Warrantless Wiretaps And Retroactive Immunity Are Un-American

Earlier today I did a post at DownWithTyranny mentioning a campaign to hold accountable wayward Democrats who have voted or are threatening to vote with the Republicans to stomp on the Constitution. Readers of Crooks & Liars, Firedoglake, Digby, Salon and DownWithTyranny had an opportunity to vote and pick which among the small handful of Democrats who voted with the Republicans to allow for warrantless wiretaps and grant retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecom executives would be the first to be targeted. Chris Carney (PA) was the overwhelming favorite. And the TV and radio spots, newspaper ads and billboard ads are ready to go. Staffers of other House Democrats have asked us to hold off for a few days in the hope that they can bring carney to his senses. I doubt then can, but we are going to give them the chance to work with him on this.

Today Rand Beers has an important piece here at HuffPo that talks about a progressive perspective on national security. The vision he presents is very different from the failed policies of George Bush. Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant is not part of it-- nor is granting retroactive immunity to criminal executives of major corporate donors to political campaigns.

Last night, we contacted many of the Blue America candidates and asked them to explain how they feel about Bush's demands on the FISA bill. Glenn Greenwald and DWT quoted some of them in our earlier posts. Here are a few of the others that you might be interested in reading:

Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME) voted against retroactive immunity and against warrantless wiretaps. Last night he told us why: "Warrantless domestic surveillance is yet another example of the Bush Administration denying civil liberties to ordinary Americans. I strongly oppose retroactive immunity for telecom companies and will continue to vote against it. Neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable."

Victoria Wulsin isn't a member of Congress yet but her district is represented by extremist Jean Schmidt who voted in favor of warrantless wiretaps and in favor of granting retroactive immunity to the lawbreaking telecoms (who donate to her campaign) This morning, this is what Vic had to say about that: "The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers' privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people."

Jim Himes, who is running to replace Bush rubber stamp Chris Shays in Connecticut felt just as strongly: "I strongly oppose granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on Americans at the behest of the Bush administration. The issue at stake here is simple and fundamental-- no person, president, or corporation is ever above the law, period. Protecting our nation from the real threats to our security is one of the most serious responsibilities of Congress. Yet Chris Shays and the rest of Bush's allies in Congress have once again abdicated this
responsibility by reducing the debate on security to peddling fear, straw men, and mistruths for partisan political gain. America is better than this, and both parties in Congress should be too."

And this isn't just a red state/blue state issue. Larry Joe Doherty, who is gaining tremendous traction against pathetic Bush rubber stamp Michael McCaul in a sprawling Texas district between Austin and the Houston suburbs, is just as adamant as anyone else about protecting the Constitution. "This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies."

Not many candidates have been as proactive on this issue as Martin Heinrich in New Mexico. He's made it a big issue in his campaign and has written a lot about it. This morning he summed up his thoughts in 3 short sentences: "In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn't compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush's friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice."

Leslie Byrne, a former and future member of Congress from northern Virginia, has been talking about this too. Here's what she told us today: "In March I said, 'I'm against immunity. The telecommunications companies who complied (not all did) have some of the highest priced legal talent available. They should have asked for a court ruling before handing over their customers records. I was very pleased that the US House found their voice on this issue.' I can only add that I hope the House continues to use that voice to protect Americans."

Let me end with a comment from Mark Begich, the Alaska Democrat running against one of Bush's worst-- and most unhinged-- senatorial henchmen, Ted Stevens. Mark is a hawk on rule of law. "The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Watch the TV spot-- and if you want to contribute to any of our candidates, please... give whatever you feel you can.

Comments

[mbaty]

We couldn't grant them immunity when they agreed to spy on people (coerced or not, bullied or complicit) so they probably told them, "Don't worry. We'll go back in time. You know, forgiveness than permission and all." I'm glad these leaders are standing up.

[Oldchef]

Everyone, no exceptions, should be subject to the rule of law. Each of our representatives and senators has sworn to uphold the constitution, so why are they even talking about granting immunity? This is a no-brainer, it's against the constitution to grant retroactive immunity for criminal trespass.

[bgregs]

Yeah, but it's also against international law to start a war of aggression with a peaceful country........

[bgregs]

but.......but........but...... They might be ruined financially if it ever got out that they were breaking the law and they had to suffer the consequences of it!!! Then who would support big name republican candidates??????

[drblack]

republicans don't believe in Freedom and think the Constitution is a "Goddamn Piece Of papaer" to quote Bush.
Corporate owned republicans think the law applies to YOU but not to them.

[noneIn2008]

Pointing out the violation of some of our basic rights you have made a good case for Ron Paul or Bob Barr.

[knighthowl]

Or Barack Obama who taught Constitutional Law, a subject our current leaders are completely unfamiliar with. I am also sorry to tell you that Bob Barr has no acquaintance with the Constitution. You may recall he was one of the leaders seeking the impeachment of Bill Clinton for acts that had no relationship to governance or the Constitution.

[Imabachi]

Or Dennis Kucinich who's called for years for Bush's impeachment. Or Ralph Nader, a present Presidential candidate, has also been saying this for years.

[bgregs]

Or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton!

[CellarDoor]

Hillary Clinton skipped the February 2008 vote to strike down the immunity provisions (ie. a vote for "yes" means no immunity for the Telecoms). She was in town at the time as well (so was Obama and he voted against immunity for the Telecom companies). Just an FYI.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015#name

[bgregs]

She has made some bad decisions in her career, and that's why I couldn't vote for her for the primary, but if she were to become the nominee you've gotta admit that she'd be a better choice than McBush would be.......

[lungfish]

An important aspect of the Telecom prosecutions is the so-called "Mark Klein" case. Mr. Klien witnessed and assisted the NSA in setting up a routing station that moved ALL traffic at the San Francisco ATT hub through their listening station and allowed the NSA to intercept all communications.
This is a very important matter. I have no idea if that listening station was dismantled nor do I know if there are other similar stations at other hubs. I have to assume that the listening station is still operational and that there are others.

Such activities, even the suspicion of such activities, have a damaging effect on public confidence and this matter needs to be cleared up immediately in a direct and transparent manner.

Also, as nuqlerostrich mentioned below, it is against the Constitution to make retroactive immunity laws. I expect that our elected leaders who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution to do their duty and hold the Adminstration, the NSA, the Telecoms and their enablers to account for violating the trust of the American people.

[TimeToThink]

Your assessment is concise and very good. Thank you for not being self indulgent in distaste of those responsible.

This IS of constitutional importance. I have written all my representatives in Congress concerning it and I will NOT vote again for any that vote to grant this retroactive immunity. The law was crystal clear in this case and there was even a special court to grant necessary warrents.

This request, without doubt, went to these telecom company's legal department. Those lawyers knew quite well that the appropriate response would have been to ask for a warrant. I hasten to add that some companies did. No one knows what their opinion was or what they recommended to the executives of those companies. But they, and the executives, are plainly guilty of suspicion of a felony. These companies, and those in the government responsible for the 'request' should be investigated and prosecution personally and criminally should result as appripriate.

Why people are not in the streets over this I cannot say. But this case goes to the heart of our Republic's future possibilities. Are we Americans or not?

[geber22]

I've wondered this myself. I am the victim of a crime. Imagine if the telecoms killed people and were being retroactively granted immunity. I despise with all of my heart the American telecom companies. These crooks should be in jail, not making millions, laughing at LAW ABIDING citizens.

Next the government will ask Blackwater America to murder citizens, and then grant them retro active immunity. Sure why not, it's in the interest of national security.

[bgregs]

Except Qwest, they refused to work with bushco(tm)

[Namtillaku]

Hence those who are running the country are un-American, traitors you might call them. Impeach now before they attack Iran.

[lungfish]

Our President has declared that the Constitution that he took an oath to uphold and protect is "just a god damned piece of paper". He and VP Cheney and their minions like Yoo, Gonzales and the rest have proven repeatedly that they believe that as fact in both word and deed.

This goes back farther than 9/11, Cheney was abusing his authority and spying on people through the NSA before the attacks on the WTC.

How Dick Cheney Used the NSA for Domestic Spying Pre-9/11
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4586

I do not support Telecom immunity and Hillary's failure to vote on that bill was the last straw for my support of her. Further, the lame Dems who are seeking out some kind of compromise have nothing but my contempt. The Telecoms failed in their duty to defend our rights to privacy and abdicated their principles simply because Bush asked them to.

I support candidates who believe in accountability for Bush and his minions, and the various corporations who aided and abetted in their crimes.

[nuQlerOstrich]

What part of Article One Section Nine "There shall be no retroactive laws passed." don't they understand?

I translated the Latin into Amurkan for the "Ex Post Facto" impaired.

[lisakaz2]

Our Constitution isn't about bin Laden to love us or hate us. It's FOR US. We have to take back our country. Your darn right both of these things are un-American and I hope those challengers allow their message to be heard loud and clear. I would hope a lot of angry voters do the right thing here.

[sophistwatch]

Congress should offer a limited immunity deal in exchange for voluntary testimony on who approached and coerced the telecoms into complying with this illegal activity? No private or closed door hearings.

I think this type of measure would get bipartisan support on the Hill. Companies who cooperate could pay a fine and make a public apology. If it is revealed that someone knowingly and willfully committed a crime, then there may still be legal action against individuals. It is important to figure out how this happened as well as who was/is responsible.

[gopindrag]

The terrorists love it when we defend our constitution. I'm on the same page with them. Shall we allow Bushco to injure our constitution because Bushco says Bin Laden is cheering us on and therefor the patriotic thing to do is to allow them to harm our constitution?

[hopeless277]

I don't think the America you are thinking of exists any longer. You are thinking of the UNITED States of America. This is the REPUBLICAN States of America. They are very similar except one had a constitution and a bill of rights. The other has the Patriot Act and Immunity for Corporate Crimes. It's an easy mistake to make.