ming3.jpgFISA debate continues on the floor of the Senate.  Sen. Kit Bond began his introductory portion today by insulting the Senate Judiciary Committee and trying to scare everyone with the potential threat to the telecom’s business reputation being besmirched by saying they failed to follow the law.  Because, as we all know, the point of the Senate is to provide CYA to corporations whose legal departments failed to give them solid legal advice dspite their 6-figure salaries and expertise in reading clear legislative language. 

Shorter Kit Bond:  blah blah blah scary terrorists mean the Constitution no longer counts for me blah blah blah.

Good to know that "due process" means nothing to the GOP, but a Presidential veto threat is all powerful.  Please let him not be speaking any more today, as his ill-informed, parroting talking points, garden gnome persona grates on my last nerve. 

I hear through the grapevine that Sen. Clinton is not there to vote today.  Not acceptable.  Awaiting word on whether Sen. Obama will be there or not.

Dan Eggen sums things up thusly:

The temporary surveillance law — approved under heavy White House pressure — gives the government broad powers to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects without warrants. It effectively legalized many of the practices employed by the National Security Agency as part of a secret program approved by Bush in late 2001.

The White House and Republican lawmakers are pushing to make the law permanent while also adding legal protections for telecommunications companies, which face dozens of lawsuits. Most House Democrats and civil liberties groups strongly oppose immunity for the communications firms, but other Democrats — including John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee — have backed the GOP position.

Reid said he is personally opposed to granting legal protections to the communications companies, but he has designated the intelligence committee’s bill as the starting point for Senate debate. Given the Senate’s composition, that decision means that opponents would effectively need 60 votes to strip immunity from the bill; Democratic aides concede they do not appear to have the votes to meet that threshold.

Please take the time to make calls or send FAXes to your elected representatives reminding them that their oath of office includes a promise to defend and uphold the Constitution — and that the foundation of American government is the rule of law. You can find contact information here. Will try to liveblog as we go below…

____________

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Starts with a comment on how disappointed he is with the base bill being the Intel bill for S.2248, which is legally inferior — and how that makes this a much more difficult uphill fight to make it comply with constitutional requirements.  (Jab at Reid there.)  Then goes on to discuss the need for a balance of powers — the differences between the Intel and SJC bills has to do with the need for a balance of powers.  SJC bill protects the privacy of law-abiding Americans.  The Intel bill leaves it up to the executive branch to police itself.

Let me state as clearly as I can:  the differences have nothing — NOTHING — to do with our ability to cmbat terrorism.  It has everything to do with ensuring that the President follows the rule of law, and to provide checks to ensure that the President will not simply sweep up innocent Americans in a broad net.  If you support the rule of law, you should support the SJC bill.

Sen. Leahy has made the changes necessary to address the WH’s "technical drafting" sniping — so there should be no whining about that from the floor.  (Paraphrasing here.  *g*)  Going over specifics on the SJC bill:  (1) protections for Americans overseas; (2) minimization procedures require implementation of court oversight — NOT in Intel bill, which means that government’s collection and dissemination would occur without any checks and balances, and Russ says "trust us" is not enough; (3) requires relevent IG to conduct complete review of the Bush illegal wiretapping program; (4) Congress must be given copies of FISA court orders and pleadings associated with them where significant interpretations of law are undertaken, so that Congress can provide adquate oversight (not being done presently); (5) protects Americans from widespread warrantless wiretapping — protections from "reverse wiretapping" without a warrant for surveilling an American as required by the 4th Amendment.  Feingold says that McConnell said that reverse wiretapping violates the 4th Amendment — why does the Administration continue to oppose this when their own director of intel says that it is unconstitutional?

The DNI also said that bulk collections of communications data is unnecessary.  (CHS notes:  just say no to basket warrants, in other words.)  The prohibition against bulk collections ensures that the gov’t has some particularized interest in a particular piece of data.   SJC bill also has a sunset provision in 4 years, so that re-evaluation before the end of the next presidential term is done.  Close statutory loopholes that the DOJ used for AUMF to be used as justification (CHS notes:  the Dick Cheney grasping at straws loophole, so to speak.)

These changes have nothing to do with combatting terrorism.  They have everything to do with ensuring that the President and his Administration are required to follow the law.  That they are so strongly opposing this ought to give everyone pause in Congress.  Time to stop being an enabler of lawbreaking, but that we ought to start being a protector of the rule of law.

SEN. BILL NELSON:  Giving credit to Adm. McConnell and to Gen. Hayden for protecting the nation.  Gosh, the leadership of the Intel Committee is great working in a bi-partisan fashion.   That said, we want to protect rights to privacy – that will extend to Americans regardless of their physical location.  As Sen. Feingold said, I also have a problem with the blanket immunity.   There should be incentives for the telecommunications companies to cooperate with the US government — and the bill does give immunity for surveillance from 9/11/01 to 1/17/07.  The problem I have with that is that I’m not sure that the telecommunications companies were "tending to their knitting" that they were getting legal authorization from the US gov’t.  Says not in the first year, or even the 2nd or 3rd year afterward — this went on for a fourth and fifth year after the attacks.  Not sure that they had the legal basis to say that the gov’t was, in fact, complying with the law.  [CHS notes:  Gee, ya think?]  Refers to documents provided under national security seal, and says he has problems with justifications.

If bill has immunity in it, he will vote for the bill because protecting ourselves from the bad guys and at the same time protect civil rights of citizens.  [CHS says:  The insipid nature of this justification for my vote against what I just said argument is painful to type.]   He’s now pimping his compromise amendment he’s co-sponsoring with Feinstein.   (See here for analysis of it.)

There is a huge difference in the Senate and House bill "as the clock continues to tick toward the deadline."  [CHS notes:  Why on earth does he insist on getting panicky about a false deadline?  The underlying FISA law goes back into effect -- there is no rush on this.  But hey, who is counting on facts or anything?]  Critically important that we pass this legislation. 

Kit Bond now interrupting Hutchinson.  There is a unanimous consent request brewing.  Rockefeller asks that until 2 pm ET today that SJC amendment as modified be debated, with equal divisions of debate between Leahy and Hatch.  No objection on this.  Bond now asks that unanimous consent that some Hatch minions be granted floor privilege — and that two GOP speakers then be recognized, Hutchison and Brownback up next.

SEN. HUTCHISON:  Gosh, the Intel committee has done a fine job.  Yay you.  Rises to support the Intel bill — essential to protecting our country.   Back to the scary terrorists argument, never mind the facts…again.   "Due to the sensitive nature of these issues, federal officials have barred the telecom companies from using certain materials in their own defense."  [CHS notes:  never mind that the material in question is in the public domain and that the Bush Administration re-classified the material to stifle the suit under a state secrets attempt to provide themselves with CYA, eh, Kay?]  We all know that there are people in our country today who are plotting to kill innocent Americans — we must have the capability to give immunity to a telecommunications company to cooperate with the government to give them information.  [CHS:  and, again, Kay, the law gives the US government the ability to do this without a warrant for a non-US citizen immediately.  For a US citizen, all they need is a warrant -- and they have a 72-hour emergency window to start a tap and get that paperwork completed already in the law.  How, exactly, does any of this prevent the national security apparatus from doing its job?  Fearmongering is unbecoming, especially when it is factually inaccurate and devoid of logic.]

SEN. BROWNBACK:  Brownback now joining on today’s GOP talking point, that the SJC bill is on a partisan basis.  I’d note that is true only because the GOP refused to engage on the constitutional discussion on anything other than partisan talking points — so pot, this is kettle, Sam.

blah blah blah the Constitution need not apply, but the President’s authority is everything to me — and allowing his politically appointed AG to rubber stamp his actions ought to be enough for everyone blah blah blah

SEN. DURBIN:  Commend Leahy’s leadership on the right balance between national security and the rule of law.  The President cannot simply have a pass to break the law whenever he pleases.  Talking about the 30 day extension — and the McConnell objection to doing so.  Says Reid was acting in good faith — hints that McConnell was not.  Talks about the WH getting into the fray for political reasons — WH is obstructing, not Congress.  Questions WH logic — either you want this or not, but your posturing is what is causing problems.   Without some oversight, we will never know what has happened — the Administration launched a misleading propaganda campaign, talks about the lies documented by the Center For Public Integrity findings leading up to Iraq invasion.   Discussing consequences for these lies and bad decisions.  [CHS notes:  Hello, WHIG.]   Discusses WH tactics of manufacturing an emergency that does not have a basis in fact each and every time they want CYA cover of law.  "How will history judge us granting amnesty?"  Reject Administration scare tactics. 

Talking about the OLC — and re-up of Stephen Bradbury to head it.  Durbin says Administration’s dirty tactics, putting Cheney up as the scaremonger out in front of the charge, was one loaded phrase after another yesterday before the Heritage Foundation.  Veep neglected to mention that 6 years after 9/11, that Khalid Sheik Mpohammad and others have not been put on trial — and some say that it will be impossible to convict them because of the torture techniques that this Administration okayed.  We have not forgotten that Osama Bin Laden is still at large.  We have not forgotten that the Adminsitration chose to go it alone rather than work with Congress to proceed in a legal, bi-partisan, stronger fashion.

We are a nation of laws, and not of men.  Not this President or any other president.  America is a lot better than the terrorists — and we should not sink to their level of conduct.   The Veep and this Administration should stop politicizing national security issues.  Do not yield to the politics of fear.  Give the government the power to protect us and still uphold the rule of law.  Support the SJC bill.

Am going to start a fresh thread momentarily…