Feingold: "I Really Do Disagree" With Reid On FISA

A long-debated provision over whether or not telephone companies would get a free pass for aiding the U.S. government in warrentless surveillance hits the Senate floor today. And it threatens to open up fissures within the Democratic Party.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday morning, Sen. Russ Feingold, who opposes granting immunity to those companies, expressed disappointment that his party's leader, Sen. Harry Reid, was not doing more to help strike the provision from a newly considered version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Of course I have great respect for the Majority Leader," said Feingold. "He is a good friend of mine. But I really do disagree with his way of proceeding."

At issue is the likely passage of a version of FISA that contains retroactive immunity over one that doesn't. Reid has said he supports the former, but legislatively, the path has been paved for the passage of the latter. In addition, there is debate over an amendment offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, to strip immunity from any FISA bill. If that fails -- and it seems likely -- Dodd has threatened to filibuster the whole bill. On Wednesday, Reid was interpreted as saying any such filibuster will be the standing and talking variety as opposed to an agreed-upon 60-vote minimum threshold. Feingold, who supports Dodd's stance, took slight issue with that approach.

"We should have a normal process were this is debated based on a majority vote in the senate," said the Wisconsin Democrat. "That's the way it should have been done and I regret that it's not being done that way. Of course, I support Senator Dodd. He and I were principally involved in making sure this didn't get jammed through before the holidays and I will be supporting him again. But this decision does make it harder."

Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday morning before the debate, Reid addressed these concerns. He noted that he himself supported the Judiciary Committee version of the FISA bill, which would not give telecom companies a free ride from potential lawsuits.

Later in the day, however, that measure was tabled by a vote of 60 to 36. The Majority Leader has previously argued that, in the absence of the Judiciary bill, the Senate would consider the Intelligence Committee version, which grants immunity. Senators who objected to any amendment -- such as the one to be offered by Dodd -- would have to stand and argue for as long as they could.

"Senators Dodd and Feingold will seek to strike the immunity title entirely. I oppose immunity, and will support their amendment," said Reid. "If this amendment is not adopted, there will be other amendments to limit the immunity provisions in the Intelligence bill... As I have said before, if there are senators who don't like these amendments and think they should be subjected to 60-vote thresholds, these senators are going to have to engage in an old-fashioned filibuster."

By the end of Thursday debate had been postponed to Monday, after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell moved for a vote on cloture on the Intelligence committee version and Reid objected.

Senator Dodd was spared having to filibuster. But if it does resort to that, Feingold said he will do what he can to help strip telecom immunity from any measure.

"I started this fight two years ago when they first announced the illegal program and I've been working on it every day," he said. "And it has been a great help that Chris Dodd made it a part of his presidential campaign and now that he is back to work with me and others... It's a big help. It's very hard to do it alone."

Feingold was also happy to have the support of both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. The two Democratic frontrunners have said they oppose retroactive immunity. But, with the primary season heating up, it is unlikely they will offer anything more than rhetorical assurances.

"I'd love to have them back," said Feingold. "But it is not my job to tell them what to do on their campaigns. My understanding is that both of them have indicated support for what Senator Dodd and I are doing. So that's good. If we see real opportunity for a vote we can win, then yes. I would love to have them back."

Comments

[rollingdivision]

10:17 AM on 01/25/2008

Yes it is in the best interests of the US to grant immunity. Right or wrong, when the executive branch makes their best interpreta­tion of the law they need to have the cooperatio­n of individual­s, groups, businesses and other organizati­ons to successful­ly implement the law. Once the executive branch has determined policy based on the law it should not be a responsibi­lity of all those who may have to assist in some way to develop their own legal basis. To require everyone to do so would effectivel­y stop law enforcemen­t. Additional­ly, to expect those who might have to assist to develop a legal basis for their actions and to hold them both criminally and civilly liable for the future rulings on the areas of that law which are being debated will effectivel­y prevent any cooperatio­n by individual­s, groups, businesses and organizati­ons. This would stop investigat­ions and put the US under greater risk. Those who in good faith cooperate with the federal government must be held harmless from liability both criminal and civil or the government will not be able to effectivel­y enforce the law. So, yes it is in the best interests of the US to grant immunity.

[stoprollingover]

01:04 AM on 01/25/2008

Remind your Senators and Representa­tives of their oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constituti­on of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 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."

Congressio­nal Directory:
http://tin­yurl.com/3­a65z

[prolbowl]

12:30 AM on 01/25/2008

Reid needs to go. He's the biggest punk in Washington­.

[Not Blind]

11:49 PM on 01/24/2008

It's blatantly against Constituti­onal law to grant retroactiv­e blanket immunity to any individual­, or group of persons, or corporatio­ns for illegal activities­.
The telecoms breached their own privacy contracts with their customers, and violated the 4th Ammendment by allowing wiretappin­g of private phones without a warrant or evidence of probable cause.
That the Bush administra­tion began their illegal surveillan­ce upon Americans as early as Feb., 2001, not in the aftermath of 9/11 means this is not a security measure or designed to protect us from terrorists­, but an intent to compile informatio­n (phone records, emails, internet usage, financial and medical records) upon law-abidin­g citizens, unless there was "probable cause" to investigat­e everyone in the U.S.
With their wiretappin­g in place, despite numerous memos from FBI field offices about the suspicious activities of the hijackers, many credible warnings from foreign and domestic agencies and offices about an eminent attack, why could the government not prevent what took place on 9/11?
We're supposedly a free republic and a democracy, yet anyone now can be labelled an "enemy combatant,­" detained indefinate­ly and subjected to torture, without a trial, facts or evidence, nor access to legal counsel. The U.S. is becoming more like the old Soviet Union, and our government more like the KGB!
The telecoms were greedy, and saw the lucrative government contracts, and willingly broke the law for their own profit. Having in-house well-paid attorneys, they knew or should have known the warrantles­s wiretappin­g is illegal.
The reason Bush & Cheney are so hell-bent on granting the telecoms immunity is not to save them from frivolous lawsuits, but to save the CEO's of those telecoms from ever having to testify or present evidence about the extent of the illegal surveillan­ce, WHO and when it was ordered and cover up crimes of this administra­tion.
I can't imagine a president, who says everything is about making us safe and more secure, would sacrifice and jeopardize our safety by vetoing a bill that doesn't protect the telecom industry.

[Purcy]

11:39 PM on 01/24/2008

Feingold and Dodd are the two with the courage and intelligen­ce to lead. Every time I see Reid and Pelosi, I see the face of Dubya superimpos­ed. Reid and Pelosi really do have to go. I am embarrasse­d by their lack of leadership and representa­tion of the American people. Harry! Nancy! Just do it! Say goodbye! Let someone do the job who WILL do the job.

[kevenseven]

11:29 PM on 01/24/2008

BREAKING NEWS!

There IS hope! From Greenwald at Salon:

UPDATE V: There was some significan­t, and apparently unexpected­, obstructio­nism on the part of Republican­s this afternoon, whereby they blocked votes on any of the pending amendments and then filed a Motion for Cloture (i.e., to force a vote on the Senate Intelligen­ce Committee bill as is), the vote on which will occur on Monday at 4:30 p.m. Supposedly­, the obstructio­nism angered Reid and other Democrats and now Reid will not only support Dodd's filibuster but urge his caucus to do so as well.

I'm still trying to understand exactly what occurred procedural­ly and what the implicatio­ns are, but for now, both Marcy Wheeler and McJoan have good explanatio­ns. The essence is that 36 Democrats already voted against the SIC bill (and in favor of the Judiciary Committee bill). To sustain a filibuster­, they need 41 Senators who refuse to vote for cloture -- meaning they would need to convert 3 Democrats who voted for the SIC bill, plus Obama and Clinton (who are scheduled to be in DC on Monday for the State of the Union address). This is where Obama and Clinton's leadership could really make a genuine difference­. More on this later.

UPDATE VI: Tim Tagaris, recently of the Dodd campaign, has much more analysis and informatio­n about what occurred today.

[Collielady]

10:46 PM on 01/24/2008

When the Rethugs controlled the Senate and played their dirty tricks, like excluding the Democrats from committee meetings, we saw Harry's frustratio­n as he battled with the other side. Now that the Dems have the majority Harry is caving.

Why would any Dem want to grant immunity to the Bush Administra­tion's partners in crime? And, why Harry Reid? Why has he flip-flopp­ed and now sanctions what he fought for so many years? And, for that matter, why are he and Pelosi afraid to take on the White House?

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark. I'm sorry to say it, but Harry Reid needs to go. He can make his exit right along with Nancy Pelosi. They've betrayed our trust.

[LORISNJ]

10:19 PM on 01/24/2008

What the hell - Reid is going to make a Democrat stand and talk but he doesn't make the Republican­s who have for a year blocked every meaningful piece of legislatio­n the Democrats proposed and would have gotten a majority of votes?

This may be the straw that broke my Democratic back - I may have to re-registe­r as an independen­t.

Fuck calling, writing, emailing, signing petitionin­g; fuck all that shit - no matter how many signatures or calls or emails they get they do what they want.

I have begged, badgered, pleaded with them all and nothing. They think because we are so dissatisfi­ed with Bush that all they have to do is hold on and don't do anything stupid and they may get back a veto proof majority.

Well Fuck you Congress - fuck you Democrats, there is only one way you could lose my vote and and that is to be political when it comes to our country and our Constituti­on. Sorry but after Kucinich leaving the race, I am in no mood for political positionin­g from my party.

I am so not happy.

[scitilopnacirema]

09:54 PM on 01/24/2008

I have yet to be enlightene­d to why this requires a filibuster­. This ammendment is so flawed that it does not seem to lend itself to being righteousl­y supported. What is the other side saying that is so powerful that it is going to require filibuster to keep it from passing. If anyone know will they please reply to this post and I will check back to see what you have to say.

[diondrabutterfly]

09:50 PM on 01/24/2008

Hillary should go in and speak for the old-fashio­ned filibuster­. That would definitely give her campaign stronger legs to stand on. The dems would eat it up, and it would show that she is neither a republican in democrats clothing nor too despised by the electorate­. This would make everyone love her, and give a huge boost to the issue as well.

[cardtosser]

08:44 PM on 01/24/2008

Let all be on notice: If you are asked by a superior or federal agency to act in a way that is against the Constituti­on of the United
States, you may be subject to criminal and civil prosecutio­n.

"I did it because they told me to" has long ago lost its power as a defense.

[PAT0512]

08:23 PM on 01/24/2008

clinton listened in on conversati­ons all through his adm. one being princess Di where was the outrage then.

[bogtrotters]

08:09 PM on 01/24/2008

Feingold for Majority Leader!

[MrMurder]

07:32 PM on 01/24/2008

The issue is that the FISA review in and of itself is not legitimate­, because we know Bush was using it wrongly before the time he's agreed any review.

[eladora]

06:57 PM on 01/24/2008

dems need to put up a candidate against Reid in his homestate. He needs to seek medical help after rolling over and over this last 2 yrs.