"The Sacrifice Of Civil Liberties For What?"

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, says the FISA overhaul legislation is "deeply flawed."

Opponents of a bill that would overhaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act blocked consideration Thursday of the controversial bill until after the July 4 recess.

Senate Democratic leaders announced the delay because of a filibuster spearheaded by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut.

But the measure is expected to pass by a large margin with the support of both major parties' presumptive presidential nominees, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain.

Language that appears likely to let telecommunications companies escape lawsuits over the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program has drawn sharp opposition from liberal Democrats such as Feingold and Dodd.

"I'm pleased we were able to delay a vote on FISA until after the July 4 holiday instead of having it jammed through," Feingold said. "I hope that over the July 4 holiday, senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American people. It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."

"I'm pleased that consideration of the FISA Amendments Act has been delayed until after the 4th of July recess," Dodd said. "I urge my colleagues to take this time to listen to their constituents and consider the dangerous precedent that would be set by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that may have engaged in President Bush's illegal wiretapping program.

"When and if FISA does come back to the Senate floor, I will offer my amendment to strip the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. I implore my colleagues to support the rule of law and join me in voting against retroactive immunity."

The House of Representatives voted last week to overhaul FISA, which requires a secret court to sign off on domestic electronic surveillance in intelligence cases. The law was passed in 1978 in response to Watergate-era wiretapping abuses.

Supporters say the new bill requires court oversight of communications intercepts and will prevent presidents from launching another program like the one the Bush administration acknowledged in 2005.

Obama, who had said he would oppose any bill that would toss out lawsuits against the phone companies, has said he will support the new proposal. He said it makes sure that in the future, "somebody's watching the watchers."

"Given that all the information that I've received is that the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security, as long as it has these constraints on them, I felt that it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise," Obama said Wednesday in Chicago, Illinois.

President Bush acknowledged in 2005 that he ordered the secretive National Security Agency to intercept communications between U.S. residents and people overseas suspected of having ties to terrorism. The administration insists that the program was authorized when Congress approved military action against al Qaeda after the terrorist network's 2001 attacks.

But Democrats and some leading Republicans in Congress say it violated FISA, which required intelligence agencies to get court approval before spying on Americans. The revelations led to several lawsuits against the phone companies that cooperated with the program by people who suspect they were targets of the wiretaps.

The Bush administration has refused to share records of the program with federal courts, invoking a "state secrets" privilege.

The 94 House Democrats who reversed course last week and supported retroactive legal immunity for telephone companies under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act received an average of $8,359 in campaign contributions from the companies—and some received much more.

Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, of Maryland, who is largely credited with bringing the FISA bill to House passage, was No. 2 in telecom contributions - with $29,000, according to the analysis.

Top recipient was Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, who has received $29,500 from the AT&T, Verizon and Sprint political action committees since 2005.

Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia was the fourth-highest recipient with $25,000 in contributions from those PACS during the period, according to an analysis by the campaign finance watchdog group, MAPLight.org.

Clyburn and Boucher were among House members who voted in March to block legal protection for the phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on customers under a warrantless wiretapping program that gained speed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Then, on June 20, Clyburn, Boucher and 92 other House Democrats switched positions and voted for a compromise surveillance bill that included effective immunity for the companies.

Under the bill, a federal court would waive existing lawsuits against third parties that helped the government’s warrantless surveillance program if there was “substantial evidence” the companies received written assurances the program was legal and authorized by the president.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report has said the companies received that assurance from the Justice Department and the White House.

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and others sought immunity from prosecution for cooperating with the government’s anti-terrorism wiretapping program. The companies and others face more than 40 privacy lawsuits from customers. The lawsuits now likely will be dismissed.

“We have a broken system,” said MAPLight executive director Daniel Newman. “There is a river of money underlying everything Congress does.”

The money shows that campaign cash and congressional votes go hand-in-hand, Newman said.

“If you have a pro-consumer and a pro-telecom candidate, the telecom-friendly candidate is going to get more money,” he said. “Congress as a whole is biased by the big, special interests.”

ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson charged that the telecom contributions did influence members’ votes.

“They’re making cold political decisions here, not principled ones,” Richardson said. 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."  Benjamin Franklin

by Ron Paul
20 June 2008

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

     The Democrat majority House representatives, many of whom appeared to have been bought by the Telecom companies and both Presidential hopefuls, Barack Obama and John McCain (who have endorsed the House legislation which gives retroactive immunity to the privacy rights violations and lawsuits stemming from the Telecoms warrantless wiretapping at the behest of President Bush) have grossly failed the Constitution and the American people, in my opinion. Commendations are in order for the few congressman who refused to compromise with the corrupt Bush Administration in the matter of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. May God strengthen Senators Feingold and Dodd in their valiant filibuster efforts against this flawed and unconstitutional legislation, when it comes to the Senate floor.

tags: fisa  russ feingold  chris dodd  bush  politics  takebackamerica  war on terror  us  america  warrantless wiretapping  congress  senate  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit