In the latest shocker for civil libertarians, the Senate appears set to grant immunity to telecommunication companies after they participated in the unlawful domestic surveillance program. The Democrats faced intense criticism last year and hoped that the attention and ire of voters would subside with the distraction of elections. The fix was in, however, months ago when Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) picked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s proposal (favoring immunity) to be the legislation to go first to the floor.
While Reid has said that he personally opposes immunity and asked for additional time from the White House to work out a compromise, he made an outcome-determinative decision in selecting the Senate Intelligence Committee to lead on the floor. Due to that procedural choice, it will take 60 votes for opponents to stop immunity. It does not appear that they have the votes, which was obvious when this decision was made by the Senate Democratic leadership.
In the meantime, the GOP and the White House are playing a game of chicken with national security by refusing to extend the law while negotiations continue — forcing an up-or-down vote.The Intelligence Committee Chair John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) is supporting immunity. It was disclosed last year that Rockefeller knew of both the unlawful surveillance program and the torture program for years. Rockefeller promised this week that his immunity proposal “will prevail.”The telecom lobbyists always had the upper hand with some members of the Democratic leadership, which hopes to pass the immunity bill once attention fades in 2008.
In an astonishing move, Sen. Diane Feinstein is trying to move the entire matter out of the federal courts and into the secret FISA court. The only value of such a move is to reduce the political fallout and make immunity more likely for the telecom companies. Despite the overwhelming opposition to immunity among Democrats, Independents, and civil libertarians, the Senate has been quietly working with lobbyists for the industry to find ways to grant immunity. The move would kill over 40 lawsuits by public interest and civil libertarians groups. It would stop the work on judges, who have refused to dismiss these important cases. Notably, Majority Leader Harry Reid has shown lukewarm support for those like Sen. Dodd, Kennedy, and Feingold opposing immunity.As usual, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — led by Sen. Rockefeller — supported the White House in killing the pending and future lawsuits. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee supported the civil liberties side and denied immunity in their bill. Reid initially moved the pro-telecom Intelligence bill to the floor first and did little to assist his colleagues in moving the pro-civil liberties measure.
It was only after a determined campaign from advocates and Democratic colleagues that he relented in allowing both bills to go to the floor — but insisted that the Senate Intelligence bill would be the first legislation. This meant that it would have to be amended. Nevertheless, the filibuster tactic by Sen. Dodd paid off. The heat was too intense for Democrats and Reid decided to pull the legislation in 2008. However, before it was pulled, it was clear that, once again, the Democrats are divided on a fundamental issue of civil liberties.
Feinstein’s proposal is particularly worrisome. She would have the entire matter given to the secret FISA court. Why? Federal courts routinely review secret information given in camera and ex parte by the government. I have been counsel in cases with information classified at this level without the need to removal it to the FISA court. The benefit goes entirely to the telecom companies. First, it would reduce the vulnerability of the companies by reducing the number of judges. It is likely that one or more of these judges will side with the civil liberties groups. This would reduce it to one court with a long conservative, pro-intell record. Second, it would prevent the public and media from witnessing the proceeding — thereby giving these Senators political cover and reducing public backlash. Third, it would reduce the ability of the parties to argue their cases. Private counsel is normally barred from FISA proceedings and the court does not allow for the basic procedures of discovery and adversarial process.
There is no good policy argument for immunity. If the White House is correct and they acted legally, they have nothing to fear. But these Democrats and the White House know that the companies did not act lawfully. Thus, they are struggling to protect the companies for our own courts and our own laws. The disconnect with voters is extraordinary. As with the torture vote, the fix is in on immunity. The only question is timing. This cynical manipulation of the vote reflects a certain contempt for Democratic voters and a major flaw in our political system. While civil liberties advocates like Sen. Feingold exist in the Senate, there remains a general lack of support for these principles over political expedience.While Senator Dodd is promising a fight, he has been clearly undermined by his own leadership. The vote will again confirm the disconnect between statements of the Senate leadership to voters and their own actions — or lack of action. The leadership could have killed this immunity provision. Instead, senators will vote against it while ignoring the fact that they could have blocked it. The loser, once again, will be civil liberties.
For the most recent story, click here
Wonderful site. Lots of useful information here. I am sending it to several friends ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you in your sweat!
***DW, This link is what you were referencing earler re immunity.
I am posting this again response to Bushes most recent announcement, just made.
As soon as he makes a threat about one thing, you can almost bet the opposite is true OR something else – unsaid altogether. No wonder he wants to delay his trip.
This from Eff.org:
January 24th, 2008
Congress Stand Firm: Surveillance Continues Even If PAA Expires
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/congress-stand-firm-surveillance-doesnt-go-dark-if-paa-expires
Posted by Cindy Cohn
The Administration has been in a full-court press to bully Congress
into making horrible permanent changes to FISA — including immunity for telecommunications carriers like AT&T — based on the argument that critical surveillance of terrorists will be cut short or degraded if the Protect America Act (PAA) expires on January 31, 2008.
But no surveillance started by the PAA will end when the PAA expires. All of the spying done under the PAA will continue until at least July 31, 2008 even if the law goes to the dustbin of history on January 31, as it should.
***
deeply worried 1, February 3, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Great post Patty C!
Those folks at the EFF are true heroes. I thought you might be very interested in this:
At issue is whether the proposed retroactive telco immunity before the Senate would represent if enacted an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause! And a departure from tradition in not providing the plaintiffs with some sort of compensation fund.*
Patty C 1, February 4, 2008 at 1:07 am
Thanks, DW, right back atchya! Interesting article indeed AND on point with Kelo.
How much is the Constitutional right to privacy worth these days,
ya think?
We are told that “serious” people don’t advocate impeachment or any such drastic actions. We are told that it is shrill and counterproductive to party strategy to do so.
History will judge that it was precisely the “serious” people who rang the alarms on this administration early and it was precisely the adults who urged impeachment.
totally consistent in their abusive approach to government. Congress is useful when it agrees with them, disregarded when it doesn’t. Now simply insert “laws” “oversight committees”, “treaties”, and so forth for “congress” and that is the story of the last 7 years.
They simply brook no opposition, no restraint, no limits.
Lets be honest, they are criminals. But most people can’t wrap their minds around that stark truth.