GLENN THRUSH | glenn.thrush@newsday.com
10:04 PM EDT, July 8, 2008

WASHINGTON - Sen. Charles Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are bucking their party's presidential nominee Barack Obama by opposing a White House-backed warrantless wiretapping bill expected to be voted on Wednesday.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has not made up her mind on the controversial measure.

During the primaries, Clinton and Obama both vowed to filibuster the overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act if it contained a provision giving telecom companies protection from lawsuits.

Obama, who has been eager to counter GOP claims that he's weak on national security, infuriated many of his own supporters last week by saying he now supports the FISA measure passed by the House, even though it includes legal immunity for the companies.

"This was not an easy call for me," he wrote on his Web site Monday. "And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal-breaker. That's OK. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

Spokesman Philippe Reines said Clinton "hasn't stated her position" on the measure, which is expected to pass Wednesday or Thursday with a bipartisan majority.

"We really hope that Senator Clinton follows through on her commitment," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's legislative office. "She said she would filibuster any bill that includes immunity and we'd like to see her follow through on her promise."

The vote puts Clinton in a bind. If she backs the bill, she'll be accused of reneging on her promise. If she votes no, she runs the risk of jeopardizing her newfound alliance with Obama.

more

Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday July 8, 2008 04:48 EDT
Aug. 8, 1974 vs. July 9, 2008

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

The votes in the Senate on various amendments to the FISA "compromise" bill and to the underlying bill itself were originally scheduled for today, but have been postponed until tomorrow (Wednesday, July 9) to enable Senators to attend the funeral of Jesse Helms. Rejection of the amendments -- including the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy amendment to strip telecom immunity from the bill -- is all but certain, and final passage of the bill (with the support of both presidential candidates) is guaranteed.

Once passed by the Senate, the FISA bill will then immediately be sent by the Democratic Congress to an eagerly awaiting and immensely pleased President Bush, who will sign it into law, thereby putting a permanent and happy end to the scandal that began when -- in December, 2005 -- he was caught spying on the communications of American citizens in violation of the law. The only real remaining questions are (a) whether Bush will host Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller at a festive, bipartisan White House signing ceremony to celebrate the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law, and (b) whether Bush, when he signs the bill into law, will append a signing statement decreeing that even its minimal restraints on presidential spying are invalid.

big snip...

With regard to the Senate FISA vote, a new event occurred yesterday that underscores the pure lawlessness of what our Congress will do this week. One of the pending Senate amendments -- the only one with any remote chance of passing -- is an amendment (.pdf) sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (co-sponsored by GOP Sen. Arlen Specter and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey). The Bingaman amendment would merely postpone the granting of telecom immunity until 90 days after Congress receives the Inspector General's audits of the President's NSA spying program which the new FISA bill mandates, and would freeze the telecom lawsuits in place until then.

The rationale behind the amendment is clear and simple: namely, members of Congress, the vast majority of whom know virtually nothing about what the telecoms did, shouldn't grant immunity unless they know what this illegal spying program entailed. If the IG Report reveals that the program (even though illegal) was devoted to a benign and proper purpose, then Congress (if it is so inclined) can grant immunity then. But if the IG Report reveals the spying program to be something other than what the President and the telecoms claim it to be -- if it entails far more invasive surveillance of Americans or was abused for improper purposes -- then immunity would obviously be wildly inappropriate. Even the ACLU and EFF, the lead organizations behind the telecom lawsuits, favor the Bingaman Amendment.

That amendment is a true compromise. It rests on what should be the completely uncontroversial proposition that Congress shouldn't immunize the lawbreakers until they at least know what was done. In the meantime, the lawsuits are frozen so that telecoms are spared the tragic burdens of having to account for their behavior in a court of law like everyone else does.

Revealing what telecom immunity is really about -- ensuring a permanent cover-up of Bush surveillance crimes -- Bush DNI Mike McConnell (who previously worked on behalf of the telecom industry to increase their government surveillance contracts) and Attorney General Michael Mukasey sent a joint letter to the Senate yesterday vowing that the President would veto the entire FISA bill if the Bingaman amendment were included, and issued this standard fear-mongering decree:

much more

Dow Jones
July 09, 2008: 12:51 PM EST

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Senate Wednesday defeated an attempt by Democratic senators to remove legal immunity for telephone companies from a bill reauthorizing the federal government's warrantless surveillance program.

The amendment only needed 50 votes to carry, but its proponents, which include most of the senior ranks of Senate Democrats, were unable to muster the requisite support.

The vote was 66-32 against the amendment.

It would have stripped out language in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that effectively grants immunity to the phone companies that participated in the wiretapping program in the years following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as well as his chief lieutenants Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., voted in favor of the amendment.

So too did Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the likely Democratic presidential nominee, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., his defeated rival for the nomination.

more

kinda like the Iraq resolution.

Senate Poised To Clear Electronic Surveillance Bill

The Senate also defeated 37-61 an amendment by Arlen Specter , R-Pa., which stated that the federal district court would not determine whether the government assured the companies that the program was legal and authorized, but instead review the constitutionality of the president’s program before the suits could be dismissed.

Specter said his amendment would have ensured court scrutiny of a program on which few members of Congress have been briefed.

“I suggest that this may be a historical embarrassment – a historical embarrassment where we are voting on matters where everybody knows that we don’t know what we’re voting on,” he said.

An amendment offered by Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., also was defeated 42-56. It would have stayed all pending lawsuits until 90 days after Congress receives a report, required by the bill, by inspectors general on the president’s surveillance program.

It would have given Congress a chance to decide on immunity based on a third-party review. If lawmakers took no action within 90 days, the provisions would go into effect.

rasmussenreports.com Tue Jul 8, 10:38 AM ET
Yahoo

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

more with a h/t to Lambert at Corrente

Senate OK's New Wiretapping Law
By Andrew Tilghman - July 9, 2008, 3:07PM

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a new federal wiretapping law this afternoon by a vote of 69-28.

After last month's approval of a similar measure in the House, today's vote essentially clears the way for the bill to go to the White House for a final signature.

The bill approved includes sweeping and retroactive immunity for telecom companies that provided information about customers to government officials without a warrant as part of the Bush Administration's surveillance program imposed after September 11, 2001.

The vote was all but assured after the senators struck down three key amendments this morning that would have overhauled the spying laws without granting immunity to the telecom companies.

Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for the bill.

Moments before the final vote, a handful of senators voted to filibuster the vote, including Sens. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY) voted against the filibuster and then voted against the law a few moments later.

more

One of the things in the bill that pisses me off is the 2012 date. This means it comes up again in another election year to guarantee its eternal life ~ me

This was a failure and there's no getting around that. Senators Dodd and Feingold put up a great fight but they were simply outnumbered. The movement that built up around this did yeoman work but it simply wasn't enough to overcome the establishment impulse to bury the past, forget about accountability, and advance the surveillance state. Senator Reid is talking about bringing this back up before the sunset provision in 2012, but I wouldn't describe that as likely.

digby

Since this is effectively a government seizure of the right to civil compensation, is there standing to sue for compensation under the 5th amendment?

Oh my, they're in on the take, too. Surprise, surprise.

July 9, 2008

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today’s vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration’s surveillance activities. Some of the legislation’s provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration’s surveillance activities.

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government’s targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

more

A big chunk of it is about keeping an eye on domestic groups. As things keep deteriorating, at some point various domestic forces will attempt to coalesce in order to cause serious change using whatever methods it takes. Surveillance is about tracking these forces, IMO. The various programs to monitor social networks and study their development being created by Intel agencies are consistent with this idea.

I came of age during Watergate and lived through the extraordinary hearings that put the safeguards in place against domestic spying. And now ... well, here we are. We are an unrecognizable nation. We spy, we torture, we racially profile ... all the things I was taught were the antithesis of a democratic nation. All things I was taught we went to war to fight AGAINST.

The thing of it is, as Creativelcro above notes, this is all about DOMESTIC spying, and anybody who doesn't think that what is happening in GITMO today couldn't happen here with IMPUNITY in the near future is kidding themselves.

I am sick at heart, the more so for the 69 senators who felt it was necessary to sell democracy down the river for the sake of AT&T.

He could have filibustered but did not. I have not sought out his reaction to this; nonetheless it's pretty clear he's been the most principled about this of all of them, and gone well out of his way to call for immediate ends to these schemes and the occupation, beyond his Senate colleagues (save the late Sen. Wellstone, who was the lone Dem rider going into the 2002 election with an antiwar message).

Anyway I have recently decided I will not give any money to the DNC because it's clear the general DC Democrats are not going to stand up to the war or the tyrannical spying.

I have given a few bucks before to the Feingold Progressive Patriot's Fund, (in particular because of the awesome "Don't Spy on Me" coiled-snake style t-shirt I got), but also as they seem an antidote to the Yellow Dogs and DLC style direction.

However if Feingold does not address this ominous madness in a real way - and explain why no filibuster from him - then should i give 'em any more support?

In any case can we justify giving money to the DNC or other politicians when it would be better put into a food shelf?
--
Hongpong.com

The conclusion...
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/07/20080709.htm

When you consider how we got here, this legislation is particularly discouraging. We discovered in late 2005 that the President had authorized an illegal program in blatant violation of a statute, and that Congress and the public had been misled in a variety of ways leading up to this public revelation. Congress, to its credit, held hearings on the program, but was largely stonewalled by the administration for many months until the administration grudgingly agreed to brief the intelligence committees, and more recently the judiciary committees. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the House and Senate have never been told what happened. In 2006, when the Republicans tried to push through legislation to grant massive new surveillance authorities to the executive branch, we stopped it. But now, in a Democratic-controlled Congress, not only did we pass the Protect America Act, but we are now about to extend for more than four years these expansive surveillance powers – and we are about to grant immunity to companies that are alleged to have participated in the administration’s lawlessness.

Mr. President, I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.

So I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about their votes on this bill, and consider how they, and their constituents, will feel about this vote five, ten or twenty years from now. I am confident that history will not judge this Senate kindly if it endorses this tragic retreat from the principles that have governed government conduct in this sensitive area for 30 years. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill.

--
Hongpong.com

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea ^^^
Bayh (D-IN), Yea ^^^
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea ^^^
Casey (D-PA), Yea ^^^
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea ^^^
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea ^^^
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea ^^^
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea ^^^
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea ^^^
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea ^^^
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea ^^^
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea ^^^
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea ^^^
Nelson (D-NE), Yea ^^^
Obama (D-IL), Yea ^^^
Pryor (D-AR), Yea ^^^
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea ^^^
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea ^^^
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea ^^^
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

And a bunch of spineless bastards.

Obama, we are so disappointed.

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

“What’s that smell in this room? Didn’t you notice it, Brick? Didn’t you notice the powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?” - Tennessee Williams, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"

Someone explain to me again, how I'm supposed to vote for the lesser of two evils in Nov. because I'm finding it real hard to convince myself.

Here's a list of posts from lefty bloggers who will either not vote for Obama or are reconsidering their support for him in the general election.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/09/8414
http://allspinzone.com/wp/2008/07/09/fisa-i-can-no-longer-vote-for-barack-obama/
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1561/135/
http://www.first-draft.com/2008/07/feingold-has-a.html
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html#3984289462982683892

So don't think you're alone if you're considering the same.

One thing we could do is to try to engineer a revolt at the convention, and get Hillary on the ticket instead. I was never a supporter of either, by the way.

and she's pretty much been on the Clinton side

The Audacity of Listening

NYT - I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.

I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about.

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

more at the link

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

By: Jane Hamsher Thursday July 10, 2008 6:00 am

The ACLU is going to challenge the FISA Amendments Act in court. They're also going to be taking out a full-page ad in a major national newspaper in protest, and the first 10,000 people to sign on will have their names included.

more at FDL