Just a day after Congressional leaders introduced an outrageous measure to expand President Bush's authority to spy on Americans, Congressman Eliot Engel joined with a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats, mostly conservative Blue Dogs and members of the hawkish Democratic Leadership Council, in adopting the new FISA bill. The bill, if passed by the Senate will also give retroactive immunity to telephone communications companies for assisting the White House in illegally spying on its citizens.
The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil rights and privacy advocates are upset by the ramifications of such as measure, which was conjured up behind closed doors in negotiations among centrist Democrats, Republicans, the White House and telecommunications lobbyists.
And unfortunately for us, today's vote is the beginning of the end in the battle against the Bush's warrantless wiretapping program set in motion by the White House soon after 9/11. It also rips right into the Constitution, making a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, which protects United States citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.
But why did Engel vote the way he did? Was he motivated by lobbyist money? Is this quid pro quo? Let's check it out!
10 New York Democrats today voted to endorse and excuse the lawlessness of an ever expanding Executive Branch and to set the nation further down the road to a place where the President is simply not constrained by law in any meaningful sense. Their votes are shameful and will not soon be forgotten.
There's so much to despise in the bill these 10 NY Democrats voted on today, but Glenn Greenwald tries to pick the worst:
Perhaps the most repellent part of this bill (though that's obviously a close competition) is 802(c) of the telecom amnesty section. That says that the Attorney General can declare that the documents he submits to the court in order to get these lawsuits dismissed are secret, and once he declares that, then: (a) the plaintiffs and their lawyers won't ever see the documents and (b) the court is barred from referencing them in any way when it dismisses the lawsuit. All the court can do is issue an order saying that the lawsuits are dismissed, but it is barred from saying why they're being dismissed or what the basis is for the dismissal.
So basically, one day in the near future, we're all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we're never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits. Not only won't we, the public, know that, neither will the plaintiffs' lawyers. Nobody will know except the Judge and the Government because it will all be shrouded in compelled secrecy, and the Judge will be barred by this law from describing or even referencing the grounds for dismissal in any way. Freedom is on the march.
Is that what a democracy looks like? Are you telling me that we stood down a Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed directly at us but that some half literate cave dwellers have driven us to basically gut the Fourth Amendment and bless the ones wielding the knife? And don't even get me started on how this whole vote went down.
When Democrats took over the Congress, they issued a document vowing to "end the 'dead of night' special interest provisions that turn bills into special-interest giveaways" and proclaimed: "Lawmakers must have the opportunity to read every bill before they vote on it. It's common sense."
Today, the House leadership has set aside a grand total of one hour to debate the FISA/amnesty bill, and gave its members less than 24 hours from the time it was released yesterday until they have to vote on it today. That's the same bill which the NYT this morning calls "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years." They're going to enact massive changes to our spying laws without having the slightest idea what they're voting on. All they know is that the President demanded this, and that's enough, because -- as Kit Bond says -- "when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do." In this formulation, "the government" means "The President."
Disgraceful.
The following Democrats should remove me from their lists:
(What's up with Engel and Hagee? - promoted by phillip anderson)
Don't roll your eyes just yet.
This isn't just ANOTHER diary of mine complaining about Congressman Eliot Engel's involvement with Rev. John Hagee's Doomsday cult known as Christian's United for Israel. This is a blog about how I'm making Congressman Engel's life tough, and how I'm reminding him that his obligation to the Democratic Party and his constituents far outweigh any quid pro quo agreement he has in speaking at this conference of war-mongering nutjobs.
Keep reading to learn more about my one man battle.
When you think of local Congressmen who lead the way for the Dems on the Iraq War, normally you think of Maurice Hinchey or John Hall...but here's Eliot Engel bringing up the General's own words to refute his credibility.
Thank you, Congressman, for asking a question we all wanted answered.
Yesterday I took a crack at Rep Eliot Engel for his not voting on "the rule" governing the vote on the Iraq War supplemental.
Well, all but Eliot Engel who quite courageously did not vote at all.
I've been informed by email that Rep Engel wasn't in DC for the vote. He was with his mother who passed away yesterday.
I assumed something I shouldn't and I was wrong. I wish to sincerely apologize to Rep Engel and want to extend my warmest condolences to him and his family.
