The 15 Dems Who Tried To Block Telecom Immunity

The debate over how the Bush administration has conducted its warrantless wiretapping program seems to be nearing a legislative end.

On Thursday, the United State Senate voted overwhelmingly to advance a legislative compromise on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, marking the beginning of the end of a fierce battle over civil liberties and national security that has been waged in the halls of Congress for more than three years.

And yet, for all of the political passions the issue engendered, the fight over FISA ended with something of a whimper. The final product -- much to the consternation of the progressive community -- gave the president wide authority to monitor terrorist suspects and collect communications from U.S. citizens without review. It also offered telecommunications companies that helped with the previously illegal program immunity from lawsuits, a hard provision to swallow for the program's opponents.

In the end, only 15 U.S. Senators were willing to resort to procedural tactics as a last ditch effort to hold up the legislation. The list of those who voted against cloture included:

Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR

For the White House and the majority of the Senate, the FISA compromise has been hailed as a political breakthrough. "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get," Republican Sen. Kit Bond told the New York Times.

Sen. Barack Obama, a reluctant supporter of the bill, said he would work to strip telecom immunity from its language. However, he added, "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Others were not so willing to concede. Sen. Chris Dodd, who left the campaign trail before Iowa to threaten a filibuster of a FISA compromise that included immunity, today bemoaned the fact that the public would never know the scope of the administration's actions.

"We're closing the door, never to know why this happened, who ordered it, why did they avoid [the courts], what was behind their thinking," said the Connecticut Democrat. "And that is a dangerous step for us."

Sen. Russ Feingold, another aggressive opponent of the compromise, spoke with sorrow over his party's unwillingness to put up a principled fight.

"It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues," he told The Young Turks radio show. "It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq war. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible."

Comments

[Ray46]

Big surprise, most of the Democrats and Republican have accepted substantial donations from the telecommunication companies and they vote for amnesty.

Every notice no telecommunication, radio or TV mergers have been blocked in the last several years?
Notice how government insurance, prescription plans, etc. are designed to be the highest cost to consumers. The government hires or harasses people that note problems within the agencies that don't see it the

I propose if the politicians accept a significant amount of money from a company that is effected by the bill that they must vote only present and must note during the vote they have a conflict in interest on the bill. To not do so would be grounds for their immediate impeachment. Also they must not serve on committees that will be involved in writing and getting support for the bill. Also the authors of the bill would have to note all authors and contributors to the bill especially if lobbyist contributed, authored, or were allowed to review the bill and suggest changes.

Bills should not be able to use a misleading title.
Calling a bill a 'Patriot Bill' or Terrorist Bill" that tries to delete or alter constitution our rights!
Calling a bill a "Widows and Orphans Bill" that is just a big pork bill!

[belltor]

Oh I see the "Change We Can Believe In" candidates is not one of the 15
How surprising!!!!

[loki]

I know when this first came into being, the legislation also have immunity for Bush Co an war crimes. Does anyone know if that stayed in this bill as well? I know its very thick and complicated, but I think it would be nice to know if the US version of Pinochet has immunity too?
Also, I dont see Obamas name here? He is not an instrument of change. he is another Ivy Greed educated selfish greedy politicians out to ruin us all.

[TJRich]

He doesn't get immunity from the Hague, no matter how this bill is manipulated.

[sclucie]

does obama have an iphone? i think you have to have at&t to get one of those. i'm pretty sure that they are one of those telecom companies who complied with the government on its surveillance campaign. if he does, i'd say he's probably pretty greedy. they cost an awful lot.

and i know there are "progressives" out there who think there is no difference between democrats and republicans. there were a lot of "progressives" who felt that way in 2000 - when the race was between gore and bush. so they didn't vote, or they voted for nader. i could understand that then - and i'm not a democrat - i'm an independent. but after the invasion of iran, the atrocities of abu ghraib, the statements john mccain has made on health care and our 100-year presence in iraq, that kind of thinking is simply dangerous and it is somewhat horrifying. if you get blue tooth technology, i think you can figure out the difference between john mccain and barack obama. if a voter can't make that distinction, they must be very, very, very wealthy - and not have to worry about the stuff the rest of us have to worry about: health care if we are sick, education for our kids, whether our kids will be sent to die in a senseless war or how we are going to care for our parents. it must be nice to be that rich.

[MBFLA]

I encourage uou to call the Obama Presidential Campaign and express how you feel at 1866-675-2008 ext 6. He needs to hear from us now just like he can expect to hear from us later!

[TXfemmom]

I did it. Then, they had the audacity to call me for a donation. I cannot write here what I told them.

I think that the Progressives need to understand that they got a very ugly pig in a poke when they stupidly went for Obama. This was his first chance to offer some of that change and he turned around and bent over for the Republicans.

Personally, I would like to see the Progressives go after Obama, hammer the Super Delegates, get Clinton to give her delegates to Edwards, he could keep his, and they could bring enough Super Delegates who are progressives to Edwards and OBAMA COULD GET KICKED TO THE SIDE AT THE CONVENTION.

That is what he deserves.

[sclucie]

brilliant. that is exactly the kind of thinking that got george bush elected in 2000 - and led to iraq and abu ghraib and the erosion of civil liberties. i can't think of anything more strategic than destroying the democratic party and sending john mccain to the white house.

[cuomofied]

I am not happy with his vote, but I do believe that Obama being a litle to the sane side of the Democrat isle is exactly why I am voting Dem this electionand not feeling guilty about it. I voted for Gore and Kerry, but wasnt too thrilled. Compromise is key to moving this country forward, just not this type of compromise.

[Pupster]

Yeah, did you notice that both Edwards and Clinton are not listed with the 15 senators above? So why don't you get over the fact that your candidate lost the primary. You sound like you are losing your grip on reality.

[TJRich]

I did to let him know that I agree with him. Try to see the big picture. If you really want to unite, try not voting to continue to fund GW's moneytree for Iraq.

[msbeachwood]

I think this ruling has less to do with protecting the telecom companies and more to do with protecting those in the Bush adminstration who are abusing their power. It smells abit like a cover up, only it is sactioned by the senate. There are some truly misguided individuals within the current adminstration, and some truly spineless members of Congress; just read Fiasco, by Thomas RIcks for a sampling,
This is sadly just one more example of how our leadership has failed us. And Obama, you really disappointed me today.

[tea in the harbor]

There is a difference between spinelessness and colaboration. Being spineless is weak and pitiful, what we are seeing is a co-ordinated attack on our freedom, it is treason with a flagpin on top!
If the Dems were anywhere near as spineless as they appear, they could only exist floating at sea like jellyfish!

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

It's obvious that the corporations have all these people in their back pocket and we the people are just "them people".If this is a government that does the bidding of the people,which people are we talking about?Wasn't the FISA court bypassed way before 911?Nobody addresses anything,all we get are vague pronouncements and BS.They all want to be addressed as the "HONORABLE"...............,what a farce.

[tea in the harbor]

Which begs the question, if corporations have no right to vote, by what logic do they have the right to lobby? Which amendment covers that? I don't remember seeing "Organizations whose sole interest is profit shall overrule the will of the people" anywhere in the Constitution. The right to redress is guaranteed to the People, but nowhere are corporations given any legitimate voice in government. I don't think that was an oversight on the part of our founders!

[guajiro]

You are correct. There is no amendment that says corporations are "persons", yet the Supreme Court says they are when they say that corporations can give money to politicians, protected as "free speech". If I were a policeman, I wonder if I would be taken to jail for jailing a lobbyist if I found proof he was giving money from a corporation to a politician's pac or re-election fund. Why should wealthy people be able to give twice what the average joe gives? I mean, they can give the regular amount any citizen can, then they can give again under the flag of their corporation. Jeez.

[nirek]

As a Vermonter I am proud of Senators Leahy & Sanders!

[veracity]

Wow. Thanks to the Courageous 15, we've got a delay, and should give those other 85 Senators an earful.

And to Senator O, WHAT are you thinking?

I hope Senator O. isn't walking down Nancy Pelosi's dismal path,



Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR

[RaraAvis17]

Here are the DEMS that voted for it:

http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

[Pupster]

That is a list of Dems who switched their votes from no to yes and how much they received from telecom PACs. Did you notice that there were 11 reps at the end of the list who received zero dollars? I wonder why they switched their votes...

[mrqapla]

Destroying the Constitution is not moving to the middle. Obama is a fraud. Stop excusing his betrayal. Stop being idiots.

OBAMA IS A FRAUD!

When will you understand this?

[RaraAvis17]

Mr. - What is your alternative? McSame? Really? I don't think so. Barack will do what is best for this country not McCain.

MCCAIN IS A FRAUD!

When will you understand this? SOB!

[EuroRant1]

I'm really fed up with settling for "the lesser of 2 evils" votes.

McCain may be a fraud ... but then ... we absolutely positively know what we are getting with McCain ... I have been an avid die-hard Obama supporter ... but any way you argue it, men who sh*t on the 4th Amendment of the Constitution ... and then claim they are "different" - does not cut it. We have had 7 years of this already ... where is the high-ground here?

The key words to "mrqapla" is, "Destroying the Constitution is not moving to the middle."

I was so hoping this time would be different. I may have little left in this life, but my principles is something I am not willing to easy toss aside like a trite nameless dead goldfish. So sorry friends, no can do ... the stakes are too high.

[RTIII]

OK, they're BOTH frauds then.

I'll vote for O but not because I like the choice.

[sclucie]

right. and so was gore. so people voted for nader in all their holiness. and we got bush for eight years. is that really what you want? john mccain as president? by the way, which telecom company are you sending your monthly check to?

[Pupster]

When are you gonna take a sedative and calm down.

Truly, it's impossible to reason with a crazy person.

[huffnpuffn]

The Democratic Party disgraced itself with this bill. Obama should be singled out for his own failure to act. I don't expect great things from these people, merely decent things, logical things. I get neither in this case.

[allamericanboy]

I have been a proud and loyal Democrat for 48 of my 56 years. It's clear today my party has left me. It saddens me, but if a true Progressive party comes along, one which will protect the safeguards of my Constitution, I'll be the first to sign on.

[EyeWantOneNation]

And you certainly wouldn't be alone !!!

[cuomofied]

You had options in either Gravel or Paul.... The only two who give a damn about this country. Too bad we let the media run them off.

[progressivepam]

all american was talking about democrats... Paul is a great stand for democracy, but he is certainly no democrat, and if you are a stand for the long-understood principals of the democratic party, you're not getting that with Paul. However, cuomofied, you certainly left out Kucinich, who has been a major stand for democracy, accountability, fairness and equity, etc.

[AtheistAd]

Who cares about the 15 Dems?

It's the other ones that are the problem and need to be removed from office.

[EyeWantOneNation]

BUT...this article is posted at 1:13 A.M.

The article that Feingold got the vote postponed is posted at 2:23 P.M.

What's going on ???

[RockWater]

Ok, Please tell me what this Obama CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN is all about?????? He is a real JOKE!!!! Why bother voting.

[barriosbabe]

Wake up! Very left progressive here. I have been a strong Obama supporter and I am delighted to see his spine-ful stance on the new FISA legislation. I too am for it. It actually STRENGTHENS the Constitutional aspects of FISA, weakens the executive powers (are the rest of you READING the bill's text or just parroting lefty talking points?), and I too am for telecom partial immunity. Why should they pat for Bush's evilness and incompetence? Separately, we knew from the start that Obama was not progressive; we core highly informed Obamaites are for him because he is honest, uncorrupt, and thinks for himself. Bravo!

[guntotinganglion]

The telecom companies have been on record as not caring about the protection that Herr Bush has been championing. The point? Protecting the telecoms was never the issue, it was about covering Bushemada's endless violations of the Constitution (you know, the one he was SWORN to protect and defend). He doesn't care about the telecom's anymore than he cares about you or me...this is about staying out of jail for Bushemada and his shameless crime syndicate (aka The Republican Party).

Why should they pay for Bush's evilness? Because they enabled his lawlessness. Qwest said no, as they all should have. If they had, Bushemada would have been unable to do what he did. The telecoms should face the same legal consequences as anyone who is accused of breaking the law. Making exceptions for this sort of thing is un-American and simply wrong. Oh...the poor telecoms!!!!! With their billions in profits they'd have no way of defending themselves against the middle-class lawsuits! We have to defend them by removing them from legal liability, cause they can't do it themselves with their small army of litigators.

[aht772e]

the telecoms should pay for this administrations corruptions, because it is only by causing financial losses that corporations will stand up to the government when it makes illegal requests. On the other hand, it sometimes requires giving up ALL that we want in order to get what we NEED, ie to protect the constitution long term, which I suppose is the argument for those supporting this bill. i am not sure, in the end , which way this particular legislation eventually cuts, in terms of strengthening civil liberities, which is the biggest concern here.

Perhaps Nader is right, that the differences between the 2 parties are too little. perhaps John Edwards was right when he spoke of not electing corporate democrats vs republican ones....

[Pupster]

Finally, someone who is talking some sense.

[sclucie]

because if you don't vote, john mccain will be president. and john mccain wants us in iraq for 100 years. and he really wouldn't mind another war with iran. and we are borrowing money from the chinese to pay for this very expensive war and destroying our economy and passing that debt to our children. and because john mccain wants to give insurance companies full control of health care.

democrats and independents made a horrific error in 2000 and 2004 by refusing to vote and pretending that it did not matter. look at what it has done to this nation.

i am not happy with the democrats who caved - any of them - but i can see a clear difference between obama and mccain. and it is unimaginable to me that anyone could pretend there is no difference in where they will lead this country. and i think people who are threatening not to vote are cowards and fools. by the way, who do you write your cell phone check to?

[Pupster]

Uhhh, because there are more issues involved in this election than FISA. Important ones like health care, Iraq, the economy, taxes, foreign policy, energy policy, and a thousand others. And yet you are willing to throw it all away on one vote Obama made that you don't agree with. You sound like a child.