by Damozel | Apparently, some Democrats in Congress can apparently still find their spines. That's cheering.
Senator Harry Reid is supportive of efforts to strip the retro-active immunity from the new FISA bill. This won't keep it from shredding the fourth amendment, but it's a step in the right direction. Senators Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd have promised to do all they can to block it, including a filibuster. They released a statement explaining their opposition to the current bill. Via HuffPost:
This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called 'compromise' legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans' civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called 'compromise' legislation. (HuffPost; emphasis in original)
It's encouraging that some influential senators are taking a stand in opposition to this terrible piece of legislation. I wish they weren't only talking about telecom amnesty. But it's a start, anyway.
As Stein says, it's a rather bold move for these Democrats to take a position different from Obama's. Of course, these are experienced Senators. I can't help wondering if that's what made the difference.
But Dodd and Feingold especially deserve to be praised. At The Reaction, Michael Stickings says:
Here are two Democrats who are not willing to capitulate -- unlike some Democrats and almost all Republicans (who of course don't see it as capitulation) -- and who are prepared to stand up for the basic constitutional right of Americans to be free of unwarranted government surveillance and against the corporate enablers of Bush's culture-of-fear-based police state.
Dodd and Feingold are absolutely right -- and they deserve our appreciation, admiration, and support.
I'm very curious about what Obama will do. His support for FISA was most definitely qualified. He expressed reservations about the bill generally and said he'd support action to strip out the retroactive immunity. But though his support was qualified, it was still support.
I am also curious hear from Hillary.
On the whole, whatever happens, I am not optimistic about the outcome. As Sam Stein writes at TheHuffPost:
[T]he Senate has filed (and seems likely to pass) cloture on the FISA legislation and amendments to strip the bill of immunity would likely require 60 votes for passage, something that, with a divided Democratic caucus, almost certainly won't happen. As noted by Congressional Quarterly: "A similar amendment to a previous version of legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511) failed by a vote of 31-67 in February."
Amusingly, Nancy Pelosi has said she thinks further debate on FISA would be 'healthy' even if it doesn't change the outcome. Oh, Nancy.
Memeorandum has lots of blogger discussion here.
EXTRA: On the floor of the Senate, Dodd did a good job in setting out the basis on which Democrats --- all Democrats --- ought to oppose this bill.
I have strong reservations about the so-called improvements made to Title I. But more than that, this legislation includes provisions which would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that apparently have violated the privacy and the trust of millions of Americans by participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. If we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the president’s hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law. ...
[T[his is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize the importance of domestic surveillance – in an age of unprecedented threats. This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance....[I]n no way is this compromise acceptable.... This legislation before us purports to give the courts more of a role in determining the legality of the telecommunications companies actions. But in my view the Title II provisions do little more than ensure without a doubt that the telecommunications companies will be granted retroactive immunity.
Under the legislation before us, the district court would simply decide whether or not the telecommunication companies received documentation stating that the President authorized the program and that there had been some sort of determination that it was legal.
But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that this happened.
We already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.
But that’s not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, “were their actions legal?” It’s rather straightforward—surprisingly uncomplicated.
Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t....
None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court.
What they will have is a government that has sanctioned lawlessness. (Chris Dodd's website)
Dodd reminded his listeners of the allegations that have been made against the telecoms.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Clear, first-hand whistleblower documentary evidence [states]…that for year on end every e-mail, every text message, and every phone call carried over the massive fiber-optic links of sixteen separate companies routed through AT&T’s Internet hub in San Francisco—hundreds of millions of private, domestic communications—have been…copied in their entirety by AT&T and knowingly diverted wholesale by means of multiple “splitters” into a secret room controlled exclusively by the NSA.
The phone calls and internet traffic of millions of Americans, diverted into a secret room controlled by the National Security Agency. That allegation still needs to be proven in a court of law. But it clearly needs to be determined in a court of law and not here in Senate...
If you see a vast dragnet for millions of Americans’ private conversations, conducted by a government agency that acted without a warrant, acted outside of the rule of law—then, I believe, you’ll recognize what’s at stake here. You’ll see that what’s at stake is the sanctity of the law and the sanctity of our privacy. And you’ll probably come to a very different conclusion.(Chris Dodd's website)
The full text is well worth a look.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
But Why DID 94 Dems Change Their FISA Votes?
Action Alert: Call & Ask Your Senator to Vote AGAINST Telecom Amnesty
Law Prof Challenges the Spin and Tells Why FISA Bill is Frightening
Olbermann (and Others) Construct Rickety Defenses over FISA
Bloggers Consider Obama's Failure to Take a Stand Against FISA
Obama: Less Progressive Than Advertised
That's an incredible speech by Dodd. Passionate, exhaustively thorough, and incredibly rigorous in the way he dismantles every argument for the FISA bill, piece by piece. It's really a masterpiece.
Posted by: Adam | June 25, 2008 at 01:31 PM