Mike McConnell Is Flat Wrong

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, has written a misleading op-ed in today's New York Times. Mr. McConnell's piece is a plea for Congress to renew the Protect America Act. I and other Democrats in Congress have been working to correct problems with the law as currently written, so that we can provide our intelligence community with the tools they need to ensure the security of our country needs, while upholding the rule of law that acts as the foundation for that security.

In what has become a sad pattern, Mr. McConnell, like many in this Administration past and present, tries to convince the public that we must abandon the rule of law to protect the telecom industry from being held accountable if they broke any laws. He writes, "[I]t is critical for the intelligence community to have liability protection for private parties that are sued only because they are believed to have assisted us after Sept. 11, 2001."

Mr. McConnell is flat wrong.

To suggest that the telecoms are being sued "only" because they assisted the government after September 11^th is disingenuous at best. Companies like AT&T and Verizon find themselves in court today not because they assisted the government by handing over their customers' personal and private information - but because they appear to have broken the law by doing so. The telecoms are being sued because they did not receive a warrant - yet they went ahead and helped the Administration anyway.

This belief that the Administration and anyone who helps them is above the law is on display throughout his NYT piece. Mr. McConnell writes, "Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits," suggesting these companies acted out of love of country. They may well have - but we can no more project a motive of patriotism onto the telecoms' illegal actions than greed or fear.

Why not? Because the Administration has forbidden the American people from learning exactly what happened when this information was handed over without warrant. That is in part why the continuation of these cases is so important. By granting telecoms retroactive immunity, as Mr. McConnell advocates, and allowing for warrantless surveillance, we would essentially be saying that when it comes to intelligence gathering, there is no need for anyone in any circumstance to follow any law or even the Constitution so long as it is broadly defined as a matter of "national security."

That's ridiculous - and if anything, it puts our national security further at risk.

Clearly, I don't think we should insist on a warrant in order to monitor entirely foreign communications passing through the U.S. - between, say, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Current law already reflects that and should continue to. But in the instances when we are talking about spying on Americans to protect national security--and those instances do exist--we must continue to demand a warrant, as proscribed by the Fourth Amendment and followed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), even if it is issued after-the-fact.

That is why I've placed a hold on any FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity. No person, company or Administration is above the law - no one. And if my hold is not honored, I will filibuster to stop retroactive immunity from becoming law.

I believe we can't protect our country if we fail to protect our Constitution and the rule of law. It is precisely by upholding our rights that we become safer and more secure at home. The opposite path is fundamentally flawed, inherently dangerous, and, apparently, embraced by our Director of National Intelligence. Given all that this Administration has done to trample our Constitution, it may not be surprising - but it remains disappointing.

Follow Sen. Chris Dodd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenChrisDodd

Comments

[libdemannie]

McConnell and the rest of the intel hierarchy continue to be stooges for Bush/Cheney. There are very few independent thinkers in the intel community. It's obvious, I know.

[Deidroni]

If only the right wing media and its followers were as intent on protecting the fourth ammendment as they are on protecting the second ammendment, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Keep up the good fight, Senator Dodd, you have our Constitution on your side. The Bush Administration only has fear and power.

Don't let Senator Reed cave to Bush!

[mikeeforthetruth]

In this Administration- the R’s (and I don’t mean Republicans) are trying to destroy our (human) way of life.

The time to fight for freedom is the time when freedom is threatened, not the time freedom is destroyed, and for that later time is too late. Freedom is threatened now. The destruction of freedom is not far off. Now is the time to fight.
John Whiteside Parsons

MWiz of- truthseekerforum.com

[loslobo]

Sen Dodd, Why pussyfoot around with the middle men? Why focus on the telecoms and ignore Bush/Cheney who ordered the telecoms to break the LAW (before 9/11).

Let FISA revert. Investigate Bush/Cheney.

[EyeballKid]

Telecom companies were illegally providing customer information to the government BEFORE 911. Why doesn't McConnell mention THAT?

These bastards will stop at nothing to keep their military/intelligence/security industries going full-tilt, at the taxpayer's expense. And the only way that they can do it is to scare the bejesus out of us.

Enough already.

[5150]

The Security State commissions crimes and thusly need demonstrate to all confederates what how Uncle Sam got their back.

[poppycock]

Is quite obvious that ALL Republicans and a significant number of Democrats believe the 4th Amendment to be......

QUAINT

[poppycock]

I hate to tell you this Mr. Dodd but he is actually right - the administration and its advisers ARE above the law.

An overwhelming (bipartisan) majority in both houses don't have a problem with this.

[cynara]

Thank You Senator Dodd! Keep on fighting this, and I will keep on contributing to your campaign.

[myshadow]

Senator Dodd,

Thank you for being there. I totally support your stand and find it absolutely dispicable that you are the singular voice on this issue. Every Democrat who is running for president SHOULD BE NEXT TO YOU. I find their silences and inactivity reprehensible. Senator, I have had your back for months, and tell anyone I can why I believe you should be our next president. If that dosn't come to pass, you should be the next Leader of the Senate. My best wishes to you Senator.

[LITU]

Senator Dodd:

I have been following you as best I'm able with limited cable access since you began this current campaign drive, and frankly, I'M IMPRESSED BEYOND EXPECTATION. I admit being remiss in paying close attention to your speeches on the senate floor, and so I had no idea of the depth of your understanding and eloquence.

I have been a Kucinich supporter for many years, because like you, he demands accountability. But Mr. Kucinich cannot be elected for every reason put forth, and I finally get it.

Following the most recent debate where you shone as the sole candidate with the credentials to lead our country out of the quagmire that is the Bush administration, I have shifted my support - to you, Sir! I have said all along that I didn't believe a senator had the managerial skills to lead the Executive. You have caused me to rethink that position.

Today, I sent money to your campaign, and I pledge to be an outspoken voice in favor of your candidacy. No more back and forth - you are my choice for the Presidency of the United States!

[phansen]

Nice Job, Senator.

As Edmund Burke wrote, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."

The Bush administration has successfully deluded the American public on a wide range of issues related to civil liberties. Our right to privacy is not being discarded, it is being SOLD.

Thank you for serving the people by putting our interests ahead of special interests.

[Lemeritus]

Senator Dodd,

I have a fool-proof idea for fixing the Patriot Act (and all its bastard spawn): get rid of it. It's not only badly named, it's an insult to and an abomination in light of the U.S. Constitution.

We have, under that Constitution, something called the 4th Amendment which provides "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." This little thing has been around for a couple hundred years; the telecomms can hardly claim it sprang up overnight. It merely asks for probable cause and a MODICUM of oversight. Is this too much to ask in a country that purports to be free?

I have nothing, really nothing, against the lawful gathering of information to protect this country or to find the "bad guys" (like we're living in some kind of cow town chasing those black-hatted cattle rustlers). All I want (demand) is a WARRANT!

Admiral McConnell complains, "Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits." As rhetoric goes, this has a nice ring to it. It overlooks, however, that when the private sector stands by a lawless government, the result is collusion in the renting of the legal fabric that should garb us all.

[Waitaminute]

Maybe one reason this administration is asking to give the telecomm's immunity, because sueing them may expose, verizon and at&t, may have be threatened. After all, look what happen to the gentleman at the one, who refused to allow then to wiretap without warrants. Isn't he now in jail?
Then again, it could simply be cronyism.

[mellene]

If more congressional leaders like Chris Dodd would speak out and tell the public the truth about guys like McConnell, the public would be better for it. Thanks, Senator for all you do.