FISA

Here are a few things you can do this weekend to help stop the latest poorly crafted FISA bill from slipping through the Senate:

1. Give some cash to the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity. This is the strategy I prefer, putting money into campaigns against the legislators who've undermined the bedrock principles of our nation. Time to clean (the) House!
2. Sign Senator Dodd's "citizen co-sponsor" petition for his FISA amendment
3. Join the Vote Against FISA group at my.barackobama.com
4. The obvious, and likely futile, call your Senator and let 'em know how you feel.

Did I miss something? let me know and I'll add it to the list.

"Judas, Brutus, Quisling time has come to do / What's expected of you?" --The Hives

The "compromise" expectation . . . is that you and I will shut-up and watch the Fourth Amendment and the Constitutional basis of our democracy (continue to) erode, so that the outgoing administration won't have any unsavory lawsuits pursuing them on their way out of office - don't let that litigation smack ya' on the way out boys - and the Democratic nominee can appear tough on security issues; because that's the sort of trite, unprincipled, simple-minded synopsis of policy that dominates mass-media coverage in our age of media consolidation.

I mean, what's a little unprincipled, undermining of our Constitution if it gets the better candidate into office? Make no mistake, THAT'S OBAMA'S GAMBIT ; he's betting that an enraged public will stand by him despite his slick, unprincipled about-face on the most pressing civil liberties issue of our day. Moreover, and this is part that stinks the most, he's using THE EXACT SAME FEAR-MONGERING TACTICS employed by the Bush administration for the last 6 years to justify his actions. F--- him.

The "hang the collaborators" expectation . . . is that you and I will remember well which federal representatives undermined our rights and the rule of law in our land and throw the bums out of office in the next election cycle. It includes Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Rockefeller and 100 or so reps in the House (so far, I'll be watching Klobuchar on this one too). It will take organizing and money. We need to find democratic challengers in winnable districts, and we need to start NOW.

Anyone know a good third party candidate? I'm lookin'

HR 3773, the House version of a FISA bill, is nothing less than a reprimand to the Senate for it's repeated failures and capitulations on this issue. Not only has the House refused to include retroactive immunity, it's called for an investigatory commission with subpoena powers. The White House, unsurprisingly, whined and held fast to it's increasingly hollow-sounding fear mongering.

Now the Senate and House will have to reconcile the two bills and send it to President Bush.

We'll all be watching . . . as closely as possible.

So, Harry Reid is going to bring the unamended FISA bill before the Senate today which Senator Dodd is supposed to filibuster. What's the ploy here? Keep FISA in the news? The Judiciary Committee amended the bill (removing telecom immunity) and Reid is going to ignore them and bring the unamended bill forward for consideration . . . Dodd should filibuster.

Thrills and spills . . . should be an exciting day on the hill.

Write to your Senator supporting Dodd! I wrote to mine (fat lot of good it'll do).

UPDATE: Perhaps someone is reading my blog after all . . . they've changed the graphic! The text now reads. "do you favor telecom amnesty?" where it used to read "oppose telecom amnesty".

My original comments (for posterity):
I actually find this graphic confusing and poorly worded. "Oppose Telecom Amnesty" suggests that a "yea" vote would support OPPOSITION to telecom amnesty; as in, "yea, I 'oppose telecom amnesty'." However, the "yeas" and "nays" are how the committee members would vote on the Senate bill CONFERRING amnesty, so a "yea" vote is actually an indication of support FOR telecom amnesty.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) took a stand against the illegal excesses of the Bush administration today. Thank God.

While our Senator Klobuchar was putting forward her Cell Phone bill (the "Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act") - which would bring the law into the '90s in terms of technology (there's nothing remotely up-to-date or forward thinking in this bill) and require more honesty and disclosure on the part of the telecommunications companies, but would do NOTHING to hold them responsible for breaking our laws - Chris Dodd said enough's enough.

Specifically, he said:

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

Gold Star for Senator Dodd . . . Klobuchar is still out to lunch on protecting our democracy; some nice soothing words to the lefty bloggers, but woefully short on action. Am I the only one that's aghast at her telecommunications effort? It's like chastising a mugger for j-walking from the scene. Where's the outrage? What's the problem with our Reps?!?

Senator Klobuchar, how about a little "empowerment" for the CITIZENS in your constituency?

Support Senator Dodd in his singular effort to stop the madness.

I just can't leave it alone . . .

The Senate and House are kicking around bills amending FISA (properly this time - or so we hope). The RESTORE Act is looking alright at least for now. But we (that's you and I and any ears you can bend to the cause) need to ensure that any amendment doesn't provide retroactive immunity for complicit telecommunications companies.

"What!?," you might be thinking.

That's right, the Administration is threatening to VETO any bill that doesn't provide retroactive immunity to the companies that bent over backward (or was that forward?) to break the law for them. Apparently it's okay to break the law as long as someone in the Administration asks you to - didn't you know?

Here's the missive I fired off to my beloved Senator Klobuchar (as usual, I'll post any substantive replies).

BTW, I hope she's feeling penitent for her vote on the original FISA bill and stops making the stupid "balance between safety and civil liberties" argument. It's a lousy argument. That's right Senator, even we dunderhead constituents don't buy it. STOP ALREADY! It's insulting:

Senator Klobuchar,

A few months ago I wrote to tell you how appalled I was at your 'yea' vote on the now widely excoriated FISA act (S.1927). Today I'm writing to urge that you vote 'nay' on any further FISA amendment that provides retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies complicit in illegal domestic surveillance.

If we are to pay more than lip-service to the idea of the rule of law, then these companies must be allowed to defend their actions in a court of law. It is only by enabling the efforts of public service organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to pursue their legal actions unhindered by legislative interference that the extent of illegal activity can be uncovered.

Moreover, unlike AT&T and others, some telecommunications companies (like Qwest Communications) allegedly refused to participate in illegal surveillance; knowing it to be illegal. Beyond refusing to grant retroactive immunity, the Senate should undertake to investigate possible retributive actions taken by surveillant agencies against telecommunications companies that refused to participate in their illegal surveillance.

I urge you to investigate.

Providing immunity to complicit telecommunications companies would effectively endorse illegal activity at the behest of our government, encourage future illegal activity, and (most importantly) undermine the rule of law in our land.

Please do not allow these companies to evade the rule of law. Do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Mischa Beitz

It seems the Senators are back from their August vacation.

MN Senator Klobuchar took . . . oh, about 5-minutes I'd guess, to repackage her press response into a form-email reply to all the outraged constituents that wrote to her regarding her shameful FISA vote.

A couple-three things struck me about the email.

First, she repeats the Administration's contrived threat in the email; namely, "if you don't pass the White House version of the FISA amendment, we'll blame any terrorist action on your failure to allow us to do our job." Klobuchar's (and by extension - though I know there are many exceptions - the Democratic leadership's) capitulation to this browbeating Executive stunt is - I'll say it again - shameful.

Second, she suggests there's a "balance" to be struck between "supporting civil rights" and "protecting safety." This is an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Genuine security experts like Bruce Schneier have long been pointing out that this is a false trade-off. In truth, if Senator Klobuchar had any genuine concern for "protecting our civil rights" she never, ever would've voted for this bill. Period. Her actions reek of equivocation and political expediency, NOT respect for civil rights or the rule of law more generally.

Third - and this is just plain bizarre - she's tacked on a little paragraph taking some credit for driving Gonzales from the DOJ. Truly, she began calling for his resignation in mid-March 2007. But that's nothing like the in-the-trenches work done by the likes of Senator Schumer (D-NY). His was a years-long struggle to bring Gonzales' atrocities to light and subject it to public and legal scrutiny. In the political scheme of things, Klobuchar's contributions were more "jump-on-the-band-wagon" than "gutsy-call-for-change." She did some good work, particularly defending the U.S. Attorney for MN, Tom Heffelfinger. But nothing that warrants crowing about it at the bottom of an email defending her FISA capitulation. I don't know Sen. Schumer personally. Nevertheless, it's plain to me that Amy Klobucher is NO Chuck Schumer . . . not even close. To my mind, trumpeting the Gonzales resignation at the end of her FISA reply merely demonstrates a lack of confidence in her excuses more than anything else. It is, at the end of the day, an incredibly weak justification . . . and I think she knows it.

Finally, I want to reiterate that characterizing the FISA bill as an "extension," as our representatives and (following their lead) the press have done, is a misrepresentation of the bill. It is NOT a mere extension.

In sum: I'm not impressed, Sen. Klobuchar. It's a poor effort. I expect better from my representative and if your re-election were held this November, I'd be working HARD to find an alternative candidate I could back.

You've let us (your constituents) down.

As promised, here's the content of her email:

Dear Mischa:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

You should first know that the FISA bill which passed both the House and Senate a few weeks ago is a temporary measure -- an interim fix extending for the next six months. I would have preferred the version offered by Senator Carl Levin, which I voted for. Unfortunately, that version did not pass, and I voted for the extension on a temporary basis only, because I couldn't allow there to be a gap in our intelligence gathering activity - our safety depends on our ability to continue tracking terrorist networks.

Please know that I will actively work during this temporary six month extension to ensure any permanent FISA extension strikes the right balance between protecting our safety and protecting our civil rights.

The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales is the first step in achieving that balance, and I hope that his departure lifts the cloud that has lingered over the Justice Department. He leaves a legacy of justice tarnished. I was among the first to call for his resignation, and I am hopeful that a new Attorney General will be a more independent voice for the people and uphold the principles of law and justice in this country.

Thank you again for your input, and please don’t hesitate to contact me again regarding this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator

If you don't like the fact that Sen. Klobuchar supported this atrocious bill in the first place, you're going to be over-the-top outraged at her pathetic and mealymouthed justification for the vote. In a statement provided to the tcdailyplanet, Klobuchar said:

The bill approved by the House and Senate this week provides a temporary six month extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While I supported the extension as a temporary measure, I remain concerned about whether there are adequate safeguards in the bill, and will work with my colleagues to address these concerns in the next six months while we enact a permanent extension of FISA.

While it's true that the FISA amendment contains a 6-month sunset provision, the bill Senator Klobuchar voted for "provides" a whole lot more than a mere "extension" of FISA. It's a major revision and amendment of the Act drafted by the White House to legalize their surveillance activities. Focusing her justification on the sunset provision is disingenuous, as there was no pressing need to "extend" FISA (either temporarily or "permanently") - as though FISA were expiring in some fashion, as her statement implies.

The truth of the matter lies in the simple fact that the Administration A) doesn't want to be subject to the judicial oversight required by the unamended FISA legislation and B) a FISA court judge ruled that the existing surveillance program was illegal; in response to which the Administration worked to change NOT ITS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, but rather the law that made it illegal - with the willing support of Senator Klobuchar.

On the bright side, I think the surveillance program may still be suceptible to challenge on Constitutional grounds - the UCLA v NSA case was done-in on appeal for lack of standing (damn FRCP! - I jest, the FRCP are great and good) but appeared to have traction on First and Fourth Amendment grounds (would a Separation of Powers argument still work? I don't know; though, with Klobuchar et al. kicking it for the Administration in the House and Senate why bother with separating powers . . . they're already consolidated in the legislative White House). The question here is, how on earth can a Constitutional case get it's foot in the door?!? Perhaps by suing an accomplice in the telecommunications industry (like . . . I don't know . . . AT&T) . . . good luck in the 9th Circuit EFF!!