For those who want a quick update, here is Ian at FDL on the “real” FISA vote. He’s a little too fatalistic for my taste. I say it’s not over --- even when it’s over.
And certainly before we move on, we need to hail the heros, however humble they might be. Chris Dodd, on the floor of the US Senate:
Under the legislation before us, the district court would simply decide whether or not the telecommunication companies received documentation stating that the President authorized the program and that there had been some sort of determination that it was legal.
But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that this happened.
We already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.
But that’s not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, “were their actions legal?” It’s rather straightforward—surprisingly uncomplicated.
Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.
Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered, Mr. President. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Because of this compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and that, as they say, will be that. Case closed.
No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies activities
in participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.
None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court.
What they will have is a government that has sanctioned lawlessness.
And Russ Finegold in front of reporters at the New America Foundation:
The Wisconsin Democrat voiced considerable frustration with members of his own party, who, he says, have enabled the sweeping new legislation. “Sen. Dodd and I and Sen. Leahy are going to do everything we can to stop this mistake,” Feingold noted, referring to fellow opponents of the bill. “But I’m extremely concerned that not only virtually every Republican… but far too many Democrats will vote the wrong way.”
“We met with Sen. Reid on Friday morning,” said Feingold, speaking of himself and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., “and we indicated our desire that this thing not just be jammed through, we’ll be requiring key procedural votes and we’ll also be taking some time on the floor this week to indicate the problems with this legislation.”
This won’t be the first time the duo has tried to stall the enactment of broad surveillance powers by using procedural tactics. Last December, amid the uproar over the possibility that the government would retroactively immunize telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, Dodd spearheaded a filibuster of a similar set of FISA amendments — a move that ultimately prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pull the bill from the floor.
Progressive activists and civil libertarians hailed the filibuster, and the Democratic party’s greater decision not to cave in to White House demands on a national security issue. Nonetheless, several senior Democrats spent the intervening months trying to accommodate the Republicans. And despite containing less than a handful of narrow improvements over the previous amendments, the new legislation has much wider support among Democratic leaders. Many of them claim the bill represents a worthy compromise.
“That’s a farce and it’s political cover,” Feingold said. “Anybody who claims this is an okay bill, I really question if they’ve even read it. ” “Democrats enabled [this],” Feingold went on. “Some of the rank-and-file Democrats in the Senate who were elected on this reform platform unfortunately voted with Kit Bond, who’s just giggling, he’s so happy with what he got. We caved in.”
Now Obama on FISA
And the Apologists weigh in
You’ve got to be kidding me. The Candidate who is too afraid to hold his position on an issue on which most citizens are agreed is going to pursue a criminal prosecution of telecom companies as a vehicle through which to hold the Bush Administration accountable after he takes office?
Yea, right.
We are not expecting too much of Obama; we are expecting too little.
No comments:
Post a Comment