FISA Liveblog: Chris “Not only do I dress better than Kit Bond, I defend the Constitution, too!” Dodd

Dodd up: Thanks to Reid for leadership on this issue.

Majority leader made clear–this is about Constitution and rule of law. Call up amendment.

The entire amendment: Strike Title II.

Were those warrants sought before the telecoms turned over those communications. Allow co-equal branch to determine whether actions of executive branch were legal. We have 3 co-equal branches of govt. We being legislative should insist that judicial branch determine actions taken.

Thanked a number of Senators–but not Obama.

May seem like a difficult issue to follow. Rule of law v. rule of men. For more than 7 years Bush has demonstrated that he doesn’t respect rule of law. Today considering legislation to grant retroactive immunity to those who are alleged to have cooperated without warrants. Some may argue companies received documentation and that therefore it is automatically legal. They argue mere existence of documentation makes it leagl. Already know companies received some form of documentation. Not whether companies received a document from White House. A very uncomplicated problem. Did the companies break the law? FISC has rejected 5 requests in 30 years. Why not go to court? Why did they depend on paper documentation? Because of this so-called compromise, judge’s hands will be tied. Holding Admin to account for violating constitution. Where law ends, tyranny begins.

Bush’s false dichotomy: to be more security, we have to give up rights. False choice. It’s precisely when you stand up and protect your rights you become stronger. Cannot protect American if you fail to protect the Constitution of the United States.

Eisenhower: The clearest way to show what the rule of law means is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.

If we do not stand up for the Constitution, history will decide that those of us in this body bear equal responsibility for looking the other way time and time again. It’s time we stood up for the rule of law. FISA Court strikes a balance between secure nation and nation defending its rights.

Not every phone company did what they did. The ones that didn’t should be celebrated for standing up for the rule of law. Tomorrow we vote around 11:00 in the morning.

Levin noted that this itself can become a precedent. For some future administration to circumvent the FISA courts. This is about whether a court of law should decide. Let’s not decide it by a simple vote here and not decide it by a simple vote that I believe we’ll regret for years and years to come.

image_print
    • selise says:

      But I disagree that Harry has demonstrated any leadership.

      epu’ed from previous thread:

      since the PAA was passed last august, reid has had 5 fisa bills he could have brought to the senate floor (the restore act, the ssci’s s.2248, the sjc’s s.2248, h.r.3773 in march and h.r.6304).

      two of those bills included retroactive immunity. three did not.

      which two did reid bring to the floor of the senate?

  1. leinie says:

    Yeah, I noticed there was no shout out to Obama. He endorsed him, didn’t THIS ISSUE have something to do with that endorsement?

  2. jayt says:

    Dodd says this legislation Ties the hands of the courts and that they will be required to dismiss all pending cases.

    Not really, sir. One way or the other, this ends up in Justice Kennedy’s hands…

  3. bobschacht says:

    Thank you, EW, for your play-by-play account!

    And thank you, Sen. Dodd, for defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Bob in HI

    • jayt says:

      that was a short moment.

      I’m lost. Is there still a filibuster possibility as to the main bill when it comes up tomorrow?

      • JimWhite says:

        I’m not sure, but I don’t think so because they are operating under a unanimous consent agreement. I wandered off and came back just in time for Dodd, so I don’t even know if other speakers are expected tonight. I suspect there will be some or they would adjourn.

  4. TobyWollin says:

    I sent faxes to Clinton and Schumer, lots of hard and fast facts and ‘vote yes on the amendment; vote no for cloture and no on the final bill” but I also said this: “Your vote this week on this may make that date even more memorable than July 4, 1776, because it will be remembered as either the day when the Senate stood up and saved the Bill of Rights and the Constitution…or as the day when the United States ceased to exist as it was known for over 200 years. If that happens, the names of the Senators who voted to allow Bush and Cheney to hide their crimes will be long remembered for what they did to the American People. I’m sure you wish to be remembered as a Senator who stood up for the Constitution and your oath to protect it.”

  5. pseudonymousinnc says:

    Levin noted that this itself can become a precedent. For some future administration to circumvent the FISA courts.

    You mean for the other surveillance that they didn’t have to fess up to, but the existence of which was strongly hinted during hearings? Say it ain’t so!

    • skdadl says:

      “Other intelligence activities” … inquiring minds still want to know.

      God bless you all. I saw the ad on Jane’s post at FDL, and I was just so impressed.

  6. 4jkb4ia says:

    I feel sad because Claire has more than enough cover to vote however she wants to. The votes which will sink all of these amendments are more hardline than she is.

  7. perris says:

    while I love what dodd said, I would really like to see these men start to demonstrate the ramifications of ignoring warrant protocol

    the fact that it gives free access to valuable information which companies will with NO doubt exploit, that it even gives free access to information that can EASILY present security risks, making it FAR MORE LIKELY our security sectrets will be SOLD to the highest bidder.

    it in fact gives them FREE ACCESS to gather information on lawmakers and their families ALMOST GAUARANTEEING using that information to pressure lawmakers into passing law or denying law that should be passed

    when there is no oversight, there is no end in sight, they WILL steal, they will gather information and use it for their own personal gain, at the expense of those they took this information from

    these are the things I wish the lawmakers spoke about, actual examples of what WILL happen and PROBABLY has happened without oversite

  8. RevDeb says:

    OK, so I’m back after schlepping into Philly for drinking liberally where none of them were up on this afternoon’s dance between Whitehouse, Snarlin’ and Jello.

    Has anyone figured out what was going on there? It seemed like it veered off the script.

    • EternalVigilance says:

      I was in the Senate Gallery all day today (well, until about 6:15), may go back again tomorrow – it’s not every day one gets to see whether the Congress votes to eviscerate the Constitution! Anyway…

      What’s up with Arlen is that he actually cares very, very deeply about the Constitution, and more than any other Senator today spent time trying to emphasize what complete insantity/criminal complicity retroactive immunity is. And he was doing this from the Republican side, too! The lines of questioning were Arlen’s attempts (drawing on his prosecutorial background, I thought) to get other Senators to confirm on the record things like Senators can’t give their voting responsibility to others (the line of questioning to Whitehouse, to which Whitehouse replied he felt it wasn’t unconstitutional, but it was deeply imprudent), which was Specter’s way of emphasizing throughout the day that less than 40% of the Senate and less than 20% of the House even knows what behavior they’re immunizing. Another of Arlen’s points, which he brought up at least three or four times, was that it was unprecedented for Congress to end cases that had been in progress for years and were now in front of a judge (in this case Vaughn Walker in SF), especially when a decision had found the government’s behavior unconstitutional – he felt this was a real Constitutional error. Some of the stuff that went back and forth between Specter and Rockefeller was about this point, where Specter boldly spoke that taking the time to decide these cases was the price of Constitutional and civil rights.

      Sometimes these guys are just winging it, and they misunderstand each other, and there was also a bit of that between Arlen and Jay. Jay said something about how the debate had not even mentioned the importance of intelligence, and at least to me it sounded as though it was simple human hurt that not enough of the debate had recognized his attempts to secure good intelligence to protect the country (I deeply disagree with his methods, but I really got the emotional impression he wasn’t bullshitting here, he had really been trying to help). Arlen seemed to hear that as Jay forgetting that Arlen had chaired the Intelligence Committee, too, and so he and Jay went at each other a bit, two old men tired and open to the simple weakness of human emotion.

      I’ve been no fan of Specter’s, ever, but I have to say that what I saw of him today nearly moved me to tears. You may not have seen it on C-SPAN, but he was in the Senate chamber almost all day – far, far more than any other Senator – his hair gone, his body frail, his walk slow and pained, but unwilling to give up on trying to save the Constitution he believed in. As other Senators would speak he’d be at his desk taking notes, or working with his staff, or sometimes just sitting and thinking. I don’t agree with his decision to vote for the bill if immunity stays in, or even the substitution idea, and went up to his office to tell his staff afterwards, but I almost don’t care. If half the Democrats had the balls that Arlen Specter showed today we’d have not only no FISA bill to worry about, we’d have a different President and VP.

      Jesus, I can’t believe Arlen Specter’s going to make me cry. But it was one of the most moving things I’ve ever seen. And I hope if I’m ever that old, or that tired, or that weak, I have even half that much courage.

      What I told his staffer was that I really honored what Arlen did today, and that I thought it did justice to the best traditions of the Senate. And my hope for him, just as a human being, was that he be able to open to what his cancer might bring to him as much as he was willing to fight what it might take from him. That he could reach across the aisle of his own internal battle to find a compromise not only with an opponent, but a partner and friend. And in that spirit of compromise and remembrance of friendship, may he love and truly honor the human Senate within himself, and within us all.

      Best wishes,
      Bruce

      • bmaz says:

        It doesn’t take balls to talk a good game, it takes balls to go out and back it up with votes. Mr. Specter talked the same passionate spiel about the Constitution, rule of law and yada, yada, yada on the MCA/Habeas; then he went out and voted for the crap while having the gall to state on the record he hoped the Supreme Court would bail him out. According to what you relate, that is exactly what is going on here. That is not heroic, that is lame. Hot air does not mean diddly, votes count. If he believes in the Constitution so much, he should fucking vote to uphold and protect it.

        • EternalVigilance says:

          Impugning another man’s difference of opinion as spiel, gall or lame is exactly the kind of condescending abuse for which I see the left excoriate the right (and rightly so).

          I’d say that until we here are able to even consider someone else sees a situation differently, let alone with as much passion and consistency to their view, that we have no chance at advancing an agenda, and in fact are just as violently fractious as those whom we believe we oppose.

          No wonder the left can’t get the votes to change anything. “Vote with us, you ignorant gasbag” wouldn’t sway me much, either.

          Probably a good thing to keep in mind as we call everyone this morning.

  9. bmaz says:

    I do not impugn Specter for his difference of opinion, I impugn him for wasting oxygen talking about his love of the Constitution and then voting directly opposite to his words. If you find that to be “condescending abuse”, I suppose that is your right, but it is a curious opinion. Similarly, I think it is curious, at best, that you consider the questioning of a man that consistently panders with happy talk about the Constitution and then votes diametrically opposite, to be “violently fractious”. Perhaps I should talk out of both sides of my mouth and not really stand for anything and you would consider that heroic, same as you do for the Scottish Haggis. But I will have none of that, instead, and unlike Specter, I will plow along standing for what I believe in and proudly accept your mushy wrath. And, again unlike Specter, I will do everything in my power to protect the Constitution so that you may continue to have the right to express that.

  10. darclay says:

    Well I know his evilness was in Raleigh yesterday as were several others of his minions but “in honor of senator NO” can we have a real filabuster and firebreathing show from any Democrat surely there must be a rule, or some device that someone has the guts to use to hold this up….makes me so sad.