Hit the phones!

Forgive the president and the telecomm companies for illegally spying on us and defying the Constitution, and allow them to continue?

You in the mood?

Harry Reid wants this passed through quickly so everybody can go on break — Chris Dodd wants to filibuster.

What do YOU want?

Jude

FISA Battle: Stand and Be Counted
Who will stand for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in the Senate and be counted today?
Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake
January 24, 2008

Who will stand for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in the Senate and be counted today? Who will stand up with Sens. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold and put their values on the line, standing up for the foundations of American government over political expediency, a “get out of jail free” card for Dick Cheney and his minions including telecoms, and a pending airline ticket to Davos.

Hey Dick and telecoms: if you do not take the rule of law seriously, then you have no business asking for a favor and a pass. That applies to Vice Presidents and their minions as much as it does for large corporations who have scads of legal beagles on retainer, fully capable of reading the FISA law and comprehending the straightforward penalty provisions and warrant requirements. The Bush Administration should not be allowed to use Congress as their own, personal CYA brigade. Period.

The Feinstein “compromise” amendment? Nothing but fluff and capitulation, dressed up in a tidy little package — and contrary to the FISA law as written. Glenn has the lowdown. The Courage Campaign has more. For my money, the Dodd/Feingold Amendment is a far superior option that removes retroactive immunity, and stands for the rule of law, not in contravention of it.

Here’s the reality of the fight today, via CQ:

Crucially, the bill also would grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have been sued for their alleged role in the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program between the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and August 2007, when the latest, temporary version of the law was enacted. The White House has repeatedly called for such immunity.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own version of the bill without retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies by a 10-9 party-line vote Nov. 15, a decision it ratified by voice vote the following day after a procedural question was raised.

Reid plans to again allow the Judiciary panel’s bill to be offered on the floor as a substitute for the Intelligence panel’s version. The Senate is expected to vote Thursday on a motion to table that substitute.

Dodd, who is opposed to retroactive immunity, threatened to use every procedural delay available to him if the immunity is not stripped….

Even if the bill overcomes its considerable hurdles in the Senate, a deal with the House on FISA legislation would be nearly impossible before the Feb. 1 expiration of the temporary law. The House passed a FISA overhaul bill (HR 3773) in November that lacks immunity for the telecommunications providers, drawing a White House veto threat….

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., noting that the House would not have enough time to reach a deal with the Senate next week on longer-term legislation, pressed House Minority Whip Roy Blunt , R-Mo., to get on board with a one-month extension. Blunt was noncommittal but said the intelligence community needed to have at least the spying authority it has now, without interruption.

And that, in a nutshell, is where things stand as we begin the day today. Please, take some time to call your elected representatives — Senators and House members. Tell them they must stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law — and that you expect them not to let lawbreakers off the hook. Now, let’s hit the phones and FAXes…

Numbers for Senators are here.

Numbers for House members are here.

Toll-free numbers for Congress from Katymine:

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

We should also focus on the 14 Senators who promised to help Sens. Dodd and Feingold last December, and who pushed for removal of retroactive immunity. Here are their fax and phone numbers:

Name Fax Phone

Feingold (202) 224-2725 (202) 224-5323
Dodd (202) 224-1083 (202) 224-2823
Obama (202) 228-4260 (202) 224-2854
Sanders (202) 228-0776 (202) 224-5141
Menendez (202) 228-2197 (202) 224-4744
Biden (202) 224-0139 (202) 224-5042
Brown (202) 228-6321 (202) 224-2315
Harkin (202) 224-9369 (202) 224-3254
Cardin (202) 224-1651 (202) 224-4524
Clinton (202) 228-0282 (202) 224-4451
Akaka (202) 224-2126 (202) 224-6361
Webb (202) 228-6363 (202) 224-4024
Kennedy (202) 224-2417 (202) 224-4543
Boxer (415) 956-6701 (202) 224-3553

Christy Hardin Smith is a former attorney, who earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government, concentrating in American Foreign Policy. She then went on to graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the field of political science and international relations/security studies, before attending law school at the College of Law at West Virginia University, where she was Associate Editor of the Law Review

Will the Democratic presidential candidates adhere to their rhetoric?
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
Glenn Greenwald, Salon
Tuesday January 22, 2008

Time’s Massimo Calabresi predicts the likely outcome of the imminent FISA and telecom immunity fight, to begin this week or next:

Congress will soon take up the far more contentious question of domestic eavesdropping. Last summer, it passed the Protect America Act (PAA), which was designed to modernize the 1978 law controlling electronic surveillance of Americans. After initially trying to block the bill, which expanded the government’s ability to track suspect individuals, Democrats caved. But in a last-ditch effort to placate civil libertarians, the Democrats attached a six-month sunset on the old law. That six-month extension ends Feb. 1 and the pressure is on for a permanent fix for the 1978 law.

Democrats find themselves in the same corner they were in last summer: on the one hand their base demands they block expanded domestic spying powers for the Bush Administration; on the other, they can’t risk looking soft on terrorism, especially nine months before national elections. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is angling for another month’s extension of the PAA, but that would only give the Republicans a third bite at the apple in late February.

The bitterest point of contention for Democrats will be the same question that divided them last summer: immunity for telecom companies that complied with Bush Administration requests for access to American phone and e-mail traffic without warrants after 9/11. After news of the Bush program broke, civil liberties groups brought cases against the companies, and since then the telecoms have in some cases refused to help the U.S. intelligence community further. Bush has said he will veto any bill that doesn’t grant the telecoms immunity. The Democrats are split on the issue. Smart money bets the Democrats will cave again — the only question is how much they fight before doing so.

Here we have a perfect expression of the most self-destructive Democratic disease which they seem unable to cure. More than anything, they fear looking “weak.” To avoid this, they “cave” and surrender and capitulate and stand for nothing. As a result, they are, as here, endlessly described in the media as “caving” and surrendering. As a result, they look (and are) weak. It’s a self-destructive cycle that has no end.

As a result of all of this, Senate Republicans, despite their alleged “minority” status, are now refusing even to agree to a brief extension of the Protect America Act, believing — with good reason — that they can simply bully and scare the Democrats into passing a law that has everything Our Commander-in-Chief is demanding:

Intelligence and surveillance wars are going to be fought in Washington this week, and Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is at the center. . . .

The original six-month, stop-gap measure from August expires on Feb. 1, and rumor is that the Democratic leadership wants to simply pass an extension of the August bill. But Bond and others on the committee say the Senate has had plenty of time to deal with the issue, and they’re going to push for action on the October bill. “Congress will have only eight days to pass a fix before our foreign intelligence surveillance law (FISA) expires,” Bond says. “To continue to stall legislation needed to help our intelligence community prevent attacks and protect American lives is irresponsible.”

They’re well on their way to forcing the Congress — again — into the most obscenely absurd posture imaginable, where they pass a major new surveillance and domestic spying bill, this time along with telecom immunity, because Republicans tell the country that unless Democrats do this, and quick, we’re going to be Slaughtered by The Terrorists.

As always, conventional media wisdom is that Democrats will be harmed politically if they don’t capitulate to the Big, Strong, Tough Republicans on all matters relating to national security (even though the efficacy of that fear-mongering tactic was empirically disproven in 2006. But isn’t it painfully evident that a far greater liability for Democrats at this point than being “soft on terrorism” is their refusal and failure to demonstrate that they will take a stand — any stand — against this extremely weakened President and his discredited political party, and therefore prove they stand for something?

The only way for there to be any prospect of impeding Bush’s most extreme demands for vast warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunity for lawbreaking telecoms is for the presidential candidates — Obama, Edwards and Clinton — to demonstrate (rather than speak about) real “leadership” and take a stand in support of Chris Dodd and his imminent filibuster. There will be campaigns beginning this week to persuade and pressure them to do so — I will be posting extensively about them here. Any efforts to stop warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity is almost certain to fail without the active support of the presidential candidates, who these days have a virtual monopoly on the ability to set agendas and shape media attention.

The three leading recipients of telecom money for this election cycle are, unsurprisingly, the three sitting Senators running for President (with two Democratic members who are key to amnesty — Jay Rockefeller and Rahm Emanuel — close behind). That’s how “Washington works” — the process they are all pledging to battle and change. Needless to say, all of the viable GOP presidential candidates will be blindly supportive of whatever surveillance powers and lawbreaking immunity the President demands, but thus far, Obama and (less emphatically) Clinton have both claimed that they oppose such measures and thus pledged to support a Dodd-led filibuster.

But that will have meaning only if there is an active effort on their part. It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes and their commitment to “changing the way Washington works” if they choose to sit by, more or less mute, and allow such a blatant and corrupt evisceration of the rule of law — and such a vast and permanent expansion of the limitless surveillance state — to occur without a fight. Any one of them, or all three, has a unique opportunity to actually demonstrate with actions, rather than pretty speeches, their commitment to the principles they claim to espouse…

UPDATE: Telecom immunity entails virtually every corrupt, defining aspect of how our political system works: Telecoms have poured money into the coffers of key Senators who then dutifully became their key advocates. Telecoms have sent a bipartisan cast of lobbyists (former government officials, of course, with incomparable access), to pressure key Senators, who swing their doors open wide for those lobbyists. And immunity is the most extremely illustration of what Sen. Obama calls “Lewis Libby Justice,” as Congress passes a law with no purpose other than to protect retroactively the most well-connected private parties from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

On a different note, in his Time article, Calabresi asserts that in the wake of lawsuits against telecoms, “telecoms have in some cases refused to help the U.S. intelligence community further.” I’ve never even heard the Bush defenders make that claim before. They typically confine themselves to the fear-mongering warning that telecoms might cut off their future cooperation if they don’t get retroactive immunity, not that they have already done so. Yet here’s Calabresi, asserting that with no citation to any source. Does anyone know of any basis whatsoever for that rather significant, pro-immunity talking point that made its way into this article? [In comments, EJ provides a possible answer.]

UPDATE II: Jane Hamsher has obtained an email address actively used by the top aides to the Edwards campaign, and is suggesting that everyone write to Edwards at that address and encourage him to lead on this issue. Given the likely time urgency involved, it would be very helpful for as many people as possible to do so. Jane has all the relevant information here.

UPDATE III: Anonymous Senate Democrats announce today in The New York Times that they are prepared to lose yet again to the omnipotent President — “Senate Democrats concede that they probably lack the votes needed to stop a White House-backed plan to give immunity to phone utilities that helped the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping” — while the ACLU commendably puts the blame exactly where it belongs:

Advocates for civil liberties fault the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, for what they see as a weak effort to block the White House immunity plan. Mr. Reid opposes immunity, but his decision to allow an initial vote on the Intelligence Committee plan, with immunity, has angered opponents.

“If Senator Reid wanted to win, he would have put the judiciary vote on the floor first,” Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “It seems as if he wants to lose.”

Sen. Reid’s spokesman had the audacity to say this in response: “Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill.” The primary reason White House Victory on telecom immunity is so likely is because Reid exercised his power as Majority Leader to bring the bill to the floor in such a way as to maximize the White House’s prospects. That’s bad enough.

But to then send his spokesman out to claim that he’s going “to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill” makes it much worse, since that’s the opposite of the truth. He’s doing everything he can to ensure that immunity remains in the bill. If the Senate passes telecom immunity and vastly expanded warrantless eavesdropping powers, Bush, Cheney, ATT & and Verizon should (and, in various forms, likely will) send a hearty expression of thanks to two people: Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller. ++

Bush Resumes Quest For Unchecked Powers
Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, and Ali Frick, The Progress Report
January 24, 2008

In August, Congress capitulated to pressure from the Bush administration and passed the Protect America Act, which temporarily revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by expanding the administration’s surveillance powers while gutting congressional and judicial oversight. The law, which contained a sunset provision, is set to expire on Feb. 1. Last fall, Congress began the process of re-working the legislation, aiming to maintain the needed updates to the FISA law while correcting “the most glaring deficiencies of the Protect America Act.” At the same time, the White House insisted that it be given “the power to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies” that violate privacy laws by cooperating with the administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program, a provision that seriously worries civil liberties advocates. In November, the House passed the RESTORE Act, which did not include immunity. But the Senate was unable to reconcile legislation passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee that contained immunity with a Senate Judiciary bill that did not. Facing a filibuster threat from Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) withdrew the FISA legislation from consideration before the winter break, planning to return to it this month. Yesterday, the Senate returned to the issue, again facing differences over “whether to grant legal immunity to telephone companies.”

AMNESTY FOR POTENTIAL CRIMES: In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney argued that the administration’s push for retroactive immunity is based on the “important principle” that “those who assist the government in tracking terrorists should not be punished with lawsuits.” In reality though, the immunity “would reward those who knowingly broke the law and would undermine the critical role played by service providers in ensuring that the government presents the required documentation before being given access to intercepted communications.” Additionally, as Feingold pointed out, “existing law already immunizes telephone companies that respond in good faith to a government request, as long as that request meets certain clearly spelled-out statutory requirements.” “It’s not as if these companies don’t have lawyers to tell them what’s legal and what’s not,” he wrote on the site DailyKos.com. If Congress does allow retroactive immunity, it will not only encourage a potential repetition of the illegal eavesdropping that took place after 9/11, but it would also protect the administration itself from facing repercussions for ordering the warrantless program by forcing dismissals of pending lawsuits that could reveal the truth of what took place.

FEARMONGERING FOR IMMUNITY: With the expiration of the temporary surveillance bill looming, Reid sought a temporary extension this week in order to avoid “political gamesmanship” while completing the bill, but Senate conservatives and the White House objected and went on the attack. “To stall legislation needed to help our intelligence community prevent attacks and protect American lives is not only irresponsible, it’s also dangerous,” said Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee. Without the immediate passage of permanent legislation, “terrorists” will soon “be free to make phone calls without fear of being surveilled by U.S. intelligence agencies,” threatened White House spokesman Tony Fratto last week. “With the day of reckoning so close at hand, we’re reminding Congress that they must act now,” said Cheney in his speech yesterday. “Liability protection, retroactive to 9/11, is the right thing to do. It’s the right way to help us prevent another 9/11 down the road,” he added.

MORE TO WORRY ABOUT THAN IMMUNITY: The RESTORE Act passed by the House in November ably balanced national security with civil liberties by giving “the government the powers it says it needs to intercept terrorist communications without issuing a fishing license to spy on innocent Americans.” But the Senate Intelligence bill, which the White House is pushing as the only bill it will accept, does not provide the proper protections for the privacy of Americans. In the bill, the government is allowed “to acquire communications between foreigners and Americans inside the United States, without a court order” as long as the foreigner is outside the country and “the purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information,” a term with “an extremely broad definition.” In the entire process of reforming FISA, the administration has shown outright contempt for oversight by the legislative and judicial branches. The Senate Judiciary bill gives the secret FISA court “authority to assess the government’s compliance with its wiretapping procedures, to place limits on the use of information that was acquired through unlawful procedures, and to enforce its own orders.” The Senate Intelligence bill does not provide any such authority. If the Judiciary bill is shot down by the full Senate, senators are expected to offer amendments to try to improve the oversight measures of the Intelligence Committee bill. ++

Cheney Wants Surveillance Law Expanded
TOM RAUM, HuffPo
January 23, 2008

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney prodded Congress on Wednesday to extend and broaden an expiring surveillance law, saying “fighting the war on terror is a long-term enterprise” that should not come with an expiration date.

“We’re reminding Congress that they must act now,” Cheney told the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The law, which authorizes the administration to eavesdrop on phone calls and see the e-mail to and from suspected terrorists, expires on Feb. 1. Congress is bickering over terms of its extension.

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to extend the stopgap Protect America Act without expanding it, raising stakes for an expected showdown in the Senate later this week on a new version of the law.

“This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians,” Cheney said. “And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt.”

Congress hastily adopted the stopgap act last summer in the face of warnings from the administration about dangerous gaps in the government’s ability to gather intelligence in the Internet age.

Administration allies in Congress not only want the expiring law made permanent but amended to give telephone companies and other communications providers immunity from being sued for helping the government eavesdropping and other intelligence-gathering efforts.

Cheney said such providers “face dozens of lawsuits.”

“The intelligence community doesn’t have the facilities to carry out the kind of international surveillance needed to defend this country since 9-11. In some situations, there is no alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector. This is entirely appropriate,” Cheney said.

At the White House, press secretary Dana Perino defended the proposal to protect phone companies from liability. “These are companies who helped their country right after 9-11,” she said. She also criticized Democratic plans for a one-month extension of the current law. “Look, there’s been six months to hash out the differences. Actually, there’s been a whole year-and-a-half worth … And there was robust debate, a hearty debate back in August when we got the bill that we have now.”

At the heart of the controversy is whether the government’s wireless surveillance program violated provisions of the original FISA law that requires warrants for wiretaps whenever one of the parties involved in the communication resides in the United States.

Cheney also said the administration “feels strongly that an updated FISA law should be made permanent, not merely extended again. … There is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect America Act and slap an expiration date on it.”

Reid plans to bring to the Senate floor on Thursday competing versions of the legislation.

If a bill is not approved then, Reid said he would require the Senate to work through the weekend to get a bill passed.

The original FISA law requires the government to get permission from a special court to listen in on the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States.

Changes in communications technology mean many purely foreign to foreign communications now pass through the United States and therefore require the government to get court orders to intercept them.

The Protect America Act, adopted in August, eased that restriction. Privacy and civil liberties advocates say it went too far, giving the government far more power to eavesdrop on American communications without court oversight. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment January 24th, 2008