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

[michelv]

Here is a perfect example of how seemingly similar senators, Feinstein and Boxer, are actually very different on a number of issues. Feinstein is a bellicose Likhudnik neocon. Boxer is a true democratic rights activist.

[JessWonderin]

Feinstein has failed on so many counts and is a monument to "entrenched incumbent" status - she talks a good line and continues on a path to enrich her own self social and financial interests . . .

Boxer is the REAL DEAL and I'm proud to have her rep us.

[mooph]

Feinstein's hubby is on the board of URS, whose holdings include EG&G (formerly of the Carlyle Group), who holds contracts with the military, NASA, and several federal departments. Her fortunes are closely bound to all of this BS, war on terror, etc.

[qwr]

Boxer voted against the war, the only Senator from California or New York to do so.

[Oblique]

Remember why Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill left. He wanted to go after the funders of terrorism in the UAE and Bush shut him down. It is amazing that the President would want to treat every American as a terrorist but heaven forbid they go after the UAE to shut down terrorism funding (the UAE terrorist funders have rights you know) .

The Bush administration started wiretapping as soon as they got into office. They wiretapped to get dirt on congressmen, senators and governors.
The NSA employees have the best stock tips!!!!.

[michelv]

The true colors of Obama are starting to show. The ultra liberal suckers who fell for the "kumbaya my lord, let's change the world" song are in a for a rude awakening. Obama is no less of a conservative liberal than Clinton. In fact, on a number of issues, he may be on the right of Clinton.

[qwr]

Until the past couple of years, Clinton was more Republican than most of the Republicans. Hard to beat that. You are talking about the recent Clinton, who has embraced the Democratic platform (only for whites of course). The problem is, that Clinton would go back to the other policies if it suited her politically. So, what I am saying is that you are seeing things simplistically.

[Pupster]

Troll.

[jhink465]

The only true American patriot and Democrat with a hat in the ring was Dennis Kucinich. Too bad the citizens of this country are merely residents with no real understanding of what this country is supposed to be about.

[Pupster]

Yes, Dennis Kucinich is "the only true American patriot". Thank you for speaking so rationally. Time to put on your tinfoil hat now.

[mspost]

There is no one on this earth who we will agree with on everything.

[darthdarcy]

Clinton and Obama are voting for this, so we never had a chance...

[frustratedinohio]

Clinton and Obama didn't vote on this cloture thing today. For whatever that means.

[IndependentMeans]

Thank you Ms. Boxer, VERY much impressed with your leadership.

M. Carroll - California

[Alablanca]

I agree with Russ Feingold - this is a moment of sorrow for Americans. Our loss of freedom of speech, the warrantless wiretapping of citizens can lead to more dangerous actions, such as the arrest of innocent Americans based on a warrantless search, with immunity on top of that. This means if the Government (Bush) thinks you should be arrested based on some false allegation they can do that without any explanation. This is destroying one of our most precious constitutional rights. And, on top of that, Democrats except for a few, also supported Bush. As far as I am concerned, Russ Feingold and Kucinich, as well as Wexler (House) are the only gutsy and honest Democrats. Democrats in general always give in to Bush - they are just as guilty as he is.

[nibblybits]

This is pathetic. Obama ran on a platform on which he promised to work across the aisle. He promised to listen to all sides. Now he does, and you guys jump all over him? Would you rather get a Bush of the left? Someone who ignores the wishes of everyone but his liberal base?

Even though I'm not thrilled with this FISA bill, I get it. Compromise is part of the job. If you think that Obama should stand on principle on every issue so that nothing gets passed and nothing gets done, then you are all bigger morons than Rove and his ilk.

When Obama promised Change, he meant that things are gonna get done and get passed, instead of pointless partisan posturing. So shut up and let him do his job. Get used to the idea that you're not gonna agree with everything he does. Get used to compromise.

In Washington, you gotta give some to get some, so if you don't get that then you don't know how politics works. Otherwise, get used to standing on principle while having no health care and sending your kids to Iraq.

You'd think most of you have never lived in the real world. If you want Obama to take tougher stances, then give him something to work with. That means overwhelming mandate in the voting booth. That means 60+ Dem senators and a working majority in the House. That means letting him appoint Supreme Court judges.

Otherwise, quit whining.

[cubs325]

amen double

[martinspringfield]

Not on every issue. Just important ones, like this.

He can cave on flag pins, Reverend Wright, and fistbumps with his wife all he wants. Oh wait - those are the things he hangs tough on.

I never expected all that much of Obama, but he did take the Clintons to task on issues of far less importance. Then again, he praised proto-BushCheney, Ronald Reagan, to do so so what was I thinking.

[LadyCat]

Judging by your post, you weren't thinking, you were reacting the same as every one else on the topics of the flag pin and the fist bumps. Now turn off Bill O and think for yourself for a change. You might find it a refreshing change.

[Pupster]

Yes, obviously if he doesn't agree with you ON EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT* ISSUE, you will call him a traitor and call him Bush re-dux.

Hey, why don't we cut out the middle man and just elect you? You obviously think you know better for all of us. I'm sure you will disappoint no one.

*important based on your opinion

[markj757]

I agree with everthing you just said, except on this one extremely important issue of telecom immunity. We're not talking about energy policy, or drivers licenses, or any other host of issues that effect our daily lives. We are talking about our freedom and liberty as Americans and the end run made around our Constitution by the likes of G W and the telecoms. I'm very strong O supporter. He is clearly the man who I feel should lead this nation, and he has my vote regardless of this compromise. This was just a very demoralizing loss, not just for the base of Dem party, but for this great nation, and I hope he finds a way to rectify this situation once he wins.

[Pupster]

Hey, the telecoms were wrong. We all agree on this. But we're arguing over spilt milk IMO. I don't plan on suing the telecoms, and I would guess that most of the people on these boards here aren't either. Because the people with the most to complain about are already in Guantanamo (which is also wrong).

I'm less worried about telecom immunity (I'm willing to give a little because I think they were threatened by Bush and his Justice Dept thugs) for past action as long as they are liable for all present and future actions. And investigation of the information they culled in the past 7 years. If Obama is willing to make those demands, I have less worry about "immunity."

What I don't get is that people are complaining almost exclusively about how Obama has disappointed them on this issue, even though many other Dems voted for the compromise bill. Barely a word about Steny Hoyer who shepherded this bill through the House. I'm reading a lot of unrealistic assessments about the situation.

[frustratedinohio]

Okay, so when Obama acts like a republican we are just supposed to shut up and take it. See I didn't want somebody who was going to work both sides. I wanted a democrat.

[Pupster]

IF you wanted an idealogue, you should have voted for Kucinich, Gravel, or Nader. All the mainstream candidates are pragmatists.

[Joeblue]

The only thing I can hope for is that once Obama gets elected he will turn left like FDR did.

[paganmist]

Speaking as someone who doesn't quite know what this is all about, can someone answer a few questions for me? (If you have the time.) I *have* googled this, by the way, but no one has written a succinct summary of what the issue is about.

1) Did telecom companies *have* to give private information to the government? (I think I've been assuming that if the President says he wants your records, a company has to give up its records, no choice in the matter.)

2) How did telecom companies *benefit* from this?

3) Would stripping telecom immunity open the door for prosecution against people who had no choice but to comply with the government?

I know the way I am phrasing these questions makes it seem like I support telecom immunity, when really, I am confused as to why they don't *deserve* immunity?

[Barbyrah]

1. No, telecoms didn't "have" to give private info to the govenment. It was their choice. (Qwest, for example, refused.)
2. We don't know. That's what these pending lawsuits would help us find out. (And with immunity, this isn't going to happen, because all lawsuits will be dismissed.)
3. This I don't know, but...again, saying someone had no choice but to comply...this story came out because someone who was part of the data mining operation finally spoke up. My guess is, if "underling" types were found to be intimidated, or were threatened with loss of job, could be considered. However, I'm not a legal scholar on this; someone else might chime in here.

[OliverTwist]

1. No.
2. They were paid for the services involved in data mining. They were not targeted for investigation and possible government action like the companies that refused.
3. No.

[PrairieDog]

Would stripping telecom immunity open the door for prosecution against people who had no choice but to comply with the government?
------------
Without the threat of jail time we couldn't have the leverage to get these companies to come clean in their collusion with the White House's tyranny. Do you really think Scooter Libby was pardoned because he "suffered enough"? The pardon bought his silence. The White House has exploited the horrors of 9/11 to send this country down the slippery slope of totaliatarianism just as it exploited 9/11 to foist the treasonous invasion of Iraq. They've been beating the drum of national security but the traitors are in the White House.

[netgecko99]

1) No, they didn't. A company only has to give up records with a court order. In this case, there was no court order, which is the problem. If there had been a court order (and thus, probable cause), then everything would have been legal. Of course, maybe it was still legal, but we'll never know since all the details are uber-sekrit, and thanks to this bill, not subject to review by the courts.

2) The government paid the telecom companies millions of dollars for the data. Hundreds of millions, I believe.

3) Nope. If the companies had a legal obligation to provide the data, then they're not liable, and the lawsuits would fail. If they did *not* have a legal obligation to provide the data, then they *are* liable. Or, er, would have been liable if Congress hadn't made them immune regardless.

[ToneTribe]

1. As the other reply said, Qwest refused to turn over the records.

2. It is unknown exactly how the companies may have benefited, or whether they were enticed with the carrot or the stick, however, there have been revelations that the Administration withdrew a major potential contract from Qwest after their refusal to participate in the program, this could be an indicator that the other companies had some sort of positive incentive. Also, the aforementioned persecution of Qwest's CEO at the time of the decision to spurn the Administration's request could be an example of "the stick" in use.

3. I would almost agree with you and let the whole thing go if all of the companies had gone along with this, but the fact that one company stood up for what was right and refused to go along with the Administratino because they believed the program was illegal makes it clear that the companies did have a choice. Some of the company's were greedy and cowardly and one was not. It doesn't matter now though, as the company's that participated in the illegal program are being rewarded, after buying themselves a get-out-of-jail-free card, and the company that did the right thing has already been punished, its CEO dragged through Federal prosecution for at least 2 years now...

[sclucie]

so can we do cell phones through qwest? i hate verizon.

[exxman]

We're loving Maria Cantwell here in Wshington State!

[Lemeritus]

And we're loving Barbara Boxer down here in CA. In fact, we're going to bank that money we were going to contribute to Obama and make sure Senator Boxer gets the full measure of our appreciation.

[Joeblue]

How did Patty vote?

[plainsman]

Thank you Biden. I always knew you were a man that stood up for liberty and principle. Thanks to the other 14 as well. It's a crying shame that the rest of your peers capitulated. Your vote, and theirs, will not be forgotten.

[vippy]

Now let us remember then and vote the rest out come re-election time. Send them a message
that we the people put them in office to represent us, not to make underhanded deals with the
corporations like Rockefeller, who pocketed $ 100,000 from Verizon for this purpose. Like he
needed it!

[oregonrain]

Our government invades other countrys , they torture , they kill innocent people , they change the laws to suit their needs, they shred our constitution , take away rights, spy on citizens. This is NOT America !

[mooph]

Anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that W is going to hand out telecom pardons at the 11th hour of his presidency?

[rnb]

What would be the point after this bill has passed?

[Barbyrah]

Ditto. No need; this bill already hands 'em a "pardon."

[mooph]

Civil lawsuits are out, but not the potential to prosecute them for criminal charges.

[Uosdwis]

But a pardon for WHAT? If they didn't break the law, they don't need a pardon. But if there is a need for pardon, that means what Bush told them to do was illegal. Do you see the moebius loop this whole thing is? Also, to issue a pardon, the pardon-ee has to accept and admit guilt in order be absolved of it.

[Indoboy7]

Both houses of congress should hang their collective heads in shame for caving on to this pathetic mental midget and his gang that cowed congress into giving him what he wants..They do not realize that THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON..They have changed us, in the way we have allowed the US Constitution to be shredded and stepped on, by lgiving in to this smallminded man who was -after all- appointed to the presidency by nine people wearing black robes. Small comfort for the country that at least they were not also wearing black hoods.....Anyone who thinks that this FISA was no big deal, better be prepared for the next intellectually challenged president who fancies hmself to be the next emperor of these USA....Congress has -in effect- said:..We are only a lttle bit pregnant.!....I am deeply revolted by the lack of courage displayed by both houses of Congres...And, as for Obama, I am rethinking my support for him:..That is TWICE within two weeks that he has shown the same political calculations he professes to want to change....What a disgusting bunch of cowards wehave in the Congress....

[LadyCat]

I only wish more people in power could see it from your POV Indo. You are so correct in this.

[frustratedinohio]

Should be a HuffPost Pick, Indoboy7.

[UltraClassic]

Yah, the list looks like a who's who list for lackies of the Daily Kos and MoveOn. Thank goodness there are only 15 nimrods who would try destroy a corporpation for cooperating with the U.S government in the war on terror.

[research]

Sieg Heil

Your such a good Nazi, aren't you?

You were just following orders, Right?

And if BushCo was spying on political opponents, That's fine too?

Same goes for Blackwater, right?

If Bush orders them into the streets to shoot American protesters...

"Just following orders"

Why do you hate everything America Stand for? The bill of rights, the constitution and the declaration of independence.

[realityrules]

"Cooperating with the US Government in the war on terror".

No, nimrod, it's called breaking the law with impunity, under the direction of a secretive body within the US government. You may recall in the late 30's and 40's a certain country's corporations operated against that country's laws, at the whim of that country's leadership, and with the same impunity.

When corporations (or leaders, for that matter) are not subject to YOUR laws, you live in a country where that little lapel pin you wear doesn't mean much.

[Barbyrah]

"...lackies..." "...nimrods." "...destroy a corporation.." Oops, and of course the ever popular line: "...WAR on TERRRROOORRRR"
Is this a parody of some kind? Has to be...!
The best to you.

[exxman]

Yeah, we wouldn't want a little thing like the right to privacy to stand in the way of squeezing another dollar out of a frightened citizenry.

[PaulRaymond]

Oh brother. Sounds like someone's looking for a job with Billo or Hannity. Got any more of the wingnut slogans to throw around?

[deminmo]

Thank you to all who voted against the Telecom Immunity,
you do stand for the people of the USA. Sadly, my own
Senator did not feel the same. After this election I will
no longer be a Democrat. But I will support any of these
15 when I can.
And since a top commander left for Israel on Tuesday
we can only wonder when the Israel/Bush Iran war will start.

[billw8017]

Don't be a Democrat; be an American and stand up for yourself. The Dems may not be that great, but at least they aren't the lawless Republicans running on posure and bluster. Vote early and often to move the center of the debate to your behalf.

[deminmo]

I will never stop being an American. Without the
support of my elected representative on issues that
I believe in, or at the very least a good explaination why
they vote against something, my Democratic party is
useless. Maybe it will change with Obama. But putting
the Constitution first has not been the case. And checks
and balances have virtually been eliminated. That is not
the democracy the country was intended to have.

[Donnat]

I know it sounds corny but change your phone service. If these traitors lost 1 million customers in a week, they'd notice.

[4Detroit]

I all ready switch from AT&T to Vonage.

[Stokes]

I changed service when the expose first came out. When I called to cancel I was asked why I wanted to do so and while I was explaining my reason to the agent we were cut off. She was asking me a lot of questions and claimed she had never heard of such goings on. I called back, got a different agent, who asked for no reason and she was super nice. Since then I have received a few letters suggesting that I take their service again. Boycott is a good thing, sometimes.