Throwing the leadership gauntlet to Obama and Clinton

We all know, by now, that Senator Dodd has put a hold on the new FISA bill and promised he will filibuster any bill which has immunity for the telecoms for potential lawbreaking. Senator Biden has backed him up and promised to join in any such filibuster.

Meanwhile Harry Reid, who has honored holds from Republicans on bills with widespread bypartisan support such as Emmet Till's Cold Case bill, which would have provided money to help solve old civil liberties bills, has been waffling on whether he'll honor Dodd's hold.

This is one of those odd cases where the rules and Senate custom vary. There were, for example, more than 60 votes for the Emmett Till bill which Tom Coburn put a hold on, but Reid never brought it to the floor. Typically on the Majority leader brings bills to the floor. Now, stricly speaking, any Senator can bring something to the floor and if he gets 60 votes, well, it's up for a vote. But Reid didn't bring it and neither did any other Senator - because Senate custom, and the Senate tradition of comity, means you just don't do that.

But on this awful bill, Harry Reid may apparently violate that comity and those traditions and stick to the absolute rules - and bring it to the floor, so Telecoms can get the immunity they paid Jay Rockefeller for. Democrats, as usual, are scared that if they don't pass a bill that Bush won't veto, they'll get hammered on it in ads in 2008. Folks who know how to play the game would note that if Republicans want to hold up or veto a security bill because they want to make it legal to break the law, you run on that.

Nor, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out can the telecoms argue they were operating in good faith:

Just read what Bush-41-appointed Federal Judge Vaughn Walker — operating out in the open, in an actual court of law, with both sides present and in accordance with due process — ruled when rejecting AT&T’s argument that they are entitled to have the case dismissed because they operated in “good faith” [Decision (.pdf) at p. 68]:

“AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

All of which leads us the question of the day:

Will Obama and Hilary Clinton join Dodd in his filibuster if retroactive immunity is in the bill when it reaches the floor?

Obama's been dancing around the question:

"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

In what condition, Senator Obama. Without using the words "If the bill comes to the senate floor with retroactive immunity..." you've still left yourself weasel room.

Do you support a filibuster of any bill with retroactive immunity or not?

And Senator Clinton, what about you? Do rich corporations get to dodge the law with your implicit nod, or will you actively try and make sure that those who broke the law, knowingly, pay the price?

This is an important question, because it's one thing for Harry Reid and other Democratic Senators to disrespect Senate tradition in general, and Dodd in particular, by ignoring his hold, but it's another thing entirely to do so for the two people who are most likely to be President in 2009 (though Dodd's odds may be improving.)

I hope Obama and Clinton will do the right thing, but no matter what they do it will tell us what their priorities are.

If you want to call them and remind them what's right, the numbers are:

Clinton Presidential: (703) 469-2008 Senate: (202) 224-4451
Obama Presidential: (866) 675-2008 Senate: (202) 224-2854

Ian Welsh October 24, 2007 - 11:05am

Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Liberties | USA: Campaign 2008 | USA: Congress | USA: Homeland Security | USA: Presidency )

exactly

I hope Obama and Clinton will do the right thing, but no matter what they do it will tell us what their priorities are.

I don't believe they give a damn about what is right

Tina October 24, 2007 - 12:14pm

Dodd email: I don't want to, but I'm not afraid to do this alone

Dear Tina,

Let's get right to it and talk about how we stop retroactive telecommunications immunity from becoming law.

The way I see it, there are three ways to get this provision stripped from the final bill:

1.) The first step would be to make sure the idea doesn't make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- where it will be considered shortly.

If we can get it stripped there, it will have to be offered as an amendment to the overall bill where it will be a lot easier to get 41 votes against retroactive immunity than 41 to sustain my filibuster if necessary.

Take a moment and call up members of the committee, let me know what they said, and join others in tracking our progress in stopping the provision right there.

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

The other two ways:

2.) If retroactive immunity does make it out of committee, Senate leadership can honor the hold I've placed on any legislation that includes retroactive immunity.

3.) If leadership does not honor my hold, I remain committed to filibustering, and working to get the 41 votes necessary to maintain it.

This has the potential to be a long fight -- so let's build a solid foundation for our effort today by asking members of the Judiciary Committee to vote against any FISA bill that includes retroactive amnesty.

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

I'd like to see a little more spine, frankly, on these issues. People tell us they want to lead, but a little leadership right now would certainly be welcomed on these questions.

I don't want to, but I'm not afraid to do this alone.

Chris

Paid for by Chris Dodd for President, Inc., PO Box 51882, Washington, DC 20091, Info@ChrisDodd.com
To stop receiving email from Dodd for President, Inc., visit http://chrisdodd.com/de-list

Tina October 24, 2007 - 1:43pm

Mysteries Of Coziness

These few steps forward are important. We've been taken many many steps backward, every inch forward matters. There must be a way to leap way ahead to truly regain much more considerable ground. (I'm thinking of the prosecutors.) Even if immunity is thwarted, we do still have the telecoms we're left with to contend with. Such contention shouldn't be there in the first place. Why their base compliance in the first place? What is the source of the strength of this governmental coercion to begin with? Money? Lobbyists? Governmental harrassment? Whom are their largest customer base if not us as it is? The logic, where is it?
Is there not some myopia in action here?
Truly, it appears doing what's right is not Clinton's first priority and it should not be an incidental thing should she do so, but such a definition of her is taken for granted now?

I have a feeling I'm unaware of the growing efficacy of the blogosphere's group actions, and of it's scope. I hope so.

I remember feeling a little relieved when Bill was president, knowing things would have otherwise then been like they are now, but that was illusory (in hindsight), the rapacity was simply gentler and less was known or at least discussed, in other issues (such as DU or what have you) so why not in what is germaine here as well?

Obama is on the bus and so that question's answered -it shouldn't have been questionable. etc. The larger framework is still unaddressed. Framing! The immediate cure seemingly abets the grosser larger symptoms. Thinking outside of the box is one thing, but there seems to be many boxes within boxes here. Let not the blogosphere be finessed by it's own successes into merely a lesser myopia. I surely don't want Dodd to have to fight his own to do what he does. Why should he? Let Clinton and the others be more fully known for what they are. Patently, there are mountains to be uncovered. Gaining prosecutoral ground here doesn't speak to the core fight. What's up with these telecoms in the first place? There are larger controls to be handled, fought for, uncovered and discussed. Grosser larger issues behind these transgressions against us. The telecoms are themselves myopic; we truly are whom they'll ultimately answer to and serve, no?

There's a market here, an economic opportunity but no telecom entrepreneural response to the citizenry at large, for some reason. Obama doesn't address this. Leadership??

What are the agreements the government has with them? What are the agreements MSN and MS and Google and others have with them? What's at core, and what's the incentive?? We are the money, are we not? Is not all this tied in with related issues? Let them not be parsed and isolated.

Let's take in the whole Vista.

That's just my view. I strongly appreciate what you and all others are doing, don't get me wrong. I am grateful to live in a world where my view isn't necessarily the prevailing one or what's a heaven for. And goodness knows heaven is in the details...

Zuma October 24, 2007 - 3:27pm

Clinton and Obama Stand By Dodd

Oct 24th, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën

http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/clinton-and-obama-stand-by-dodd/

It seems that both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama support Senator Chris Dodd who threatened to “place a hold on and filibuster” the “Senate telecom immunity FISA bill.” They’re being pressured by several progressive organizations and bloggers to publicly declare their support for Dodd. MoveOn, for instance, will send letters to its members asking them to call the offices of Obama and Clinton about the bill. Blogs and bloggers like Daily Kos, Glenn Greenwald, Open Left, MyDD, and Taylor Marsh are basically doing the same thing. They’re instructing their readers to call Clinton and Obama to let them know that they want them to back Dodd.

This strategy seems already to be paying off: both Clinton and Obama have now indicated that they support Dodd. Clinton chooses her words more carefully than Obama does, but the message is clear.

quiet Bill October 24, 2007 - 3:55pm

Haven't seen a formal

Haven't seen a formal statement from Clinton yet that isn't weasely.

Ian Welsh October 24, 2007 - 4:24pm

Obama is in full support

Obama's spokesman has clarified:

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

Link

JoeNotCharles October 24, 2007 - 4:21pm

sign the petiton to Reid

Please Sign a Petition to Harry Reid on Telecom Immunity - FDL

Tina October 25, 2007 - 12:01pm