Opponents of Retroactive Immunity Live To Fight Another Day

That the United States Senate would even have to debate whether to uphold the rule of law is infuriating enough. But two weeks ago, the contrast in priorities became too much: as the Senate refused to address the tide of foreclosures impacting more than 8,000 people every day, it was poised and ready to provide immunity to giant corporations that may have broken the law.

So, I did what I felt I had to: I said no.

By blocking a vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the fight to stop retroactive immunity goes on -- for another week anyway. The Senate will take the bill up again this week as it returns from the July 4th recess.

Of course, such procedural jujitsu was merely the latest twist in a fight that has now spanned nearly a year. During that time, I have used every forum available to me -- from the Senate floor to the presidential campaign to town halls around the country -- to talk about the importance of the rule of law and why a seemingly obscure dispute between government and corporations in our legal system is critical to upholding it.

A brief overview: we learned after September 11, 2001 that giant telecom companies worked with this administration to compile Americans' private, domestic communications records into a database of enormous scale and scope. The Bush administration appears to have convinced those corporations to spy on Americans for five years, in secret and without a warrant.

That we know this happened is not because the government told us -- they say the matter is classified. And it is not because one of the telecoms told us. We may not have known any of this at all were it not for serious investigative journalists. And we wouldn't know how deep the problem really went without an Internet technician by the name of Mark Klein, a 22-year veteran of AT&T who one day at work found a switch that channeled Internet traffic culled from millions of living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens and offices across the nation to a secret room operated by the National Security Agency. Mr. Klein was old enough to remember when a law was passed to prevent this sort of unchecked spying operation from happening:

FISA -- a law written back in 1978 in the wake of Watergate that ensured the government had both the tools it needed to defend the country and a process in place for judicial review to put checks on executive authority.

Most agree that this law needs to be modernized, as it has been many times over the years. But this time, the president is asking Congress to do something much more: to shield the telecoms from any judicial review of their actions. He wants Congress to declare spying without a warrant both constitutional and necessary to defend this country.

It is neither.

That is why I have done everything I can to stop retroactive immunity from being included in the FISA bill. As written, this bill does not say, "Trust the American people." It does not say, "Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions" about what happened at the telecoms. Rather, retroactive immunity sends this message:

"Trust me" -- a message that comes straight from the mouth of President Bush. I would never take "trust me" for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a president on Mount Rushmore.

Besides, what exactly is the basis for that trust? Retroactive immunity may be a disgrace in itself, but it is merely the latest link in a long chain of abuses when it comes to contempt for the rule of law -- from the Justice Department basing its work on political calculations, to the shame of Abu Ghraib, to the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which sanctioned torture. The list goes on and on.

To many around the world, that is what America has become. Where Normandy, the Marshall Plan, and the Nuremberg trials invoked the image of America for previous generations, those coming of age today will now think of Guantanamo, waterboarding, and torture. People now have a basis upon which to ask whether the president serves the law or the law serves the president.

Did the telecoms break the law? I don't know.

But I am sure that if we pass retroactive immunity we'll never know. A handful of favored corporations will remain unchallenged. Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the cases will be closed forever.

I'm under no illusion that we will be able to keep this bill from the president's desk forever; two weeks ago, I was disappointed that we could only muster 15 votes out of the necessary 41 to block consideration of FISA.

But every second we can continue to raise this issue and hold this Administration's feet to the fire for its contempt for the rule of law these last seven years is another opportunity to keep asking:

When we undermine the rule of law, do we make our nation more secure -- or less?

Over the next few days, that's the question we'll be asking. But I think we already know the answer.

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

Comments

[neville]

Thank You again Senator Dodd!

[Sciguy]

Thank you, Senator Dodd. I support your actions on FISA.

Once upon a time, when I was much, much younger, I was told that if one doesn't like a law, one should try to change it, not just break it. "Nuff said.

[fullorage]

This is exactly the sort of crap from which I derived fullorage as my user name on Huffpost. I am full of rage at the people pretending to represent the citizens of this country,all the while,doing all in their power to undermine the laws of this country for the benefit of corporations and criminal politicians. It is imperative we elect to the congress and senate,people who will not sell out for a couple of thousand dollars,the very rights and freedoms this country was founded on. We owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Dodd and the other senators who stand for the rule of law. We also have a duty to replace the other eighty-five senators who have no problem with telecoms spying on us for the criminal in chief. Although all are not up for re-election this year,don't forget who voted against you.

[GJP2006]

>>Did the telecoms break the law? I don't know. But I am sure that if we pass retroactive immunity we'll never know.

This is what troubles me most about the immunity provision in this FISA bill. We need to investigate and hold those companies and government officials accountable and if they get a pass, this will send a signal that the executive branch is indeed above the law.

Thank you Senator Dodd - you are a true patriot in my book.

[larmarch5]

I am concerned about the companies contracted by the NSA to mine this data and their secondary customers.

Everyone who has used a computer or cell phone now has a data file at one of these companies. Our comments, work, and personal information and opinions are accumulated in these files at the speed of light. This potentially affects our educational opportunities, credit ratings, insurance ratings, potential
copyrights and patents of intellectual property, and makes us unique targets for advertising, harassment, and discrimination.

I have heard of no oversight of these companies and assume there are no options for Freedom of Information requests from them. Are there opportunities for us to review these files and correct inaccuracies? This has the potential to pervade every aspect of our lives.

Has the Senate or House held any hearings about these companies? What IG reviews are in place to make sure the files are not merged with other files such as credit report files and then sold to non-government customers?

How can you assure me that my personal communications are shielded from being exploited by these contract companies? Is there a list of these contracted companies? I know
about one, ChoicePoint, which has had problems according to wikipedia. I assume there are other companies like this that have contracts to mine our data. There may be companies in foreign countries contracted or sub-contracted to do this mining. I am concerned this slippery slope has put
millions of Americans at great risk.

[piniella]

Thank you, Senator Dodd!

[Leo]

Thank you for the great work, Senator Dodd. Please stay strong. The nation is behind you.

[ohmercy]

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007

"I believe we need to modernize our surveillance laws and give our nation’s intelligence professionals the tools they need to fight terrorism and to make our country more secure. At the same time, smart, balanced reform must also protect the rights and civil liberties of Americans. In my opinion, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 falls short of these goals, and for that reason, I oppose the bill.

As I have maintained for months, I oppose the provision contained in the bill that grants blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I believe granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances is wrong and undermines accountability. To that end, I have supported and cosponsored Senator Dodd’s strong efforts to strip this provision from the FISA bill, and was discouraged to see the amendment fail by such a significant margin.

Over the past seven years, the Bush Administration has blatantly and systematically disregarded Americans' civil liberties. It cannot be trusted to protect Americans’ privacy rights. That is why I strongly believe we need to pass balanced legislation that protects our civil liberties and the rule of law while giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our country."

[eyesopenwide]

So what you're saying then, is that we can expect Senator Clinton to vote "no" on granting immunity to the telecoms. Good!

[tbone99]

This info seems to indicate not .

Other Senators betraying us on FISA:
http://www.cloudbyte.com/senatetraitors.html

[ohmercy]

Well, that would be nice. Wishful thinking though.

I kind of think those who will be surrogates fior a candidate will have to fall in with their stands otherwise how can they speak for them?
United Front and all that.

The presumptive nominee is the head of the party when he or she clinches the nomination. That makes Obama the head of the party and those who will be working with and for him look to him for cues and generally adhere to his positions.

How would it look if she were campaigning for him and was asked about this issue?
If she voted against it or (I hope I hope, I hope filibuster) she would be parsed ad infinitum by the media and attacked by all of you for not supporting Obama, or God knows what people would come up with... its always astounding.

Of course if she votes with Obama it will be the same.
LOL

no logic there but that seems to be the way it works.

[ohmercy]

PS.
I don't mean "all of you" personally.
Generally speaking the "Progressive" blogs.

[ValueMeal]

Hmmmmmmm. Where is Barack whilst this is playing out? Making no stand WHATSOEVER. I feel so good about him and the country's state of integrity right now.... NOT.

[ohmercy]

Just think how good Senator Dodd must feel about him.

I'm sure he must be more than a little disappointed.

Another one under the bus.

[artsandminds]

I want Obama to go against FISA, but I am not so naive as to think, if Clinton or Dodd where still in the hunt for the White House they would be singing a different tune on FISA. Don't blame politicians for being what they are, they just reflect our weaknesses back upon us. NO man or woman could ever become president of these United States if they were honest and upfront with the American electorate.

[eyesopenwide]

Think "strategy.­" There's a lot of secret strategizing going on behind the scenes that we are not currently privvy to. How do we know for sure that Dodd's public stance on this issue wasn't coordinated quietly with somebody else "behind the scenes?" We don't! So hold on to your judgment. Before change can ever have any hope of being realized, our candidate must first win the election! Remember, he's running against a vile, nasty, corrupt and devious group of people.

[Lion24]

Sen. Dodd for Vice President.

[ohmercy]

Vice President Hell.
He is showing leadership.

Dodd- Feingold/ '08!

[darthdarcy]

Senator Dodd Sir; as you know Thomas Jefferson said:

"Ours is not a system based upon trust, but one of suspicion.­.."

Give'em Hell Senator...

[YankeeCanuck]

Thanks for being there, Sens Dodd and Biden-- two of the fifteen dems with the fortitude to stand up and be counted on this and other issues. Both former presidential candidates. Each one eminently more qualified than the rest of the bunch.
Go figure.

[ohmercy]

Dodd/Feingold- '08
or Biden Feingodl, Biden Dodd, Dodd Biden, Feingold, Dodd, Feingold Biden... did I leave any permutation out?
LOL

[tbone99]

Yes- if only the DNC had been more concerned with undoing the abuses of this administration than scoring historics"firsts". Obviously it was a shell game . Yes , we got the first black president : ) ...but he walks like a Repug : (.

can we draft Dodd at the convention?

[Barbyrah]

Super...

[ljmck]

Your courage is appreciated.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

By the way (per my reply to Marlyn below), here are the 16 Senators who signed the cloture motion to bring debate on the FISA bill itself to a close (without knowing whether or not immunity will be stripped from the bill):

E. Benjamin Nelson, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Thomas R. Carper, Mark L. Pryor, Bill Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara A. Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Kent Conrad, Daniel K. Inouye, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph I. Lieberman, Sheldon Whitehouse, Evan Bayh, Ken Salazar

[This cloture motion was filed following the unanimous consent agreement - reached before the Senate's week off - to take FISA up tomorrow, and to possibly amend it.]

Note: Harry Reid just asked for, and received, unanimous consent to postpone the actual VOTES on FISA until late Wednesday morning (after most of the debate takes place tomorrow, Tuesday), with the DEBATE time on cloture PRECEDING votes on the amendments. [If the critical cloture vote on Wednesday gets 60 Ayes, final passage of this contemptible effort to vest formerly-separated powers in an unaccountable Executive Branch will immediately follow, in the blink of an eye.]

So, we know exactly which 16 Senators to target (see above). We need about 12 of the 16 in order to ensure that Dodd's Brigade can defeat the next, possibly final, cloture motion on Wednesday, July 9.

Watch, if you can, streaming live on-line, Tuesday and Wednesday:

http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

[GrainOSand]

Thanks for the empowering information, I appreciate it and reflect back respect and acknowledgement for your effort.

[Franciscodeflores]

It is refreshing to see a senator acting on the basis of principles and attempting to protect the rights of all the people. Thank you so much Senator Dodd.

[syllepsis]

I don't understand why Sheldon Whitehouse would join Lieberman as the only New England 'Democrats' to sign this cloture motion.I hope he doesn't become the Democratic Arlen Specter- a brilliant mind who can eloquently describe the abuses of this Administration, then join it in supporting fascist legislation.

[SGGrossman]

Senator Dodd,

Thank you for your principled leadership on this issue. I hope that Senate Democrats, led by you and Sens. Feingold and Obama, will succeed, first, in stripping retroactive telecom immunity from the FISA bill.

If that fails, and immunity remains in the Bill, Senate Democrats should mount a "real" filibuster against immunicy -- and dare the Republicans (and fence-sitting Democrats) to produce 60 closure votes -- while at the same time, you pass legislation needed to temporarily extend certain (legal) surveillance "tools," per Senator Obama 's concerns.

Even if the effort to strip immunity succeeds, I would still urge Senate Democrats, as principled Constitutionalists, to vote against this new FISA. By that point, would-be "centrists­." possibly including Sen. Obama, may support the Bill; yet, I believe Democrats should vote against it, with or without telecom immunity -- even in a losing vote -- because that's what principle is.

Can immunity be stripped from the bill? Yes, by a unified Democratic Caucus. Can the whole bill be stopped -- maybe temporarily patched or extended, but brought under the Constitution -- with or without telecom immunity? Yes, by a unified Democratic Caucus.

Senator Obama should filibuster with you to strip immunity from the Bill -- and help win that. Whether or not he then supports an ammended FISA Bill for his own reasons, I hope that you and most Senate Democrats will vote against it on Constitutional principle -- even if that leaves Mr. Obama temporarily out on a limb.