|
||
How Rockefeller & the Blue Dogs Impact the FISA Process
We will likely know next week whether or not Glenn Greenwald's reporting on Democrats caving on FISA is substantively correct or not. He has said it comes from unimpeachable sources and while some in the House are denying it, it seems others are corroborating it.
The entire process on this legislation since the Senate passed the SSCI bill last month has taken place behind closed doors. At first, when the Republicans were not at the table, we received regular press releases blasting them from the Democratic leadership in Congress. Lately the only reports we're getting have been more negative. House Intel Chair Silvestre Reyes expressed openness to retroactive immunity this past weekend on Wolf Blitzer. Then the Washington Post reported that a "compromise" would involve splitting retroactive immunity off for a separate vote from Title I FISA provisions, which would lead to its passage. Speaker Pelosi expressed what may or may not have been a strategic critique of focusing on retroactive immunity when other provisions were also important. With today's report from Greenwald, we saw what is effectively a predictable offshoot of what had been reported as going on behind closed doors over the last week-plus.
There is a pervasive "Why?" running through my mind. Why would a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress choose to work on legislation that is contrary to the wishes of a majority of their caucus, a majority of the American people, and the US Constitution? Why would they compromise in such a way as to expand executive powers at a time when the Bush administration is continuously revealed as having no regard for the authority of the legislative branch nor the civil liberties of American citizens? Perhaps most importantly for the mechanics of this legislative process, why would Democrats negotiate a compromise when Republicans aren't at the table?
Last month House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said:
"Democrats continued today to work hard on crafting a new FISA bill that will keep our nation safe and protect our civil liberties. We were disappointed that not only Congressional Republicans but also the Bush Administration refused to join us in these critical negotiations. This refusal simply puts partisanship and politics ahead of our nation's urgent national security interests."
But what was that in reference to? At the time, Democrats from the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees and their staff were negotiating a new FISA bill while Republicans boycotted the meetings. That is, the three committees that rejected retroactive immunity and weak oversight provisions (House Intel, House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary) were negotiating with the Senate Intel Committee. It seems that the Democrats were trying to come to a consensus before the Republicans sat down to negotiate.
Given that multiple news reports in the last week or so have suggested a compromise that included voting on retroactive immunity (and ping-ponging so the Senate adds it in and the House then approves it is in the same ballpark in my book), I would have to guess that Jay Rockefeller has held very firm in his anti-Constitution stance. The process that we're seeing is one that will produce retroactive immunity, unless pro-Constitution Democrats find a way to derail the process. The good Dems who oppose immunity have not been able to get Rockefeller to move.
What has surely added to Rockefeller's unwillingness to budge is the January 28th letter from 21 Blue Dog Democrats stating their support for Rockefeller's SSCI bill and their willingness to vote with Republicans to ensure that it and retroactive immunity pass in the House. Rockefeller has effectively had these House Dems and a similar cohort in the Senate to join Republicans to get immunity and a bad bill passed. Between the two chambers, conservative Democrats have given Rockefeller the ability to get bad legislation serious consideration to the point that the process may move forward and allow immunity to become law.
There have been some good Democrats in this. Pelosi, Conyers, and Hoyer have certainly been a refreshing change from Harry Reid. But if Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs get their way, the leadership of Pelosi, Conyers, Hoyer, and Reyes must be questioned. If they couldn't get around Rockefeller, why would they move forward with Rockefeller? Why not leave FISA as is until 2009? FISA worked for over 30 years to keep us safe and the PAA was only initially passed to excuse past Bush administration lawbreaking with the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The sunset of the Protect America Act has not left us in danger, as its warrants will be valid up to a full year after the sunset.
I'll admit, there's a certain extent to which this is Monday morning quarterbacking. When this legislation left the Senate last month, I wasn't calling for no action on it, but rather for Democrats to push through the RESTORE Act. But that doesn't change the fact that if passing good legislation is not possible, the best strategy would be not to pass any legislation. We're seeing this argument play out in the work environmentalists are doing against the Lieberman-Warner bill.
This is a complicated, shady process with strong adversaries working against Democratic interests. I don't know what will come out of these negotiations, but I hope the leadership has the sense to recognize that "Do No Harm" is the best operating principle when it comes to how legislation impacts the Constitution and the rule of law.
***
Cross posted at my blog, Hold Fast.
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
It's only complicated if you believe the dems meant what they said when they said no immunity. If you looks at it as the dems trying to fool the voters with the same tired line *we tried but the republicans wouldn't let us, wah wah wah* , then it's only shady.
And shady and deceptive it is, just like the war votes.
Senator Rockefeller should have recused himself from voting inasmuch as he received sizable donations from the telecoms. Democrats who follow his lead are just as corrupt as he is.
We are caught in a political catch-22 quagmire in this country. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent our nation's principles, and both Parties are currently destroying our Constitution. The obvious answer is a third Party and a national movement to empower that Party.
However, given the extent to which money and recognition play roles in today's campaigns, no third Party candidate, or even members of the current Parties, who represents REAL CHANGE can gain any traction. The obvious solution to this quandary is campaign finance reform.
But we can't get anything meaningful done on the campaign finance refrom front because the powers-that-be all recognize that would undermine their own futures, so they won't allow this reform to occur.
That brings us back around to needing to replace the representatives, and around and around it goes. So, basically, we are screwed. This country's greatness is finished. The America that the Founding Fathers created is gone, never to be seen again. Corporations, which they, and Lincoln, and many others fought against, have finally won out. A majority of congress agrees with Bush that "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper", as he has said.
America: R.I.P.
If they did not break the law they would not need immunity. It is time to stop this runaway President and begin to adhere to the Constitution again. As a Democrat I am disgusted with our leadership.DO THE RIGHT THING AND STOP WORRYING ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL CAREERS.We the people are behind you if you stand up and fight.
Their political careers are all they care about, and they know that, for the larger part, we are unable to remove them from office.
I agree, we should all stop questioning their motives. Their actions speak volumes to me. Those with the fattest checks determine this countries direction not we the "consumers" . As for reform in Washington, good luck! The Bush - Clinton administrations of the last 20 years or so have appointed the cream of the morally bankrupt to assure their "bought" agendas go unchecked. A new president will be a change from Bush but sadly corporate $ funds them all. The rest of us are left too far back in line with our silly expectations of politicians that actually uphold the Constitution. Bush will get his telecom immunity, if not he will just take it.
Amen.
The way I see it, after the election, provided a Dem gets in, we have to make a concerted effort to marginalize Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, Jay Rockerfeller. They are wreaking havoc in their positions of authority.
You are wrong to equate Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein.
Dianne Feinstein is a BLUE DOG. She loves W. Didn't you see her arm in arm with him as they surveyed fire damage in California?
Pelosi has many times said she opposes the Iraq occupation, but she has failed to bring enough Democrats along. I guess that makes her a weak leader, but she is no BLUE DOG.
"Impeachment is off the table" finished her in my eyes. There is no way she can redeem herself from that flawed judgment. NO WAY! If she had done her mandated duty in the first place, people like Feinstein, Bush, et al would not be such a problem right now.
pelosi could simply refuse to schedule debate of bills that authorize funds for the war, given her powers as speaker.
if she barks like a blue dog, she's a blue dog.
Okay, Okay, she's no blue dog, but she's a weak leader and still has to be marginalized.
don't forget, bush too according to pelosi is an "unimpeachable source".
put *that* in your pipe and smoke it.
Would the telcos agree to full testimony before a Congressional
inquiry in exchange for immunity? This is something that they
could be offered after the court cases are heard. It is not something that
they should be offered now.
Why hasn't this proposal been made? Immunity for testimony. What a concept!
They would never agree to testify publicly.
I think your most important point is the question of the leadership. To date I have not seen any leadership from Pelosi or Hoyer. These people seem to me to be the embodiment of the Peter Principle, because they don't seem to have the slightest clue about the rules of parliamentary procedure and how to use them. Makes you long for the good 'ol days when we had House leadership that knew how to use their office. I keep waiting for Pelosi to quit being the loving mother and use the "...don't make me turn this car around!" tone of voice. With her at the wheel we are going to drive further off that cliff that is the destruction of our Constitution. I may have to contribute to Cindy Sheehan after all.
I'm with you on the Cindy challenge. Pelosi and her ilk are making a mockery of our Constitution, there has to be pay back.
Fisa immunity and the abuse of warrantless wiretapping are crucial issues and are the primary issue I support Sen. Obama. No laws should be passed until after the election and the issue is given fresh eyes.
* Telecoms immunity and the FISA update actually weaken national security rather than strengthen it. The reason is that America's common ideology is the constitution and the individual rights and liberties it guarantees. These laws weaken the Constitution and therefore weaken the American ideology. This means that the country is less worth sacrificing life and fortune for against the common external enemy.
* Anybody who works for the government takes an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies. Passing the FISA update and telecoms immunity bill is a violation of that oath. Nobody who supports telecoms immunity or the FISA update has an adequate response to this point.
* The proposed law is already outdated. Communications wiretap is the "old stuff". The new tracking and control technologies are far more personally intrusive. This includes DNA recognition, implants like the Verichip, millimeter wave units which allow a subject to be seen naked (you see these at airports). Promoters of these technologies will use this law as the basis for invading the personal privacy of Americans without a warrant or any legal recourse.
* This law is vendor driven. If you want to get to the bottom of the scandal, go after the vendors, many of whom are offshore, and probably selling the same technology (developed in America) to foreign competitors and America's direct enemies. Zimbabwe has the surveillance technology as did the Taleban. China and Iran? Well, you can guess the answer can't you?
* The immunity proposal doesn't just focus on telcos. This means that Blackwater or Kroll will have immunity too if they engaged in this activity. What happens when tmz.com and Rupert Murdoch get ahold of this equipment? The line is blurred between news gathering and intelligence after all.
* This equipment is routinely abused for personal, corporate, or political gain. This can range from an individual contractor monitoring and then mirroring the stock trades of a corporate bigwig to a company gathering business intelligence on rivals. Big players can afford to spy on smaller ones so it stifles innovation and opens up the country to industrial espionage. I am willing to bet this same equipment is being misused right now in the current political campaign.
* All you small government republicans ought to get on board to stop these laws as well, because you are going to be the first segment abused by their implementation in the next government.
* I know what I'm talking about. I'm a second hand vendor of network telecoms equipment and have a lot of this stuff sitting around, although I've never sold any of it, because the potentail for misuse was so high.
It's funny, a contact of mine noted that I would get immunity too from the passage of the immunity law (hey, high five!)--so WTF was I complaining about. I pointed out that I never broke the law so I didn't need immunity. This points to a deeper issue. That nobody believes that anybody could resist the urge to monitor thousands of calls at a single time if it can be done at the click of a mouse. My response may sound naive in the underbrush of sleaze and abuse that has polluted this country in the last decade , but it's the glue of trust and respect that holds this country together: Gentlemen don't read other gentlemens' mail.
"I support Sen. Obama..."
Not to knock Obama or disrespect your choice of candidate, but you may want to ask
why -Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the Obama campaign national co-chair voted for Telecom immunity/warrentless wiretapping of American citizens.
I believe there is a major telecom player in her conStituency - but that doesn’t absolve her from this "monsterous" offense.
Agreed, McCaskill vote is hard to figure.
I take your point and the point below. McCaskill is typical of many of the blue dogs in that she hasn't put her own butt on the line for the country, so they can't come up with an alternative argument to the flag wavers and jingos. So they cave, with some reservation. Interestingly, people like Specter put up more of a fight, although he too caved to the Administration when it came down to it.
There is a wide range of reasons why people go into national security and there are a whole lot of intelligent people there as well.
Once the new democratic administration is in power and George Bush and his band of squirrelly oiks are just a bad memory the problems of how to deal with terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and rising competitor states like China and Iran will remain. But to find the answer this country needs to be sound on what it stands for and give its citizens what it wants. I think many Americans are willing to fight overseas for their country, but they want to have a couple of rights when they get home--including the right to privacy.
Jennysaypa, you say that the FISA immunity and warrantless wiretapping abuses are the primary reasons for your support of Sen. Obama. These are important issues for me, too, and I would very much like to hear what he's said about them that has engendered your support for him.
First, and most important. He is new blood and hasn't been around long enough to have a corrupt stake in the argument, and as a TA he did teach constituional law, so one hopes he has a grasp of the stakes. That said, there is a chance we will end up exactly where we are now in one year--but at least a new set of eyes with a different agenda will have examined this issue. He also just disagreed with one of his national security advisers as noted in huffpost yesterday on telecoms immunity.
I am convinced--although I don't it for dead sure so I don't want to be unfair to them--that the Clinton administration engaged in warrantless surveillance. I wonder what documents it was that Sandy Berger ran off with and destroyed. At any rate, the ability to wiretap political rivals without a warrant will strengthen this dynasty issue. It reminds me of the decline of the Italian city states like Genoa, Florence, and Milan in the 12th-15th century as they became subject to powerful figures like the Medicis and the Pope and were lured into surrendering the democracy they enjoyed.
No doubt about it this is a touchy topic, but it really must be addressed now before these idiotic laws are passed. What Obama needs is more national security people on board representing a wider variety of opinions. The problem is that people on the inside have all signed secrecy agreements which as well as stopping them from disclosing information with threats of life in prison, also stifles debate and encourages groupthink.
That leaves a small number of people who never signed those agreements and who aren't subject to any control to resist and question the policy--I am one of those people.
Don't get me wrong. Intelligence and a strong national security are extremely important, but America is took quick to sell out its ideology. That instead of asking why it is that a bunch of 20 somethings with the technological equivalent of sticks and stones have managed to give the greatest technological and military power in the history of the world a good run for its money.
What it comes down to is that they believe their ideology and are willing to die for it.
We of course see it as insanity, but really we should be looking to strengthening and expanding our own ideology---all of which is tied up in the Constitution. Because young people who go to Iraq or Afgthanistan cannot be expected to die for McDonalds or so that the shareholders of AT&T, who is undoubtedly monitoring their every move as they are members of the military, should be given immunity from lawsuits.
Why small government Republicans aren't on board with this issue is baffling.
Because the size of the government they want is one all-powerful dictator.
Do you suppose Rockefeller is providing the quo for the $42,000 in quid he has received from Verizon and ATT?
When you study Rockefeller history, you discover what a not nice bunch of skunks they have been in this country. Just read about their involvement in oil, education, politics, etc. to see what their capitalism and lack of ethics have brought to this event and moment in time.
Jay Rockefeller and his family have been sickening examples of fascists.
Yes, they have a saying in West Virginia: The mountains are so rich and the people are so poor.
100 years ago the immigrants who first got into oil had the original Rockefeller, Mellon, and the like on 10 year rolling contracts where they would get 1/8th of what came out of the ground.
When the Great depression came around, Standard Oil and the natural gas lobby, used emminent domain and flat payments to established fix royalty payments in perpetuity.
That's how Jay Rockefeller came to be.
Once again, I wonder whatever happened to Bulldog Rockefeller when he was ranking member on the 9/11 Senate Investigation Committee and bellowed loud and clear for doing Phase II of the 9/11 investigation. Phase II, remember, was to determine what use the Bush administration made of skimpy and nonexistent evidence of Iraq's nuclear, wmd, and ties to AQ in order to stampede this country into an unnecessary war. He has been mute on that subject now that he has the power as Chairman to pursue that issue, yet he does nought.
It does make one wonder if the Bush wiretapping may be the cause of bringing the once determined Jay to heel. I find it amusing that the Bush dogs choose not to obey Bush more than Jay.
FISA as it exists is not fine.
The only thing that is fine, is for Congress to demand that the Constitution be read, interpreted and ENFORCED.
In an environment where regulation of industry is nonexistent, where Constitutional safeguards are blatantly violated, where the rule of law applies to whomever the Bush Administration chooses to allow it to apply (I mean this quite literally): The last thing the supposed Democratic Party needs to do is immunize yet another industry against our only recourse, the civil lawsuit.
Think about it: The gutless Pelosi is now, thanks to Conyers' strategem, suing the Executive Branch for Karl Rove and company's noncompliance with Comgressional subpoenas. This maneuver, weak as it is, is now to be taken away from the people?
Get the Democrats (excuse me, Blue Dog Democrats- many of whom live in my not -so -Blue-Dog neighborhood) out of there. Find people who take their oaths of office seriously.
Excellent story, young man - keep up the good work.
A good source for the pertinent phone numbers is : http://mcjoan.dailykos.com/
On this issue the blue dogs who causing the trouble can be found on her page or here:
Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893
Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: (202) 225-4801, Fax: (202) 225-4392
Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830
Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422
Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377
Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615
Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038
Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638
Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035
Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172
Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284
Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996
Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807
Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594
Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394
Loading comments…
Related Blog Posts
|
||
Posted March 7, 2008 | 06:52 PM (EST)