Call me a traditionalist, but I'd prefer that government agencies continue to be forced to break the law when they violate my civil liberties. Why must everything be made so easy for them?
Good question. I'd love some non BS answers from the NY FISA Hall of Shame, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Earlier, we had Phil Steck on FISA. It was brought to my attention that in the same article Steck refers to in his letter Paul Tonko provides us with his position on FISA.
On June 20, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to give amnesty to telecommunications companies that, allegedly, illegally helped the U.S. government wiretap calls-calls sometimes made by U.S. citizens. Along with that provision, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the bill "permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing. And it permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped."
Paul Tonko, who is running for the seat being vacated in the 21st District by U.S. Rep Mike McNulty (D-Green Island), said the bill is damaging to American's civil rights: "Violating constitutional rights is a serious matter. The system of checks and balances should be maintained to prevent any of that sort of violation and to have now provided immunity is a serious step. Certainly I think the work done in Washington should ensure civil liberties for all Americans and our liberties should not be constrained, and certainly not by our own government."
...
Tonko said, however, that he does not believe the Democratic Party will end up embracing telecom immunity or parts of the FISA legislation that make warantless wiretapping of American citizens any easier. Tonko said because of the "serious nature" of the issue he hopes to sit down and speak to McNulty personally about it. And he said he does not believe the American people will stand for it.
"I think as more and more public opinion is expressed on the latest version of the bill, we will see more pressure placed on the people who are involved in the process," said Tonko. "It is a very serious step providing telecom companies with immunity that may have violated constitutional rights no matter who may have directed it. The insurance of civil liberties is an important, fundamental, foundation of our democracy."
That is Paul Tonko's take. We need to know where all of our congressional candidates stand on FISA. It is an issue that can mean the difference between defending the Constitution and defying it. As a representative, you take an oath that you will protect the Constitution. FISA is an example of why we need to be careful what Democrats we elect to Congress.
It is refreshing to see candidates like Paul Tonko speak out and state their position.
I read, with great interest, David King's article "A Time to Fight" [Newsfrront, July 3].
As a Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in New York's 21st Congressional District, I wanted to add my voice to the concerns regarding recent action taken in the Congress to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
I do not support retroactive immunity for any industry that violates the law and I do not support secret courts. Judicial power may be abused like any other.
However, the immunity provisions are not the worst aspect of the FISA revisions. There are two major problems with the new law. First, the new FISA revisions extend the time under which the NSA may conduct a wiretap from 72 hours to a week. No need has been demonstrated to increase this time period. Second, the bill gives wholesale approval to bulk monitoring of electronic communications (primarily email and phone calls). This monitoring is based on software algorithms of dubious validity that determine whether or not a person's behavior patterns suggest that he or she is acting in a way that merits eavesdropping.
This concept, which is really a form of profiling, flies in the face of our longstanding mandates of probable cause and reasonable suspicion that require attention to individual circumstances. As a civil rights attorney, I am aware of no conceivable constitutional basis for this type of surveillance.
The recent revisions to FISA are an example of why I strongly believe that we need members of Congress who will not only challenge a Republican president, but who are also willing to stand up to members of our own party's leadership when they are wrong.
As a civil rights attorney, Steck has a unique position here. FISA has been a huge netroots issue and one of those important issues where we separate the progressives from the rest.
I would like to hear where the other candidates stand on FISA. I know where Phil Steck stands. I know where Darius Shahinfar stands.
So the question for Paul Tonko and Tracey Brooks this morning is where would you stand on FISA?
Kudos to Phil Steck for speaking out, especially in the form of a letter to the editor.
Yesterday, NY-25 Democratic candidate Dan Maffei issued a statement regarding recent legislation targeting FISA that would provide immunity to telecom companies.
National security is essential to protecting our freedoms, but that doesn't mean we must sacrifice those very same freedoms because the Bush administration fails to respect the Constitution. Granting amnesty to telecom companies would set a precedent that would allow others to arbitrarily ignore the constitution. No one should be above the law in America. Because of this I would not have supported the recent legislation.
It is refreshing to know that candidates like Maffei, who could be in Congress next year, would vote against this legislation.
Earlier this week, NY-29 Democratic candidate Eric Massa wrote a blog post on Daily Kos explaining why he would have voted against this legislation. Massa concluded that blog post with these words:
I am running for Congress not to defend the White House, or the House of Representatives but rather to fulfill the oath of office that see to it that I Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If I fail in my votes to protect the Constitution then I will have not only failed the people who sent me to Washington but I have also failed the many generations of Americans who sacrificed to give us a Constitution that should guide each and every vote in the House of Representatives.
That is the story in a nutshell. You take an oath upon entering the House or Senate to protect the Constitution. It is great to see someone stand up and say that they will actually abide by that oath. This country is bigger than political parties, politicians and huge corporations. This country is epitomized in our United States Constitution. We need to keep it that way.
Ive come across an interesting article, that suggests the number of democrats who flip flopped on the FISA bill, to allow telecom immunity, and eviscerate the 4th amendment, have taken on average a total of $8k from telecom pacs. As most of you will agree with me, this is completely disgusting and a primary reason we need finance reform.
We have to take a bit of this with a grain of salt, because by law, whenever I donate money, I have to write down that Im a telecommunications engineer. It is my understanding, this correlates to Telecom PAC money. Its a bit of horse manure, but alas. Im not att or verizon.
From Maplight.org
MAPLight.org's research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week's FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:
Comparing Democrats' Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)
88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.
All House Members (June 20th vote:)
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
MAPLight.org's research department findings are based on the combination of contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) with voting data from THOMAS via GovTrack.us.
"Campaign contributions bias our legislative system," said Daniel Newman, Executive Director of MAPLight.org. "Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry interests."
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!
One thing worth noting in all of this is the national implications of all this. OpenSecrets has a list of the leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle. Here is the list of the top Democrats in the House.
Every single one of these "representatives", this same group of Democrats who came to power in 2006 and who people - Democrats and Republicans alike - voted for in 2006 because they wanted a new direction in this country, voted FOR the FISA amendments today which would protect the president and protect telecom companies.
Pelosi voted for it. Hoyer not so surprisingly voted for it. Van Hollen voted against [edited] it. Clyburn voted for it. Emanuel voted for it. DeLauro voted against [edited] it. Miller voted for it. The majority of the Blue Dogs voted for it.
(My apologies to Reps. DeLauro and Van Hollen. They did vote against it. My eyes failed me.)
I remember voting in 2006 for change. I remember supporting Democratic causes because I wanted a new direction in this country. Today verified that the new direction that supposedly existed was merely a mirage.
I would propose new leadership. Pelosi needs to go. Hoyer needs to go. Emanuel needs to go. We don't need Democrats who will defend Republican causes.
It's time for REAL CHANGE. We don't need the kind of change that looks good on a banner or on the front of a podium. We need real, physical and effective change. Change is not a talking point. It is an action. If you aren't engaging in such action, you aren't changing a thing. This Congress has failed us. Our leadership has failed us.
This party should demand more from its leadership. We need action, not lip service.
Earlier today 10 New York Democrats voted to eviscerate the 4th Amendment and to retroactively excuse the lawless warrantless surveillance of tens of millions of Americans by an out of control Executive as well as the telecom companies that that facilitated these crimes. Their votes were disgraceful and we should never forget them, but the majority of New York Democrats stood up for our Constitution today and we shouldn't forget their votes either. The following New York Democrats stood tall today:
Clarke (NY-11)
Hall (NY-19)
Hinchey (NY-22)
Israel (NY-2)
Maloney (NY-14)
McNulty (NY-21)
Nadler (NY-8)
Rangel (NY-15)
Serrano (NY-16)
Slaughter (NY-28)
Towns (NY-10)
Velazquez (NY-12) (My Congresswoman. Way to go, Nydia.)
Weiner (NY-9)
It should probably go without saying, but all New York House Republicans (with exception of Tom Reynolds, who was apparently napping) voted for this abomination.
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:
I don't agree with any of you all of the time and I'm OK with that. There are plenty of issues on which I believe it is perfectly alright to agree to disagree. Eviscerating the 4th amendment and retroactively legalizing some of the most brazen illegal power grabs of the criminal enterprise known as the Bush "administration" simply is not one of them.
When we send you to DC, we ask that you take an oath before we let you do anything. The oath is short, simple and to the point:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
There's not a lot of ambiguity in that oath as regards supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. You swore this oath and you are bound to it. Period. Supporting and defending this document is what we pay you to do. It's your goddamn job.
If you vote to further shred our Constitution, if you vote to further aid and abet the lawlessness of the Executive branch, if you agree to a "compromise" that Glenn Greenwald so correctly deemed "corrupt and repugnant", then you are simply unfit to serve in any capacity.
I can truly only speak for myself here, but I'm rather confident I'm not the only one who feels this strongly about this. Please be aware that no matter how much we agree with you on essentially every other issue under the sun, no matter how hard we may have worked to get you elected, no matter how many times you may have made us proud by standing with us in tough times, no matter how much we may personally like you and think you are great, we will not, under any circumstances, lift a finger to return you to office. Not a door knocked, not a dime. Nothing.
You may be the perfect Rep in every other circumstance, but this simply not negotiable. Period.
Please do keep this in mind this morning when you make your decision.
Thanks.
P.S. Senators Clinton and Obama, how about some leadership on this issue from the the two highest profile Democrats in all the land?
Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a strong and balanced FISA bill, legislation that protects America's national security while defending civil liberties -- without granting retroactive immunity to phone companies. Retroactive immunity would abet the Bush-Cheney Administration's efforts to avoid accountability for its actions.
This was a tremendous accomplishment -- and would not have been possible without the hard work and support from engaged citizens like you. The fight for a fair FISA bill has been waged all across the country: in the halls of Congress, on progressive political blogs, in newspaper editorial pages, on the public airwaves, and around dinner tables and water coolers from coast-to-coast.
But there's still much work to do. Now that the House has passed a fair FISA bill, it's time to turn our attention back to the Senate -- and we hope you'll join us in urging our Senate colleagues to sign on to the strong FISA legislation the House passed just last month.
We've already seen the impact of grassroots activity on the FISA debate. Your emails, phone calls, blog posts, and letters-to-the-editor -- including more than 1,700 letters written in response to our call last month alone -- really do make a huge difference.
Now we need your help to make sure that our colleagues in the Senate know that the American people are watching -- and that they want a FISA bill that protects our national security, preserves our civil liberties, and refuses retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
First the Bush-Cheney Administration tried to bully the House into accepting its own deeply flawed FISA legislation. Then White House officials and Congressional Republicans refused to meet with us to hammer out a better bill. And then the President and his allies blocked our attempts to temporarily extend existing surveillance legislation -- incredibly blaming Democrats for their own efforts to let the legislation expire.
Despite all of this bullying, cajoling, and foot-dragging, we're proud that our House Democratic colleagues stood firm, refusing to water down the strong, balanced FISA bill that passed the House and is now on its way to the Senate.
Now we need your help to encourage our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to stand firm as well.
If you've got a minute, please contact Senator Clinton's office by phone or fax.
John Hall has sent an editorial to various media outlets outlining his feelings about the present FISA debate. I attended a meeting of local Hall supporters and the Congressman in Dutchess County recently, and he distributed The editorial.
Randy Kuhl (R-Hair Club for Men) is attempting to scare his constituents again, this time over the refusal of House Dems to give a blank check of retroactive immunity to telecoms (and the Bushies) who participated in a massive and illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme. He's trotting out the hyperventilating piddle-pants drivel from "experts" on his "blog."
I thought you might be interested in reading what several journalist (sic) and intelligence experts say about the Democratic Leadership allowing our intelligence gathering to be compromised:
Who are Randy's "experts?" He cites the WSJ, the Moonie Times (x2), Rich Lowry and the National Review Online (x2), Novakula and little Billy Kristol, a man who has been wrong about, well, everything.
Some choice quotes from the "experts"...
House Democrats tell themselves they are striking a blow against the politics of fear. But only if we suffer another mass-casualty terror attack will a politics of untrammeled fear be unleashed on the land. Best to do all we can to avoid it, especially when it involves nonviolations of the nonrights of non-Americans.
-Rich Lowry
While the House of Representatives is vacationing this week, terrorists are probably communicating about plots to kill Americans without fear that their plans will be intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
-Frank Gaffney in the Moonie Times
In a comment awaiting moderation that I'm sure will never be posted, I wrote this:
1. phillip anderson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Are you serious? the WSJ, the Washington Times (x2), The National Review (x2), Novak and Kristol? These are your "experts?"
Today, I will vote against Republican efforts to shortchange the debate on the FISA Amendments Act, important legislation that would modernize our surveillance laws and give our nation's intelligence professionals the tools they need to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. Rather than allow the Senate the opportunity to consider important amendments to this vital legislation, Republicans are instead blocking meaningful debate on this bill by playing procedural games, choosing instead to score cheap political points at the expense of our Homeland Security.
This legislation deserves a thorough debate. Several provisions - including those which would have a profound impact on the civil liberties of Americans - need to be the subject of careful deliberation. For example, the bill under consideration gives telecommunication companies blanket retroactive immunity for their alleged cooperation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I continue to believe that a grant of retroactive immunity is wrong, and I have cosponsored Senator Dodd's amendment to remove that provision from the bill. The Bush Administration has blatantly disregarded Americans' civil liberties over the past seven years, and I simply will not trust them to protect Americans' privacy rights. With the temporary Protect America Act set to expire on February 1st, I strongly believe that we need to pass balanced legislation that protects our civil liberties and the rule of law while giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our country.
Sen. Chris Dodd is taking the floor now on FISA. Official debate to start in the morning.
The baseline bill is the Judiciary version that contains retroactive immunity.
The Intelligence version will be debated and it has stripped retroactive immunity.
It appears there are going to be additional new amendments (and old ones) that will be discussed and voted on.
Ben Cardin (D-Md) spoke earlier.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who sits on both Judiciary and Intelligence committees, has offered an amendment so it will be very interesting to see what sort reconciliation between the version he attempts.
Harry Reid has stated that there will be no "silent filibusters" on this bill or these amendments. In other words, if a minority of 40 wants to block a losing vote then they are going to have to be prepared to do the real thing and talk all night. I gather it also means that majority votes win the day. No requirement for 60 vote margins in order to pass a bill or amendment.
This is not necessarily a good thing for Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Russ Feingold, and the patriots attempting to stop this gutting of the Constitution.
And while stock market meltdowns dominated the news yesterday the battle over our civil liberties reared it's ugly head again.
Former Presidential Candidate Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut received, rightly, a great deal of praise for his courageous stand against retroactive immunity for the telecom industry during his all too short lived campaign:
As you may know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is marking up legislation that may extend retroactive immunity to telecom companies that engaged in and enabled widespread illegal surveillance of American citizens. In fact, there is "compromise" language being floated that would essentially put the federal government in the place of the telcos. They still get immunity, but you and I would bear he costs. This is absolutely unconscionable and must not pass. It's a terrible precedent to set that lawlessness in acceptable and it's even worse to think that taxpayers would indemnify the lawbreakers.
The Chris Dodd campaign has a nifty citizen whip count tool that i've posted below. they also have a wonderful new tool that will put you directly in touch with the office of any Senator on the SJC. Chuck Schumer sits on that committee and he needs to hear from us. You can use this awesome tool to be put in touch directly with Schumer's office.
Or you can call him in DC:
(202) 224-6542
Just be sure to call, no matter which route you choose.
I'm sure many of you are following the debate over a new bill in the Senate that would, among other things, grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that most likely aided and abetted President Bush's blatantly illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of tens of millions of Americans. Yesterday we heard word that my favorite candidate to replace the "decider" guy, Senator Chris Dodd, was planning to place a "hold" on the bill if it contained that immunity language and that Majority Leader Reid might ignore that hold, something virtually unprecedented.
Are you willing to go to the mat to restore the Constitution?
Just last night, we heard there are plans to disregard Senator Dodd's intention to place a hold on a FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies.
That would be a pretty extraordinary move, but Chris Dodd has pledged to stop this horrible bill any way he can.
So if the hold is not honored, he is prepared to go to the Senate floor and filibuster.
Rolling back the Bush Administration assault on the rule of law has been a major focus of Chris Dodd's work in the Senate - and it's also a centerpiece in his campaign for President.
There are FOUR US Senators seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Only ONE of them has shown the guts to stand up say "enough." That's leadership.
Of course, it shouldn't have to be this way. It's dismaying to say the least that Senate Democrats seem so eager to reward lawlessness. That's why Senator Dodd's pledge to "go to the mat" is so inspiring. My good friend Justin Krebs just made this observation over at the Working Assets blog
It would be ironic if in this Senate -- in which the GOP's threat of filibuster has killed major majority-supported bills without them ever actually filibustering -- the first filibuster is mounted by a Democrat.
The other Democrats in the Senate, not just the others running for president, should be following Senator Dodd's lead on this one.
San Francisco: Will you join Sen. Chris Dodd's hold and proposed filibuster on any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms? Thanks for joining us for this chat today, Sen. Biden, and thanks for the leadership you provide the Democratic Party and America.
