« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
As expected, the Senate intelligence committee has passed its surveillance bill. Also as expected, retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies complying with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program is part of the bill. Not exactly as expected: it won't be the FISA Court that determines who complied with the program. It will be the attorney general:
The Senate bill would direct civil courts to dismiss lawsuits against telecommunications companies if the attorney general certifies that the company rendered assistance between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 17, 2007, in response to a written request authorized by the president, to help detect or prevent an attack on the United States.Suits also would be dismissed if the attorney general certifies that a company named in the case provided no assistance to the government. The public record would not reflect which certification was given to the court.
So you'll never know, if the Senate bill becomes law, if your phone company gave any communications material when the National Security Agency came calling without a warrant. Prediction: as of January 2009, Michael Mukasey can have any sinecure he likes with the telecom company of his choice. (Well, maybe not Qwest.)
In addition to the telecom provision, the bill also doesn't give the FISA Court any up-front role in foreign-targeted surveillance, unlike the Dems' now-stalled Restore Act in the House. It seems from this early report that the bill's major difference with the Protect America Act is that the FISA Court will have a larger role in reviewing the government's so-called minimization procedures -- that is, how NSA analysts redact identifying information of U.S. persons caught up in the surveillance web. For this, remarked Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the intelligence committee, "FISA has a much larger role now."
Only Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted against the bill. The two holdouts got a proposal into the measure to "get a court order to eavesdrop on Americans wherever they are in the world," according to the AP. But that's unlikely to actually stay in the bill:
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell objects to the requirement, according to Wyden. Bond said a "problematic amendment" would be changed to satisfy McConnell."I think we can make the necessary adjustment and with that I believe the bill would be ... acceptable to him and one which he would recommend," Bond said.
The bill goes next to the Senate Judiciary Committee; Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) indicated during Mukasey's hearings that he's going to approach the bill with skepticism. If that doesn't stop the measure from moving forward, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) has promised to block any surveillance bill that includes telecom immunity. But if the bill goes back to the drawing board, there's no guarantee that a new version will be more amenable to civil libertarians.
Update: This post originally reported that the committee passed the surveillance bill this morning, when it in fact passed the bill yesterday. I regret the error.
Comments (55)
Michael wrote on October 19, 2007 9:22 AM:Gee, so all you mrs. bill supporters, what's her position on this??? Is she for immunity or against? Anyone?
Crust wrote on October 19, 2007 9:22 AM:"[T]here's no guarantee that a new version will be more amenable to civil libertarians."
Or to people who care about the rule of law.
Michael wrote on October 19, 2007 9:27 AM:Oops, typo, I meant staffers, not supporters.
moondancer wrote on October 19, 2007 9:30 AM:Bitter pill to swallow, although I am getting used to a regulare diet of them from this cowardly congress.
destor23 wrote on October 19, 2007 9:37 AM:According to Atrios, Harry Reid is dead set on bringing the bill to a floor vote, even going around Dodd's hold. How is it this can't fail in a floor vote. What Democrat would vote for retroactive immunity for law breaking telcos.
Also, it says that suits will be dismissed against Telcos who helped between Sep 11th and January of this year.
What about telcos that helped before that? Qwest was approached before September 11th. And what about companies operating after January 2007? Why is there an end date on it at all?
Glenn wrote on October 19, 2007 9:38 AM:Certainly no shocker that Rockefeller would produce something like this, is it? Chickenshit.
Phylo Se Fiser wrote on October 19, 2007 9:39 AM:I've heard it reported that the White House exerted "enormous pressure" on the committee members.
Does anyone know what exactly that means? I personally can't think of anything that would make me bend over and support this bill.
midwesterner wrote on October 19, 2007 9:43 AM:The Senate's so-called "old bulls" act like some exiled Balkan government in waiting. No need to actually do anything. Just wait. A lot of the newer Dems seem to have a "permanent minority" mentality. No need to do anything except hang on to their job.
bigcat wrote on October 19, 2007 9:50 AM:Of course now it looks like they'll be a strong majority in the next Congress and the telcos and other corporations are pouring money into their coffers. Is this about protecting their fund raising over protecting little things like, you know, the Constitution?
Thanks destor23 for pointing out my question. What about those telcoms who decided BEFORE 9/11 that American civil liberties were just so much detritus?
This seems like just one more corporate bailout from Congress. In simple terms, isn't this bill an attempt to "modernize" the FISA Act? Does anyone think the existing law wouldn't stand up to legal challenge, simply because the technology has changed?
Jeff S. wrote on October 19, 2007 9:53 AM:Thank you once again, Sen. Diane Feinstein, for your courageous stand for civil liberties.
chicago recluse wrote on October 19, 2007 9:54 AM:welcome to the police state... do you feel safe yet???
gypsy howell wrote on October 19, 2007 9:56 AM:We really have to stop thinking of the democrats in power as being 'spineless cowards' and start understanding them as being objectively on the other side.
workaday joe wrote on October 19, 2007 9:57 AM:Anyone as confused as me? Didn't we elect Democrats last year? Isn't Bush in the toilet? I wonder if this could possibly have anything to do with the enormous fund-raising advantage the Dems currently have over the Repubs. Who gives that money? My old aunt Betty? Or maybe telecom companies?
FMArouet wrote on October 19, 2007 10:01 AM:For some good data and graphs on the sudden flood of telcom (Verizon and AT&T) executives' donations into Senator Jay Rockefeller's coffers, go to:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
Now there wouldn't be any connection between such telcom contributions to Rockefeller (and to other Democrats) and the Democrats' supine behavoir toward granting the telcoms immunity from past criminal behavior, would there?
Besides being weak and not very bright, Senator Rockefeller--despite the implications of his family name--is turning out to be just another vote for sale.
workaday joe wrote on October 19, 2007 10:03 AM:Another thought.
Anyone know how much money the telcos are giving to Rockefeller right now? Opensecrets.org tracks this but it doesn't have 2007-2008 numbers yet. Maybe a TPM regular from WV should ask him.
via wrote on October 19, 2007 10:10 AM:Sorry, I cannot support an AG that Bush selects. I have been burned too many times before. There should be no vote on an AG until after the 2008 elections.
via wrote on October 19, 2007 10:12 AM:p.s. Was Mukasey sworn in when he testified on Capitol Hill?
midwestblue wrote on October 19, 2007 10:12 AM:For information on what's going on with Reid and his decision to ignore Dodd's hold, go Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/19/reid/index.html
mcdoublee wrote on October 19, 2007 10:21 AM:At this point, it seems that there is only one thing that would convince the politicians that wire tapping is actually a bad thing for democracy. An act of civil disobedience wherein very private and personal telephone conversations of certain politicians recorded without a court order and released to the general public would certainly get some attention. I wonder why the government doesn't trust me enough to issue me a security clearance... oh, wait.
Ferruge wrote on October 19, 2007 10:24 AM:The Liebermanification of the Dems continues....
Ferruge wrote on October 19, 2007 10:26 AM:Nixon must be staring up from hell, wondering, "Now why couldn't *I* have had a Congress that was as scared shitless of the Executive Branch as this one?"
Sailmaker wrote on October 19, 2007 10:35 AM:What the dickens is going on? They want an AG (maybe another political guy like Abu Gonzolas) to be the judge about who should be wiretapped?!? Is this not a violation of the separation of powers? The 'get a warrent upon showing probable cause' is not a power of the Executive branch, it is a power of the Judicial branch. What are these Senators thinking?
I get that the telcoms, for whatever reason, will receive no punishment for FISA violations. Congress makes the laws, and if the Executive branch wants to break 'em, well, hell, it's only a piece of paper. The telcoms can't afford to pay out what they owe for the violations. So we should bargin for commutation of the sentence. We should demand full disclosure of what they have been doing, and what they still are doing. We should demand the break up of the Baby Bells. We should demand lower rates for phones and internet (compensation for being violated). We should carve laws that are reviewed before the Supreme Court before passage that make future violations the personal responsiblity of the board members of the telcoms - they must pay out of their personal pockets for violations. We must pass the new FISA that makes Executive branch violations automatic impeachment. Yeah. I'm rabid on the subject
benjoya wrote on October 19, 2007 10:36 AM:you'd think being from a mining state, rockefeller wouldn't be so fond of cave-ins.
Oh, that's right -- he's management.
Dennis wrote on October 19, 2007 10:37 AM:The Senate Intelligence Committee is just another sellout bunch - including the Democrats who are on the committee.
The behavior of Sen. Rockefeller, committee chairman, to protect the civil rights of American citizens is a joke.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
mo2 wrote on October 19, 2007 10:49 AM:Wishful thinking, but does "if the attorney general certifies that the company rendered assistance between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 17, 2007, in response to a written request authorized by the president" mean that the Congress will hold the President accountable for breaking the law? Is this a sneaky way of getting the written requests from GW made public? Do the telecoms either have to bust Bush or face prosecution?
megisi wrote on October 19, 2007 10:54 AM:... the White House exerted "enormous pressure" on the committee members. Does anyone know what exactly that means?
He threatened to cut off their turkee.
Here's my problem, probably the product of terminal cynicism and an ugly streak of creeping hopelessness: The cost to our freedoms is too high because none of this accomplishes anything. No. Thing.
In fact, I believe that it has nothing to do with "terrorism surveillance" at all and was aimed at us all along.
And the idiots in Congress fell for it, granting yet another victory to the most unpopular president in the histtory of the country and moving up yet another milestone along our steady march toward an authoritarian state.
History, if we're allowed to write it and publish it, will judge the weaklings who could have stopped this madeness more harshly than the moron in the Oval.
Jim Lynch wrote on October 19, 2007 11:14 AM:There is a cancer within the democratic party. I've turned a blind eye to that fact too many times during the past 1/3 of a century. Meanwhile, the cancer has spread to the party's vitals.
If this amnesty becomes law, I'm finished with it forever. It will be the final straw. Self respect will demand that of me.
Gee wrote on October 19, 2007 11:15 AM:Sheldon Whitehouse voted out this stinker?
crick02478 wrote on October 19, 2007 11:21 AM:Following up on midwesterner's comment about telcoms pouring money into Democrats....
We need to ask any Dem who votes for this, either in committee or on the floor, to give back any telcom money they received since the immunity issue has been raised and also to renounce telcom money for the forseeable future. Appeal to the fact that they must avoid even the appearance of this impropriety if they back this bill.
Search me over at dkos if you are interested in this idea.
benjoya wrote on October 19, 2007 11:31 AM:Sheldon Whitehouse voted out this stinker?
eeewww. sheldn sheldn sheldn how could you?
anonymouse wrote on October 19, 2007 11:33 AM:"Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) indicated during Mukasey's hearings that he's going to approach the bill with skepticism"
I feel better...
"And what about companies operating after January 2007? Why is there an end date on it at all?
This administrations does whatever it wants and when the public is notified it is breaking a law, quits for a while before resuming its illegal activities. ths will probably crop up again in a few months...
"I've heard it reported that the White House exerted "enormous pressure" on the committee members."
The most pressure the administration can exert on a congress member falls much shorter than the ability to have these illustrious representatives of ours lose their jobs. Our illustrious leaders, however, have decided that keeping our democracy in place is not worth ANY pressure from the administration... they are placing themselves in an elevated position for use during our decline as a nation...
"In simple terms, isn't this bill an attempt to "modernize" the FISA Act?"
No, this bill is a way for our elected democrat congress to save face from hurriedly voting for a bill so they wouldn't miss a day of vacation time. It wouldn't even be here if it weren't for the fact that Congress now believes its vacation is more important that our democracy...
"In fact, I believe that it has nothing to do with "terrorism surveillance" at all and was aimed at us all along."
I agree. Nothing this Congress... or administration has done... will protect anyone from anything but ourselves. We have been sheep and are being led to the slaughter. The Iraq War, now known to have been waged deceptively, continues. Afghanistan is producing 93% of the world's opium supply. Our borders are completely unsecured. The federal employees protecting us from "terrorists" are missing up to 70% of the "practice bombs going though their checks.
The only thing our government is capable of doing right is diminish our ability to stop them from controlling US Our federal government is protecting itself from those who are supposed to be their employers. Those in charge cannot protect us from terrorists, but they are now more easily capable of protecting themselves from citizen dissidents. As our local citizens complain about lack of ability to protect our neighborhoods and homes, the number of guards protecting government buildings continue to rise, and now, every county in this nation has 2 or 3 or 50 more homeland security badged folks.
We REALLY need to vote all these guys out, folks. It may be one of our last chances... IMHO
TheraP wrote on October 19, 2007 11:36 AM:Is there some kind of loop happening here, where warrantless surveillance has led to surveilled leaders like Reid kowtowing to their surveillers - to forgive them for spying on congress?
You have to wonder!
j wrote on October 19, 2007 11:40 AM:On the other hand...
...if everyone was giving away the farm before 9/11, maybe this phrasing is an attempt to say "sure, it's fine if you did it after 9/11, but you did it on 9/10. Nailed."
Not that I'm holding my breath, but it occurs to me...
The Conservative Deflator wrote on October 19, 2007 11:48 AM:19 men with boxcutters led these cowards in Congress to give up 220 years of freedom? What a bunch of damn fools!
Shadow Wolf wrote on October 19, 2007 11:51 AM:Via,
Sorry, I cannot support an AG that Bush selects. I have been burned too many times before. There should be no vote on an AG until after the 2008 elections.
If the Senate doesn't vote, one way or the other, on Mukasey, then it just leaves Peter Keisler as Acting Attorney General. Keisler isn't just some ordinary "loyal Bushie" - he is one of the FOUNDING members of the Federalist Society.
See here for details about this guy - he's probably even *more* dangerous than Gonzo.
FMArouet wrote on October 19, 2007 12:03 PM:TheraP at 11:36 AM seems to be on to something.
Pushed from one direction by Administration coercion very likely based in part on surveillance dossiers, and from the same direction by the opening floodgates of corporate cash, our Democratic Congresscritters are reliably caving on issue after issue.
It is not only out of short-sighted stupidity. It is not really out of concern over terrorism or other foreign "existential" threats.
It is out of fear of losing the personal perquisites of power, or at least of status. And it is out of simple greed. The Democratic leadership has become an active accomplice.
It is how republics have always decayed and collapsed. Why should ours be any different? The human genome has not changed much in about 200 millennia. But we did have a good run for the past 225 years, thanks to the surprising staying power of the Founders' wisdom.
It has taken the neocon cabal only seven years to destroy the entire edifice of time-tested Constitutional checks and balances.
oblung wrote on October 19, 2007 12:05 PM:Wasn't it just recently revealed that AT&T built equipment exclusively for NSA's illegal wiretapping use within days of Bush being sworn into office in January '01 (and with his full knowledge)?
Powkat wrote on October 19, 2007 12:07 PM:If so, aren't the telecoms and the Bush administration libel if the bill passes with an immunity date range for the telecoms beginning on 9/11/01?
I'm hoping this is true and that the Bush administration will let the bill pass through with the current immunity date range, simply because admitting the earlier date shows their lie that the NSA's secret program was set up as a direct response to 9/11.
Once again, the Constitution is ignored. Why should Bush-Cheney Corp care? They got what they intended when they took office: oil is pushing $100/barrel, tax rates for the haves and have-mores ('my base, heh, heh')have been slashed, the treasury has been looted in 'the war on terror' so that when the Democrats take power they will have to raise taxes and/or cut programs, and can be attacked with the old 'tax & spend' canard.
I am so sick and tired of what this country has become, and so unsure that anything will ever be done about it, that for the 1st time I am ashamed not just of my government, but of my country (oops, I mean my Homeland.)
I will join the peace march next weekend, but I have no hope that anything we do will make a difference - the corruption is too deep, the patient is beyond saving.
ANon wrote on October 19, 2007 12:18 PM:I am so sick of this crap.
John wrote on October 19, 2007 12:41 PM:Question for any Republican: Just wondering if by any of the slimmest of chances that the next president is a Democrat, are you willing to concede all this wire tapping authority and Patriot Act powers to that president. How will you feel with all these powers in the hands of Democrat. You won't complain in the least will you?
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 1:56 PM:"Phylo Se Fiser wrote on October 19, 2007 9:39 AM:
I've heard it reported that the White House exerted "enormous pressure" on the committee members.
Does anyone know what exactly that means? I personally can't think of anything that would make me bend over and support this bill."
"We'll kill you and everyone in your family and everyone they know"
That would do it.
The Truffle wrote on October 19, 2007 2:03 PM:"Question for any Republican: Just wondering if by any of the slimmest of chances that the next president is a Democrat, are you willing to concede all this wire tapping authority and Patriot Act powers to that president. How will you feel with all these powers in the hands of Democrat. You won't complain in the least will you?"
Think maybe the Dems are counting on a Dem president using these powers against the GOP congresscritters?
Wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. La Hill may decide it's payback time, and if (as is expected) the Dems will have a filibuster-proof majority in Congress come 2009, the Repubs will be in big trouble.
Yeah...tinfoil thinking. But who wouldn't put it past the Beltway Dems to seek revenge?
ashabot wrote on October 19, 2007 2:18 PM:Screw 2 AND 3 party systems. We need a several parties to break up this damn monopoly of power.
Vicki Lawson wrote on October 19, 2007 2:31 PM:This does not surprise me at all. The President seems to have something on
Joe Vitale wrote on October 19, 2007 2:55 PM:the Democratic Congress, that they don't want anyone to know publically. Blackmail could cause them to continue to vote with this fool. We know it can't be his intellectual ability and farsighted proposals. George and Hillary come from the same corporate contributors or from known criminals. Do we really want 4 more years of the same corrupt cabal. I am a Democrat, but read up on Hillary, it will make you really scared. Now we come to Gulliano, who is possibly the worst mayor New York ever had, especially during 9/11. My G-d he put the disaster material in the Twin Towers, and had the fightfighters clean up without safety equipment, and failed to help them when they got sick from this. So do we expected to live anywhere but Canada after the next four years?
And the pundits wonder how Ron Paul has been able to raise so much miney.
Ryan Lavelle wrote on October 19, 2007 3:16 PM:Y'all need to pay attention here.
As revealed recently by the CEO of Qwest, the illegal wiretapping program began several months BEFORE 9/11.
The legislation only provides immunity between 9/11/01 and now, hence plaintiffs are free to bring their case against telecoms companies for any time before 9/11.
Richterscale wrote on October 19, 2007 3:41 PM:So my question is, does this bill violate the Fourth Amendment? And if so, doesn't that mean anyone voting for it is in violation of their sworn oath?
And if that is also true, what can a citizen like myself do, aside from the usual strongly worded e-mail, or phone call?
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 9:52 PM:Ralph Nader was right. There is not a dime's difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
What say you, Nader-haters?
J. R. Cram wrote on October 19, 2007 10:59 PM:Here I go banging on that drum again:
Who returns the most of his contributions (ie. as coming from compromising or suspicious sources) among the current presidential cadidates?
According to the information I've seen:
It's Ron Paul.
Nuf said.
myopic wrote on October 20, 2007 6:14 PM:richterscale:
myopic wrote on October 20, 2007 6:16 PM:The bill itself does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is only because the Amendment refers to particular instances of search and seizure, while this bill is structural: It makes the Fourth Amendment unenforceable, because the searches are beyond any court.
Yes, this is unconstitutional. The legislators in Congress who voted for this should be unceremoniously tossed out at soonest opportunity.
richterscale:
Kelly Carpenter wrote on October 21, 2007 5:52 PM:The bill itself does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is only because the Amendment refers to particular instances of search and seizure, while this bill is structural: It makes the Fourth Amendment unenforceable, because the searches are beyond any court.
Yes, this is unconstitutional. The legislators in Congress who voted for this should be unceremoniously tossed out at soonest opportunity.
This is a perfect opportunity. I hope Chairman Patrick Leahy and the rest of the Dems see the opportunity, and jump on it.
Give the telecom's immunity, but only if they agree to cut a deal. After all, the telecoms may have broken the law, but they did it at the direction of the White house. If they want immunity, they can have it, so longs as they agree to fully comply with Congress on investigations into illegal warrant less wiretapping.
Send Bush a bill that gives the telecom's the immunity he demands, and also lets Bush know illegal actions directed by the white house will be pursued, with help from the telecom's. Then let Bush explain why he has to veto it.
SportyW wrote on October 22, 2007 11:51 AM:Why are we still calling these representatives of the democratic party "DEMOCRATS".
SportyW wrote on October 22, 2007 12:15 PM:They are doing nothing but voting for and support ALL of the policies that Bush and the republicans want.
We are now a one party system, all we hear from our democrats is dedeit and BS...
They talk BS to their voters , but then they sign every one of Bush's policies and OK all of his criminal activities, present and past.
Does the American citizen recieve immunity for their past criminal activities, even when the crimes are not as great as the destruction of our democracy and freedom.
SportyW wrote on October 22, 2007 12:15 PM:So one smokes a joint, forgets to buckle their seat belt, etc then they have to pay a fine and some charges receive a criminal record and a jail term.
Someone like Bush, Cheney, Rove and the elite commit treason by outing a covert CIA agent, lies to illegally invade another country to steal their resources, get the telecommunications companies to illegally spy on American citizens and then give them blanket immunity for their deceit and corruption.
Notice Quest knew damn well it was illegal and would not obey the criminal demands of Bush and Cheney.
So in reality we rewarded the companies that criminally broke our laws for Bush's illegal activities, and we punish the company which upheld our constitution and laws.
So what message does this tell companies and people in our country??
Criminal activity and breaking our laws are rewarded and good, but upholding our constitution and our laws is bad and you will be punished....
Does the American citizen recieve immunity for their past criminal activities, even when the crimes are not as great as the destruction of our democracy and freedom.
So one smokes a joint, forgets to buckle their seat belt, etc then they have to pay a fine and some charges receive a criminal record and a jail term.
Someone like Bush, Cheney, Rove and the elite commit treason by outing a covert CIA agent, lies to illegally invade another country to steal their resources, get the telecommunications companies to illegally spy on American citizens and then give them blanket immunity for their deceit and corruption.
Notice Quest knew damn well it was illegal and would not obey the criminal demands of Bush and Cheney.
So in reality we rewarded the companies that criminally broke our laws for Bush's illegal activities, and we punish the company which upheld our constitution and laws.
So what message does this tell companies and people in our country??
Criminal activity and breaking our laws are rewarded and good, but upholding our constitution and our laws is bad and you will be punished....