« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
So, after all that, after all the back room offers and counteroffers and fear-mongering and delaying, the Senate has finally struck a deal on the surveillance bill, and everyone has agreed to it, including Sens. Dodd and Feingold, so there should be no filibustering this time around. They'll get to voting on it all on Monday.
Most crucially, the Dodd/Feingold amendment, which would strip retroactive immunity for the telecoms from the bill, will only need 51 votes to pass. The same goes for the related Specter/Whitehouse amendment, which instead of offering immunity to the telecoms, would replace the federal government as the defendant in all the lawsuits.
There are, of course, other important amendments we'll be keeping an eye on. Sen. Feingold has a number, including one that would require a warrant when the target of the surveillance is a U.S. citizen or resident. This prevents the government from sneakily avoiding the trouble of a warrant by claiming that the focus is a foreign person; so-called "reverse targeting." Feingold's amendment would theoretically prevent that by requiring a FISA court warrant for surveillance of a foreign person where the "significant purpose" of the collection is to target a U.S. person located in the United States.
And the Republicans will have their own amendments which would loosen the bill's scope. Like one from Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) that "would change definitions in the law to allow surveillance without a warrant in cases that involve the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," as CQ's Tim Starks describes it. There's more detail on the vote thresholds required on the various amendments here.
So tune back in Monday to see what happens. It will be a much different kind of debate than last time around. The President, as expected, signed the bill extending the Protect America Act for 15 days, so Monday's vote will not have the same time pressures. It will be a vote on retroactive immunity without the administration's squeeze play. We'll see what happens.
Josh
Zachary
I'm confused, what did the Reid agree to that he hadn't before? Allowing votes on "amendments which would loosen the bill's scope. Like one from Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) that 'would change definitions in the law to allow surveillance without a warrant in cases that involve the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction'"?
This seems like a great deal for the good guys but I am wary of believing in fairy tales. Am I missing something?
February 1, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why on earth does Reid insist on holding the vote Monday? Would holding the votes Wednesday or Thursday in any way affect the parliamentary prospects of even a single of the amendments? Does Reid not grasp that Tuesday may well be a watershed moment for the party, when we effectively anoint the standard-bearer for a party desperate to nominate the right person to topple McCain and put an end to the misery of the Bush years? Reid really confounds me at times. Here's hoping Obama sweeps on Tuesday and Hillary takes over as Majority Leader in '09!
February 1, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald is reporting that Dodd/Feingold will need 60 votes to pass. Which is correct?
February 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that immunity was extended to the administration which was the whole basis for offering immunity to the telecoms. Statutes were broken by BushCo. Therefore, look to the recent testimony by Mukasey regarding the MO for directives from the administration... what you see now regarding the tapes issue is what to expect in wiretapping--symantics, wiggle room, and a lack of a need to investigate. In essence, they will keep the facts from the prying eyes of that "pesky public" so everyone's ass is covered. They may also grant immunity in the form of sealing the activities so that the lawsuits would bump-up against "national security" secrets. By switching liability to the guvment, Justice would be able to manuever in the "efficient" way in which we have enabled it to do in recent years.
Bottom line: We're F****D again.
February 1, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it's safe to assume that the amendment shredding retro immunity will pass. But this will almost certainly lead to a presidential veto, will it not?
And if so, what then? Will Republican talking points like "helping the terrorists" or some other asinine line sway the Democratic "majority" once again?
February 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too really wonder whats under the radar on this one. This just seems too scripted. I fear another photo op with all the players telling us they did something great when in fact they caved again. We will see next week. I called Mitch McConnell's office and put my two cents in for what it worth. Hopefully people will continue to make calls. Tell them that there is a reason the telecoms want immunity, because what they did was ILLEGAL!
Thank you sooo much tpm for all the hard work. I read you twice daily, as I feel the information is relevant and very up to date! Good Job!
February 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
test
February 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
The lawsuit that is driving the demand for immunity--the non-profit EFF's lawsuit-- is now two years old. It started Jan 31, 2006.
Read today's Greenwald for more on the EFF: they don't get credit for this lawsuit, but they are at the heart of this. Without their lawsuit, no one would be crying out for a Congressional pardon.
That the government and AT&T weren't able to stop the lawsuit using 'legal' techniques (or States Secrets claims) shows that the EFF was being effective.
February 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
test
February 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tried a test post, but it didn't show up.
TPM: I can now actually post at Election Central and the top of The Muck does recognize me, as well as the comment box. Yet it's taking comments a long time to show up.
Readers: If this does show up, what worked for me was using the "forgot your password?" box. Which gave me a link and a "string of nonsense." Do not lose the string of nonsense. Save it. It is your only lifesaver at the moment!
February 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hooray! The software burped! And comments are now comiing.
February 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guest~
Good thought that the telcom immunity is a ruse for Administration immunity, but wouldn't that somehow be made evident during the debate?
Styve
February 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the vote is on Monday so... Obama and Clinton will likely be absent, and Reid can bury the story under the Super Mega Tuesday campaigning?
Wonderful, Harry. You don't cave on the amendments, but you cave on the scheduling. I could have predicted that the voting would take place on Monday or Tuesday.
February 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would swear that I saw Reid say that he was holding the vote on Monday so Obama and Clinton could be present.
February 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was confused. Glenn was saying that Dodd/Feingold is one of the amendments to need a simple majority, because it won't get even that many votes. He's saying that the OTHER amendments, that actually stand a chance of passing, will need the higher requirement of 60 votes.
My bad.
February 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Federal Government/TAXPAYORS are going to pay for the lawsuits, thus the G-D phone company is getting bailed out and does not have to take responsibility for selling out their customers, tell me how that is a "good" outcome for the country?
And how is passing this abomination of a bill at all going to be a good thing for us in the first place?
Leave it to our useless Majority Leader to make a hash out of the timing as well. "I need my Senators" he says, the day before half of the nation votes in their primaries. Just like when he stabbed Dodd in the back, he's trying to remind his own party about how meaningful the Senate is, when he needs to be screwing the Republicans and Bush over and over and over to make that point.
Yes, he's some "Leader."
Duckman GR
February 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Between Reid and Bush and Pelosi and Roberts, it's hard to envision a sorrier collection of Constitutional leaders for our country.
Sure, Bush is an abomination as a human being on top of being the Worst President Ever (which is his designated function please don't forget-Rove and the Corps couldn't have made a better choice on that score if they'd tried), making him the leader o the pack, but really, is it too much to ask that a country that produced Washington and Lincoln and Roosevelt and Kennedy give us somebody - anybody - with the least bit of courage, integrity, savvy, and smarts to run operations?
Duckman GR
February 1, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately the Dems "leadership" is nothing more that a bunch of cowards.
Cowed by Señor 30 percent.
Shame.
February 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean that the bill itself would contain immunity, with a possible amendment that removes immunity? Or does the ammendment actually change the language of the bill?
What I'm getting at is if they pass a bill with an amendment taking away immunity, could Bush sign the bill and add one of his signing statements that basically ignores that amendment thus giving the telecoms their immunity?
February 1, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got a request for those of us with poor memories. I know the common acronyms (IRS, FBI) but I can never remember the others in the news, including FISA. I had to look it up -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
So save me and other readers with the same problem a little bit of Web search time: somewhere in each story that has a relatively unfamiliar acronym, give the full name of the act or agency or whatever.
Thanks.
Robert
Jacksonville, Fla.
February 1, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did my part and called my senator and also Clinton's and Obama's offices and urged them to get off the campaign trail on Monday to be in the Senate and back their words with a vote to strip immunity from the bill. Feeling good about that, I then read Glenn Greenwald's piece last night and immediately realized that the amendment will not pass and became depressed.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/01/fisa/index.html
Seriously, assuming all of the Republicans show, there is no way the amendment stripping immunity passes. Joe Lieberman voting for the amendment? LOL. Besides, if the vote is close, Darth Cheney will be there with his tie breaker. Likelihood of him needing to be there, slim or none. In the end telecom immunity for ATT and Bush & Cheney will be a fact of life after Monday.
In the end, all of this comes down to Harry Reid's total lack of effectiveness as a majority leader in starting with the intelligence committee bill rather than the judiciary cmttee version. Everything after that is pure kabuki.
The only remaining hope then will be the House, with its ineffective leader, Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi. In other words, not much hope there either.
February 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Junior threatens to veto if the Dodd/Feingold ammendment is passed, Reid should let him know that there just won't be time to schedule an override vote this session.
Yeah. like that will happen.
February 1, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink