Dodd Praises Reid's Leadership On FISA
Senator Chris Dodd has emerged as a hero for the netroots and for opponents of the Dems' FISA cave-in because of his steady opposition to telecom immunity and his promise to filibuster it.
So it's noteworthy that on the Senate floor last night, in a moment that passed unnoticed, Dodd offered effusive praise of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for announcing last week that he opposes the cave-in bill.
"I commend the majority leader," Dodd said, according to a transcript. "He has had a very trying week. The floor staff and others have done a remarkable job in getting us to this point. I wouldn't want this evening to pass without noting they do not get the recognition they often deserve, but this institution functions because there are a lot of people whose names are never known who make this happen."
"I want the record to reflect the deep appreciation I have for the majority leader -- I know others do as well -- for the way in which he and his office have allowed us to achieve the results we have up to this point," Dodd also said.
Given Dodd's high profile on the issue, the praise will make Reid aides very happy, because Reid took some pretty big hits last December from the netroots and other critics who charged that Reid had ignored Dodd's hold on the earlier FISA legislation.
A fuller transcript of Dodd's remarks after the jump.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say before I read this last section, I commend the majority leader. He has had a very trying week. The floor staff and others have done a remarkable job in getting us to this point. I wouldn't want this evening to pass without noting they do not get the recognition they often deserve, but this institution functions because there are a lot of people whose names are never known who make this happen.It is important, as we begin this Independence Day break, that we recognize the remarkable people who function and work every single day in the Senate, the majority leader's staff, and others who have had to weave through this morass of procedural objections that have allowed us to reach the point we have.
We are going to come back in 10 days. I mentioned the housing bill, but also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a source of significant controversy. While I have serious objections to it, and appreciate the opportunity I will have to strike section 2 of that bill dealing with retroactive immunity, I want the record to reflect the deep appreciation I have for the majority leader -- I know others do as well -- for the way in which he and his office have allowed us to achieve the results we have up to this point.
According to CQToday, the FISA bill will come back for a vote on July 8th.
When it comes back for the vote, Sens. Dodd, Feingold, and Leahy will offer an amendment that strips the bill of its immunity provision. A vote on such a similar amendment of another FISA bill (H.R. 3773) received 31 votes, so it seems that the Feingold amendment won't have the votes to pass this time around.
Sen. Specter's going to offer an amendment that requires lawsuits' dismissal unless a federal district court concludes the assistance from the carriers was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that violated the Constitution of the United States.
The second amendment by Jeff Bingaman would stay all pending suits until 90 days after Congress receives the inspector general's report on the president's surveilliance program required by the legislation.
June 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for these updates
June 27, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that update.
What's the point of Specter's amendment? Immunity is an issue only when the law has been violated in the first place. Why would immunity be necessary if what the carriers were doing at the request of the government was legal?
Sounds like some classic Arlen Specter political posturing.
June 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The immunity in the bill is for civil suits, not criminal activity.
June 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mostly right on. If the telecom's activity were legal, they'd win those lawsuits.
But civil lawsuits cannot be quashed so easily by this administration's politicized Justice Department. That means that plaintiffs' discovery motions could go forward. And that means some very embarrassing facts might come out.
Criminal immunity will be covered by Dubya's Constitutional power of pardon.
June 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dodd- Go to NH to reign in two of your supporters who have abandoned your ship! LOL!!! It is a great feeling
Prominent Dems to lead McCain group By Brian Lawson
Category: PresidentTags: Valery Mitchell, New Hampshire Democrats for McCain, Marcia Moran, John McCain, John Kerry, Jim McConaha, endorsements, David Lee, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama
Two well-known New Hampshire Democrats have endorsed the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee. Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell, who have pledged their support to U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), will serve as co-chairs of "New Hampshire Democrats for McCain."
The announcement comes the day before U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), McCain's presumptive general election opponent, campaigns in New Hampshire with U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
McConaha was a political appointment of President Clinton and served as New Hampshire director for the federal Farm Service Agency and was recently a member of U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd's presidential Steering Committee.
Mitchell was a member of John Kerry's Steering Committee in 2004 and also supported Dodd in 2008. She is a former organizer of the Democratic Network.
"It was not easy to step away from my party in the McCain-Obama race, but I want a president whose judgment we know and trust, and a leader who will do what is in the best interest of our country without regard to politics or ideology," Mitchell said in a campaign press release.
McConaha also cited McCain's judgement.
"This is the most important job in the world. We need a leader of proven competence, tested judgment and substantial experience in the modern world and, obviously, that is John McCain."
It was also announced that Marcia Moran, of Concord, and David Lee, of Londonderry, will serve as co-chairs of "New Hampshire Independents for McCain."
June 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A group with about 7 members needs co-chairs?
June 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't. That's one thing that has complicated this unnecessarily, IMO. When they mixed telecom immunity from lawsuit in with our rights, the whole thing went off the rails, IMO.
Those trials Glenn Greenwald is so convinced would bring the truth out are a myth because the evidence would be sealed - because of national security.
I'll bet anything. The problem with FISA is that Bush ignored it - there was no constitutional problem with FISA as written - I don't like the statute but it passed muster. And where everything went sideways was not the warrantless wiretaps - FISA authorizes the president to do that and has since it was enacted - years ago. Bush is not the first president this has applied to.
Bush just totally ignored it, but I still cannot see how that makes telecoms liable for our rights, when our rights are only guaranteed against the government. And telecoms are not charged with the duty to know the law if the president is telling them one thing - they have one hell of a good faith argument.
Plus, suing telecoms does not do one fucking thing for our 4th amendment rights.
June 27, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't civil lawsuits aid in discovery, so that what Bush was doing can be revealed?
June 27, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the comment? This entire situation turns on national security - any "discovery" would be sealed. Bet on it.
We wouldn't be able to find out shit - people think Bush and Cheney are that stupid, but they really aren't. They are venal, evil and twisted and anti-American, but in truth, even Commander CooCooBananas isn't stupid in that way - he's canny and he's sneaky.
Look FISA authorized warrantless wiretaps, and required the executive to report to the FISA court after the president authorized the taps. The FISA court just rubber stamped those ex post facto warrants for years - and it passed Constitutional muster, though that's debatable.
Nevertheless, no one is required by the FISA statute to do anything except the executive - the executive has the legal duty to report to that court - not any private entities like telecoms. They have no legal duty here at all - they don't have a constitutional duty to our 4th amendment rights. The president does and he violated the law by ignoring the reporting requirements. He didn't bother to make the after the fact reports - it's not the warrantless wiretaps that are the issue - it's the fucking reporting to the court.
*huge damn sigh*
June 27, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teena, the issue is that the telecoms are the ones who actually performed the illegal taps. Someone had to 'hook up' those lines, and the telecoms were the ones who did it.
If the government had gone around like in the old days and installed taps without the telecoms even knowing about it, obviously they wouldn't be liable. The problem is they collected data that was illegal to collect without a warrant.
If Some random guy off the street came into your house and installed hidden cameras and microphones, would you just shrug your shoulders and say "well, he's not the government so I guess I have no recourse!"? Obviously not.
Private entities can't tap phones. And if they do, it's illegal. Pretty simple.
June 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they can collect data without a warrant at the time of data collection. That's the whole premise of FISA. The problem was that the government failed to obtain the appropriate warrant in the appropriate timeframe.
June 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people at Qwest disagree with you:
In May 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program lacked legal standing.
In a statement released after the story was published, Nacchio attorney Herbert Stern said that in fall 2001, Qwest was approached to give the government access to the private phone records of Qwest customers. At the time, Nacchio was chairman of the president's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.
"Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request," Stern said. "When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act."
...
"Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something that their general counsel told them not to do. . . . Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally," the filing said.
Mike German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the documents show "that there is more to this story about the government's relationship with the telecoms than what the administration has admitted to."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html
June 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Plus, suing telecoms does not do one fucking thing for our 4th amendment rights."
Totally disagree. The government cannot wiretap without a warrant unless the telecoms cooperate.
And seeing as how the telecoms cut the government off because they were late in paying their bills, I have to believe the threat of large money judgments would be more than sufficient to discourage the telecoms' from cooperating.
June 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you find me one damn place in the Constitution that says that any private entity in this country is responsible to us for our rights.
Good luck.
June 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tina, what the hell are you talking about? Corporations can't tap people's phones without following the law. They just can't. Any more then walmart is allowed to lock you in their basement if they think you've stolen something.
wiretapping someone's phone is illegal. It's covered by normal statute law. If someone taps your phone, then that person has broken the law and you can sue them.
If you followed your logic all the way through, you would be arguing that any private entity could tap anyone's phone at any time. Obviously that's incorrect.
The only people who can tap phone lines is the government.
Besides, think about it. If the lawsuits didn't have at least a chance of succeeding, why on earth would there be such a huge effort to win them legal immunity?
June 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me crazy, but I think some of the effort devoted to the immunity fight is of the CYA variety. I think our Congress Critters knew that Bush was breaking the law, ennabled him to do so, and don't want that information comiong out.
June 27, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know why?
There is a statute. It's not in the constitution - it's like fair labor practices - there is a goddamn statute.
June 27, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
statutes are empowered by the Constitution and are Federal law. I don't understand the hair-splitting.
Part 13 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 ("the Act") creates offences for the use or disclosure of any information or document which comes into their possession in the course of business, where the information relates to:
the contents or substance of a communication carried by carriers and CSPs (delivered or not);
carriage services supplied, or intended to be supplied, by carriers and CSPs; or
the affairs or personal particulars of another person.
The maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment and/or $13,200 fine.
There are exemptions in which disclosures may be authorised, and these are set out below.
What the telecoms did was illegal, and as Obama said:
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
Immunity and Fisa are different issues, sure, but on the same bill.
June 27, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a technological issue, not a legal one. The goverment is unable to tap the phone lines without the cooperation of the telecoms. The fact that the telecoms would be vulnerable to these lawsuits would, I believe, discourage them from cooperating with the government's unlawful requests.
Sorry, I am a (now-waffling) Obama supporter, but a civil liberties absolutist. I am very surprised at the sanguinity of my fellow progressives on this issue. I can't see Obama's support of the FISA bill as anything but a capitulation to fear of being demagogued on the issue by Republicans and a betrayal of civil libertarian principles.
And, I'm sorry, I don't see how you can claim nuance when he was unequivocally against expansion of FISA and telecom immunity during the primary, only to suddenly be for substantially the same bill in the general. It reeks of political calculation and opportunism, and I have no problem calling him out on it.
June 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So.
FISA, while troubling in the first place, was legal. Bush ignored it. As a result, people might sue the telecoms for gathering information without a warrant (due to Bush ignoring FISA).
Congress is trying to revise FISA so that the government has an even longer time period to obtain the warrant after the fact.
And, immunity from civil suits for the telecoms who gathered information without the warrant when Bush ignored FISA.
Seems to me the immunity issue is minor compared to the fact that the President blithely ignored FISA. Yes?
June 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, CT. The real issue here is that our government, the executive branch, violated our constitutional rights. The tool the executive used were the telecoms.
Our rights are guaranteed against government action - the constitution is one long reining in of government power - not corporate power, government power. That's the real genius of the document.
In order to hold anyone responsible for this, it seems to me it HAS to start with the president. That's who is responsible for the whole damn mess. Number one - he lied his way into Congressional authority to take this country into a war footing and that means extraordinary measures are allowable and sometimes those violate the constitution - like Manzanar did. But he had pictures of the burning World Trade Center in one hand, and the goddamn AUMF in the other. That alone makes a very valid good faith argument for the telecoms.
The way that argument is overcome is by going after Bush. Some believe that Bush's illegal actions would come out in court, because basically, that's going to be the threshold issue in any suit. If he didn't break the law, they didn't. If he did, they did.
But the only way to determine that in a civil suit is through evidence and it's all classified - there's no fucking way it's coming in. FISA is a national security statute - it's sole function was to allow the executive to authorize warrantless wire taps. That's why it was written.
June 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The founders had it pretty well figured out. They knew the Constitution wasn't enough with an explicit Bill of Rights. They also knew that legislative power and judicial power were needed to check the executive. Seems to me the greatest problem is Congress. It fails to check the executive and undermines the ability of the judicial branch to check the executive.
June 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush just totally ignored it, but I still cannot see how that makes telecoms liable for our rights, when our rights are only guaranteed against the government.
Um, I'm pretty sure our rights are also guaranteed against other people and entities as well. If a corporation tapped someone's phone, or locked them up without a trial then I'm pretty sure they'd get sued. A while ago there was a scandal where HP tried to tap the phone of one of their high-level employees and got busted for it.
June 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure - you can sue people for all kinds of reasons in civil suits - there are torts that match many of our rights.
But our rights bottom line are guaranteed solely against the government. The SCOTUS has played with that to a certain extent, so that if you have a certain amount of government control over your business or receive a certain amount of federal aid, then the constitution has been held to apply to private entities. But you are mistaking one thing for another in your comment.
There is a statute at the heart of this issue: FISA. It is going to govern what happens - how it is interpreted means everything - I know what it says and knowing that, and knowing too that this is a national security issue, I just strongly believe that the telecom thing isn't a means to get us where we want to be. It's the government we need to have reined in. I don't think we get there that way.
June 27, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is slightly off-topic, but what do you suppose McCain meant by this? Seriously?
The rains/reigns was highlighted by Martin at Politic.
June 27, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially, "Obama likes big government and doesn't believe in the sanctity of life, and I'm the opposite."
June 27, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your guess is as good as mine. That sentence makes no sense whether you use rains or reigns, really.
June 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reins, reigns, or rains.
I'm wondering if he meant to say "ranges"? But even then, it still doesn't make sense.
June 27, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that Reid seems to have turned around on this, and pathetic that Obama isn't willing to stand up for whats right here.
Why would the congressional leadership not clear this with the senate democrats before proposing it? This bill was supposed to breeze through, so why is it having issues?
Seems weird. I wonder what's going on behind the scenes.
June 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
On the other hand, maybe the outrage of the left is trickling through the skulls of our Congress critters.
June 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dare we hope? If so, it is about d@#^ time.
June 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why you're so nice. You're an optimist.
June 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what is going on is simple. Obama is running for president while other dems are free to oppose the new FISA. I am not being negative on Obama here one bit. It is a fact the repugs would be out in force if he votes against the bill. I think the dems know Obama's true position and are giving him some cover with their opposition. Has anyone heard them critize Obama. NO!
June 27, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your second point - the fact that folks like Dodd and Feingold are not taking Obama to task (by name) suggests that they are conscious of the fact that their work in this is, in some measure, to give him cover. I am more skeptical, however, of your first point - that the republicans will be "out in force" if he opposes this bill.
In point of fact, when FISA renewal last came up in the Senate Obama supported Dodd's filibuster and voted against the bill. In other words, he already has multiple votes in the record opposing FISA renewal. If the republicans want to cut an ad painting Obama as "soft on terror" based on his FISA stance, they already have the ammunition in the armory (as it were). Going along with today's "compromise" will not immunize him from attacks. If anything, it will open him up to a question in a townhall or some such in which he will be forced to answer something to the effect of "I voted against it before I voted for it," and we all know how well that approach worked for Kerry. I disagree that the new FISA stance can be taken as "Obama is just doing what he needs to in order to win." Such a reading is not consonant with the facts regarding public opinion or the realities of Republican media strategy.
June 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public opinion that shows that John McCain typically has a double-digit lead when it comes to matters of national security/terrorism?
And that's the only issue that McCain has a significant advantage over Obama. I'd say this is entirely consistent with the possibility that this is just plain political maneuvering on the part of Obama.
And I'm not even sure what you mean by "realities of Republican media".
June 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "realities of Republican media strategy" I mean that the Republicans will go after Obama as "soft on terror" regardless of how he votes on this bill. They will not cut him some slack because he caved in to them on this issue this time around. They will still bring up his past votes and use them to paint him as weak. Given that he will have to defend those votes anyway, he gains nothing by essentially conceding the Republican's point by voting for a "compromise" which is scarcely different from the version he earlier opposed.
June 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By his leadership in conceding the FISA issue to the Republicans, he has conceded the issue to the Republicans. If elected, he will not reverse himself. We just keep moving step by step to the right. It doesn't matter if Dems have double digit leads in the polls, they are spineless, intimidated, and without principle and nothing will get them to stand up. If Obama wins, they will immediately tell us that they must be even tougher on terrorism that the farthest right Republican or the Republicans will say mean things about them and you know 2010 is just around the corner...
It's hopeless. Who is going to be fighting for our civil liberties in November? Ron Paul and Bob Barr That's where we're at.
June 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Look, I'm not standing up for FISA as it was originally written or as re-written - I don't like the damn statute at all, personally. But then personally, I don't like the CIA and think it should be disbanded.
What I'm trying to get to here is the danger to our liberties which comes ultimately from the government, which does control in the final analysis, what will and will not be allowed in this country as a business practice, and of course controls ultimately our rights. If I thought telecom lawsuits were going to really mitigate that danger, I would be all for it. But I never did see them as the vehicle that others apparently do. I'm convinced beyond most everything that the evidence would never come in because this whole issue revolves around national security.
But for 9-11 and the Iraq War, I think Bush would have been crucified already. He's held onto those two passes for all he's worth and he's worked them to the nth degree, but it's impossible to get anywhere, IMO, until Congress acknowledges the mistake it made in authorizing the fucking war.
June 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's held onto those two passes for all he's worth and he's worked them to the nth degree, but it's impossible to get anywhere, IMO, until Congress acknowledges the mistake it made in authorizing the fucking war.
No truer words have typed before. It's amazing to me that there isn't a call for "confession is good for the soul". I laugh every time I hear .." based on the intelligence at that time.." It was a lie and a scheme concoted by the Bushies and where is the outcry of shame!
June 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I've been reading your arguments with great interest but I do think you're missing the importance of the immunity argument.
To be sure, the government has the key responsibility to obey the 4th amendment and the President is the one we should pin the blame on for the wiretaps. Nonetheless, in this instance the government lacked the technical ability to implement its program without the active cooperation of the telecoms companies, in violation of various pieces of tcoms law.
Look, if Dubya and Al Gonzalez come up to you and say, "Go ahead, bury that guy alive, we've judged it's legal to do so, national security and all", should you be free of all responsibility for what happens next? Obviously telecommunications law is a lot more complex that this straw man example, but that's what corporate legal departments are for.
Qwest, at least, figured out the requested actions would be legal and accordingly refused. This is what we want to encourage, not mindless obedience to the executive branch.
June 27, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
this FISA rift is so stupid
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/mccains-wife-beating-joke/
June 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
your attempt at commentary as a way to spam this thread is beyond sad.
June 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, enough with fisa already, the dems are shooting themselves in the foot with this. The longer there is attention brought to it and the immunity issue, the worse it is for the dems. They should just sh#t or get off the pot already. At this point, and I know that this won't be popular, they should just pass the freaking bill with immunity to avoid the issue in November. In January, obama can set up a commission to investigate and disclose the crimes of this administration. He won't be able to do that with this stupid fisa thing being dragged out and causing political problems. Let's move on already, PLEASE.
June 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. One of the most satisfying things that is different this year than in 2004 is that we have a nominee this time around who is not afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Obama could make the FISA renewal issue cost the Republicans if he wanted. I think that folks like Feingold and Dodd are not only doing our nation a favor, they are doing our party a favor by highlighting that the democrats are the party protecting the rights of average people. We should not be so cowardly, especially when we have a spokesman so eloquent as Sen Obama to make our case in public.
June 27, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny, I had been making those same arguments for a long, long time. The problem that I see is that the average low information voter won't get the nuance, which is my concern. There are much bigger things at issue than telecom immunity and I don't want obama to blow it over this issue.
One other thing, when dems get total control, they have to pass some statute to prevent these silly patriotic names for laws in the future. The Protect America Act, The Patriot Act, The Clean Air Act, No Child Left Behind, etc., etc. These stupid names have no bearing on the reality of the legislation. It's really pathetic.
Just my opinions. I agree somewhat with your analysis, I just don't want to run the risk over basically a non-issue that can be rectified when obama is president.
June 27, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they won't get the nuance at all, and even if they did, I imagine that the response would be "Who cares? If you haven't done anything wrong, who cares if the government listens in?"
Misguided, but there it is.
June 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that's what my sister and brother in law say all the time. And, they are college educated professionals working in New York. It infuriates me, but it is what it is. Luckily, their votes won't matter in November, but in the close states people like that will matter.
June 27, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't you wish that someone would wake them up from that thinking and (if you will forgive the clunky old phrase) raise their consciousness? I know I do, and I think that Obama is the sort of candidate who could do it. Meanwhile, I think that making the case "McCain wants to be able to spy on you" would be easier to do than you are making out here. I think that this could be a weapon in our arsenal rather than a bullet that we must dodge if only we would care to make the effort.
June 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're doing yeoman's work here, Greg. I agree with your analysis of the politics of this, namely, that Obama ultimately gets nothing but diminished enthusiasm from important sectors of his base for his capitulation. There seem to be sectors here equally willing to forgive his cave-in, and who are dismissing our argument out of hand.
But if he really thinks this vote will get him off the hook on the "soft on terror" charge, then maybe he was in a madrasa the last eight years.
June 27, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried all those arguments and then some with my sister and brother in law and they fell on deaf ears. They don't want to hear it, which I am sure is the same for a large segment of the population. I still come back to let's get him in and then he can do the investigating as president. That's much more important than telecom immunity at this point and possible backlash.
By the way, off topic, remember our arguments on florida during the primaries. You have to admit now that florida is totally in play. We are witnessing a possible landslide provided nothing wacky happens. Go Obama!
June 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Michael,
I am totally amazed to hear myself saying it, but I agree that FL is in play. So are VA and NC (remember, I claimed that he would not carry a single southern state). Hell's bells, I am even presently in favor of him making a bid in Georgia (as he is doing) and Texas (as he seems to be moving towards). Even if we do not win there, if we force McCain to play defense there it makes my job in Missouri that much easier.
June 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I remember. I am happy as a clam as well. I never thought that Texas, NC and Georgia would even be close. It really is amazing. He may not win any of them, but the republicans are on their heels and have to play defense. It's too good to be true really.
June 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
the dems aren't shooting themselves in the foot. obama is cutting the dems off at the knees.
don't put this on dems. this is on obama.
June 29, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What she said. HTX is on top of this issue.
June 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The details Flufferwink gleaned from CQToday (top post) are fascinating.
As she notes, the Feingold-Dodd-Leahy amendment (which I expect Obama will back) to strip immunity from the bill is doomed to fail.
Bush has vowed to veto any bill without such a provision, so many senators who back the rest of the FISA "reforms" won't dare support that amendment.
But Specter's proposal leaves immunity in the bill -- in theory.
Telecoms can still get lawsuits dismissed by showing they were complying with a presidential request -- unless the plaintiffs can persuade courts that request was unconstitutional.
Litigation of such claims would reopen the whole can of worms for the administration.
If that amendment passes, the ball is in Bush's court.
He can of course still veto the whole FISA bill.
But that's a tacit admission that the wiretap requests were unconstitutional.
And it leaves the existing FISA law in effect.
I doubt any of the three amendments will pass, but Specter's might win a bit more bipartisan support.
Should be an interesting debate.
June 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I largely agree with Tena. The telecom immunity is a blip on the radar screen. Businesses often act amorally. The real issue is the govt's ability and inclination to violate the 4th Amendment. I'm sure the telecoms understood that failure to comply would result in FCC and other difficulties down the road. A cowardly act based on the bottom line.
It also seems that the 4th is an individual right. To my understanding the violation really only becomes an active issue when evidence illegally obtained is used in a criminal case. Otherwise there really is no body that will force the violator to cease and inf fact I wonder if the courts even acknowledge a violation unless the obtained information is used against a defendant.
I think it is a cowardly act to support this bill just for political expediency. But it is expected. Obama is a politician.
June 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to vote for Senator Obama, but I think his explanations for his qualified support for the pending FISA legislation are illogical and hypocritical. It is also nonsense for some of Senator Obama's supporters to make allusions to the secret strategy behind his capitulation. Senator Obama has not indicated that he has a secret strategy with respect to FISA, and it would be an additional act of cowardice if he did have a secret plan that he will not share with the public. I am old enough not to believe in campaign rhetoric, but it is still difficult to listen the mantra about "change we can believe in" and the simultaneous apologies for politics as usual.
June 27, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is apparently avoided in all the FISA and immunity discussion is the discomfitting probability [probable, not certain] that some Democrats in the House and Senate were colluding from the git go on the warrantless large-scale wiretapping of ordinary Americans. Any investigative unraveling about BushCo behavior would pull the threads exposing certain key Democrats as also, in effect, violating the 4th amendment.
I tend to believe that Obama is trying to thread this needle a certain way because he is aware of a lot more than we are. In other words, I think this issue may be like a submerged iceberg the bulk of which is more relevant than just some general election decision to appear tough on terror.
June 27, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will vote for Senator Obama, but I will not refrain from criticism of his dishonest capitulation on the pending FISA legislation, and your suggestion (which possibly may be true) that he is part in a cover-up of malfeasance by other Democrats in Congress seems to further undermine his integrity.
June 29, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
(CORRECTION OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR)
I will vote for Senator Obama, but I will not refrain from criticism of his dishonest capitulation on the pending FISA legislation, and your suggestion (which possibly may be true) that he is participating in a cover-up of malfeasance by other Democrats in Congress seems to further undermine his integrity.
June 29, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink