Minnesota Politics

So, when/if Senator Klobuchar votes "aye" on the latest frontal attack on our civil liberties . . . who can we support as a Democratic challenger? Taking names now . . .

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.

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!!

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman has got to go.

I'm from Minnesota, so I feel compelled to weigh in and express my utter disgust at the pandering my representative pays to the telco industries (not to mention the ugly smear campaign he waged against UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - BTW did you know Kofi Annan is a Macalester College graduate?).

Here's a copy of the pathetic letter Senator Coleman's office is putting out in response to network neutrality inquiries:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX :