And let me make clear, at the outset of this debate, that this is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize the importance of domestic surveillance - in an age of unprecedented threats. This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance.
And that difference-the difference between surveillance that is lawful, warranted and that which is not-is everything.
Mr. President, I had hoped I would not have to return to this floor again under these circumstances - hoped that in these negotiations we would have been able to turn aside retroactive immunity on the grounds that it is bad policy and sets a terrible precedent.
As all of my colleagues know, I have long fought against retroactive immunity, because I believe, quite simply, it is an abandonment of the rule of law. I've fought this with everything I had in me-and I haven't waged this fight alone.
snip
But that's not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a "document" from the White House. The question is, "were their actions legal?" It's rather straightforward-surprisingly uncomplicated.
Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren't. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn't.
Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered, Mr. President. Because of this so-called "compromise," the judge's hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Because of this compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and that, as they say, will be that. Case closed.
No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies activities in participating in the president's warrantless wiretapping program.
None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court.
What they will have is a government that has sanctioned lawlessness.
Well, I refuse to accept that, Mr. President. I refuse to accept the argument that because this situation is just too delicate, too complicated, that this body is simply going to go ahead and sanction lawlessness.
We are better than that.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller is right on so many issues, but he's so wrong on FISA. What telecom immunity will do is make this country not ruled by laws, but ruled by imperial fiat. The Founding Fathers warned against abuse of power. Rockefeller and others will sanction it and even give it the veneer of judicial cover. The Senate Democrats either need to stand up for the Constitution or stand up for the corporations and the most corrupt administration in history. They can't do both. It's as simple as that.
