Meet the New Boss, Similar to the Old Boss?

A major bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans during the last Bush Administration was what to do about NSA wire surveillance. Turns out that Barack Obama's Administration isn't doing better on this score. From Care2.com.

When he was just one of a hundred in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama repeatedly stated that he would support a filibuster against any bill which would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies for their involvement with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) activities.

Once he won the Democratic primaries to become that party's nominee, however, Mr. Obama changed his tune, voting for an intelligence surveillance bill he had opposed just months earlier.

Of course, the bill he had opposed was a slightly different version, but those lawmakers he stood with before had not altered their position, despite any alterations to the bill itself.

Last week, the Obama Administration sought to dismiss the suit brought in Jewel v. NSA, wherein the plaintiff organization sought to discontinue government surveillance of the records and communications of AT&T customers.

In its motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, the Administration argues, in part, that the plaintiffs cannot establish standing requisite to go forward with the suit because they cannot access necessary information to prove such standing. This is so because the state claims that the information the plaintiffs would need is subject to executive privilege as "state secrets", pertinent to national security, and are excluded from
review.

Congress: No Compromise to Telecom Immunity

From True Majority

For months now, we've been talking about the Bush Administration's demands of immunity for phone companies guilty of illegally spying on Americans.

Now, the President is at it again. Just yesterday, the Politico newspaper reported that the administration is, "now in a position where they want to talk about a possible compromise".1 We've seen this before. Every month or so, the White House floats a new trial-balloon of a possible compromise bill which inevitably includes immunity for phone companies.

Call House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer right now and tell him to keep telecom immunity off the table.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
202.225.3130
As the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer must stand with the true majority of Americans. Let him know any compromise that provides Bush, Cheney, and their partners at big telecom with amnesty is unacceptable.

Then, let us know how your call went:
http://www.TrueMajority.org/FISAcall

House Shows No Immunity to President or Senate

Despite threats by both the Senate and the President concerning the revised FISA Bill that would remove immunity for telephone companies who provided private data to the Bush Administration without a court order, the House voted for a stronger bill that would allow court cases to move ahead.

CNN reports:

The House of Representatives voted Friday to back the Democratic-sponsored
revisions to federal surveillance laws.

The vote was 213 to 197 in favor
of a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill that was
backed by the Democratic leadership.

One member voted present.

The vote came after a secret session Thursday night in the House. It
was the first time the House has met in secret since 1983.

The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued
for their role in the administration's much-disputed warrantless surveillance
program .

The bill now goes to the Senate, but both the Senate and President Bush
have made it clear they will not support the bill without the immunity
provision.

Respect My Lack of Authority--FBI

According to a CNN article, which is condensed below:

The FBI continued in 2006 to badly mishandle letters that it uses to obtain personal records without a court order, according to a Justice Department report released Thursday.

The new report shows the FBI continued in 2006 to increase its use of the secret letters. The 49,425 requests represented a 4.7 percent increase over 2005.

The new report cites "issuance of NSLs [national security letters] without proper authorization, improper requests and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records due to FBI errors or mistakes made by NSL recipients."

In an accompanying report the inspector general said the FBI made 47 requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants to pursue business records. All requests were approved.

The report, however, singled out one classified case in which the FBI was turned down by the FISA court, and pursued the matter anyway. Although the details were blacked out in the report, the inspector general said Congress was provided a classified version of the report, which contains the information.

New House Bill: No Immunity to Telecoms

House Democratic leaders unveiled legislation Tuesday to update the nation's wiretapping program, rejecting a Senate-passed version of the bill that would give telecommunications companies legal immunity for agreeing to participate in the program after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

President Bush secretly instituted the National Security Agency's domestic spying program after 9/11.

President Bush and House Republicans have insisted that the House pass the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill.

Instead, top Democrats -- including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers -- proposed that lawsuits against the phone companies could move forward through U.S. district courts.

The government has effectively frozen all litigation by invoking the "state secrets" doctrine, arguing that documents detailing the phone companies' activities are classified.

Colbert's Word More Truth Than Truthiness

In the beginning (of the Colbert Report), there was the Word and the word was AT &Treason--Check it out over at Crooks and Liars.

FISA As a Wedge Issue

In order to attack Democrats in weak Congressional districts, it appears that Republican operatives are using the House's refusal to vote on the FISA bill as a wedge issue based accusing these Dems as being weak on protecting Americans from terrorists.

Truthout Reports:

An aggressive campaign by the White House and its allies to win approval of
a new electronic spying bill is escalating partisan tensions on Capitol Hill.
The contentious debate over the measure could spill over into this fall's
election campaign.

The latest tactic employed by administration
supporters involves a $2 million television advertising campaign featuring
sinister images of Osama bin Laden that started running this week in the home
districts of about 15 Democratic members of Congress who are potentially
vulnerable this fall. The ads, funded by a newly formed conservative advocacy
group called defenseofdemocracies.org, charge that House Democrats have allowed
"surveillance against terrorists" to be "crippled" because they failed to
approve a version of the spying bill supported by the Bush administration.

The group, run by Clifford May, a former
communications director of the Republican National Committee, has not disclosed
the names of its donors. May told NEWSWEEK that he launched the campaign for the
express purpose of ratcheting up pressure on House Democrats. (The ads call on
voters to contact specific Democratic members and demand that they vote "to keep
us all safe.") "I think it's important for Democrats to hear from their
constituents on this issue," May said. "This is a national security
issue."

Democrats complain that the administration is
trying to politicize the electronic surveillance issue and use it for partisan
advantage this fall. "If you look at these ads, they are not too different from
the ads they ran against Max Cleland in 2002," said Meredith Salsbery, press
secretary to Minnesota Democratic Rep. Tim Walz, whose district has been
targeted in the advertising campaign. (Those notorious ads impugned the
patriotism and national security credentials of the Democratic senator from
Georgia, a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee who wound up losing his
re-election bid.) "To a lot of our constituents, these ads look like
fear-mongering and scare tactics designed to persuade the public that the
Democrats are soft on national security." More

Don't Give the Telecoms a Walk--Call Loebsack!

Call Dave Loebsack Today!

Update 2/14: Liberal Democrats joined Republicans in voting down an extension to the Protect America Act. According to the NY Times,

The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on
intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept
communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a
year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular
group.

If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday,
intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping
authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive
standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look up your representative's Washington, DC, office phone number at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WJk0VniMSWYjYEhKSXhhGDtk9SnQjRzY OR call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 (available 24 hours) and ask the operator to connect you.

The most important messages you can give your representative are these:
Do not give in to the FISA Amendments Act that the Senate passed on Tuesday. The RESTORE Act passed by the House in November offers stronger protections of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.

Do not grant immunity to telecommunications companies. Allow the lawsuits to proceed so we can find out what laws the administration violated and how Americans' privacy has been compromised. The House-passed RESTORE Act does not grant immunity.

Do not vote for a bill that allows wiretapping on Americans without the warrants that the Fourth Amendment specifically requires for government searches.

Insist on the quarterly audits of the program by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, which the House-passed RESTORE Act would provide.

Make it clear that FISA must be the exclusive means for wiretapping in the US. The RESTORE Act does so.

Senate Caves in On Telecom Immunity

Despite the efforts of Senators Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, and Russ Feingold, the Senate has given immunity to the telecoms as prescribed by George Bush in defeating the amendment proposed by Dodd and Feingold. Fortunately the House does not have the same provision in their bill, so it ain't over.

The Washington Post reports:

Senate voted today to preserve retroactive immunity from lawsuits for
telecommunications companies that cooperated with a government eavesdropping
program, decisively rejecting an amendment that would have stripped the
provision from a bill to modernize an electronic surveillance law.

Senators voted 67 to 31 to shelve the amendment offered by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A filibuster-proof 60 votes had been
needed for the amendment to move forward.

The vote represented a victory for the Bush administration and a number
of telecommunications companies -- including AT&T and Sprint Nextel -- that
face dozens of lawsuits from customers seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Olbermann on FISA Mess

Nobody summarizes this issue better than Keith Olbermann. Listen to the link to the current AG and the Telecoms. It is well worth 9 minutes of your time.

Feingold Explains FISA

This is what is at stake.

FISA Bill Stalled By Senate Dems

In a move that pleases the civil libertarian in me, the Dems voted against cloture on the bill that would renew FISA while not holding Telecoms liable for their disclosure of phone records to the Feds. From the Austin American-Statesman.

A majority of Democratic senators killed a Republican motion Monday that would have forced a vote on legislation that overhauls the nation’s electronic surveillance rules.

The 48 to 45 vote put Democrats in the odd position of opposing a vote on a bill supported by Democratic leaders and authored by fellow Democrat-Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Va., chairman of the intelligence panel.

Rockefeller and most Democrats said they opposed the Republican motion because it would have prevented a full airing of Democratic amendments to the controversial bill.

“The FISA legislation before the Senate has been taken hostage,” said Rockefeller in a floor speech urging Democrats to vote against ending debate and bringing his bill up for a vote. “In a transparent attempt to score political points off of national security issues, the White House has decided once again that scaring the American people with unfounded and manipulative claims is in order.”

A temporary measure providing expanded wiretapping authority approved last August is scheduled to expire on Friday. The Senate voted 48 to 45 to reject an effort to extend that measure.

Obama and Clinton to Vote "No" On FISA Cloture

Leaving the door open to disallow immunity for Telecoms who gave up phone records to the Federal government without a search warrant, Senators Clinton anfd Obama will return to D.C. to vote "nay" on cloture.

The rest is from About.Com

The Senate has scheduled a cloture vote Monday afternoon at 4.30 EST over FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) legislation that would provide immunity for telecom firms. This current impasse highlights the age-old tension between individual liberty and government surveillance.

FISA was enacted almost 30 years ago in reaction to government abuses of electronic surveillance for national security purposes, and most American voters (63%) still believe that the government should have to get a warrant before tapping conversations of US citizens. Moreover, about 6-in-10 "reject immunity for phone companies that may have violated the law by selling customers’ private information to the government, preferring to let courts decide the outcome of any cases." (pdf / tip).

The three Democrats who serve on both Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees -- Russ Feingold (WI), Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) -- voted Friday on the losing side of a test that foreshadows Monday's filibuster vote.

Edwards Rails Against FISA Bush Pushes Expanded Measures

According to the Hill

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is laying the groundwork to attack Democratic presidential front-runners Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) on some of the key issues that they will be forced to vote on during the primary season.

Edwards on Thursday said it is “time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists” on a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) measure that would give retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations.

The Senate is currently debating an extension of FISA legislation enacted last year that is set to expire on Feb. 1.

By criticizing the bill now, Edwards puts himself in a position to criticize Clinton and Obama for not doing enough to fight against corporate interests if the legislation passes. However, Clinton and Obama do not support giving immunity to the telecommunications companies.

The former senator also criticized a tentative deal reached Thursday between Democrats and Republicans on a stimulus package aimed to boost the ailing economy.

The Hill also reports:

President Bush on Thursday pressured Congress to pass quickly legislation to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which the Senate is debating.

“If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened,” Bush said in a statement.

Congress passed last August a GOP-written interim FISA bill, set to expire Feb. 1, that greatly expanded the government’s powers to conduct warrantless surveillance on U.S. soil. It quickly drew criticism from many Democrats and civil liberties groups.

The House passed a Democratic-written bill last fall, while the bill pending in the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate Intelligence Committee. The bill would, among other things, grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications firms that participated in the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program after Sept. 11, 2001 – a key priority for the White House.

Many Democrats oppose that provision and will try to alter, if not strike, the immunity language through amendments.

Bush Says Immunity for Telecoms Should Be #1 Priority

From AP

Bush called on lawmakers to extend the Protect America Act when they return from vacation in January, saying the legislation "closed dangerous gaps" in collecting intelligence on terrorists overseas. But he complained that its key provisions are set to expire at the beginning of February, "as if the terrorist threat is going to go away on February the 1st, 2008."

Bush said Congress should make the bill its top priority when it returns and that it "should include liability protection for companies that are facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the effort to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."

The law modified the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow wiretapping without a warrant from the secret FISA court when the target of the eavesdropping is a foreigner located outside the United States. The White House wants the law to protect telecommunications companies that acceded to administration requests for data.

The act is strongly opposed by civil liberties groups such as the ACLU, which charges that it "allows for massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts."

Russ Feingold's Senate Speech in Opposition to the FISA Bill

This is why I like Russ Feingold (Feingold in 2012-- anybody, anybody?)

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Opposition to the Flawed FISA Bill
As Prepared for Delivery

December 17, 2007

Mr. President, I oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2248, as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This bill is deeply flawed, and I am very disappointed by the decision to take it up on the Senate floor rather than the better bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee.

Before leaving town for the August recess, Congress bowed to pressure from the administration, and vastly expanded the government’s ability to eavesdrop without a court-approved warrant. That legislation, the so-called Protect America Act, was rushed through this chamber in a climate of fear – fear of terrorist attacks, and fear of not appearing sufficiently strong on national security. There was very little understanding of what the legislation actually did.

But there was one silver lining: The bill had a six-month sunset to force Congress to do its homework and reconsider the approach it took.

The Senate should be taking this opportunity to fix its mistakes and pass a new bill that gives the government all the tools it needs to spy on suspected terrorists but also protects Americans’ basic freedoms. This time around, the Senate should stand up to an Administration that time and again has employed fear-mongering and misleading statements to intimidate Congress.

Mr. President, the Intelligence Committee bill doesn’t fix those mistakes, and it is not the bill we should be considering on the Senate floor.

I do agree with the administration on one point -- Congress should make clear that when foreign terrorists are communicating with each other overseas, the U.S. government doesn’t need a warrant to listen in, even if the collection activity ends up taking place in this country because of the way modern communications are routed. Unfortunately, both the Protect America Act and the bill approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee go far beyond fixing that problem and also authorize widespread surveillance involving Americans – at home and abroad.

The bill we should be considering is the Judiciary Committee bill, which 14 Senators urged the Majority Leader to take up in a letter last week.

The Judiciary Committee made critical improvements to ensure independent judicial oversight of these sweeping new powers and to better protect innocent Americans. The Judiciary bill does not contain a new form of retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal wiretapping program that lasted for more than five years. And, while the Intelligence Committee bill was drafted and debated behind closed doors and in close consultation with the Administration, the Judiciary bill was the product of an open process with the input of experts from a variety of perspectives.

The Judiciary Committee bill is not perfect. It needs further improvement. But it would be a vastly better starting point for Senate consideration than the bill that the Majority Leader has brought to the floor, which simply gives the Administration everything it was demanding, no questions asked.

Mr. President, the stakes are high. I want my colleagues to understand the impact that the Protect America Act and the Intelligence Committee bill could have on the privacy of Americans. These bills do not just authorize the unfettered surveillance of people outside the United States communicating with each other. They also permit the government to acquire those foreigners’ communications with Americans inside the United States, regardless of whether anyone involved in the communication is under any suspicion of wrongdoing.

There is no requirement that the foreign targets of this surveillance be terrorists, spies or other types of criminals. The only requirements are that the foreigners are outside the country, and that the purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, a term that has an extremely broad definition. No court reviews these targets individually. Only the executive branch decides who fits these criteria.

The result is that many law-abiding Americans who communicate with completely innocent people overseas will be swept up in this new form of surveillance, with virtually no judicial involvement. Even the Administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program, as described when it was publicly confirmed in 2005, at least focused on particular terrorists. What we are talking about now is a huge dragnet that will sweep up innocent Americans.

In America, we understand that if we happen to be talking to a criminal or terrorist suspect, our conversations might be overheard by the government. But I don’t think many Americans expect the government to be able to listen in to every single one of their international communications with people about whom there are no suspicions whatsoever.

These incredibly broad authorities are particularly troubling because we live in a world in which international communications are increasingly commonplace. Thirty years ago it was very expensive, and not very common, for most Americans to make an overseas call. Now, particularly with email, such communications are commonplace. Millions of ordinary, and innocent, Americans communicate with people overseas for entirely legitimate personal and business reasons. Parents or children call family members overseas. Students email friends they have met while studying abroad. Business people communicate with colleagues or clients overseas. Technological advancements combined with the ever more interconnected world economy have led to an explosion of international contacts.

We often hear from those who want to give the government new powers that we just have to bring FISA up to date with new technology. But changes in technology should also cause us to take a close look at the need for greater protections of the privacy of our citizens. If we are going to give the government broad new powers that will lead to the collection of much more information on innocent Americans, we have a duty to protect their privacy as much as we possibly can. And we can do that without sacrificing our ability to collect information that will help protect our national security.

To take one example, a critical difference between the Intelligence and Judiciary bills is the role of the court. The Judiciary bill gives the secret FISA court more authority to operate as an independent check on the executive branch. It gives the 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 Judiciary bill also does a better job of protecting Americans from widespread warrantless wiretapping. It prohibits so-called bulk collection – or vacuuming up all communications between the U.S. and overseas -- which the DNI admitted is legal under the PAA. And it ensures that if the government is wiretapping a foreigner overseas in order to collect the communications of the American with whom that foreign target is communicating – what is called reverse targeting -- it has to get a court order on that American. None of these changes hinders the government’s ability to protect national security.

The process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the results of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee’s unique role and expertise in protecting those rights.

I am certain that over the course of this week, we will hear a number of arguments about why the Judiciary bill will hamper the fight against terrorism. Let me say now to my colleagues: Do not believe everything you hear. Last week I sat with many of you in the secure room in the Capitol, S-407, and listened to arguments made by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that several of the examples they gave were simply wrong. I am happy to have a classified meeting with anyone in this body who wishes to discuss this.

This is not about whether we will be effective in combating terrorism. Both bills allow that. This is about whether the court should have an independent oversight role, and whether Americans deserve more privacy protections than foreigners overseas.

All of this should sound familiar to those who have followed previous debates about fighting terrorism while protecting Americans’ civil liberties in the post-9/11 world: The administration says: “Trust us. We don’t need judicial oversight. The courts will just get in our way. You never know when they might tell us that what we’re doing is unconstitutional, and we would prefer to make that decision on our own.”

Time and again, that has proven to be a foolish and counter-productive attitude. And sadly, despite the objections of many of us in this chamber, too many times Congress has gone along. We don’t have to make that same mistake again.

Mr. President, in this case, we have a factual record to help us evaluate whether we should simply trust the administration or whether we should write protections into law. The Protect America Act has only been in law for four and a half months, and we are still missing key information about it. But the Intelligence Committee has recently been provided some basic information about its implementation.

Based on what I have learned, I have very serious questions about the way that the Administration is interpreting and implementing the Protect America Act, including its effect on the privacy of Americans. I will shortly be sending the Director of National Intelligence a classified letter detailing my concerns, which are directly relevant to the legislation we are now considering. I regret this information is classified, so I cannot discuss it here, and I regret that more of my colleagues have not been privy to this information prior to this floor debate. But I would be happy to share a copy of my letter, in an appropriate classified setting, with any Senator who wishes to review it.

Mr. President, I have been speaking for some time now about my strong opposition to the Intelligence Committee bill, and I haven’t even addressed one of the most outrageous elements of that bill: the granting of retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program that lasted for more than five years.

Mr. President, this grant of automatic immunity is simply unjustified. There is already an immunity provision in current law that has been there since FISA was negotiated – with the participation of the telecommunications industry – in the late 1970s. The law is clear. Companies already have immunity from civil liability when they cooperate with a government request for assistance – as long as they receive a court order, or the Attorney General certifies that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have been met.

This is not about whether the companies had good intentions or acted in good faith. It is about whether they complied with this statutory immunity provision, which has applied to them for 30 years. If the companies followed that law, they should get immunity. If they did not follow that law, they should not get immunity. A court should make that decision, not Congress. It’s that simple.

Congress passed a law laying out when telecom companies get immunity and when they don’t for a reason. These companies have access to our most private communications, so Congress has subjected them to very precise rules about when they can provide that information to the government. If the companies did not follow the law Congress passed, they should not be granted a “get out of jail free card” after the fact.

We have heard a lot of arguments about needing the cooperation of carriers in the future. We do need that cooperation. But we also need to make sure that carriers don’t cooperate with illegitimate requests. We already have a law that tells companies when they should and when they shouldn’t cooperate, so they are not placed in the position of having to evaluate independently whether the government’s request for help is legitimate.

Instead of allowing the courts to apply that law to the facts – instead of allowing judges to decide whether the companies deserve immunity for acting appropriately -- the Intelligence Committee bill sends the message that companies need not worry about complying with questionable government requests in the future because they will be bailed out.

This is outrageous. Even more outrageous is that fact that if these lawsuits are dismissed, the courts may never rule on the NSA wiretapping program. This is an ideal outcome for an administration that believes it should be able to interpret laws alone, without worrying about how Congress wrote them or what a judge thinks. For those of us who believe in three independent and co-equal branches of government, it is a disaster.

Mr. President, for all of these reasons I oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to the Intelligence Committee bill. I fear we are about to make the same mistake that we made with the Patriot Act. We passed that law without taking the time to consider its implications, and we didn’t do enough during the reauthorization process to fix it. As a result, three federal courts have struck down provisions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. And that is right back where we are going to end up if we don’t do our jobs and fix the Protect America Act. I urge my colleagues to vote No on cloture.

I yield the floor.

Dodd Comes Through

From the Swamp

Against improbable odds, Chris Dodd did it.

Earlier today, the leader of his own party, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), pushed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act renewal bill to the floor. Reid had selected a piece of renewal legislation voted out of the Senate Intelligence Committee rather than the version of the FISA bill passed by the Judiciary Committee. And the Senate followed Reid's lead by voting in favor of cloture to cut off debate on the bill.

All throughout the day, Judiciary Democrats such as Dodd, Edward Kennedy, and Russ Feingold took aim at the bill, even as Reid professed his hope that the Senate would pass the FISA bill today, in advance of its holiday adjournment. Dodd, a margin-of-error presidential candidate, vowed to filibuster the FISA bill on the floor if it granted large telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T immunity from civil lawsuits for allegedly cooperating with the government. The Intel Committee bill did just that.

But early this evening, Reid surrendered, saying the FISA legislation would be taken up again in January, after the recess. (Reid had pledged this morning that the Senate would take up the omnibus spending bill from the House on Tuesday.)

That is sure to upset the White House and Democratic and Republican members alike who worry that Congress is leaving itself open to accusations that it is dragging its feet in terms of national security. The White House, which supports granting immunity to the telecoms, has already complained about the delay. The temporary FISA renewal bill, the Protect America Act, expires in February. President Bush had vowed to veto the bill if it did not contain the immunity provision.

In a statement this evening, Dodd claimed victory:

“Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy. The president should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I thank all my colleagues who joined me in fighting and winning a stay in the rush to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have violated the privacy rights of millions of Americans.

However, the Democratic chair of the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), was not happy. It was his bill that didn't make it off the floor Monday. In a statement after Reid pulled the bill, Rockefeller said:

“I’m disappointed legislation to modernize and improve FISA will now have to wait until January. As I’ve said many times, it is one of the most important bills before Congress, and one that should not be rushed in the final hours before Protect America Act expires.

“Today’s strong 76-10 vote to cut off debate is a clear sign that the majority of Congress is ready and willing to pass this critical legislation.

The January fireworks will give Hill-watchers something to look forward to when the post-holiday doldrums set in.

Well done Senator Dodd, well done!

Senate Move Ahead on FISA Bill With Immunity to Telecoms

From Reuters

President George W. Bush's demand for immunity for telephone companies that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program won an initial victory on Monday in the U.S. Senate.

On a vote of 76-10, far more than the 60 needed, the Democratic-led Senate cleared a procedural hurdle and began considering a bill to increase congressional and judicial oversight of electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists.

It includes a provision to grant retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that took part in Bush's spying program -- surveillance without court warrants of e-mails and telephone calls of people in the United States -- begun shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Nearly 40 lawsuits have been filed accusing AT&T, Verizon and Sprint Nextel Corp. of violating U.S. privacy rights.

Backers of immunity, who include some Democrats as well many of Bush's fellow Republicans, contend companies should be thanked, not punished, for helping defend the United States.

But civil liberties advocates and a number of Democratic lawmakers argue the courts should determine if any company violated privacy rights of law-abiding Americans.

Tell Grassley and Harkin No to Telecom Immunity

Today, the Senate started debate on S. 2248 -- the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. The bill now exists in two versions -- one that was reported out of the Intelligence Committee and one that was offered as an alternative by the Judiciary Committee. The worse of the two -- the Intelligence Committee version, containing retroactive "telecom immunity" -- is the one that will come up first.

Please call your U.S. senators now and urge them to STOP THE INTEL-PASSED S. 2248.

Sen. Charles Grassley
Phone: (202) 224-3744

Sen. Tom Harkin
Phone: (202) 224-3254

Please keep in mind that this legislation is strongly supported by the Bush-Cheney administration. Prioritize your calls accordingly -- for instance, if you have one senator who is a staunch right-wing ally of the administration and one who is a Democrat, you probably want to make sure you call the Democrat first.

The FISA-bility of Debate Moderators

Media Matters offers this asssessment

Through 17 debates this year, roughly 1,500 questions have been asked of the two parties' presidential candidates. But only a small handful of questions have touched on the candidates' views on executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil liberties concerns. (A description of those questions appears at the end of this column.)

Only one question about wiretapping. Not a single question about FISA.

There has, however, been a question about whether the Constitution should be changed to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president.

Not one question about renditions. The words "habeas corpus" have not once been spoken by a debate moderator. Candidates have not been asked about telecom liability.

But there was this illuminating question, asked of a group of Republicans running for president: "Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?"

Though Republicans often claim that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of Americans is necessary to prevent "another 9-11," debate moderators have not once asked candidates about recent revelations that suggest the administration began its surveillance efforts long before the September 11, 2001, attacks, not in response to them.

But NBC's Brian Williams did ask the Democratic candidates what they would "go as" for Halloween.

No moderator has asked a single question of a single candidate about whether the president should be able to order the indefinite detention of an American citizen, without charging the prisoner with any crime.

But Tim Russert did ask Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- in what he felt compelled to insist was "a serious question" -- whether he has seen a UFO.

No moderator has asked a single question about whether the candidates agree with the Bush administration's rather skeptical view of congressional oversight.

But Hillary Clinton was asked, "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"

That last question came from an audience member at the end of the November 15 Democratic debate. It turns out, as first reported by Marc Ambinder, that the questioner would have preferred to ask a substantive question, but CNN only offered her the opportunity to ask about jewelry.

As Ezra Klein has noted, this is particularly shocking in light of the fact that the cable channel has made a big deal about the Clinton campaign planting a question about global warming in an audience recently. Planting questions about the future of the earth? Bad. Prompting someone to ask the first woman to have a legitimate chance of being elected president about jewelry preferences? That's just good television.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time CNN has gotten caught prompting an audience member to ask a frivolous question during a debate. According to a November 11, 2003, Associated Press report:

A college student who asked the Democratic presidential candidates at a debate whether they preferred the PC or Mac format for their computers says the question was planted by CNN.

The news network acknowledged Tuesday that a producer went "too far" in telling Brown University student Alexandra Trustman what to ask.

[...]

In an editorial written for the Brown Daily Herald, Trustman said she was called the morning of the debate and given the topic of the question CNN producers wanted her to ask.

Trustman said she was "confused by the question's relevance," and constructed her own question "about how, if elected, the candidates would use technology in their administrations."

But when she arrived in Boston for the debate, Trustman wrote, "I was handed a note card with the Macs and PCs version of Clinton's boxers or briefs question" and told she couldn't ask her question "because it wasn't lighthearted enough and they wanted to modulate the event with various types of questions."

There are few matters more significant to the nation's future than whether the Bush administration's assumption of broad powers once considered to be the domain of dictators rather than presidents will prove to be a temporary condition, like the internment of American citizens during World War II, or the beginning of a sustained slide into totalitarianism, as described in recent books by Joe Conason and Naomi Wolf.

These are serious times. There is no guarantee that the next president will quietly abandon the Bush administration's embrace of torture and wiretapping and detaining people without charging them with crimes. There is no guarantee that the next president will ignore Bush's precedent and treat Congress as an equal branch of government. The political media's shocking indifference to these matters suggests that they think the nation will simply and spontaneously return to normalcy the moment George W. Bush leaves office, governed once again by the laws and principles and freedoms that have long constituted America's essential qualities.

But this is by no means a certainty, and helping Americans understand the approach the various candidates would take to these matters is perhaps the most important thing the media can do over the next year.

It's easy to imagine one excuse some journalists will offer for ignoring these matters: The American people just don't care about habeas corpus and wiretapping. They care about "likability" and whether they'd enjoy having a candidate "in their living room" for the next four years and whether candidates are "comfortable in their own skin." They just don't care about things like the Constitution.

That's bunk. Pure bunk, as recent polls demonstrate.

According to a poll conducted for the ACLU in October, 61 percent of Americans think the U.S. government should have to get a warrant before wiretapping conversations between American citizens and people in other countries -- and 51 percent strongly think that. Only 35 percent think the government should be able to perform such a wiretap without a warrant; only 24 strongly feel that way.

As The Mellman Group, which conducted the poll, explains, there is "both deep and wide" support for the notion that the government must get a warrant before wiretapping phone calls:

Support for this constitutional right is both deep and wide, cutting across every demographic segment. Whether they are old or young (age 60+ 53% warrants required, age 50-59 60%, age 40-49 64%, age 18-39 65%), more or less educated (post-grads 59% warrants required, college grads 61%, some college 63%, high school or less 60%), black or white (black 72% warrants required, whites 58%), upper class or lower (upper/upper-middle 62% warrants required, middle 57%, working/lower 68%) voters favor requiring warrants for government wiretaps of Americans' international conversations. Indeed, there is no segment of the electorate other than Republicans and conservatives among whom support for requiring warrants is less than 53%. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats, 60% of independents, and even 46% of the President's own Republicans oppose tapping Americans' international conversations without a warrant.

Public demand for requiring warrants for government wiretaps of Americans' international conversations also cuts across geography. Large majorities in every part of the country favor requiring warrants: 66% in the West, 61% in the Northeast, 60% in the Midwest, and 58% in the South.

The same Mellman Group poll found that 75 percent of Americans -- three out of four -- think it is important for Congress to "take action now to require the government to get a warrant before wiretapping the international phone calls and emails of American citizens." Just as striking is the intensity of support for this position -- 48 percent of Americans say it is "very important" for Congress to take such action, while only 22 percent say it is "not too important" or "not at all important" (and only 12 percent say it is "not at all important").

The Mellman Group further found that only 28 percent of Americans said the following statement would be a "very convincing" reason to vote against a member of Congress: "The Member voted to make it harder to stop terrorism by requiring the government to get a warrant every time they wanted to wiretap the phone of an American they thought might be helping the terrorists." They added:

Going deeper, we explored whether a vote requiring individual warrants would call into question a Member's commitment to the war on terror. The answer was a resounding no. Just 36% said they would worry that a candidate who "took the view that wiretapping American citizens should require an individual warrant from a court ... was not tough enough to deal with terrorism." A 56% majority would not worry about a candidate's ability to deal with terrorism as a result of such a position.

Another recent poll, this one conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart, found:

1. Majorities of American voters want the next president to support all five of the ACLU's core initiatives to restore the Constitution -- restoring habeas corpus, closing GITMO, not allowing the president alone to determine who is an enemy combatant, ending torture as U.S. policy, and outlawing eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant.

2. A large number of voters are unhappy that Congress has not done enough to check the president and protect our constitutional rights. Many more voters believe that Congress has not done enough (49%) compared to only one in four (25%) who believe Congress has interfered too much with presidential power, and 24% who believe Congress has done a good job working with the president.

And just this month, a CNN poll found that 69 percent of Americans consider waterboarding to be torture and that 58 percent think the U.S. government "should not be allowed to use this procedure to attempt to get information from suspected terrorists."

The American people take these things seriously. It's time for the journalists who determine what the candidates have to talk about to begin to take them seriously, as well.

At least as seriously as questions about Halloween costumes, UFOs, and jewelry.

***

Summary of questions about presidential powers, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, civil liberties, and other related matters:

• During the May 3 GOP debate, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked candidates if they would support a constitutional amendment to allow California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who was born in Austria, to be president.
• During the May 15 Republican debate sponsored by Fox News, candidates were asked whether "enhanced interrogation techniques to include, presumably, water-boarding" should be used.
• During the July 23 CNN/YouTube Democratic debate, candidates were asked, "Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?"
• During the August 5 GOP debate, moderator George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates a question submitted by a viewer: "What authority would you delegate to the office of vice president? And should those authorities be more clearly defined through a constitutional amendment?"
• During the September 5 Fox News GOP debate, Fox's Wendell Goler asked a question about "ending abortion as a two-step process -- rolling back Roe v. Wade, which would leave it legal in some states, and then a constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide."
• During the September 5 debate, Fox's Carl Cameron asked about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
• During the September 5 debate, Goler asked about wiretapping mosques "even without a judge's approval."
• During the September 5 debate, Goler asked, "Would you approve the use of torture if you felt it would prevent a terrorist attack?"
• During the September 5 debate, Goler asked, "[D]o you feel President Bush may have overreached his constitutional authority in some actions after the 9-11 attacks?"
• During the September 5 debate, Goler asked about the Defense Department's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.
• During the September 5 debate, Goler asked, "On the issue of executive power, would you grant your vice president as much as authority and as much independence as President Bush has granted to Vice President Cheney?"
• During the September 26 Democratic debate, NBC's Tim Russert asked candidates whether they would support a "presidential exception to allow torture."
• During the October 9 GOP debate, MSNBC's Matthews asked whether it would be constitutional to give the president a line-item veto.
• During the October 9 GOP debate, Matthews asked candidates if they thought they would need congressional approval to take military action against Iran.
• During the October 21 GOP debate, Fox's Cameron and Brit Hume asked about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
• During the November 15 Democratic debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked candidates if "human rights [are] more important than American national security?"
• During the November 15 Democratic debate, an audience member asked about post-9-11 profiling of "hundreds of thousands of Americans." Blitzer followed up by asking about the PATRIOT Act.