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

[badfishatlarge]

For those who emphasize the extra security benefit of this bill, do you think 911 is actually due to the inability to COLLECT intelligence?

[dejtemper]

It makes me wonder what they know that we do not. It makes me wonder who they owe that we do not. Something in this whole mess smells really rotten. I really think that we do not know why these people capitulated on this. There has to be something else going on.

[dejtemper]

It makes me wonder what they know that we do not. It makes me wonder who they owe that we do not. Something in this whole mess smells really rotten.

[keclxivq]

Only 15 people believe in the constitutional rights of American citizens. How pitiful we've become. Or should I say, greedy.

[Pupster]

Who's being greedy? Immunity only covers civil cases; the telecoms can still be charged criminally.

Maybe the safety of millions of citizens weighed heavily on the minds of these legislators. Don't attribute it solely to greed.

[tyrodin]

"Anyone who would give up our freedoms in the constitution for security deserves neither".

[landmine]

Well, where are they getting their information, if they are truely concerned?
Same place they have been getting all the other "reliable" information?
I don't buy it their "concern".
I think they all got a great demonstration in the power of fear. It has seduced them all. They don't really have to listen to us all if they can keep us scared.

[imusintheevening]

The headline is misleading since the vote has been delayed till after the July recess.

[EyeWantOneNation]

I also read that article...but which came first ???

Did the Senate say they were putting off the subject on FISA until after the break...and it got a consensus vote anyway ???

Gotta check times on this....

[sclucie]

thanks. it's nice that someone actually has information.

[speakingtruth2power]

By granting immunity, there will be no discovery in court and without our Atty Gen and Congress

asking the right questions, there never will be the discoveries that would clearly show that all the

domestic spying started well before 9-11, just as the decision to go after Saddam was made a

full 6 months before 9-11. The truth is, 9-11 didn't change things, it enabled BushCo's treason!!!

[tyrodin]

I will not give Obama nor Hillary another penny. Ever. Boxer, Biden, Dodd, Wexler and the rest of the true patriotic Democrats will be the only ones I will give a donation to. You know, Obama probably feels he can pick up Hillary's big money donors, so now we don't matter. He as much as said that yesterday. Perhaps if we all stuck together on this, he might reconsider his next moves.

[sclucie]

baloney. he said nothing of the kind.

by the way, i'm assuming you don't own or use a cell phone? that you have not been giving money to those companies, all of which have been handing over records as asked? if qwest has cell service i'm not aware of it - and i don't know a soul who uses it.

so. do you give them your money?

[tyrodin]

Actually he did say something of the kind. He said he was not beholden to any group in reference to his FISA decision. Are progressives a group? Perhaps you should listen to your politicians a bit more closely.

[tyrodin]

Ha ha, you're question is infantile. I don't vote for the telecoms. They shouldn't be making and passing bills, but it appears they are. The people are supposed to be represented, not multinationals. 80% of the US citizens feel the country is going in the wrong direction. It appears you are one of the 20%.

[EyeWantOneNation]

Do you argue with yourself often ?????

[TJRich]

They aren't the only corporations with their fingers and their pens in the legislative pie. That doesn't excuse the elected officials for letting it happen as soon as a corporation shows them the money. Rich public servants is an oxymoron.

[sclucie]

still waiting. which telecom was it that gets your monthly check?

[aofh]

The sense I'm getting from this discussion is that the real problem with this immunity is that it cuts off an avenue of inquiry into Adminstrative malffeasance. Congress, then, is creating a legal barrier intent on ensuring that Bush and cronies are not prosecuted after they leave office.

Why is it important that this bill be passed during this term? And if it were brought up again later, would the current terms remain intact?

[keclxivq]

The telecos need the protection from law suits which will certainly follow as soon as Bush is gone. They had no right to do as they did. Piping every bit of traffic into a locked room set up by these companies for the government to data-mine and do with as they wished with no oversight seems highly illegal to me. If the President asked you to jump off of a cliff, you do have the right to refuse. It is not patriotic to blindly follow illegal requests from someone due to the office they hold. They weren't spying on some people. They were spying on each and everyone of us. That's what we need to remember in my opinion. After WWII lots of people were found guilty of crimes. They were not allowed to use the defense of "just following orders" as so many tried. And yet many "were" just doing as they were told. The difference is they knew right form wrong. As did the telecos!

[AnthonyVa]

amen! the main issue is not our security - that is already in place with the current laws - the main issue is that this wiretapping was done WITHOUT a warrant. There was no reason to not get a warrant other than the fact bush didn't want to because he does not believe in our system of checks and balances - no one can tell him what he will or won't do - that's his playground mentality. Our Constitution was trampled on and NO ONE will be held accountable. When will ignorance lose out? When will we stop listening to the boy who cried wolf and realize that these "fears" the administration tells us about are unjustified or exaggerated to advance their agenda?

Who was it, Roosevelt? Who said: He who is willing to sacrifice our constitution for national security, deserves neither??? )something close to that)

When will congress learn that it's not about appearing tough, it's about upholding our constitution. Let the fear mongors beat the same ol drums they have been for 7 yrs - we're tired of it and can see through their lies.

[TJRich]

Congress is also covering it's own 'a sspirations' and complicity

[frustratedinohio]

All of the Obama supporters should email Obama, since he's the one who told you that you would all have a seat at the table, and let him know that you won't be sending him any more money, unless he votes against this thing.

Didn't he tell you that he would give government back to the people, or that you should just take over, or something more lyrical than that. So tell him how you want him to vote. If your $5 is supposed to give you a say, then use it now. No more $$$Obama unless you do as I say.

[Pupster]

"No more $$$Obama unless you do as I say."
Congratulations, you sound just like a lobbyist.

I'm still sending my money to Obama. I don't expect him to agree with me on everything. This isn't a make or break issue for me, and I will take him at his word that he will continue to work on the bill.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

But at least admit you are dissappointed in his utter abandonment of his prior promise to support a filibuster if the telecom immunity stayed in.

There's a long walk between filibuster, supporting a filibuster by others, voting on cloture, voting against the bill.... and saying he will actually now vote FOR it.

It's not agree or disagree that dismays some of us -- it's the backing down from principle.

Sheesh.

[jackie4444]

No, pupster, 'ohio' DOESN'T sound like a lobbyist. He sounds like an ordinary citizen
who's demanding accountability. And its a nice sound.

[antworks]

What we are witnessing is an almost complete capitulation to the lawless behavior of this criminal Bush administration. I have written about my displeasure with how the democrats are caving into this idiot Bush so much I am about exhausted. If this episode of lawless (over eight years) gets swept under the carpet by Congress, I would suggest the entire legislature be forced to resign. As much as this country has bitched and moaned about communism and fascism being evil, ask yourselves this. What have WE become, people? In my opinion, democracy is just about dead.

[Pupster]

Hyperbole much?

Please tell us how FISA has ruined your life. I'm assuming that based on your tragic tone.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

How about we just eliminate all aspects of the Bill of Rights that you didn't avail yourself of recently?

[badfishatlarge]

Democracy will not die, but the STATUE OF LIBERTY, as the sacred symbol of USA, becomes a living irony.

[sclucie]

and you send your monthly telecom check to....?

[frustratedinohio]

This vote was just for cloture. Which I think is just a vote to postpone the real vote. I'm sure somebody will tell me if I'm wrong. But basically these 15 voted "no" to postpone???

[copernikus]

No, it's a vote to end debate, i.e. a filibuster, so the vote can go forward. These 15 were trying to stop the bill.

I'm proud of my senator, Maria Cantwell, and ashamed of my other senator.

[frustratedinohio]

Thank you copernikus.

[pmorlan]

The cloture vote for all practical purposes was the whole ball of wax. When FISA is finally voted on it will pass and you will see some faux Dems. come out and vote against it but it's just for show. The only way to have stopped this bad bill from being passed was to have voted against cloture. Unless......all of us get busy and start contacting our Senators and Obama to vote against this bad bill. Miracles do sometimes happen.

Any Senator who votes against this bill who did not vote NO on cloture needs to be asked why they did not vote NO on cloture.

[kmac23va]

I think there are some senators that are against the entirety of the bill (IE immunity) but not against the basics of the bill. By moving it forward, they can now offer the amendment to strip immunity (which Obama supports doing).

Of course, Lindsay Graham was on the floor today decrying how Obama was against immunity and would vote to strip it. He forgot the other half, that he'd vote for the bill even if immunity wasn't stripped. But whatever's convenient for your shilling for McCain on the Senate floor.

One thing to remember though, which Olbermann's brought up...immunity is only for civil suits. There's no reason that a President Obama can't sit down and tell Justice to prosecute criminally. But I'd feel better if he'd oppose the thing.

[frustratedinohio]

Thanks pmorlan.

[elbzee]

I wrote mine. Good for you Chuck Schumer!!!

[badfishatlarge]

Thinking about Dem will likely gain the total control, and he himself
will likely become the president, THE very beneficiary of this FISA,
why would he oppose this bill he used to oppose? UNLESS he is a principled
constitutionalist, which obviously is not true as we can see now.

Those psuedo liberals such as Obama and Pelosi may very well take the
ride of GOP and pass the bill which is good for their own power.

[sclucie]

that is exactly the kind of thinking that got george bush into office in 2000 - and led to the war in iraq. i don't like the bill, i don't like obama's vote - but this election is more important than one vote.

[frustratedinohio]

How many votes is it worth, especially when you don't like the way your guy is voting.

[badfishatlarge]

Well, I guess so. After all, there are only two choices, McCain and Obama.
To many of us, there is virtually no choice. Obama may very well fully capture this reality
and discard his base on this principled issue without much hesitation, coz he knows at least majority of us will still be with him.

Facing the reality, he is the same old but more ruthless and cunning politician, and is manipulating the base for his political power and we can only hope the best, even if knowing all that.

[badfishatlarge]

well, when there are only McCain and Obama there, we virtually do not have a choice.

For those who said it is just one vote, not big deal. I think differently.

This vote on the principle issue is a very good test on his leadership, spin, and even his integrity since he made promises twice to filibust.

If he can take the expedient way to vote (or actually dodge the vote), I don't trust he can really stick to his stance and have the spine to vote against the Iraq war if he was a federal senator then and if the stake was as high as now. Think about it.... folks.
He may very likely vote for it, just as Hillary did.

He failed me at big time. I may have to vote for him, but the passion is largely gone.
I'll put my eyes much closer on him.

[paganmist]

Thank you, for everyone who answered my questions about this. I now know enough about the situation where I can google up more info. I do have a couple of other questions (before I decide whether or not I want to take Obama + other dems to task for compromising.)

1) The legislation in question - what else did it involve? I know that sometimes bills are bundled in with extra things, which sometimes explains why some people vote for/against things. I personally think that a bill should only be allowed to address one major change at a time, but that's just me.

2) Is there *no other way* to requisition the information about the depth of the warrantless wiretapping, aside from preventing telecom immunity? This might sound naive, but what about the *government's* records?

3) By "lawsuit", do we mean that even court lawsuits demanding documents and such would be covered under the "immunity" clause?

If you are someone who replies to this or replied to my first post below, thank you so much for using your time to educate me and share your thoughtful opinions. :)

[marinade]

I just read on The Hill that the vote is postponed til after the July recess.

[CyberGal619]

Here's the link: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/housing-bill-fisa-delayed-until-after-july-recess-2008-06-26.html