Democrats, Obama roll over: FISA bill passed by Senate

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2008-07-09 04:32pm

Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn't present for any of the votes, but shared Obama's support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

Prior to final approval, the Senate, in the morning, rejected three separate amendments which would have improved the bill but which, the White House threatened, would have prompted a veto. With those amendments defeated, the Senate then passed the same bill passed last week by the House, which means it is that bill, in unchanged form, that will be signed into law -- just as the Bush administration demanded.

The first amendment, from Sens. Dodd, Feingold and Leahy, would have stripped from the bill the provision immunizing the telecoms. That amendment failed by a vote of 32-66, with all Republicans and 17 Democrats against (the roll call vote is here). The next amendment was offered by Sen. Arlen Specter, which would have merely required a court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and grant telecom immunity only upon a finding of constitutionality. Specter's amendment failed, 37-61 (roll call vote is here). The third amendment to fail was one sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, merely requiring that the Senate wait until the Inspector General audits of the NSA program are complete before immunizing the telecoms. The Bingaman amendment failed by a vote of 42-56 (roll call vote here). Both Obama and Clinton voted for all three failed amendments.

The Senators then voted for "cloture" on the underlying FISA bill -- the procedure that allows the Senate to overcome any filibusters -- and it passed by a vote of 72-26. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture. Hillary Clinton voted with 25 other Democrats against cloture (strangely, Clinton originally voted AYE on cloture, and then changed her vote to NAY; I'm trying to find out what explains that).

With cloture approved, the bill itself then proceeded to pass by a vote of 69-28 (roll call vote here), thereby immunizing telecoms and legalizing warrantless eavesdropping. Again, while Obama voted with all Republicans to pass the bill, Sen. Clinton voted against it.

Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama's spokesman -- in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama's views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement -- issued this emphatic vow:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill -- the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster -- and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult of imagine. I wrote extensively about Obama's support for the FISA bill, and what it means, earlier today.

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. As I noted earlier today, Law Professor and Fourth Amendment expert Jonathan Turley was on MSNBC's Countdown with Rachel Maddow last night and gave as succinct an explanation for what Democrats -- not the Bush administration, but Democrats -- have done today. Anyone with any lingering doubts about what is taking place today in our country should watch this:

(flash video clip of last night's Countdown with Rachel Maddow)

What is most striking is that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP -- when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert -- the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.

Yet again, the Democratic Congress ignored the views of their own supporters in order to comply with the orders and wishes of the Bush administration. It is therefore hardly a surprise that, yesterday, Rasmussen Reports revealed this rather humiliating finding:

Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
The Congress, with a powerful cast of bipartisan lobbyists and the establishment media class lined up behind telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping, looked poised to pass this bill back last December, but a large-scale protest was organized -- largely online -- by huge numbers of American who were opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity, and that protest disrupted that plan (the movement borne of opposition to this bill is only beginning today, not ending, here). Today, Sen. Chris Dodd, the leader of the opposition effort along with Russ Feingold, said this on the Senate floor:

Lastly, I want to thank the thousands who joined with us in this fight around the country -- those who took to the blogs, gathered signatures for online petitions and created a movement behind this issue. Men and women, young and old, who stood up, spoke out and gave us the strength to carry on this fight. Not one of them had to be involved, but each choose to become involved for one reason and one reason alone: Because they love their country. They remind us that the "silent encroachments of those in power" Madison spoke of can, in fact, be heard, if only we listen.
Today, the Democratic-led Senate ignored those protests, acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years, eviscerated the core Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants, gave an extraordinary and extraordinarily corrupt gift to an extremely powerful corporate lobby, and cemented the proposition that the rule of law does not apply to the Washington Establishment.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-07-09 04:36pm

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-07-09 04:39pm

See, this is why Congress has a goddamned 20% approval rating: because we don't have an honest-to-God liberal party in there. On issues like this, the Dems roll over like beaten bitches and expose their soft underbellies in a clear sign of plaintive submission.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-07-09 04:49pm

Surlethe wrote:See, this is why Congress has a goddamned 20% approval rating: because we don't have an honest-to-God liberal party in there. On issues like this, the Dems roll over like beaten bitches and expose their soft underbellies in a clear sign of plaintive submission.

I feel... betrayed. Like knives were just plunged into my spine and I am left able to utter only a few words "E Tu Obama?"

I voted for him in the primary, in the hope that maybe, just maybe my civil liberties would not be eviscerated. But for fuck's sake the man was a constitutional law professor, and he supported this? I think come election day I might just stay home.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-07-09 04:56pm

Surlethe wrote:See, this is why Congress has a goddamned 20% approval rating: because we don't have an honest-to-God liberal party in there. On issues like this, the Dems roll over like beaten bitches and expose their soft underbellies in a clear sign of plaintive submission.

Actually, congress has a Nine Percent approval rating.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-07-09 04:58pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Surlethe wrote:See, this is why Congress has a goddamned 20% approval rating: because we don't have an honest-to-God liberal party in there. On issues like this, the Dems roll over like beaten bitches and expose their soft underbellies in a clear sign of plaintive submission.
Actually, congress has a Nine Percent approval rating.

Whoah, that's what I'd thought but the latest I could find was 20% from a few weeks ago.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-09 05:05pm

That's what I get for having hope.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2008-07-09 05:09pm

Hey, Obama drones!! Where is your God now?

You'd think that after Peolsi you'd be wary of a Democrat which preaches compromise and reconciliation. You know that just translates to “roll over for the Republicans”, or at least you should have known. I bet he’s telling the truth about everything else though, right?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-07-09 05:12pm

Surlethe wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Surlethe wrote:See, this is why Congress has a goddamned 20% approval rating: because we don't have an honest-to-God liberal party in there. On issues like this, the Dems roll over like beaten bitches and expose their soft underbellies in a clear sign of plaintive submission.
Actually, congress has a Nine Percent approval rating.
Whoah, that's what I'd thought but the latest I could find was 20% from a few weeks ago.

I heard it on the radio this morning, and put 'congress 9%' into google.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-07-09 05:16pm

I don't get it, haven't they learned anything from Bush all of these years? You can be 100% wrong on the issue but if you stick to the message and repeat it constantly, people will think you're being principaled, even if they disagree with you.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-07-09 05:19pm

The Senate postponed the vote for Jesse Helms' funeral. In other words, a dead Helms did more to stop this fascist FISA bill than a live Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi COMBINED!

One way to teach the phone companies a lesson is a boycott. Qwest was the only company that didn't comply with the illegal wiretaps, so why not take business to them and tell the other companies to drop dead?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2008-07-09 05:23pm

Telcos must've bought them off.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-07-09 05:28pm

It's also possible that as with torture, Democoward leaders agreed to go along with it because they know that any trials would land their sorry asses in the dock, too. The head honcho at Qwest claimed that the Junta demanded illegal wiretaps in February 2001, so it's also possible that any number of Reps and Senators were caught on the wiretaps doing who knows what. Digging up dirt on the opposition was the main reason for Nixon's "Plumbers" and J. Edgar Hoover's thuggery.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-07-09 05:30pm

aerius wrote:Telcos must've bought them off.

Possibly, but I personally believe that in the chaos right after 9/11, Bush's advisers in a stroke of political genius, told him to brief the Democratic leadership about the warrantless wiretapping.

At the time it would have been politically wise to not say a word.
Today, if it's true and came out during these lawsuits, the Democratic congressional leadership would look like fools and be proven complicit in Bush's unconstitutional wiretaps.

IOW, Hoyer, Rockefeller, etc., aren't supporting amnesty because they want to keep the USA safe or cave to the Repubs, they're doing it to save their asses.
If that's their motivation, Obama could have damned them from the rooftops and they still would have passed amnesty.

It's the only explanation that I can see why the Dem leadership would be so adamantly for a bill that the huge majority of their party base is so adamantly against.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-07-09 05:36pm

I can't remember where the news story was, but it was shown that the House members who voted for amnesty got, on average, $8-9000 in payoffs from the phone companies. That's an awfully small bribe.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2008-07-09 05:43pm

Interesting that the only democrat "leader" who voted against the bill was....Hillary Clinton. Yes that's right, Hillary freaking clinton did more for civil liberties than Obama.

Fuck.

Well, so much for Obama's huge message of "change". Or is there something I am not getting here?

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2008-07-09 05:43pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I voted for him in the primary, in the hope that maybe, just maybe my civil liberties would not be eviscerated. But for fuck's sake the man was a constitutional law professor, and he supported this? I think come election day I might just stay home.

So, I take it that you no longer favor any aspect of Obama's platform over that of McCain?

Be realistic. Obama is a politician, and as unpleasant as the prospect may seem, presidential candidates in the United States have to appeal to the center to get elected. Sometimes, this means drawing back from claims made during the primaries, when contestants have to distinguish themselves from competitors within their own party who generally have almost identical platforms. I dislike the idea of hypocrisy as much as anyone else, but anyone who thought that even Obama would conduct his campaign without a single compromise is simply naive. I still support almost everything that Obama has done or promised to do on the campaign trail, and I still have faith that he will enact positive change in Washington when he is elected. This compromise (and it is plainly a compromise, not an out and out betray of principles) only demonstrates that Obama is familiar with the political realities of our time.

Beyond political calculations, the more I think about the issue of immunity, the less it bothers me. Put aside the clearly inept, bellicose, and subversive character of the current administration; it is still the head of the United States government, and thus has distinct responsibility to uphold and interpret the law. As such, even if it was morally reprehensible and even illegal for the government to ask the telecoms in question for their records, it was not the place of those companies to out and out refuse the government’s request. After all, the transactions were made in an alleged time of national crisis, and nominally for the public good. Undoubtedly, the government should be called to task for this, among so many other actions, but to drag in independent corporations, which may or may not have been complying in the name of “national security” and have no right to unilaterally challenge governmental authority, would create a potentially corrosive legal precedent. I have no desire to see companies refusing to assist the government in genuine times of national emergency and need out of fear of legal culpability, and I think it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama views the situation, at least in part, in similar terms.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-07-09 05:45pm

Elfdart wrote:I can't remember where the news story was, but it was shown that the House members who voted for amnesty got, on average, $8-9000 in payoffs from the phone companies. That's an awfully small bribe.

$9k, plus armtwisting from Hoyer and Pelosi.

I actually called and bitched to my Congressman's DC office after the House passed the bill* and spent 20 minutes talking to a staffer who valiantly tried to defend Ellsworthless's vote, but even clueless me could tell his heart wasn't in it and he was just doing his job.

*Ellsworth repeatedly said he'd vote against amnesty and actually did so when previous bills came up, but he voted for it in the end.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-07-09 05:49pm

Thanas wrote:Interesting that the only democrat "leader" who voted against the bill was....Hillary Clinton. Yes that's right, Hillary freaking clinton did more for civil liberties than Obama.

Fuck.

Well, so much for Obama's huge message of "change". Or is there something I am not getting here?

Yes, there is.
HRC can afford to be against a bill that the Democratic leadership is for because she's not the Presidential candidate for the Democrats.
Obama is and simply doesn't have the political capital yet to force Rockefeller and the rest of the asshole to STFU and get in line.

I can't prove it, but given her past voting history I'd say that if she was the Dem candidate, she not only would have voted for immunity, she'd be championing it.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-07-09 05:55pm

Elfdart wrote: One way to teach the phone companies a lesson is a boycott. Qwest was the only company that didn't comply with the illegal wiretaps, so why not take business to them and tell the other companies to drop dead?

Easier said than done. Good luck switching in neighborhoods where the telecoms have a stranglehold and offer you the Henry Ford equivalent of provider options.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-07-09 06:01pm

Elfdart wrote:One way to teach the phone companies a lesson is a boycott. Qwest was the only company that didn't comply with the illegal wiretaps, so why not take business to them and tell the other companies to drop dead?

What, exactly, do you think that the telecommunications companies should have done? Violated instructions from the federal government?

Cecelia5578 · Post by **Cecelia5578** » 2008-07-09 06:06pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Elfdart wrote:One way to teach the phone companies a lesson is a boycott. Qwest was the only company that didn't comply with the illegal wiretaps, so why not take business to them and tell the other companies to drop dead?
What, exactly, do you think that the telecommunications companies should have done? Violated instructions from the federal government?

Instructions??? Why not? You don't need to be a libertarian to be able to tell the government to fuck off if its something illegal.
Ooh, instructions! Not even orders!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-07-09 06:07pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Elfdart wrote:One way to teach the phone companies a lesson is a boycott. Qwest was the only company that didn't comply with the illegal wiretaps, so why not take business to them and tell the other companies to drop dead?
What, exactly, do you think that the telecommunications companies should have done? Violated instructions from the federal government?

If their lawyers told them the Feds didn't have the legal authority to issue such orders, yes they should have told the NSA or FBI to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
IIRC, there is a 'good faith' defense in the current law that made immunity unnecessary to protect the telcos.
The 'problem' with it is that the telcos would have had to provide evidence that they acted in good faith, and that would implicate the Bush administration and their Democratic Congressional leadership allies in lawbreaking.

And we can't have that, can we?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-07-09 06:08pm

Master of Ossus wrote: What, exactly, do you think that the telecommunications companies should have done? Violated instructions from the federal government?

These are giant telecoms with armies of lawyers and very deep pockets we're talking about. There's no reason they couldn't have challenged the orders in court if they were at all concerned with maintaining some form of ethical integrity.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-07-09 06:12pm

Glocksman wrote:If their lawyers told them the Feds didn't have the legal authority to issue such orders, yes they should have told the NSA or FBI to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
IIRC, there is a 'good faith' defense in the current law that made immunity unnecessary to protect the telcos.

No there isn't. "Good faith" vs. "bad faith" comes in when dealing with contract law, sometimes, but just because you act in good faith does not mean that you are immune to prosecution or lawsuit for illegal conduct.