Dems Fight Spying with Clinton and Obama MIA

A trio of Democratic House Committee Chairmen are stepping up the fight against President Bush's surveillance bill this week, vowing to beat back a controversial proposal to grant retroactive amnesty to companies accused of illegally spying on Americans.

Congressmen John Dingell, Ed Markey and Bart Stupak are circulating a letter urging their colleagues to stand firm and keep amnesty out of the final spying bill. The House already passed a bill without amnesty, but the Senate is scheduled to pass a bill with retroactive amnesty as early as Tuesday. That would trigger a fight to resolve the issue in a conference committee of Democratic leaders. While a majority of Democrats in both Houses have voted against amnesty, Senators Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller have fought hard to keep the proposal on the table, quailing at Bush's repeated threats to veto the bill if it does not include amnesty.

The House Democrats' letter explains that amnesty is distinct from the surveillance bill, which grants the administration more spying powers and weakens judicial requirements for warrants. "The issue of immunity for phone companies that chose to cooperate with the President's warrantless wiretapping program deserves a separate and more deliberate examination by Congress," reads the letter. "No special urgency attaches to the question of immunity other than the Administration's general eagerness to limit tort liability and its desire to avoid scrutiny of its own actions, by either the courts or the Congress."

Last week, over two dozen House members hammered the same point in a letter to
President Bush:

Corporations that handed over their customers' records without a valid court order [...] undermined fundamental civil protections and privacy rights of Americans. Congress as a whole was kept in the dark for years about these activities, and to this day, the overwhelming majority of House Members and Senators have never been briefed on these activities. We cannot be asked to immunize these actions before we know the full extent of what occurred.

According to several civil liberties groups, the developments in the House suggest that at least some Democrats are now willing to draw a line in the sand to stop Bush's abuse of executive power. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing telephone companies over domestic spying, characterized the House letters as "a significant shift in the political debate over telecom immunity." An ACLU spokesperson told The Nation that the action by House leaders is the only "ray of hope" to scuttle amnesty, because the Senate is considered a lost cause. "We need the House to stand strong and not bless this multibillion dollar giveaway to the telecommunications companies," said the ACLU official.

Most observers agree that the spying bill and retroactive amnesty are distinct issues. After all, the bill governs surveillance policy going forward, while the amnesty amendment dismisses cases challenging past surveillance. Apart from one's view on each issue -- I oppose both the underlying White House bill and amnesty, as I explained in this November op-ed -- it would be highly irresponsible for Congress to rush amnesty without basic information about what happened. Yet the administration refuses to brief members, even in classified sessions, as the House committee letter explains:

For the past five months this Committee has asked, in a bipartisan manner, the phone companies and the Administration to [provide factual and legal information that] would justify Congress telling a Federal judge to dismiss all lawsuits...Surprisingly, even at this late date, the Administration has not deemed it important enough to respond to our repeated inquiries or even to brief the Committee Members in closed session.

But there's nothing surprising about the administration's contempt for the rule of law at this point. Are Democratic leaders just figuring this out?

The past few months of the spying debate do reveal, in a depressing sort of way, both the promise and residual frailty of this (mildly) resurgent Democratic Party. There are leaders who now go to the mat against Bush, even on counterterrorism policy and even when few are paying attention. That includes people like Senators Dodd and Feingold, and the House leaders fighting this week. But even when they summon a majority of their caucus, as they have on amnesty, they are sold out by a few well-placed members of their own party. So Senate Democrats watch the spectacle of Jay Rockefeller doing his best Joe Lieberman impression, and listen to Harry Reid say that he opposes amnesty while rigging floor votes to pass it.

Meanwhile, the two remaining presidential candidates have finessed the issue with such precision, it's the surest proof that their promises of "change" do not include restoring the rule of law until the election is over. Clinton and Obama did vote the right way this summer, but they missed recent key votes, and they have refused to use the enormous megaphone they share to get anything done. Just this weekend, President Bush peddled more attacks and disinformation about spying in an interview with Fox News. The Obama Campaign was quick to rebut Bush's attack on the Senator's foreign policy, and the Clinton Campaign is plenty aggressive when counter-punching to protect The Clintons. Yet neither campaign so much as released statements from aides to rebut the President's surveillance comments, let alone launch a battle plan to protect civil liberties in the looming fight.

Both campaigns talk about how history will view their unprecedented candidacies -- and breaking political glass ceilings is no small feat. Yet history tends to judge not only one's candidacy, but one's character, assessing whether leaders acted on the conviction to do right when pressed with the choice. Amnesty is on the table now. If Congress sends this legislation to President Bush, next January will be too late. There will be no accountability for domestic spying and few levers for a thorough investigation. And the next President will inherit an office with growing power and receding legitimacy, a dynamic reinforced by Congress and unlikely to abate when even would-be presidents refuse to stand up for the rule of law.

Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared.

---

Photo credit: Takomabibelot

Comments

[itmaybetoolate]

Let's be fair - Obama did vote make it back and voted no.

[cynara]

FISA update:
The Dodd-Feingold ammendment to strip telephone immunity failed, thanks to, unfortunatly, a large number of Democrats who apparently don't care about civil liberties (including Rockefeller, Feinstein, etc...). Obama showed up to vote against the measure, Hillary was a no-show. Washington, apparently, just doesn't get it....

[itmaybetoolate]

"And the next President will inherit an office with growing power..." That says it all, doesn't it? How about this - forget gender, race, ethnicity, age, experience, etc. How about we vote for the candidate who aggressively, loudly, and repeatedly stands up for the Constitution? And who would that be? Not Clinton or Obama, and certainly not anyone on the republiscum side. So what is a patriotic American to do? Where are you VP Gore? Where are you!!!??

[OSUMercutio]

Although I am disappointed with Clinton and Obama, I believe the bulk of the responsibility lies with the Democratic leadership such as Harry Reid and other DLC members.

[belladawna]

i've said it before and i'll say it FOREVER: this man should so be sued for the 1st 4th and 5th amendment violations. impeachment isn't even good enough. he should be tied up in legal issues forever if the ACLU has their way!! haha
one more year folks then it's hillary as president and obama as her vice president!! HAHA
posted 02/11/2008 at 19:24:15

[belladawna]

i've said it before and i'll say it FOREVER: this man should so be sued for the 1st 4th and 5th amendment violations. impeachment isn't even good enough. he should be tied up in legal issues forever if the ACLU has their way!! haha
one more year folks then it's hillary as president and obama as her vice president!! HAHA

[cynara]

Rockefeller is part of the problem. From his op-ed:
"If American business -- airlines, banks, utilities and many others -- were to decide that it would be too risky to comply with legally certified requests, or to insist on verifying every request in court, our intelligence collection could come to a screeching halt."

In other words, these are troubling times, we can't expect companies to verify that government requests are legal. If they weren't blindly following government request our national security would be in jeopardy .

This is the exact OPPOSITE message than the one I would like corporations to receive. I want them to understand that they must follow the law, even when a corrupt official asks them to do otherwise. By granting telephone company immunity, corporations will get a clear signal from Rockefeller; law breaking is okay, when its done in collusion with the government.

[LeftRight]

Exactly the point!! By this logic, the county sherriff shows up at your house, and breaks down the door, simply because your neighbor said that he thought you were violating the county's anti-sodomy laws. He finds you in bed, with your wife, performing a sexual act in some method other than missionary (the standard definition of sex, from which all others are sodomy!) and then arrests you! When you sue the neighbor, the county board makes him immune, since you were in fact commiting the crime!

[RossalGondamer]

HA!

Rockefeller is the SPONSOR of the damn bill. You are asking him to stand up against his own bill allowing the Elites to spy on you? Why should he? Why would he?

Reid could put a simple majority vote on both the amendment (taking immunity out) and the bill in general. He wont, and will ask for a 60 vote 'cloture' prior to moving forward. He probably already has the 51 to take immunity out.

***Make those FOR immunity stand before the Cameras and filibuster before the American People***

***Make the President 'pardon' those so judged by an 'open ' court - those patriotic corporations who volunteered all of your email, cell, and text information (yes prior to 9/11) without a warrant. It is just that simple.

[loisteagulp]

Can't say I'm shocked to see Obama and Clinton bail. After all its an election year. Kind of reminds me of how Obama argued passionately against the war and then hushed until he was elected. I half expect Clinton to argue for amnesty and claim its because there are WMD's in the phone company.

[SayWhatOneMoreTimeMFer]

Reid, Rockefeller and even Pelosi for that matter are complicit in the matter of domestic spying and torture. How else can you explain their votes. You can't ask the get away driver to rat on the thieves.

[LeftRight]

Why don't Reid and Rockafeller grow a pair and stand up to the asshole in office by telling him tough, veto it if you will, then you won't get ANYTHING!