Feingold and Dodd Amendment Fails - FISA Passes And The Founding Fathers Weep For America

Update below

I guess some pigs are more equal than other's

via Crooks and Liars

Disgusting.

Here's a list how each Senator voted on the Feingold/Dodd Amendment to strip immunity from the FISA bill:

Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 5064 )
Vote Number: 164 Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 11:55 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 5064 to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Statement of Purpose: To strike title II.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 32
NAYs 66
Not Voting 2


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea Good for her!
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay She just lost my vote if she runs again...in six years!
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting I guess the Constituion doesn't matter to this maverick
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
via U.S. Senate Page

Take note of your Senator's vote and write them.

Senate

Update:
While Obama voted for the Feingold/Dodd Amendment, he voted for cloture of the FISA Bill. Hillary voted for the Feingold/Dodd Amendment and voted against the overall FISA Bill, also. Hillary showed better leadership than Obama in this instance. Of course my cynical side tells me Clinton would have voted the same way Obama had if she were the Democratic nominee for President.

Obama's tack to the "center" does not explain his disgusting support for this anti-Constitutional bill. Obama needs to show more leadership and less politicking.
While I still support Obama for President, he has just lost any monetary support I was going to give to his general election campaign; that's about the only thing I can think of to do - it's not much, but it something.

Rule of men, indeed.

The ACLU has vowed to fight the FISA bill once President Bush signs it, thank goodnes.
I think I will send what I was going to send to Obama to the ACLU.

via Joe.My.God

Contempt For The Constitution

We cannot allow ourselves to weaken what makes our society and country great; that no one person is ever above the law. By allowing the telecom companies to become immune to our laws because one man, the President of the United States, asked the telecoms companies to spy on us because we are, as a country, in a “crises”, is a precedent that cannot be allowed to stand. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a section that says the President may break the law. In fact, the Presidential oath of office states” “"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Well, perhaps, Bush thinks he is doing “the best” of his abilities to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Far be it for me to question Bush’s abilities, but…

It is generally known that Article II of the Constitution is where the contemptuous Bush/Cheney/Adington/Yoo anti-Constitutionalists get their bizarre and dangerous theory of executive power. If you read Article II, you will not see anything about the President being given the authority to command private citizens (or companies) to break the law. Yet, that is precisely what the anti- Constitutionalists are claiming; that they have the right to order private citizens and companies to enact their bidding because of claims they make about Article II, that he, as Commander is Chief is allowed to order such law-breaking (forget the fact that the Commander in Chief cannot even allow the armed forces to break the law – although, he has done that also).

But, it is not only the President and his administration that has shown contempt for the Constitution. The House of Representatives, by passing the flawed and dangerous FISA bill, have not only shown their contempt for the rule of law, they have shown a disrespect for We The People. Now, we should have seen this kind of contempt the House has for the Constitution when Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, stated “impeachment was off the table.” Again, the kind of contempt for what is part of the House’s Constitutional duty was pushed away as if the duty of Congress was somehow distasteful. Whether you think impeachment is the correct action for the House to undertake, is not what I am arguing, what I am arguing is that Nancy Pelosi revealed her own contempt for the Constitution by taking impeachment off the table, even when it was known the President authorized the illegal wire-tapping of our phones.

If we allow the Senate to pass the FISA overhaul next week, we, as citizens, will reward the actions of the Bush Administration’s illegal actions and state categorically, that, yes, the President can break our laws. The Constitution was written specifically to ensure that any imperial designs one may have while in power cannot and will not be allowed. Let’s not change the Presidency into an imperial power.

Let’s not allow this dangerous precedent to stand. Our government is By the People and for the People, not by the President and for the President. Let’s not forget our role in ensuring our laws are not trampled upon.

We have only until July 8th to make known our feelings about FISA. Please write your Congressperson and tell them "I like the WHOLE Bill of Rights -- Vote NO on FISA!"

Write your Senator

Feingold's Objections Delay FISA!

If you are wondering how a patriot acts, look no further than Russ Feingold. Because of his principled stand on not allowing retroactive immunity, FISA is postponed until after July 4.

Way to go, Russ!

If only more Senators understood the implications of FISA as it now stands, the country would be a better place.

via Think Progress

If you haven't yet, call you senator and tell him or her that the FISA bill cannot pass with retroacive immunity for the telecoms.

Senate

How Fucked-Up Is FISA? Really Fucked-Up!

Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

The House bill "is the result of a compromise," one of its architects, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., maintained the other day. But in truth, Hoyer and his colleagues gave the White House most of what it asked for, dramatically expanding the government's surveillance capabilities without demanding any serious concessions in exchange. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., calls the deal "a capitulation," and he's right. Why else would the White House express its approval so quickly, after a full year in which President Bush petulantly vowed not to sign any legislation that obliged him to concede too much? Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., offered an honest appraisal: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped." (emphasis mine)

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

One frequent refrain in favor of the new legislation is that without it, America's intelligence capabilities will dry up, leaving the country vulnerable to attack. The National Security Agency wants to intercept communications that pass through routers in the United States, even when both parties to the communication are abroad. The administration has argued that the NSA should not have to obtain a court order to intercept those communications. Seems reasonable, right?

Of course it's reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that House Democrats proposed to fix the problem a year ago. They were rebuffed. Why? Because their plan contained too much judicial oversight. (They ended up folding, just as they have this time around.) So when people say that this legislation is all about exempting foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to pass through the United States from the warrant requirement, don't buy it.

You see, the new law goes a lot further, basically doing away with warrants altogether in the domestic-to-international context. Under the proposal, the NSA can engage in what David Kris calls "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of phone calls and e-mails entering and leaving the United States through our nation's telecom switches. Provided that the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be abroad, the NSA can intercept a massive volume of communications, which might, however incidentally, include yours. When authorities want to target purely domestic communications, they still have to apply for a warrant from the FISA court (albeit only after a weeklong grace period of warrantless surveillance). But where communications between the United States and another country are concerned, the secret court is relegated to a vestigial role, consulted on the soundness of the "targeting procedures," but not on the legitimacy of the targets themselves.

This is a huge departure from FISA. As Glenn Greenwald argues in Salon, the underlying suggestion of the new proposal is "not that the FISA law is obsolete, but rather, that the key instrument imposed by the Founders to preserve basic liberty—warrants—is something that we must now abolish."

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.

This is another bit of face-saving window dressing, and its essence is best captured in a breathtaking remark from Sen. Bond: "I'm not here to say that the government is always right. But when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree … that is something you need to do." That more or less sums it up—one part Nuremberg defense, the other part Nixon.

Myth No. 4: The Democrats must fold because of the November election.

It's no secret that congressional Democrats wanted to resolve the FISA debate before the August convention in order to avoid the perennial charge that they're softies. After the House vote last week, Barack Obama issued a statement backing off his earlier tough stance on telecom immunity. The calculus seemed clear: McCain had just reversed his own position on illegal wiretapping and was spoiling for a fight, arguing that "House Democrats, the ACLU, and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation's terrorist surveillance laws." You can't stand with the trial lawyers and the ACLU if you want to win a general election.

But does it really make sense to stand with AT&T and George W. Bush instead? As the Anonymous Liberal blogger pointed out, you could hardly ask for a more disreputable opposing team than a president with historic-low popularity and a bunch of corporate fat cats. And by reneging on his earlier position, Obama put himself in a box: If he lets the bill sail through the Senate, he will alienate his base. But if he attempts a filibuster or an amendment now, he will appear to be pandering to the objections of Moveon.org and other groups. It would have made more sense for the party leadership and the nominee to stick to their guns.

Myth No. 5: The law will be the "exclusive means" for surveillance.

The Democrats' most pathetic bit of self-deluded posturing involves the inclusion of a clause suggesting that the new law represents the "exclusive means" by which "electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted." According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., this means "the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president." But, then, FISA always said that it was the "exclusive means." And in 2001, pretty much on a whim, the president set it aside. So for those of you keeping score back home, the Democratic leadership is patting itself on the back for including in the new law a provision that was already in the old law—and which the Bush White House chose to ignore.

Here, then, is the bitter joke of the new legislation: From 2001 to 2007, the NSA engaged in a secret program that was a straightforward violation of America's wiretapping laws. Since the program was revealed, the administration has succeeded in preventing the judiciary from making a definitive declaration that the wiretapping was a crime. Suits against the government get dismissed on state-secrets grounds, because while the program may have been illegal, it was also so highly classified that its legality can never be litigated in open court. And now suits against the telecoms will by dismissed en masse as well. Meanwhile, the new law moves the goal posts, taking illegal things the administration was doing and making them legal.

Whatever Hoyer and Pelosi—and even Obama—say, this amounts to a retroactive blessing of the illegal program, and historically it means that the country will probably be deprived of any rigorous assessment of what precisely the administration did between 2001 and 2007. No judge will have an opportunity to call the president's willful violation of a federal statute a crime, and no landmark ruling by the courts can serve as a warning for future generations about government excesses in dangerous times. What's more, because the proposal so completely plays into the Bush conception of executive power, it renders meaningless any of its own provisions. After all, if the main lesson of the wiretapping scandal is that we need more surveillance power for the government, what is to stop President Bush—or President Obama or President McCain—from one day choosing to set this new law aside, too? "How will we be judged?" Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., asked in a stirring speech deploring the legislation yesterday. "The technical argument obscures the defining question: the rule of law, or the rule of men?"

via Slate

That tearing sound you hear? That's our Constitutionally protected rights being shredded by bottom feeding idiots.

Telecom Immunity

There is something very wrong with the Untied State of America if we allow the FISA bill that is now in the Senate to pass(it has already passed the House).
If we give retroactive immunity to the telecom companies for breaking the law, we will have just lost a part of what it means to be an American. I cannot stress enough the importance that this FISA bill fail in the Senate. If we allow this bill to pass in its current form, not only will we be setting a precedent that the law only apply when convenient, we will, effectively allowing any future Presidents a free hand in dictating what laws should be applied under whatever arbitrary circumstance.
The Constitution was not written with an addendum stating "all laws are to be ignored if the President says so." That is essentially what this FISA bill is saying. We cannot allow that kind of thinking to stand.
Thank goodness Senator Dodd (you can read Dodd's great speech here), and Senator Feingold are standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law. Because of their leadership, the FISA bill has been tabled. If we could only have more Senators like Dodd and Feingold in the Senate, then the true meaning of America would be realized. As it is, too many Senators feel the law are an inconvenience for large multinational corporations.
It pains me to see how many in our Congress feel the 4th amendment should not apply to large corporations or on the whim of the President. When did our Constitution discriminate based on the size of a corporation or the amount of lobbyist are on the payroll?

I urge everyone to write your Senators and tell them we cannot let this FISA bill pass.

Write/Call your Senator

This bill goes to the very heart of what the United States is supposed to stand for. If we allow this FISA bill to pass, we are throwing away something so important to all of us, The Constitution.

Finally, I cannot express strongly enough my disappointment with Obama's support of the FISA bill as it stands. Especially since Obama had previously stated his opposition to telecom immunity. The only thing that has changed, I guess, is that he is now the Democratic Nominee for President. I am still processing what this means. I had such hope for Obama and his ability to see what is right. I'm just so dissappointed...

Crime Without Punishment

With 80% saying the country is going in the wrong direction, the Dimocrats continue going in that very direction by giving the White House everything they want. Illegal wirtapping of American's phone? Yeah, that's cool!

Spineless.

The Democrats just said "Fuck You" to the Constitution.

Glenn Greenwald has it all.

AG Mukaseys' Lies About FISA

As you watch this video, you need to remember the FISA allows warrantless wire taps when a call is coming into the United States from a foreign country. Mukasey asserted in a speech in San Francisco that because FISA's rules, the Bush Admin, if they knew about this "call" he claimed happened, 3,000 lives could have been saved. But remember, FISA allows warrantless wire taps for any calls coming into the U.S. Every step of the way, the Bushies reveal themselves to be liars and or incompentents about everything.

via Glenn Greenwald

Read Rawstory's article on this.

Write you Congressperson and demand they look into this.
House
Senate

House Passes Surveillance Bill without Retroactive Immuni

Update
For an exhaustive commentary of what this means, I highly recommend reading what Glenn Greenwald has to say about the House passing the surveillance bill.

Wow, rule of law. Whoda thunk?
via TPM

Sometimes It Takes Snuggly, The Security Bear To Explain

We must break our laws, to protect our...laws...?

Snuggly Knows Best

and Glenn Greewald breaks it down. Worth the 'click' to read his column!

FISA, Again...I KNOW!

received this email this morning.

"Dear Michael,

Beginning at 2:30 p.m. EST today, the Senate will resume debate on the pending FISA bill, by proceeding to vote on a series of amendments, most proposed by Democrats, to improve the bill. Key amendemnts include one jointly sponsored by Sens. Dodd and Feingold to strip the bill of telecom immunity; an amendment from Sen. Feinstein to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court; an amendment jointly sponsored by Sens. Specter and Whitehouse to substitute the government for the telecoms as defendants; and an amendment from Sen. Feinstein emphasizing that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which the Government can conduct eavesdropping activites.

On Thursday, Democratic and Republican leaders reached agreement whereby certain amendments would require only 50 votes to pass, while others would require 60. It appears that these vote thresholds were set so as to ensure that none of the amendments opposed by the White House could actually pass. It seems clear that the Senate is well on its way to passing a bill that will provide both telecom immunity and vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers for the President. Nonetheless, it is still vital to secure as many favorable votes as possible, since that will provide added leverage in trying to pressure the House, which passed a much better bill back in November, to stand firm as it proceeds to negotiate with the Senate over the final bill to be sent to the White House.

Marcy Wheeler will be liveblogging the Senate proceedings at http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com.

Cheers,
Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher "

FISA: Retroactive Immunity Vote Likely Tuesday

It looks like the FISA vote may happen tomorrow.

"The Senate has just renewed debate on the surveillance bill, but it appears that the most anticipated votes will occur at the very earliest tomorrow morning, or as late as Wednesday.

The two sides have yet to hash out the timing, but we hear that the two amendments dealing with retroactive immunity -- that's both the Feingold/Dodd amendment to strip retroactive immunity for the telecoms that cooperated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program and the Specter/Whitehouse amendment that would substitute the government in lawsuits related to the program -- will be offered at the earliest tomorrow morning. But votes on the measures could come as late as Wednesday."

-Paul Kiel

via TPM

Senate

FISA And Telecom Immunity...It's Not Over

Glenn Greenwald has a post about FISA and Telecom Immunity. Looks like there will be a vote on Monday and it's not as good as it sounds.

"In the Senate, Democratic and Republican leaders have, according to Congressional Quarterly and others sources, reached an agreement as to how to proceed on the FISA vote this Monday. There are currently numerous amendments pending to the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Committee bill, almost all of them introduced by Democrats (with one co-sponsored by Arlen Specter) and most of them (if not all) unacceptable to the White House and the GOP."

"Senate Democratic leadership sources are trying to claim that this is some sort of victory for Senate Democrats, and echoing that sentiment, even some of the most insightful and knowledgeable around -- such as McJoan at Daily Kos -- are hailing the agreement as evidence that "Dems didn't cave" and that "they held tough." Unless there is something I'm overlooking, I don't understand that perspective at all.
It seems rather clear what happened here. There are certain amendments that are not going to get even 50 votes -- including the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the bill -- and, for that reason, Republicans were more than willing to agree to a 50-vote threshold, since they know those amendments won't pass even in a simple up-or-down vote."

...

"The amendments the GOP likes (i.e., the Bond/Rockefeller amendment to change the Intelligence bill to match Dick Cheney's demands by increasing eavesdropping powers further still), as well as those that can't get 50 votes, are subject to the requirement of simple majority. The ones that can get 50 votes but which the GOP dislikes must get 60 votes. If you're Mitch McConnell, what's not to like about any of this?"

Of course the usual Republican talking points are being dusted off...

"Two other related points: Marcy Wheeler noted that Dick Cheney appeared on the Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday and claimed that Democrats were opposed to telecom immunity because they're beholden to "trial lawyers." This has become one of the most common -- and one of the most transparently dishonest -- talking points of amnesty proponents."

And trial lawyers, the GOP keeps talking about? Their the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"He's welcome [John Boehner] to come and visit our offices and if he still thinks that we're rich plaintiffs' attorneys after he's visited our little tiny Mission Street offices, then I have a bridge to sell him. We're a small, struggling non-profit with a very tiny budget - and we're doing this because we're committed to protecting people's privacy in the digital age."

I've walked by the EFF office, and I can tell you, this is not a bunch of rich trial lawyers.

Senate

Chris Dodd

Terroist Alarm Clock

If you watched the SOTU last night, you no doubt heard how if the Senate doesn't pass the FISA bill, the terrorist will attack AT 12:00 AM THURSDAY! Well, not so much. As Dahlia Lithwick explains.

"[W]arning the Congress that, with respect to FISA, "[I]f you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger." This is classic Bush-speak: Specify the precise day on which we will all suddenly become less safe while skateboarding over the nature of the danger or the proposed fix.

Similar FISA alarm clocks were ringing all over the place this week. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned from the Senate floor: "The terrorists are not going to take a vacation a few weeks from now or six months from now or next year." He upped the ante: "The American people should be frightened." Roger Pilon warned in the Wall Street Journal that "the clock is ticking." But which clock? Where is the big terrorist alarm clock that sounds every time the president doesn't get his way?"

Did you get that? "the terrorist are not going to take a vacation..." and we "should be frightened."

But, guess what? FISA does not stop if the Senate doesn't extend the PAA bill.

"If the PAA had been allowed to expire this week, or is permitted to do so in two more weeks, it would not mean FISA itself expires, as some sloppy reporting has consistently implied. It would mean that expanded secret authority to spy on Americans without connections to terrorism—allowed by Congress last summer—would not be immediately extended. Existing warrants will survive the new deadline and live a long and healthy life thereafter. FISA itself will still be in effect. In other words, if a terrorist attack were to be launched against America on the same day the PAA expires, it would not be because Senate liberals had turned out the lights on intelligence-gathering."

There needs to be enough time to come up with a bill that protects our liberties, not protect the Republicans fear mongering.

via Slate

FISA Email

Update
How authoritarians thinks:
"Of all the creepy post-9/11 phrases to which we've been subjected ("The Patriot Act" - "Protecting the Homeland" - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "Department of Homeland Security"), I think the creepiest and most Orwellian is the phrase "good patriotic corporate citizen," used to describe companies which broke our laws because the President told them to. It's now apparently a Patriotic Duty to obey the President even if he tells you to violate the law.

The accompanying claim that companies should never "second-guess" the "judgment of the President regarding what's legal" -- which I just heard from John Cornyn and Saxby Chambliss -- is equally creepy, and is the crux of the authoritarian case for telecom immunity."

via Glenn Greenwald


Received this email this morning:

"Dear Michael,

Today there will be a showdown in the Senate over FISA legislation. Thanks to your phonecalls and emails, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton will be there to vote "no" on cloture for the bill that would give retroactive immunity to Dick Cheney and the telecoms.

Glenn Greenwald gives the background here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/28/bush_fisa/index.html

Please join us today at firedoglake.com as we liveblog the action in the Senate (which you can also watch on CSPAN-2), followed by the State of the Union Address.

Jane Hamsher"