I had the opportunity to speak with CA-04 candidate Charlie Brown about the awful FISA bill that wormed its way through the House on Friday. Unlike Steny Hoyer and practically everyone else in the House, Brown has actually gathered intelligence in his career. He served two rotations in Saudi Arabia, coordinating surveillance flights over the No Fly Zone in Iraq. So he has an understanding of how intelligence is collected and what ought to be done when such collection results in information gleaned from Americans.
As soon as I brought up the FISA bill, Brown sighed. He said there was no way he could support the bill that was passed in the House, and he in particular cited the telecom immunity aspect for a variety of reasons. "When I was gathering intelligence, if I ever picked up information outside what was authorized, I would have to flag the tape and immediately deliver it to my commanding officer for destruction," he said. "If I didn't, I'd be sitting at Leavenworth." To treat the phone companies in a different way that he would have been personally treated seems unfathomable. Brown's main argument is that the world is a dangerous place and foreign surveillance within the law is sometimes warranted. But the precedent of giving phone companies a free pass after the President supplies them with a piece of paper allowing them to break the law is quite dangerous. "This is exactly what happened in 1973. In the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretext to get us into that war, and the resolution passed was misused to escalate that conflict without the control of Congress. in 1973 Congress reasserted itself and passed the War Powers Act to ensure that never again could the executive go to war without expressed approval of the legislative body. And that was ignored for the next 35 years." Passing a FISA bill that is the "exclusive" means for electronic surveillance is part of the same deception. Laws don't need to be reasserted, they need to be enforced.
Brown was concerned that we seem to continue granting immunity to the wrong people, and not just the telecoms. We bail out Bear Stearns but not individual homeowners. We throw individual privates in jail for Abu Ghraib but never go up the chain of command. "There is an accountability problem in Washington, DC," as Brown put it. And the Title I aspects of the bill, which allow warrantless spying of bulk targets under executive-proclaimed "exigent circumstances," particularly with no need to throw out the intelligence gained that way if later found to to be illegal, was a concern as well.
If Charlie Brown can manage to run for office in what has traditionally been a heavily Republican district and understand that Constitutional principles and federal statutes must come first, then it's just impossible to take Bush Dogs who voted for FISA out of fear seriously. "Conservative Republicans should never vote for this kind of bill... they ought to be skeptical of government power and protective of civil liberties."
It's important that as we go forward we support those candidates who understand these issues, who will not be swayed by what a lobbyist or a leadership PAC will suggest, but who have the experience and strength to vote based on their own principles. There's no question in my mind that Charlie Brown is that kind of candidate.
The following California Democrats caved on retroactive immunity and disregarded their oath to, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic":
Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Pelosi, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Ellen Tauscher
Pete Stark did not vote. This is the list of those who are potential targets of the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity which as of now has raised $310,673 to, "fund accountability for congressmembers supporting retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps." This money isn't going to send thank you cards to the members who did defend the constitution, this is primary money and cold cash to dump Steny Hoyer from leadership (Rahm Emanuel also capitulated).
As the battle moves to the Senate, all eyes are on Barack Obama nationally and Dianne Feinstein locally [(202) 224-3841].
As for 2010 primaries, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Carole Migden's 3rd place finish showed that entrenched politics matters less in a modern media environment. Ellen Tauscher is again practically begging to be primaried and in that district she's walking on thin ice. Joe Baca deserves particular scorn as the only Californian to sign the Blue Dog letter to Pelosi pushing capitulation (and a primary of Baca could probably receive significant institutional support from former members of the Hispanic Caucus). McNerney has outdone himself in contracting a full-blown case of Potomic Fever during his first term, every time he makes a move I think about asking for a refund. And Harman and Berman voting to cover-up warrantless wiretapping isn't going to do much to quell the rumors that they are pushing this because they are worried about their own culpability on the issue.
If you live in one of this districts, please call your member and ask them why. Comments and diaries with responses are highly encouraged.
(Rep. Solis is one of the good ones. - promoted by David Dayen)
I share the concern raised by many on this blog about the FISA Amendments Act, especially the immunity it provides telecomm providers. That I why I voted against the bill on Friday. Below is my official statement.
"Today, the House of Representatives passed the FISA Amendments Act, which I voted against. I am deeply concerned the legislation will provide an enormous loophole for those telephone companies that participated in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We cannot allow backdoor immunity for telecommunications providers who spied on Americans and broke the public trust.
"The constituents of the 32nd Congressional District and many more from around the country have spoken loud and clear that any form of immunity for telecommunications providers is unacceptable and I wholeheartedly agree. We must work harder to not only fight against terrorism and threats to our country but also to respect our constituents' civil liberties and the values upon which country was founded."
Back in March of 2008, Speaker Pelosi said the following in a conference call with bloggers, as reported by TPM:
Exclusivity is the issue.
To which Kagro X at DailyKos counters, with irrefutable proof: No it isn't.
Here's the "exclusivity" provision of the old FISA law, still on the books when George W. Bush instituted his illegal programs:
[P]rocedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.
The "administration's" lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- advised Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security." So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.
The upshot is: how can exclusivity be the issue in this new FISA fight if the airtight exclusivity in the previous recension of the bill didn't stop the Bush Administration from completely ignoring it?
This is not hard: having an exclusivity provision in a law is only useful when dealing with people who don't intend to break it. If you're dealing with people who have broken similar laws before, the one thing you'd want to make sure you put on there is a guarantee that those who do break it will pay a price of some kind.
If you give immunity to organizations that were complicit in breaking the law; if you do not enforce inherent contempt against those who are in a position to know what lawbreaking was done when they refuse to testify; and if you take the threat of pressing charges against those who break the law off the table; then you may as well not have any laws at all. Doesn't matter if those laws have an all-hallowed "exclusivity provision" or not.
The sham "compromise" on FISA is now being considered in the in House. After all of this time fighting to make sure the telecom companies don't get immunity, it is extremely frustrating and disheartening to see the leadership cave to the Bush administration. There was absolutely no need to do it. We could have run out the clock until Bush was out of office.
It is heartening to hear from my Rep, who rarely seems to step out with her own strong voice on FISA. Here is the statement from Rep. Doris Matsui on FISA.
I believe firmly that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they go hand in hand. It is in celebration of our civil liberties that we fight to secure our nation and preserve our way of life. In the absence of the liberties and values that we hold most dear, we lose a piece of our national identity and a small piece of the heart of our country.
That is why I must, in good conscience, vote against the FISA legislation before the House today. The structure of the bill chips away at the bedrock of our liberties. It is exactly times like these when we must pause, study our national discourse, and make a choice to take a principled stand against the erosion of the principles we cherish.
This is not a partisan battle, although many have fought to make it one. It is a fight for the right of every American citizen to be free of oppression and the infringement of their personal privacy. I am saddened that we could not reach a compromise that preserved these rights while still allowing our law enforcement professionals broad latitude to do their jobs.
Granting too much power and oversight to one branch of government shakes the very foundation of our country. While the spirit of compromise and reasoned debate are often the best tools in a democracy, there are unalienable rights which cannot be compromised. and these rights are the reason I cannot support this legislation.
If people have other good statements on FISA from CA Reps, please throw them in this thread/diary.
[UPDATE by Dave]: On the other hand, these 11 CA Reps., who voted to provide amnesty for lawbreaking and allow illegal spying, have no conscience whatsoever, no understanding of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and are a complete embarrassment to the Democratic Party and should be kindly asked to leave.
If you can't stand up for Constitutional rights and civil liberties, you are worthless and contemptible. And stop asking me for money. And don't expect a warm reception if you should ever come around here to apologize.
We're seeing a real separation of those on the side of justice and those on the side of cover-ups in the FISA fallout. On the side of justice, for example, is Patrick Leahy:
But after months of negotiations, the House today unveiled a new FISA bill that I cannot support. While I applaud the fact that this legislation includes some of the important surveillance protections we wrote into the Senate Judiciary Committee bill last year, it fails to hold the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable for its illegal wiretapping program.
I will oppose this new FISA bill when the Senate votes on it next week. We must do everything we can to protect Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration's erosion of our civil liberties and callous disregard for the rule of law -- and this new FISA bill fails that test.
Of course, he was cut out of the decision-making on this "deal."
The handshakes have been made, the contribution checks have been written, and the telecom industry and corporate shill Democrats have joined forces to immunize lawbreaking and undermine the rule of law. This time, for real.
A final deal has been reached on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules and will be announced Thursday, two congressional aides said.
The aides said the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday....
As of Wednesday, sources said the new bill would allow a federal district court to decide whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their role in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program....One source said the federal district court deciding on retroactive immunity would review whether there was "substantial evidence" the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration's program was legal.
Absolutely absurd. Not only does this bill still allow for mass surveillance on American citizens, but according to its provisions, if the Attorney General wrote a "get out of the Constitution free" note to its telecom partners, which we alrady know they did, then they are allowed to violate federal statutes. The telecoms don't have any lawyers who can provide their own analysis, apparently. I guess all the money goes into lobbying. This is total amnesty without any way of discovering who broke the law and when. The entire point of telecom immunity was to shut down any investigations into spying on Americans. Democrats are cupable for having not spoken up to stop this when they had the chance and the Hoyer-Rockefeller axis wants to just bury the bodies.
This will come up for a vote as soon as TOMORROW in the House, despite being just released today. Your representative needs a call. Joe Baca is a Blue Dog who supported the good FISA bill, the one without amnesty. He in particular needs some attention.
When this reaches the Senate, it will be another accountability moment for Dianne Feinstein. She has tried to duck this debate repeatedly, but she can tell us by her vote where she stands - with corporate execs and lobbyists, or with the rule of law and the right to privacy.
It is well-known that, shortly after elements of President Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping program was divulged by the New York Times in December 2005, Rep. Jane Harman wasn't happy. She went on Meet The Press shortly thereafter and blasted the paper for leaking the details. But we did not know that she actively sought to cover up contents of the program PRIOR to the Pulitzer Prize-winning story.
Eric Lichtblau, who along with James Risen broke the story, has a new book coming out which details the wrangling between the NYT and the Administration which caused a one-year delay in the revelation of the warrantless wiretapping program in the press. During that time, Lichtblau ran into Jane Harman in the Capitol.
In his book, Lichtblau tells how a few months after the story was held, he happened to be covering a House hearing where he heard Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) argue passionately for stronger civil liberties safeguards in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Lichtblau saw this as an opportunity to question Harman about the warrantless wiretapping program, since Harman, as a member of the "gang of eight," was one of the four Democrats who'd been briefed on it. He writes:
I approached Harman with notepad in hand and told her that I'd been involved in our reporting the year before on the NSA eavesdropping program. "I'm trying to square what I heard in there," I said, "with what we know about that program." Harman's golden California tan turned a brighter shade of red. She knew exactly what I was talking about. Shooing away her aides, she grabbed me by the arm and drew me a few feet away to a more remote section of the Capitol corridor.
"You should not be talking about that here," she scolded me in a whisper. "They don't even know about that," she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. "The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story," she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew - namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn't bite. "This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised," she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn't be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn't go there either. "This is a valuable program," she repeated. This was clearly as far as she was willing to take the conversation, and we didn't speak again until months later, after the NSA story had already run. By then, Harman's position had undergone a dramatic transformation. When the story broke publicly, she was among the first in line on Capitol Hill to denounce the administration's handling of the wiretapping program, declaring that what the NSA was doing could have been done under the existing FISA law.
What comes through in this exchange is that the elites in Washington have far more fealty to each other than the public. Harman has come around; she argued strongly against the program and was one of the leaders in the House fight to amend FISA responsibly last week. Now we're seeing a likely stalemate on that issue, and George Bush is almost certain not to get what he desperately wants, amnesty for the telecom companies and a rejection of the lawsuits against them which could reveal even more about the program.
Still, we have this portrait of Harman, eager to cover up, convinced that what she is told must stay secret has to stay secret, untrained in the Constitution enough to see that warrantless wiretapping is unnecessary under FISA and in defiance of the Fourth Amendment. It's relieving a bit that the past few years, with the help of the blogosphere, have given many in the Congress an education on the document they swear to uphold and defend. It's also completely sad.
I shared breakfast with Nick Leibham last week and discussed where he stands on a number of issues. I mostly just lobbed topics and let him talk; this is the relevant transcript edited to be a remotely reasonable length and minus fun stuff like us chatting with the waitress and our occasional divergence into non-relevant shop talk. Some parts I liked, some parts less so. But here it is. Note this is a contested primary.
Iraq
Each and every day we remain in Iraq we're compromising our national security further. It's a blood feud that goes back 1400 years between the Sunnis and Shiites. American military forces are not going to be able to sort this out for them and at the end of the day they've got to want peace; they've got to want their own stable form of government; they've got to want democracy more than the American Marine Corps wants it for them
The longer that we're there, the more strain it puts on our own men and women in uniform. They're going out on third, fourth, fifth tours of duty, and you read about it all the time of course because we're just miles away from Camp Pendleton
We need to come out and we need to set a date certain for when we are going to redeploy out of Iraq.
Crossposted from the Courage Campaign blog. I do some work for the Courage Campaign.
Earlier this week the mood was grim as most observers expected House Democrats would fold, not stand, on telecom immunity, the protection of rights, the rule of law, and the Constitution. But today they chose to do the right thing and, by a vote of 213-197-1, the House rejected telecom immunity and warrantless surveillance. Many of the Blue Dogs who had earlier signed a letter insisting on immunity instead voted to strip it from the bill. The bill will now return to the US Senate, which must decide whether to continue to carry water for the Bush Administration, or join the House in rejecting immunity and embracing the Constitution.
It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.
Virtually every one I know who has expended lots of efforts and energy on these FISA and telecom issues has assumed from the start -- for reasons that are all too well-known -- that we would lose. And we still might. But it's hard to deny that the behavior we're seeing from House Democrats is substantially improved, quite commendably so, as compared to the last year and even before that. It's very rare when there are meaningful victories and I think it's important to acknowledge when they happen.
The key to victory appears to have been sustained pressure on not just the Blue Dogs, but the Democratic caucus as a whole, to reject immunity and expansion of Bush's powers. Greenwald points to the "highly successful" effort to target six of the freshmen Dems as one of the reasons we won the vote today. Joan McCarter (aka "mcjoan") points to Ed Fallon's strong primary challenge to Iowa Democrat Leonard Boswell as helping push Boswell into opposing immunity. And Greenwald mentioned above the victories of Donna Edwards and Bill Foster, both of whom took strong, progressive stands against immunity, as helping convince Democrats that opposing Bush's power grab is an electoral winner.
The bill returns to the US Senate, where it is up to Dianne Feinstein and other Democrats to stand with their fellow Democrats in the House against immunity and warrantless wiretapping. Whether California's Senator joins with the Speaker from California to block immunity remains to be seen.
Among the California Democrats who voted against immunity were Joe Baca and Jerry McNerney. Bob Filner voted against the revised bill, perhaps opposing it from the left as Kucinich did. (Any thoughts or explanations as to Filner's reasoning would be welcome in the comments.)
After voting against stripping telecom amnesty from the bill, and seeing her amendments fail, Sen. Feinstein voted against the final bill. Here's her statement:
"I have decided to vote against the FISA Bill before the Senate. This is not an easy decision because I strongly believe that we need to modernize the law relating to the gathering of foreign intelligence, and I support many of the provisions in the Senate bill.
However, I believe this bill didn't do enough to protect against the assertion of executive power. I have said on many occasions that without the additional language to strengthen and tighten the exclusivity already in FISA, I could not support final passage.
I offered an amendment on this very issue. My amendment, which would have made it clear that FISA is the excusive authority for wiretapping U.S. persons for foreign intelligence purposes, received well more than a majority of this body - 57 votes. But it did not receive the 60 votes required. Given this strong vote, I remain hopeful that similar language will be included in a FISA bill that goes to the President.
There should never be another warrantless surveillance program. And I continue to believe that there should be a strong statement in law making it crystal clear that FISA must be followed, period.
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate did not include such language and simply didn't go far enough in protecting against executive power. That's why I voted against the Senate bill."
This elides the immunity issue and foregrounds the exclusivity amendment. But take it for what it's worth.
There are now 54 other Congresscritters to focus on as the FISA bill head into a House-Senate conference. The House's RESTORE Act is actually a fairly decent, though imperfect, bill. FDL has a petition you can sign to demand that it becomes the basis for what is sent to the President. Call your representative and reaffirm that.
UPDATE: From the comments, seems like Feinstein pulled a Lieberman here, voting for cloture, against the final bill, and releasing a statement about the latter and not the former. This, of course, makes me a chickensh*t. And Art Torres a bold truth-teller. And Dianne a patron saint.
Several months ago, at a time where Dianne Feinstein was facing censure for a series of votes siding with the Bush Administration over Democratic values or the Constitution, Art Torres assured us all, in a highly emotional speech, that he discussed telecom immunity, a forthcoming issue, with her, and that "thanks to her" immunity was stripped from the bill.
"Don't believe me, ask my friend Senator Dodd, who will tell you that she led the effort along with him to make sure that [immunity] wasn't in the official bill that emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee."
That wasn't true then, of course; Patrick Leahy's ju-jitsu by putting immunity in Title II of the bill and then dropping it was what did the trick. But of course, that wasn't enough. The Intelligence Committee bill, the one with amnesty for the phone companies, was what made it to the floor. Feinstein offered some amendments. Her "exclusivity" amendment to make FISA the exclusive means under which government spying takes place "failed" because only 57 Senators voted for it; under the unanimous consent agreement, that particular amendment needed 60 votes to pass because it had too much support. This essentially invalidates all laws passed by the Congress, since in the absence of exclusivity, what is implied is that the President has the ability to go outside whatever law is passed.
So in that environment, there was a vote to strip telecom immunity from the bill. This is something the President alone can't dictate to the courts. This is the only opportunity to find the truth about how our government spied on us. And Dianne Feinstein, hoping that we weren't paying attention, voted against stripping it out.
It was a few months away from any pressure on her, so she felt OK with allowing the President to break American laws. Here's what's happening today:
The Senate today -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus -- will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate -- led by former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- are about to pay huge dividends, as such noble efforts invariably do with our political establishment.
Every single Senator, all of whom committed to a unanimous consent agreement that precluded any possibility to amend the bill, is responsible. But everyone in the world knew Dianne Feinstein would sell us out and give the phone companies what they wanted for violating civil liberties. Everyone, that is, except for Art Torres.
I'd like a personal apology, thanks. So should everyone who was in that room in Anaheim.
[UPDATE]: In case anyone was wondering, DiFi's "good faith" amendment fell to defeat, 41-57. Chris Dodd rightly voted against it, because it was an idiotic compromise.
Several months ago, at a time where Dianne Feinstein was facing censure for a series of votes siding with the Bush Administration over Democratic values or the Constitution, Art Torres assured us all, in a highly emotional speech, that he discussed telecom immunity, a forthcoming issue, with her, and that "thanks to her" immunity was stripped from the bill.
"Don't believe me, ask my friend Senator Dodd, who will tell you that she led the effort along with him to make sure that [immunity] wasn't in the official bill that emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee."
That wasn't true then, of course; Patrick Leahy's ju-jitsu by putting immunity in Title II of the bill and then dropping it was what did the trick. But of course, that wasn't enough. The Intelligence Committee bill, the one with amnesty for the phone companies, was what made it to the floor. Feinstein offered some amendments. Her "exclusivity" amendment to make FISA the exclusive means under which government spying takes place "failed" because only 57 Senators voted for it; under the unanimous consent agreement, that particular amendment needed 60 votes to pass because it had too much support. This essentially invalidates all laws passed by the Congress, since in the absence of exclusivity, what is implied is that the President has the ability to go outside whatever law is passed.
So in that environment, there was a vote to strip telecom immunity from the bill. This is something the President alone can't dictate to the courts. This is the only opportunity to find the truth about how our government spied on us. And Dianne Feinstein, hoping that we weren't paying attention, voted against stripping it out.
It was a few months away from any pressure on her, so she felt OK with allowing the President to break American laws. Here's what's happening today:
The Senate today -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus -- will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate -- led by former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- are about to pay huge dividends, as such noble efforts invariably do with our political establishment.
Every single Senator, all of whom committed to a unanimous consent agreement that precluded any possibility to amend the bill, is responsible. But everyone in the world knew Dianne Feinstein would sell us out and give the phone companies what they wanted for violating civil liberties. Everyone, that is, except for Art Torres.
I'd like a personal apology, thanks. So should everyone who was in that room in Anaheim.
Update: Everything failed cloture. McConnell's bad amendment failed and so did Reid's good-ish 30-day extension. Which means that nothing has changed and we're back to where everything was last week. Except that now President Bush has some nice fodder for his speech. Updated update: Senators Boxer and Feinstein voted against cloture on McConnell's and for cloture on Reid's extension. Good votes all.
All sorts of interesting developments on the FISA debate over the weekend as we swing into the next phase of the showdown. First, the New York Times blasted leading Senate Democrats in an editorial for even considering an extension of Bush's protections. It also went ahead to say what so many of us know already: the notion that amnesty for telecom companies is anything but an attempt to cover up what this administration has been up to is...well...crazy. The President contends that amnesty is necessary to get cooperation in the future, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. If the law is followed, it's not a problem. And if there's any question about legality, the time to sort it all out isn't well after the fact. That's the whole point of having a FISA court in the first place.
Senator Feinstein holds one of the votes that could be vacillating this week as FISA winds through vote after vote. Call her and speak your mind about the ugly notion of providing amnesty to the telecoms. She has many phone numbers:
202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)
310-914-7300 (Los Angeles)
415-393-0707 (San Francisco)
619-231-9712 (San Diego)
559-485-7430 (Fresno)
FISA is grabbing national attention today as the debate rages on the floor of the Senate, and on the heels of Senator Feinstein's response to Robert's post at Courage, Senator John Edwards is calling for citizen pressure on Senators Boxer and Feinstein. The heat is on and Edwards isn't mincing words on this one- "It's wrong for your government to spy on you." No kidding.
Senator Feinstein's parsing position that would give away the keys to the store and validate immunity for Bush on this issue is a classic example of Democrats conceding the issue without a fight. When Bismarck declared politics to be the art of the possible, it's hard to imagine he meant the art of what is immediately possible. Time and again, this administration has demonstrated that it is not only foolish but reckless to operate in "good faith" when the Constitution is involved, and moving constitutional judicial proceedings behind closed doors doesn't inspire much good faith in me.
Anyways, the leadership from John Edwards on this issue is much appreciated and a big boost to proponents of basic freedom. It appears that Senator Clinton will not support the Dodd filibuster by returning to Washington and Obama has, so far as I know, not moved to add support either. That's disappointing but not entirely unexpected as the battle continues over every single Senator.
Keep up the pressuring phone calls to make sure that Senator Feinstein knows we're serious about this one.
As the FISA debate unfolds today one of California's senators finds herself at its center. Dianne Feinstein has offered two amendments to the odious Senate Intelligence Committee bill, one of which would have the FISA court itself determine whether telecoms are eligible for immunity. Over at the Courage Campaign I have explained why her approach is so deeply flawed.
It's bad enough that she wants a secret court, which average Americans like you and I don't have the right to access, to determine whether our basic legal rights and privacy protections are valid. What's worse is the underlying reasoning she is using. Feinstein believes that all the telecoms and the Bush administration have to show the FISA court would be that they acted in "good faith" - and voila, the telecoms are immune.
As the senator herself has explained, Feinstein's amendment would kick the whole issue of telecom immunity to the FISA court. In her press release, she details her immunity amendment more clearly. It would lay out a series of three tests that the FISA court would use to determine whether immunity should be granted. Quoting from her explanation of the second test:
The FISA Court would examine whether companies that provided assistance to the government without a certification did so in good faith and pursuant to an objectively reasonable belief that its compliance was legal.
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
The Senate once again is moving to take up FISA and retroactive immunity for law breaking telecom companies. The vote may come as early as tonight. The only thing that is really effective at this point are phone calls into Senators offices. The Courage Campaign, as did CREDO, went to our lists today and asked our members to call Senator Feinstein.
Give her a call right now:
202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)
310-914-7300 (Los Angeles)
415-393-0707 (San Francisco)
619-231-9712 (San Diego)
559-485-7430 (Fresno)
Go to the flip for more information on FISA and Feinstein's unacceptable amendments.
(We've discussed Sen. Feinstein's relationship with telco immunity quite a bit here, so here's one more. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
If you're like me, you were upset about the thought that the Congress would give telecom companies immunity for participating in a warrantless wiretapping program set up by the Bush Administration. If you're from California like me, you were upset that your Senator, Diane Feinstein, would actually have considered supporting such a horrendous idea. And, if you're like me, you contacted Senator Feinstein about it.
It seems like it was a long time ago that I wrote to Senator Feinstein, and I frankly expected that she would blow off all of us. But tonight, I received a response from her via email.
(This is cross-posted at Daily Kos. People there suggested I post here. That was a great idea. I should come here more often.)
Marcy Wheeler has two excellent stories up today at her new home which I highly recommend to you if you want to understand Dianne Feinstein's evolving position on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. We know that, several weeks ago, Feinstein was wholly in support of immunity, having happily voted for it in the Intelligence Committee. During yesterday's floor debate, she offered a couple amendments, both with the goal of putting the warrantless wiretapping program and all questions about it, now and forever, under the authority of the FISA court. In Marcy's first piece, she notes the conservative reaction to Feinstein's amendment asking that the question of immunity be decided by the FISA court instead of the Congress.
Dodd was just on C-SPAN saying that the Senate is moving on to other issues beyond the FISA bill. He just yielded the floor. He said he was prepared to spend his full 30 hours speaking on the bill but "that will no longer be necessary." Sen. Reid just pulled the bill until January.
Reid was taking a lot of heat for this, and in the end perhaps felt that he couldn't hold out any longer. I'm guessing that he'll push for allowing the full Senate to view those legal opinions on warrantless wiretapping as a condition for moving forward on the bill.
This is one of the first good days in a long time, but keep in mind that Reid may have simply reasoned that he wouldn't have had time to finish all the other crap legislation he has coming down the pike, including giving a no-strings $70 billion in war funding to Bush. Keep in mind that there are some good shifting of budget priorities in that omnibus bill, including slashing abstinence-only education funding, raising the Consumer Product Safety Commission budget by 28%, and saving a host of social services from the chopping block. But I guess Reid made the determination that funding Bush's war was more important than giving telecoms a free pass.
What have we learned? Filibusters are powerful tools because one Senator can make life a living hell. The progressive movement has enough allies and enough power to at least slow down this rush to a national surveillance state. And now Dianne Feinstein's cards are on the table. Let's be clear: she said to the full Senate today that she voted for telecom immunity in her various committees. This is 100% counter to Art Torres' contention that she helped "stop" immunity in the Judiciary Committee. And we saw her "split the baby" compromise to keep any determination of telecom immunity secret.
UPDATE: I should mention that this is just a round, not the whole battle. The bill will come back up in January, and there will be just as much pressure to immunize the telcos then. So keep calling those Senators and tell them that you believe in the rule of law.
