one amendment down; nine to go

Oh, hell, why stop with the Bill of Rights—why not go for the entire Constitution?

Here is a less than comprehensive assortment of clips on Wednesday’s Senate vote to gut the Fourth Amendment. . . .

New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau:

The Senate gave final approval on Wednesday to a major expansion of the government’s surveillance powers, handing President Bush one more victory in a series of hard-fought clashes with Democrats over national security issues.

. . . .

Even as his political stature has waned, Mr. Bush has managed to maintain his dominance on national security issues in a Democratic-led Congress. He has beat back efforts to cut troops and financing in Iraq, and he has won important victories on issues like interrogation tactics and military tribunals in the fight against terrorism.

Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:

This [new legislation] represents a fundamental shift in the notions of freedom and democracy that have defined our nation for well over 200 years. Americans will no longer have any expectation of privacy in our communications - leading many to be fearful about what they say and write so it is not misconstrued by some computer data mining program or overzealous government agent.

Glenn Greenwald:

With their vote today, the Democratic-led Congress has covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry, and has dramatically advanced a full-scale attack on the rule of law in this country.

. . . .

Will Democrats ever learn that the reason they are so easily depicted as "weak" isn't because they don't copy the Republican policies on national security enough, but rather, because they do so too much, and thus appear (accurately) to stand for nothing? Of course, many Democrats vote for these policies because they believe in them, not because they are "surrendering." Still, terms such as "bowing," "surrendering," "capitulating," and "losing" aren't exactly Verbs of Strength. They're verbs of extreme weakness --- yet, bizarrely, Democrats believe that if they "bow" and "surrender," then they will avoid appearing "weak." Somehow, at some point, someone convinced them that the best way to avoid appearing weak is to be as weak as possible.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT):

Today, the United States Senate faced a very fundamental question that has been asked for generations: Does America stand for the rule of law, or the rule of men? But by passing FISA legislation that grants retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that allegedly participated in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, we gave the wrong answer.

. . . .

I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles.

. . . .

By sanctioning retroactive immunity, we have allowed the actions of a handful of favored corporations to remain unchallenged in a court of law. The truth behind this Administration’s unprecedented domestic spying regime will now never see the light of day.

Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing several hundred plaintiffs suing Verizon and other companies:

The law itself is a massive intrusion into the due process rights of all of the phone subscribers who would be a part of the suit. It is a violation of the separation of powers. It’s presidential election-year cowardice. The Democrats are afraid of looking weak on national security.

And, last but not least, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) with Rachel Maddow and on Countdown:

You will notice there is no comment from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). That is because he didn’t have one—he skipped Wednesday’s proceedings (just as he has skipped previous FISA debates) to campaign. McCain has made it clear in the past that he supports the Bush policy, but just in case, he decided to keep it off the record.

You will also notice there is no comment from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). I didn’t see anything new from Obama on Wednesday, but honestly, with his votes in favor of this capitulation, he’s already said more than enough.

. . . .

This sad chapter is almost over, but the fight is just beginning. Both the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation plan to challenge the constitutionality of this law. You can sign a letter in support of the ACLU here. Strangebedfellows continues to organize around this issue to fund primary challenges to Democrats that fail to defend our core beliefs. They are planning an August 8th moneybomb, and you can find out more about that here.

FISA: watch, read, phone

First, as if you needed it, here’s a little pep talk, courtesy of Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), on why this FISA fight still matters.

With that impassioned defense of the Constitution still in your head, filling you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about what it means to live in an active Democracy, you then might turn your attention to this:

House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last week’s FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org. 



In March, the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity. But last week, 94 Democrats who supported the March amendment voted to support the compromise FISA legislation, which includes a provision that could let telecom companies that cooperated with the government’s warrantless electronic surveillance off the hook. 



The 94 Democrats who changed their positions received on average $8,359 in contributions from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint from January, 2005, to March, 2008, according to the analysis by MAPLight, a nonpartisan organization that tracks the connection between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes.

. . . .

The 116 Democrats who remained opposed to telecom immunity received an average of $4,987 from the telecoms during the three-year period, the analysis showed.

. . . .

The members who voted yes on June 20 received, on average, $9,659 from the big three phone companies while those who opposed the bill received an average of $4,810, MAPLight found.

Of course, that was the House; now this egregious FISA legislation is before the Senate—often called “the millionaires’ club.” But, why should a bunch of millionaires care about a measly five thousand bucks. . . or even four or five times that? Is it really worth the relative pocket change to side with a greedy corporation and a corrupt administration over the people and the Constitution they swore to protect?

Let’s find out.

The Senate is likely to vote on cloture at about 10am (what happens after that is somewhat dependent on the progress of other pending legislation). Why not give your senators a call and tell them what you—part of “we, the people”—want: A “no” vote on cloture; should cloture pass, a “yes” vote on the Feingold/Dodd/Reid amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the legislation; and, should that specific amendment fail, a determined effort to stop this bill at all costs.

And, while you’re at it, phone Senator and possible next president Barack Obama and demand the same things.

You only have a little time, so pick up that phone!


(cross-posted on The Seminal and capitoilette)

a FISA carol

Thanks to some enlightened members of the Senate and the hard work of grass- and netroots organizers all over the country (world?), the Republican-sanctioned move for cloture on the SSCI version of the new FISA legislation failed, and failed soundly. Only a handful of Democrats went over to the dark side. The importance of all the phoning and faxing done by us average American defenders of the Constitution should not be undersold—several Democrats seem to have crossed back over the abyss to rejoin the likes of Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold on the correct side of this issue. Everybody give themselves a hand.

After that cloture vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid then proposed a 30-day extension of the despicable Protect America Act, but Republicans, marching to the beat of a partisan White House drum, rebuffed a cloture vote on that “compromise.” They and the administration apparently would rather see this self-described important tool in the GWOT™ expire than give the Senate time to debate any amendments that might be seen as a (minor) Democratic victory.

So, what’s next? The House, which had already sent up a better FISA restoration last month (one that had no telecom immunity, among other small miracles), will likely vote Tuesday on its own 30-day extension. If that passes, the question will be to Bush/Cheney and the Senate Republicans: What’s more important, destroying the Fourth Amendment or scoring political points?

That is a question I dare not answer.

The Senate could also try to vote out a different FISA bill or short-term extension, but with the House only meeting this one day before the PAA sunsets, it is hard to figure how any Senate action could be turned into law before February.

Now let me rain on our parade a little bit. While the concerted efforts of all should be applauded, this is only a step, and a tiny one at that, toward surveillance sanity. There is still a good chance that when (and it is likely a “when” and not an “if”) a new FISA revision is allowed an up-or-down vote, it will contain many of the same indignities we rallied against on Monday. As Glenn Greenwald laments:

The only reason Democrats were able to hold their caucus together today to filibuster is because The Senators were offended that their inalienable Senatorial Right to vote on amendments was deprived by the GOP's premature Cloture Motion. The one (and only) "principle" that can really inspire many of these Senators to take a stand is the protection of their Senatorial prerogatives. Many of them don't actually have any beliefs other than that.

. . . .

Senate Democrats today took a stand for their procedural rights, not against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. After all, many of the Senate Democrats who voted to filibuster this bill were more than ready last week to vote for that bill, and they will vote for it again soon enough. Moreover, while they were upset that they were denied the right to vote on these amendments, many of them intend to vote against those very same amendments and will ensure that most, if not all of them, fail, so that the bill arrives at the White House in a form acceptable to the Leader.

I tend to share Greenwald’s pessimism, but I also like to remember the words of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come: These are only shadows of what could be—not of what will be.

What gives me the smallest amount of hope is that we only have to stop legislation—we don’t have to pass anything. Should the PAA expire, we simply revert to the 1978 FISA law—one that was already plenty permissive enough to allow for all the kinds of surveillance that the White House likes to pretend they need a new law to initiate. The original version just requires the smallest amount of oversight and records keeping—and that would stand in the way of what this group really wants to do with these sweeping spy powers.

Someday, I would actually like to see more oversight than that provided for in the 30-year-old law, but for now, I am content to stand by the original FISA act. We have been able to beat back attempts to codify a very bad set of new “GINOs” (guidelines in name only) twice this session, so there is always the chance that we can do it again.

Right?

Write: If you contacted your Senators yesterday and you liked the results, let them know. Thank them, and remind them that you will continue to watch progress on this matter, and that you expect them to continue to stand against telecom immunity and for our Fourth Amendment rights.

cancel the blankity-blank blank check

Action alert: The vote on the so-called “compromise supplemental”—the bill that will fund Bush’s Iraq “strategy” for the next 120 days—could come as early as today. Please call your Representative—especially if he or she supported the McGovern amendment—and call your two Senators—especially if they had voted for the Feingold-Reid resolution last week—and tell them to stand strong and vote “no” on this version of the supplemental spending bill.

Need more reasons to remind the majority party what the majority of Americans want? Follow me over to capitoilette. . . .