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 11th 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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sen Dood you seem like a decent fellow but the Congress treats the people with such disdain I fear you cries fall on deaf ears. The Congress has done zero to hold the Executive, an equal branch, ( but who would know it ?) to any standard.
I think the congress has much to answer for with its lack of oversight.
From the feeble resolution on Iraq which when read appears to have been written by 10yr olds wanting to avoid their constitutional responsability to the Confimation of Mukassey the congress is a toothless tiger.
Look at the 9/11 commision, the CIA and the admin think it was a joke they laugh in your face, and thus ours...
It used to be a crime not to comply with a subpeona ? what happened ?
I think Cheney has you guys read just about right....a
The people are on their own.
Right on, Senator. A correction though: In the third-from-last paragraph, you use the word "proscribed" when you meant "prescribe
Stand firm, Senator.
Kucinich, Richardson and you are my front runners.
Why don't you support immediate impeachment of Cheney?
you don't have the 67 senate votes? ok. But you have plenty of democrats in the house to start the impeachment trials.
Instead of the Bush$Co smirking in your face, and ignoring your subpoenas, the president is constitutional required to turn over document in an impeachment trial.
The evidence will force the senate to convict.
Is there too much self incriminated evidence of democratic graft? Is congress so corrupt that everyone except a few "fools" like Kucinich are on the take? This is what many Americans are now considering.
Don't let the proof you should have impeached be WW III.
Preventing retroactive immunity for illegal actions by the telecoms and/or by employees of the federal government is just one step in protecting the rule of law and in defending the Constitution.
However, I don't understand why Sen. Dodd and others think that when an American citizen who is abroad communicates with someone else who also is outside the United States, that communication should be subject to eavesdropping by the United States government without a warrant. Where is it written that Americans relinquish their rights vis-a-vis their own government whenever they cross the border?
He's not "wrong" in his own mind. Maybe he's just tooling up his techniques to be the Chief of the General Staff for the Military Junta that will assume all power in the US in the not-too-distant future?
Great first step in returning the country to those of us not terrified by terrorists but terrified by the Bush cabal's use of terrorism to subvert our Constitution.
They must be above the law as a matter of fact! How many have been convicted and are serving time for breaking any number of laws, violating the Constitution other than those few convicted of criminal corruption charges. No impeachments?
When does Libby get jail time?
Senator Dodd you are of course right, but their is todate little evidence to support your theory that they are not above the law.
On a smaller note your Senate cant get an energy bill passed which transfers government tax breaks from an oil industry that does not need them to alternative energy sources that do need them or even mandate a switch to 15% of the electric comming from renewable enery... makes economic sense, makes global warming sense and makes national security sense and still you fail.
The Congress is long on words and a no go on results.
The compromise is to keep the bought and sold Oil Congress in place and to not affect electric plants whicch use half the energy we consume.
Regards and regrets
Maybe you could ask M. McConnell if such companies as Amdocs or Comverse have actually tested their programs to make sure it is not vulnerable. There may be other companies that Telecoms hire through outsourcing to other countries that could be compromising our own national security. Why not develop our own programs for Telecoms-or keep all info in US borders-to prevent such things as security breaches from occurring.
Why are we worried about foreign and domestic
terrorists when we have them in the White House
already. Just look at the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act and what for?
We have a constitution, now let us use it.
You just have to learn to love Big Brother.
[Mr. McConnell is flat wrong.]
Until someone proves him wrong, he is not wrong, unfortunately. This adminstration HAS BEEN above the law for 7 years now, because no one is doing anything to stop them!
Why write a new law when you could be prosecuting under the old one?
Mr. Dodd is absolutely correct. "Helping" the administration to root out "terrorists" could easily become helping the administration to root out "liberal" or "non-christian" or "homosexual" terrorists. After all, the operative word in that expression is "terrorist" - and if the Shrubbies decide you're a "terrorist," who's to say differently?
This debate ranks with the one about what constitutes torture - how did we get to this place where we give up the very freedoms we're supposedly fighting for?
Bravo to Dodd and those who support him! Shame on the other Democratic candidates who have not taken a strong stand on this issue.
Nemo
Well, gee, Mr. Dodd - it's up to you guys.
You see, you were elected as OUR representatives.
That's what you get the big bucks to do.
SO, GET ALL YOUR PALS AND THOSE DLC BLUE DOGS, ETC TOGETHER AND DO YOUR JOB, SIR.
Cause, if THIS one goes sideways, it will show that BOTH PARTIES ARE PARTY TO THE SAME CRIME.
I'll betcha Harman/Feinstein and Pelosi are quacking in their high heels.
'ENABLERS OF BUSH'.....
Sen Dodd,
I agree with you that we need to not provide retroactive immunity to the Telcom companies that broke the law while spying on Americans without a warrant. Where I disagree with you, however, is whether or not to allow spying without a warrant, if the administration insists that both parties are outside the US. Allowing ANY wiretapping without a warrant will open the door for this or future illegal administrations to spy on Americans simply by claiming that they are outside the country, and since this is all in the name of "National Security" (which didn't protect Nixon, and shouldn't protect bush) there will be no way to check if they are obeying the law or not. I say that instead of creating some new unconstitutional law to allow this, we simply let FISA come back, which allows the DoJ to open a wiretap on a suspect without a warrant, but DOES require one to be issued within 3 days. This sounds emminently reasonable to me, especially since the FISC has historically been extremely fast, and extremely liberal in answering the warrant requests, since only a small handful were denied in the twenty years that they operaed before bush.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
