FISA and Dodd

My first political contribution this election season was to Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, whose campaign for the president ended with a less than 2% showing in Iowa and New Hampshire (he might have even dropped out before NH, I don't remember).  So in one sense, it was wasted money.  But I feel proud of that contribution for the efforts that Dodd made both in December and this week, in protecting the FISA bill that President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate are trying to ram through Congress from becoming law.  This bill accomplishes one thing and one thing only that Dodd (and all of us Americans) do not want:  retroactive immunity for the phone companies who turned over our private conversations to the government after Bush requested their assistance in his warrantless wiretapping scheme from 2001 to 2006, when the program was exposed in a New York Times article that didn't receive nearly enough play in the mainstream media or America's consciousness.  The rest of the bill - the protecting our country from potential terrorists by allowing a special FISA court to hear requests for wiretaps (the way it's been in this country for 3 decades until Bush took over) is supported by everyone.  It's just the retroactive immunity that we have a little problem with.  And Bush is screaming and threatening to hold his breath and veto the bill if we don't include the immunity.  Why?  Why indeed...

I'll put it bluntly so that anyone can understand -- your president was willfully breaking the law in order to listen to American citizens' private phone conversations.  Not foreigners.  Not al Qaeda operatives.  American citizens.  Every single last one of us could have been wiretapped without reason or court order or really, anything but the president's word... and the phone companies broke the law by giving him the access.  They all ignored the long established FISA law and decided to do what they wanted when they wanted and this bill Bush is trying to get passed would immunize everyone from their illegal actions, most especially him.  And before you feel so bad for Verizon and AT&T and the rest of the lawbreakers who allowed Bush to do this, realize that the telecoms have shut off the legally requested court-ordered wiretaps this year because the government was late in paying its bills.  They care so much about protecting our country that they cut off the wiretaps.  And President Bush needs these wiretaps so badly to protect our country that he can't even pay the phone bills on time.  It's just frightening hypocrisy and no one - I mean, no one besides a few dedicated reformers - is speaking about it.  Which just makes me angry.

So Senator Dodd stood up and fought it, successfully so far (as of yesterday), and he'll need America's support to continue the fight, because for some unknown reason, Republicans and some Democrats from southern states are willing to cave on retroactive immunity because the president tells them to.  And here I thought we had a Democracy.  I mean, this is Stalinist Russia stuff.  Un-freak-ing- believable.  Read some of Senator Dodd's inspirational words on the subject below and how he distills the true nature and importance of stopping this bill.  And then call your Senator and encourage them to stand by Dodd and fight against this bill.  You can find your senator's contact information here.  Thank you for your time.

Yes, secrecy is necessary, at times, in the life of every nation. But it’s a bedrock principle that democracies should always err on the side of less secrecy. For that reason, I believe that cases against the telecoms are best handled in our standard federal courts-which, by the way, have shown time and time again that they know how to protect state secrets...

It took three decades, three branches of government, four presidents, and 12 Congresses to patiently, painstakingly build up (the FISA) machinery. It only took one president to tear it down. Generations of leaders handed over to President Bush a system that brought security under the law, a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping he could conceive.

And he responded: “No thank you. I’d rather break the law.”

He ignored not just a federal court, but a secret federal court; not just a secret federal court, but a secret federal court prepared to sign off on his actions ninety nine point nine percent of the time. And he still hasn’t given us a good reason why. He still hasn’t shown how his lawbreaking makes us safer.

So I am left to conclude that, to the president, this isn’t about security. It’s about power: power in itself, power for itself.

I make that point not to change the subject, but because I believe it solves a mystery. That is: Why is retroactive immunity so vital to this president? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy; and secrecy, to this administration, means power...

And we find proof in their original version of retroactive immunity: a proposal to protect not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program.

In their original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.

Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt: their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted. They knew better than anyone else what they had done—they must have had good reason to be afraid! ...

The only thing that stands to be exposed if these cases go to trial is the extent of President Bush’s lawbreaking. That, he will keep from the light of a courtroom at all costs.

This is a self-preservation bill. And given the lack of compelling alternatives, I can only conclude that self-preservation—secrecy for secrecy’s sake—explains the president’s vehemence.

Well, you might say, he’ll be gone in a year—why not let the secrets die with this presidency and start afresh?

Because those secrets never rightfully belonged to him. They belong to history, to our successors in this chamber, to every one of us. Thirty years after the Church Committee, history repeated itself. If those who come after us are to prevent it from repeating again, they need the full truth.

And we need to set an unmistakable precedent: that determining guilt or innocence belongs to the courts, not to Congress or the president; that lawless spying will no longer be tolerated; and that, most of all, the truth is no one’s private property.

But almost every time telecom immunity comes up, there’s an inevitable question:

What’s the big deal? Why are so many people spending so much energy all to keep a few lawsuits going forward?

Because this is about far more than the telecoms. This is about the choice that will define America: the rule of law, or the rule of men...

It’s about the Military Commissions Act, a bill that gave President Bush the power to designate any individual he wants an “unlawful enemy combatant,” hold him indefinitely, and take away his right to habeas corpus—the 900-year-old right to challenge your detention.

It’s about the CIA destroying evidence of harsh interrogation—or, as some would call it, torture.

It’s about Dick Cheney raising secrecy to an art form...

It’s about the Justice Department turning our nation’s highest law enforcement offices into patronage plums, and turning the impartial work of indictments and trials into the machinations of politics...

It’s about extraordinary renditions and secret prisons...

It is about all of that, Mr. President. All of that. We are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the torture issue, or the habeas issue, or the U.S. attorneys issue, or the extraordinary rendition issue, or the secrecy issue.

As if each one were an isolated case! As if each one were an accident! We’ve let outrage upon outrage upon outrage slide with nothing more than a promise to stop the next one.

There is only one issue here. Only one. The law issue. Attack the president’s contempt for the law at any point, and it will be wounded at all points.

That’s why I’m here today. I am speaking for the American people’s right to know what the president and the telecoms did to them. But more than that, I am speaking against the president’s conviction that he is the law. Strike it at any point, with courage, and it will wither.

That’s the big deal. That is why immunity matters—dangerous in itself, but even worse in all it represents. No more. No more. This far, Mr. President—but no further.

More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both.

It speaks volumes about the president’s estimation of the American people that he expects them to accept that choice.

 

 

Comments

[Bill]

There are some other problems with the FISA bill that other senators are fighting against, namely Senator Feingold (D-WI). He makes a good point here...

As I say in my listening sessions, I take out my Blackberry and I say, "Do you folks realize that if you make a phone call or e-mail or do what I did yesterday, I received an e-mail from my daughter who's in England, that that is no longer private. That the government can suck up all your e-mails and all your phone calls whether it be to your son or daughter in Iraq or your child that's in their junior year abroad, or it's a reporter over there, and there's no court oversight of it at all. It's just 'trust us' by the administration." That's what's going on in this legislation.

[Sid]

Hillary or Obama should make Dodd the next Attorney General (though speculation is that position will go to Edwards.)