us in return? You gave an administration rejected by 3/4 of the American people carte blanche to spy on us without warrant, cause or penalty. An administration that has demonstrated again and again since November that it isn't to be trusted any further than you could caber toss the Washington Monument has been granted congressional blessing to snoop, pry, and spy into people's lives without oversight.

Thanks, Mr. Sestak. Thanks ever so much.

[MrCoffee]

9. gee, thanks

for nothing.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Add this to the "we should have..." pile

That pile is getting awfully big.

[donsu]

11. so why didn't he?

nt

[rodeodance]

12. He voted AGAINST the Fisa bill

[MrCoffee]

13. and he lost...

when a majority of the majority loses to the minority, there's a serious problem. why should we pat him on the back for doing his best by voting no when the Congressman himself says that it wasn't enough?