The United States Senate - updated

They won't stand up for the Constitution of the United States. With 28 exceptions, they need to be ousted.

What miserable excuses for Americans.

Here is the honor roll: those who voted Nay on final passage.

NAYs ---28
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

The topic, if you haven't heard, read, or guessed is FISA.

I'm going to bed.

UPDATE:
Socalmonk said it all in a comment at Daily Kos:

By the time the election rolls around...
the only people left supporting Bush will be the democrats in the House and Senate.

--the BB

Damn, damn, damn caving Dems! - Updated

OK. Nancy and Steny didn't vote for the damn thing, but they let it come to the floor. What is the point of being Speaker of the House if you can't keep something like this from passing? Remember that oath to uphold and defend the Consti-fracking-tution?

Phillip Carter at the WaPo:

Republicans and Democrats in Congress reached a breakthrough compromise yesterday on a bill that would dramatically revamp the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Most significantly, the draft legislation makes legal the president's probably previously illegal National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. If signed into law, the new bill would also immunize telecommunications companies from individual lawsuits over surveillance. (More than 40 such suits have been filed already.)

[Emphasis mine, of course]

There was and is no reason to grant immunity to telcoms and certainly not to provide wiggle room for the lawbreaking thugs in charge of the executive branch.

I feared this was coming and it has. I am furious with the Dems in the House of Representatives and, if I had the power, would vote every compromiser out in the next election. No mercy, no excuses, no exceptions.

Nancy, you're back high on my shit list. You could get off it by putting impeachment back on the agenda. Short of that, you're probably going to stay there. I expected more of a grandmother. Just saying. I don't even need to get started on Steny and Rahm. Grrrrrrrrr.

Addendum:
In my book, voting to violate the Constitution is difficult for me to distinguish from treason. Also just saying. Who needs to aid and abet enemies when we're destroying ourselves from within?

Asshats. The lot of them.

UPDATE:
So, I get to see headlines like this first thing in the morning:
Democrats Have Legalized Bush's War Crimes
AlterNet - 3 hours ago
Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to ...
--the BB

"The House and the Senate should not be taking up this bill...."

Senator Feingold:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

h/t to mcjoan, of course
--the BB

Where is my 2x4?

Somebody needs to whomp Steny Hoyer upside the head. What colossal twititude he is manifesting these days.

Mcjoan has the latest and a link by which you may let your Representative and Senators know you DON'T want telcom immunity.

Update:
Oh, and in another post mcjoan shares part of a NYT editorial on the topic.
-the BB

It ain't over by a long shot. But it might be.

There have been rumblings of "compromise" with respect to FISA legislation and we all know what compromise means in the current political atmosphere. Caving to the White House. Maybe not as much as Bush would like but still caving.

Yet I remain firm in my opinion that where the Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, is concerned, no concessions should be made. Period.

Mcjoan and Kagro X have articles up today at Daily Kos on what seems to be going on with respect to the AT&T and GWB Immunity Act (oh, that's supposed to be FISA legislation - well, sounds like the same thing).

Mcjoan has a great passage:

Does Nancy Pelosi have any idea how bad this sounds?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the matter settled before Congress breaks for Independence Day at the end of next week, suggesting she is ready to bring the issue to a head.

"We want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president," she said. "And that will happen before we leave for the Fourth of July. So the timing is sometime between now and then. I feel confident that that will happen."

By all means, celebrate the birth of the nation by throwing aside the Fourth Amendment and passing the Protect AT&T Act. There's nothing like optics like that, in an election year, to show a Democratic Party embracing the politics of change. Here's a clue, any bill that will be signed by the president will suck for the American people and for the Constitution. Any bill that will be signed by the president should be unacceptable to every Member of the first branch of government--the one that created the law that Bush broke--and might possibly be struck down by the third branch.

Kagro X notes that the judiciary committees seem to be overlooking in debates about judicial oversight, a rather glaring omission indeed.

The essential problem is that the people negotiating this for both parties are all people who place their faith in the intelligence community, and appear to exhibit virtually no skepticism whatsoever about a program designed to permit the gathering of incredibly detailed intelligence about everything done by everyone, with no checks, no oversight, and really, no obligation by the actual government (as opposed to the contractors who actually do this work) to actually get it right and keep their noses out of places even they say it doesn't belong.

Democrats in Congress who will be asked to vote for this "deal" need to hold out for something negotiated by people who actually know and understand the issues at the center of the dispute. And they're not getting it so long as the judiciary issues are being dictated by intelligence people. That's a miserable failure of oversight by the intelligence side, which is overreaching, and the judiciary side, which is underrepresented and underperforming.

--the BB

http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

The Denver Post concludes an editorial on FISA thus:

The last time immunity was debated in Congress, House Democrats held firm, saying they thought the administration's modifications would amount to a suspension of the Constitution. We hope they have the same courage of their convictions this time around.

I hope they pay attention on the Hill.

h/t to mcjoan, of course
--the BB

The latest on FISA

You can mosey on over to mcjoan for an update and call to arms.

--the BB

Admit it: you've been wondering

Wondering what was happening with FISA. Check out mcjoan's latest here.

Just say "No" to Republicans (whatever the issue).
--the BB

FISA is not going away (and neither am I)

Bmaz concludes:

Boehner screams and cries to get immunity for Bush, Cheney and the telcos while denying citizens the very rights he brandishes like a peacock. Insulting money grubbers lining their own pockets indeed. Pretty much summarizes the whole Bush/Cheney regime. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are wrong to permit these people to slip off the hook; let's make sure they know what we think of that.

Which is to say, there is a new post up about FISA and Congress.

--the BB

Say who?

You can learn about Frontiers for Freedom, one of those think tanks, and who funds them in mcjoan's post today. Knowing about my FISA posts, you clever readers will probably guess it's some bogus group heavily funded by corporations to promote their cause and that, in this case, they might be working for the telcoms. You'd be right.
--the BB

Unless you are terrorists, I think you will find our requests not only fair, but truly patriotic.

Hunter (at Daily Kos) offers a very sensible way through the FISA and immunity impasse.

Fear not: I have a bargain to strike. I would like to announce that we, the slovenly and ignorant public, would be willing to drop our unreasonable outrage over corporations in this nation being given blanket retroactive immunity for violating both federal law and our own personal privacy... for a price of our own. A quid pro quo, if you will -- and certainly, I expect you are well familiar with such arrangements. We simply want a little payback, in order to make sure that you in Congress are asked to live according to the same rules as the rest of us.

Here is my proposal. We, the public, should be allowed to spy on you, and all those you come in contact with, with similar promisees of amnesty.

Enjoy it all here.

Update:
In a not-very-encouraging post today mcjoan wonders:

Have Dem leaders really moved in the discussions from whether to provide amnesty to how to provide it? Beyond that, why in the hell do the telcos have a seat at the negotiating table on this issue at all?

Update 2:
Check out the extensive observations by Marcy at emptywheel. The preface:

Now, before I say what I'm about to say, let me reiterate that I believe we should not compromise. The telecoms broke the law when they accepted a letter authorizing the spying on Americans signed by the White House Counsel in lieu of the Attorney General in March 2004, and they should be held accountable for breaking the law.

That said, let me make some points about what basis for compromise Steny might be negotiating, and how such a compromise might be an avenue for transparency about the Administration's (as distinct from just the telecom's) lawbreaking with the illegal wiretap program.

Remember that Steny is not just the chief broker currently on FISA. He was also the chief broker on the House bill that passed on March 14. And that bill had one provision that seems to have been forgotten in recent discussions of compromise, but was clearly intended, even in March, to serve as the kernel of any future compromises: the call for a commission to investigate the illegal wiretap program.

--the BB

FISA update

I don't have time to expound on this topic these days. Y'all know the issues. Here's an update from mcjoan (bless her!) with an action item from the ACLU [link].
--the BB

Is Steny Hoyer waffling?

Politico is reporting:

Congressional staffers from both parties met with administration officials Monday to discuss controversial electronic surveillance legislation, an aide to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.)confirmed, offering a ray of hope for the long-stalled bill.

For the first time since February, representatives from both parties, from both sides of the Capitol and from the administration gathered to discuss the stalled bill, according to the aide....

Behind the scenes, Hoyer has emerged as a deal maker on the issue over the past several weeks, working as the go-between for liberal House Democrats unwilling to accept immunity and Senate Republicans who would block any bill that does not protect the telecoms from prosecution.

mcjoan has some corrections and comments.

To set the record straight for Politico, it wasn't just "liberal" House Democrats against telco amnesty. The vast majority of them, including 16 Blue Dogs voted for the House bill that did not include amnesty.

...

You've already won. Do not turn this victory into one more crushing defeat. You've won. Quit while we're all ahead.

I commend mcjoan's entire post.

I would also add that this "ray of hope" [for the long-stalled bill] would be a sunbeam for White House and its desperate desire to keep its crimes hidden, NOT for the rule of law or for our nation generally. The longer the damn thing stays stalled the better our chances for restoring law and order.

NO COMPROMISE. NO CAVING. You don't need to and we can't afford more disastrous instances of yielding to thugs.
--the BB

FISA - today's round in the battle

Senator Leahy and Congressman Conyers are asking for our help:

Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a strong and balanced FISA bill, legislation that protects America's national security while defending civil liberties -- without granting retroactive immunity to phone companies. Retroactive immunity would abet the Bush-Cheney Administration's efforts to avoid accountability for its actions.

This was a tremendous accomplishment -- and would not have been possible without the hard work of engaged citizens. Together, we have already sent 1,723 letters to the editors of newspapers in support of a fair FISA bill!

But there's still much work to do. Now that the House has passed a fair FISA bill, it's time to turn our attention back to the Senate.

Urge the Senate to support the House’s strong and balanced FISA bill -- forward an email to your Senators now!

You can go to FIX FISA and forward your support. It takes less than a minute.

--the BB

Credibility at the highests levels: why we don't have it

Senator Feingold calls Mike McConnell to task:

Dear Director McConnell:

I have received a copy of your March 28, 2008, speech at Furman University. In it, you described Senate action on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, stating:

"We had a bill go into the Senate. It was debated vigorously. There were some who said we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community. Some have that point of view. Some say the President of the United States violated the process, spied on Americans, should be impeached and should go to jail. I mean, this is democracy, you can say anything you want to say. That was the argument made. The vote was 68 to 29."

As you correctly noted, the bill was the subject of vigorous debate. Many members of the Senate expressed serious concerns about the lack of checks and balances included in the legislation and the potential impact of the new authorities on the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. Many Senators were also concerned that retroactive immunity for companies alleged to have cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program would undermine the rule of law.

However, I am not aware of any Senator saying or suggesting that "we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community" or that President Bush "should be impeached and should go to jail." I would therefore appreciate your providing a list of all statements made by Senators during the debate that you believe support these assertions. If there are no such examples, you should issue an immediate correction and an apology.

While all sides of this debate deserve to be heard, to falsely attribute statements to United States Senators serves only to mislead the American people. It also undermines your credibility and that of the position of Director of National Intelligence.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
U.S. Senator

[Emphasis mine]

Yes, they're making shit up, as this administration has tended to do from the beginning, and spouting it out there for public consumption on the assumption, I am guessing, that no one will pay enough attention to verify whether they are lying or not.

Remember the old rule: If their lips are moving....

In the same speech, McConnell asserted that the Senate would agree with the White House. And why shouldn't he assume that? Unless they grow spines and uphold the rule of law. What a concept.

h/t to mcjoan, once again.
--the BB

I know, I didn't mention FISA yesterday

But that doesn't mean it went away.

The ACLU clues us in on what the FBI does when FISA says "no." They issue National Security Letters to get what they want anyway.

Remember, FISA almost never rejects government requests for warrants. I don't even mean one in a hundred; more like one in thousands. But they said no to the FBI. And the FBI used a different route to get what it wanted.

So, what makes you think that you have any Fourth Amendment rights? Under Bush's rule, you have none.

Congress needs to get its collective ass in gear and remedy this. Now.

In other news, you can check out the Nacchio case and what an appeals court had to say. It's related to FISA issues.
--the BB

Your FISA update

From TPM:

HOUSE DEMS PASS FISA BILL
The pro-civil-liberties Democratic version of the surveillance bill just passed the House.
...
There are all sorts of things about this version that are better than the White House/Senate Dem version, not least of which is no telecom immunity.

Late Update: The final tally has been revised to 213-197.
--David Kurtz

At Daily Kos we read this: [You may click on "this" to read the whole article.]

FISA: The good guys win a big one
by mcjoan
Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM PDT

First off, Steny Hoyer, I apologize for anything I might have ever said about you in relation to the Blue Dogs and FISA. I was wrong. You were great today. Thank you. The shrewd planning of Pelosi and Reid really tied the Republicans in knots, taking away all of their tricks for derailing the bill through obnoxious and obstructionist procedural maneuvering. Chairs Conyers and Reyes were excellent in sheparding their committee members.

The good news? No telcomm immunity!

Almost immediate update:
In the debate thread post, mcjoan shares a statement by Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-03), who had "signed onto [a] letter to Pelosi urging her to rubberstamp the bad Senate bill."

"So yes, I like 20 others, signed a letter of concern. By the way, it was not a Blue Dog letter, a Blue Dog position but individuals, some of whom were Blue Dogs. Over the course of past weeks, a crdit to Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers and our super staff, an acceptable solution has been found. It makes FISA — supports FISA and gives protection to those who assist within the provisions of the law. For example, those who feel their civil rights have been violated can seek justice and telecoms who feel they have complied with the law, a judge can review the classified evidence and decide. This means to me that the Constitution and civil rights are protected and telecoms who are asked under pressure to assist in an emergency can know that classified evidence will be seen by a judge... The bill provides telecom companies a way to present their defense in secure proceedings in a district court without the administration using state secrets to block the defense. A company simply doing its duty following the law, this bill ensures they they will not be punished and I urge everyone who signed the letter with me to support this resolution."

--the BB

Debate - Votes - Lies: FISA

Georgia10 at Daily Kos calls the media out for their irresponsible parroting of lies. [Does NOBODY edit or fact check what gets printed? These assholes wag their fingers at bloggers for not being responsible "journalists, mind you. Have they, at long last, no shame?]

One of georgia10's samples:

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. (AP)

[Emphasis in georgia10's post]

Let's do a quick reality check.

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. [link]

In case this point is too subtle, let's repeat:
Domestic call monitoring was initiated seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. BEFORE THE ATTACKS.

By the same crowd that failed to act appropriately to the warnings about impending attacks, thereby NOT protecting us.

Warrantless monitoring of communication is thus NOT inherently linked to protecting us from terrorists. But we will NEVER know just what it is all about if we grant immunity and never pursue hearings into the lawless behavior of the White House.

Breathe.

The Repugnicans in the House called for a secret session yesterday, a very rare event in the House of Reps, to discuss FISA. When this happens, the House is cleared and the reps cannot talk about the content later--in other words, it's basically "executive session." They probably thought the Dems would refuse and then they could accuse the Dems of all manner of stuff. But the Dems let it happen and afterward declared that nothing new was really brought up (surprise, surprise). Once again the GOP, like its emperor, had no clothes. All drama, no substance.

John Conyers made some comments (see emptywheel):

The more my colleagues know, the less they believe this Administration's rhetoric. As someone who has chaired classified hearings and reviewed classified materials on this subject, I believe the more information Members receive about this Administration's actions in the area of warrantless surveillance, the more likely they are to reject the Administration's scare tactics and threats. My colleagues who joined me in the hearings and reviewed the Administration's documents have walked away with an inescapable conclusion: the Administration has not made the case for unprecedented spying powers and blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies.

Debate continues in the House today on FISA and telcom immunity.

Kagro X had an article yesterday about maneuvers by Dem leadership that may have seemed counterproductive at first but was laying the groundwork to undercut the phony antics of the GOP on this issue. You will see good background there on the House and Senate bills, what is going on around the FISA issue.

Remember: if Bush's mouth is moving, he's lying.

Do not be afraid of the lying man.
--the BB

God bless Rep. Conyers et al.

Statement of Undersigned Members of the House Judiciary Concerning the Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Issue of Retroactive Immunity

As a result of our review of classified as well as unclassified materials concerning the Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, we have concluded that blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies is not justified. However, we do recommend a course of action that would both permit the carriers the opportunity to defend themselves in court and also protect classified information – by eliminating current legal barriers and authorizing relevant carriers to present fully in court their claims that they are immune from civil liability under current law, with appropriate protections to carefully safeguard classified information. In addition, we recommend legislation to fill a current gap in liability protection for carriers, and to create a bipartisan commission to thoroughly investigate the legality of the warrantless surveillance program....

Accordingly, we support a resolution that would, notwithstanding the state secrets doctrine, authorize relevant carriers to present fully in court their claims that they are immune from civil liability under current law, with appropriate security protections to carefully safeguard classified information. This solution would ensure that carriers can fully present their arguments that they are immune under current law, while also ensuring that Americans who believe their privacy rights were violated will have the issue considered by the courts based on the applicable facts and law, consistent with our traditional system of government and checks and balances.

Our review has also led us to support two other recommendations. First, there is arguably a gap in liability protections for carriers that complied with lawful surveillance requests covering the time period between the expiration of the Protect America Act and the future enactment of more lasting FISA reform legislation. As Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have proposed, legislation to fill that gap is justified and important. This provision is not included in the Senate FISA bill, and shoul dbe included in any final legislative product.

In addition, our review of classified information has reinforced serious concerns about the potential illegality of the Administration’s actions in authorizing and carrying out its warrantless surveillance program. We, therefore, recommend the creation of a bipartisan commission to conduct hearings and take other evidence to fully examine that program. Like the 9/11 Commission, it would make findings and recommendations in both classified and unclassified reports and thus inform and educate the American people on this troubling subject.

Per mcjoan: The following Members joined Chairman Conyers in signing on to the statement: Representatives Howard L. Berman (D-CA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), Melvin L. Watt (D-NC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY), Artur Davis (D-AL), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), and Keith Ellison (D-MN).

A chance of a better bill?

Emptywheel informs us that ACLU tentatively sees some silver lining:

While we still have concerns about aspects of the new House FISA bill, the American Civil Liberties Union is encouraged by the new draft - particularly the language on state secrets, which would allow the cases to go forward while allowing the telecommunications companies to assert any defenses. We commend House leadership for keeping the courthouse door open.

Emptywheel comments:

I'm curious to see what the legal types around these parts think. But it seems that it challenges immunity advocates to put their money where their mouth is. For a long time, immunity advocates have argued that those poor little telecoms couldn't defend themselves because the government invoked state secrets.

Well, says Congress, simply have the courts review the materials about which the government has invoked state secrets. Voila, problem solved.

Mcjoan alerts us that Leahy and Conyers are calling on folks to write local letters-to-the- editor in support of fixing FISA the right way, without caving to White House scare tactics. Need some help doing that? Go to Fix FISA.

Martin Heinrich, our local progressive Dem running for Heather Wilson's seat in NM-01, loudly and clearly rejected FISA scaremongering from gooper Darren White's fund-raising letter and was backed up by NM Dem Senate candidate Tom Udall.

Glenn Greenwald comments here. From his Update II:

I've now had the opportunity to read the full text of the House FISA bill which they unveiled today. It is actually surprisingly good, though the real question, of course, is how committed they really are to having it enacted, as opposed to this being merely a base-placating measure with the real intention of enacting something virtually identical to the Rockefeller/Cheney bill once it is returned from the Senate.

UPDATE:

If you want to know who the Blue Dog Democrats (Bush Dogs, DINOs) who support telcom immunity are, you can learn more here.  If they are in your district, you know whose ass to kick into the middle of next month.

--the BB