West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Don't miss One Citizen's blog post on Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-AT&T) and his fight to support the illegal activities of the telecoms.
Since this is a matter of intelligence oversight, I checked to see which Democrats in Rockefeller's defense intel oversight committee voted with him. It just so happens they disagree with his assessment, to the tune of eight-to-two on each of Feingold's Judiciary-sponsored amendments. And in the Judiciary only one Democrat agreed with Rockefeller.
It didn't surprise me one bit to see that almost all of the few Dems who went along with the junior senator from WV were members of the DLC. I'm so old that it used to mean something when each senator took an oath to protect and preserve the constitution. But that was before Karl Rove and the DLC neocons came into power.
Don't let Rockefeller off the hook today with the FISA vote even though he's been a friend to progressives in the past. He's absolutely on the wrong side on this. We've got to hold our own accountable or we're no better than Bush-bots.
Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has said he'll join Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Constitution) in filibustering telecom immunity.
The procedure for tomorrow [Tuesday - Carnacki] is that votes on the outstanding amendments will begin at 10:00. After these votes happen, they'll have the cloture vote. When Leahy and Dodd say they will filibuster, it means that they will vote against the cloture vote on the bill to continue debate. If they are successful in preventing 60 votes for cloture, the debate can continue for as long as 30 hours. If they fail to prevent cloture, Dodd has four hours reserved for him and his colleagues like Leahy to convince enough fellow Dems to vote against final passage.
Use Sen. Leahy's contact tool or call your Senators (toll free number for the switchboard: 1-800-965-4701) to urge them to vote against providing retroactive immunity to the telcos, and to vote YES on S 3907, the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip immunity from the bill.
Glenn Greenwald posted a column last Tuesday that pretty well sums up what is going on with the wimpy Senate regarding FISA except for Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and a few others. He again takes our Junior Senator to task on joining the administration in spreading fear of the terrorists that are all coming here to destroy us...
This is really, really scary. We better forget about checks and balances and oversight and restraints of any kind and everything else and just make sure that the President can spy on our emails and telephone calls with no oversight, otherwise Al Qaeda is going to slaughter us in our Homeland. And we also better make sure that telecommunications corporations don't have consequences when they break the law, otherwise we're doomed, because Al Qaeda is coming.
Or, as leading fear-mongerer and proponent of limitless surveillance powers, Jay Rockefeller, put it today:
"Al Qaeda has used this border safe haven to reconstitute itself and launch offensive operations that threaten to undo the stability brought to Afghanistan and undermine, if not overthrow, the Pakistan government," said Mr. Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat.
This, Mr. Rockefeller added, gave Al Qaeda "a base of operations from which to plot and direct attacks against the United States."
After scaring everyone with the latest Al-Qaeda-is-Coming warnings, the CIA also admitted for the first time that it waterboarded detainees in its custody, but what's a little water up the nose -- or a little presidential omnipotence -- when Al Qaeda is coming to get us in our Homeland?
Glenn's excellent post can be read at Salon by clicking here.
I can honestly say that I won't waste a vote for Jay in November... he still will be elected but not by me.
The Senate takes up FISA again about 2 p.m. today. mcjoan has an important reminder:
The Dems in the Senate did at least manage to push back on the fear card long enough to get us to where we're at now--an actual debate to happen on the Senate floor over important amendments, some of which will even get a simple up or down vote.
It's an old theme for us, unfortunately; Democrats so afraid that they'll be labelled weak in the face of terror that they'll roll over for any legislative tragedy should someone whisper "terror" in their collective ear. As disastrous as their capituation to it was in taking us to war in Iraq, their bowing to it in respects to warrantless wiretapping is just as dangerous for the long term health of the Constitution and its inherent checks and balances.
Since Eric Lichtblau and James Risen broke the story of warrantless wiretaps in December, 2005, we've learned enough about the program to know that national security in the wake of 9/11 had little to do with.
The revelations that the NSA actually began negotiation with AT&T as early as February, 2001 and that at least one of these "critical" wiretaps lapsed because the government didn't pay its bill should be proof enough to even the most tremulous of Democrats that Bush and the Republicans have been playing them for years.
But they don't have to take a crazed blogger's word for it. A national security expert just told them so.
The national security expert was Richard Clarke, who served under Republican and Democratic administrations, but resigned from George W. Bush's administration because Bush ignored the warnings he and George Tenet had tried to give him about an impending attack before the Sept. 11 2001 bombings. Clarke just had an editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer about the FISA fight:
Besides overstating successes in Afghanistan, painting a rosy future for Iraq, and touting unfinished domestic objectives, he again used his favorite tactic - fear - as a tool to scare Congress and the American people. On one issue in particular - FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) - the president misconstrued the truth and manipulated the facts.
Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.
Simply put, it was wrong for the president to suggest that warrants issued in compliance with FISA would suddenly evaporate with congressional inaction. Instead - even though Congress extended the Protect America Act by two weeks - he is using the existence of the sunset provision to cast his political opponents in a negative light.
For this president, fear is an easier political tactic than compromise. With FISA, he is attempting to rattle Congress into hastily expanding his own executive powers at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections.
snip
That is why in 2001, I presented this president with a comprehensive analysis regarding the threat from al-Qaeda. It was obvious to me then - and remains a fateful reality now - that this enemy sought to attack our country. Then, the president ignored the warnings and played down the threats. Ironically, it is the fear from these extremely real threats that the president today uses as a wedge in a vast and partisan political game. This is - and has been - a very reckless way to pursue the very ominous dangers our country faces. And once again, during the current debate over FISA, he continues to place political objectives above the practical steps needed to defeat this threat.
That's what we've said for months. It's easy for Rockefeller and his apologists to dismiss us as dirty hippy hillbilly bloggers. But surely Clarke should be listened to.
A think tank with close ties to the telecommunication industry has been working with a key Democrat in the Senate on a domestic surveillance bill that would provide telecommunications companies with retroactive immunity for possibly violating federal law by spying on American citizens at the behest of the Bush administration.
Third Way, a non-profit "progressive" think tank that is funded and controlled by hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and business executives has advised Sen. Jay Rockefeller on a domestic surveillance bill that includes immunity for telecommunications companies with which Third Way board members have close ties.
Rockefeller is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and has been the leading Democratic proponent of granting immunity to telecommunication companies that allegedly gave spy agencies access to their communication networks and databases without a warrant.
"I think we will prevail," Rockefeller told the Politico on January 23, referring to the disagreement over retroactive immunity for telecoms, "it's a pretty bad idea to appear cocky ... I'm not pessimistic."
Democrats connected to Third Way were integral in defeating a bill, supported by a majority of Senate Democrats, which might have prevented the telecoms from getting immunity.
This immunity provision is the major sticking point in the battle over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any FISA update that does not contain retroactive immunity. Civil libertarians and a majority of Democratic senators oppose the retroactive immunity, in part because the provision would cut off lawsuits against the telecom providers. These suits have been the most effective vehicles for uncovering the details of the Bush administration's potentially criminal surveillance activities.
"We have advised Senator Rockefeller on messaging and have talked to his staff regarding FISA," Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way said. "We believe there should be immunity and have been cooperating with [Rockefeller's staff]."
So who makes up the Third Way board and why are they so interested in telecom immunity?
The Third Way board is made up of wealthy hedge fund managers, major corporate law firm executives, corporate executives and Washington, DC, insiders. An investigation by Truthout revealed deep connections between some board members and telecommunications companies.
Thurgood Marshall Jr., the son of the late Supreme Court justice, is a partner at the Bingham McCutchen law firm and a principal at Bingham Consulting. In 2004, Bingham McCutchen represented AT&T Wireless Services in its $41 billion merger with Cingular Wireless. While not registered as a lobbying firm, Bingham Consulting "helps national and global companies create and execute effective multistate legal political strategies." Their lawyers have "played a role in nearly every significant development in the communications industry in the past quarter century, in the United States and internationally," according to their web site.
Reynold Levy is a former senior officer of AT&T in charge of government relations. He also headed the AT&T Foundation.
Bernard L. Schwartz served for 34 years as CEO and chairman of the board for Loral Space and Communications Inc. until 2006. His former company owns and operates a large portion of the world's telecommunication satellite infrastructure.
Robert Katz is chairman of the board of iPCS Inc., a wireless communications company affiliated with Sprint. The company did not respond to inquiries about their policy on cooperation with government spying.
John L. Vogelstein is a senior adviser and past president of Warburg Pincus, a multi-billion-dollar private equity firm with major investments in the telecommunication industry.
"Why in the world would a temporary extension be objectionable to a President who is on record as saying he doesn't want the law to expire without a more lasting FISA modernization bill in place?
Because it was never about national security with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It was about expanding presidential powers to dictatorial levels.
Rockefeller again:
"What more evidence is needed to demonstrate the irrational and self-destructive political addiction that drives this White House?
Are you finally catching on that immunity for telecoms was just about the worst idea you ever went along with, Senator? Because Dick Cheney has tried to play you for a sucker on this issue for months. Perhaps you should listen to those who have your interests at heart and stop listening to those who have only their interests in mind, Senator. We've written and called you for months how awful telecom immunity would be. You claimed it was needed for national security because Bush and Cheney and their torture enabling, law breaking friends told you so. Well guess what, it should be pretty obvious by now that if it was about protecting national security, Bush wouldn't be playing political football with it and being Lucy to your Charlie Brown, pulling the ball away from you time after time.
In a sign that the Republican Lucys may have pulled the ball away one too many times from the Democratic Charlie Browns, the Democrats picked up another win in the battle to against illegal wiretapping of Americans.
Well this afternoon we won a second improbable victory against the FISA bill that rewards telecoms for joining George Bush in breaking the law. The Republicans didn't come close to invoking cloture against Sen. Chris Dodd's filibuster. In fact, they couldn't muster even 50 votes. Cloture attracted only 48 votes (to 45 against).
Republicans then blocked a Democratic attempt to move ahead to a vote to add another thirty days to the temporary FISA extension, which is set to expire next week. Democrats wanted to allow the Senate some time to debate the complicated issues surrounding FISA legislation. Republicans, by contrast, did not think it right that a deliberative body should devote any more time to actual deliberation. Instead, they said, they feared that Bush would veto any such extension. It's is as good an excuse as they've ever come up with for doing nothing.
So tomorrow at 2:00 PM EST the Senate will resume debate on the Intelligence Committee's version of the FISA bill - the one that provides for retroactive immunity for telecoms. And presumably Dodd's filibuster will resume as well.
Tomorrow Democrats in the House may attempt to pass their own version of a thirty-day extension and then pass it on to the Senate. If so, McConnell may be forced to permit a vote on a similar bill.
There are plenty of plaudits to go around today: To Chris Dodd for organizing an effective and critical push back against the Bush administration's further aggrandizement of its nearly monarchical powers; to nearly all Democrats in the Senate for standing foursquare with Dodd (apart from three four who voted with Republicans...
Kudos to Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. I'm hopeful Rockefeller is finally realizing that the Senate Republicans have no intention of dealing straight on fixing FISA. They're just using it as a political football.
Read Christie Hardin Smith on the fight over the FISA Bill in the Senate... even Jay Rockefeller says he won't vote for cloture that would stop debate and prevent amendments from being introduced. You can read her post here.
The GOP's conduct was insulting -- to the Democrats, to the American public, and to the Congress as a whole. So much so that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is saying that he will not vote for cloture on Monday.
Our Senator may be pissed about the cloture issues... the real issues is voting against immunity for the telecoms. I really would like to see the whole wiretap bill just go away. Maybe some of the nervous nellie Democrats are beginning to understand that Senate Republicans and George Bush are not their friends.
Added note 1-26...
Take a few minutes and read Glenn Greenwald's extended analysis on Jay Rockefeller and FISA over at Salon (day pass likely required) by clicking here.
As the Senate takes up "debate" today over granting the President new warrantless eavesdropping powers and granting immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, the individual who joined forces with Dick Cheney to get this ball rolling, AT&T's personal Senator Jay Rockefeller, made some comments yesterday to The Politico that illustrate just how twisted and dishonest is the thinking of telecom immunity advocates.
Glenn has several updates on this interview plus updates on cloture.
Read the whole post. Or, if you're pressed for time. Here's the most important part.
The next president of the United States is very likely to be one of two sitting senators who are, at the moment, the two most powerful people in the Democratic Party. Either one of them could bring their star power and future institutional clout to bear on this debate if they wanted to. Will they? I don't know. Maybe all you supporters out there should stop arguing amongst yourselves about trivia for a couple of minutes and ask them. You can go here to send a message. (And if you happen to be at a town hall meeting or a speech somewhere, how about holding up a sign or asking your guy or gal about this?)
Glenn updates his post with this, for those of you who may have forgotten what a constitutional atrocity this bill is:
For an excellent summary of just how radical and invasive these new warrantless eavesdopping powers are that Senate Democrats are about to enact, see this comment here, complete with citations. And that's separate and apart from the fact that telecom immunity will, in effect, end any prospect of accountability for Bush officials and telecoms who deliberately violated our laws for years in how they spied on us, and, by squelching these lawsuits, will block off the sole remaining avenue even for finding out what they actually did. It will take years, probably decades, for us to learn the real story -- once there's some Church-type Commission again or the relevant documents are declassified.
We have three of the nation's top lawyers as the front runners in the Democratic Party primary. One of them is a constitutional scholar, another has been treated to abuses by the long arm of the government in her own political life. The third has based his entire campaign on the fight for the common man against the powerful interests.
It's unfathomable that if they all believe that this bill should not pass, that they cannot exert enough power over their own party at this moment of high drama to put a stop to it. The only thing that will happen is that the FISA law that we have been living under from 1978 through August 2007 will remain on the books unchanged. That's it. If these three can't figure out a way to explain that to the people, how in the hell are they going to be able to do it once they are president? They'll be at the mercy of these same Republicans for their entire term.
Republicans don't need a majority as long as they have an opposition that is afraid of their own shadows.
I support Senator Chris Dodd's fight against Senator Jay Rockefeller's attempt to provide immunity for the illegal activities of George W. Bush and the telecoms.
I'm glad Dodd at least has the wisdom and guts to stand for the U.S. Constitution.
This is a note-worthy press release (full text below the break). Sen. Rockefeller is publically calling out the Bush administration -- ostensiably his ally in miguided efforts to pass FISA legislation including retroactive telco immunity -- for irresponsible fear-mongering.
The words are quite strong for Sen. Rockefeller: ludicrous, reckless, inaccurate and inflammatory.
Equally newsworthy, Sen. Rockefeller says there is no looming deadline for re-authorization. Existing foreign surveillance activities remain authorized "at least until August."
Follow below for the full text of the press release (received via email):
A while back Senator Jay Rockefeller's apologists claimed that the telecoms deserved immunity for doing their patriotic duty in letting the federal government spy on everyone without a warrant.
If they were so patriotic, why did the telecoms do this:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A telephone company cut off an FBI international wiretap after the agency failed to pay its bill on time, according to a U.S. government audit released on Thursday.
The Justice Department's inspector general faulted the FBI for poor handling of money used in undercover investigations, which it said made the agency vulnerable to theft and mishandled invoices.
It cited the case in which a wiretap under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs electronic spying in terrorism and intelligence cases, was disrupted due to an overdue bill.
"Late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence, including an instance where delivery of intercept information required by a ... FISA order was halted due to untimely payment," the audit said.
The decent thing for the Rockefeller apologists to do is to admit that they were wrong and those of us who were critics were right. I don't expect they will though.
With the exception of the strictly nonpartisan el cabrero, it's pretty safe to say that we're pretty partisan Democratic bloggers here.
So it's probably confusing to some readers why we've been beating up on Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller so much for months on his FISA compromise to provide immunity to telecom companies for their complicity in George W. Bush's illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
The answer is pretty simple. He's wrong.
When he's making agreements with President Dick Cheney on a bill, it's clear he's not acting as a Democrat should. He's acting against the interests of the American people.
On October 18, it was announced that Dick Cheney and Jay Rockefeller had reached an agreement on a new FISA bill that would dramatically expand the President's warrantless surveillance powers beyond what the original FISA law provided. It also would provide full-scale retroactive immunity for all telecoms which participated in the President's illegal spying efforts, a gift that would effectively end all efforts to investigate the administration's illegal spying programs and hold the lawbreakers accountable.
That day, The Washington Post announced that "Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration" which "would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants."
The Rockefeller-led Senate Intelligence Committee, within a matter of a day or so, quickly passed the White House's desired bill, one which The New York Times, the next day, revealed had been secretly worked on for months by Rockefeller and, through emissaries, Dick Cheney. As Russ Feingold said yesterday, the Rockefeller proposal passed by the Intelligence Committee "simply gives the Administration everything it was demanding, no questions asked."
Many are crediting Big Tent Democrat with first suggesting that Senator Chris Dodd be the one to place a hold on Rockefeller's bill
Senator Dodd deserves all of the credit in the world for standing up to this terrible legislation. But it was the Democratic bloggers and online community, including MoveOn.org, that has lit up the phone lines of offices backing his effort.
But we've not won a victory. We've won a lull. We've won time. For the next few weeks, there will be a push by Rockefeller and other administration appeasers for a bill with telecom immunity. Certainly those appeasers on this issue will be well-financed by the telecom industry. I'm sure many of the corporate lawbreakers will invest all of the funds of their shareholders into keeping themselves out of court. Afterall, that's not their money. So shareholders in telecoms, those who haven't divested themselves yet, are going to have to ask questions at board meetings and shareholder gatherings: are they paying for the legal protections of individuals who knowingly and deliberately broke the law as they went outside their corporate responsibilities?
The winning of time given to us by Dodd and the grassroots is not a small thing by any means.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who also sits on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee with Senator Rockefeller:
"I have read the documents and senators who haven't read them would be shocked to see how flimsy the case is on which the administration bases its case for immunity. As far as I can tell, these documents are being kept secret to protect the president's political security, not national security."
Time also gives us more time to better inform our fellow citizens of what is wrong with Rockefeller's bill. So far, many people have relied on the ill-informed and inaccurate reports by journalists like Joe Klein at Time. Now that Rockefeller's compromise failed to sail through as the corporate media pundits predicted, people are going to have time to reach their own conclusion as so succinctly stated by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.):
"The president has threatened veto. ... He's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies!" said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
A question Rockefeller nor his staff has been able to answer is if this FISA update is so necessary to national security, why would Bush veto it if telecom immunity is stripped from it? Does anyone believe it can really be about protecting the public if Bush is willing to put the interests of telecom corporations ahead of national security?
Senator Rockefeller has shown onlycontempt to those who have disagreed with him on this.
We've often written positive things about Senator Rockefeller, from the birth of his grandchildren to his support of SCHIP. We're here to support Democrats. But we don't offer blind support. The support ends where the erosion of the rule of law and the Constitution begins.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-Telecom Industry Association) issued a statement on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to hold off on the FISA vote because of Rockefeller's controversial POS gift to the illegal acts of Mr. George W. Bush and the telecoms that abetted him.
"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.
"When we return from recess in the New Year, I hope my colleagues will be ready to roll up their sleeves and show the American people that we are committed to putting their safety, and their privacy, first."
They're ready to discuss it, but not support your version of it, Senator Rockefeller.
From Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.):
December 17, 2007 -- "Mr. President, I am troubled by the FISA bill that has come to the Senate floor. Since I introduced the original FISA legislation over 30 years ago, I've worked to amend the FISA law many times, and I believe that this bill is not faithful to the traditional balance that FISA has struck. This bill gives the Executive Branch vast new authorities to spy on Americans, without adequate guidance or oversight. Americans deserve better.
I voted "yes" on the motion to proceed to consideration of this bill, because I believe this legislation is too important to hold up any longer. The House has already passed a new FISA bill, and the Senate needs to do the same. But let me be clear, the Senate should reject the bill that we have before us. We need to pass the Judiciary Committee version instead.
The Judiciary Committee version doesn't have Rockefeller's telecom immunity.
Kennedy also heard the same cock and bull stories from the administration officials and telecom lobbyists that Rockefeller heard. He was wise enough not to believe them.
More from Senator Kennedy:
When the Administration finally came to Congress to amend FISA after its warrantless wiretapping program was exposed, it did so not in the spirit of partnership, but to bully us into obeying its wishes. The Protect America Act was negotiated in secret at the last minute. The Administration issued dire threats that failure to enact a bill before the August recess could lead to disaster. Few, if any, knew what the language would actually do. The result of this flawed process was flawed legislation, which virtually everyone now acknowledges must be substantially revised.
Included below is Kennedy's explanation on why immunity for telecoms is so wrong.
I was watching Brave New Films live webcast of The Young Turks as Harry Reid backed down on the planned vote on the FISA Bill giving immunity to the Telecoms. Wow! A victory for our side, but the fight is not over they will bring a Bill back further down the road. Major KUDOS to a real Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Hes got my support... Big Time!! Details as soon as they are available.
The webcast is being rebroadcast right now... check it out at Brave New Films.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
