Richard WarnickTomorrow, the U.S. Senate Abandons the Rule of Law
And there is nothing we can do about it, at least in the short run. A sad time for America.
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.
UPDATE: Senator Russ Feingold’s speech today on the Senate floor.
More from the New York Times, which BTW won a Pulitzer for exposing the Bush administration’s widespread illegal surveillance of Americans:
[The FISA amendments bill] would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.
Supporters will argue that the new bill still requires a warrant for eavesdropping that “targets” an American. That’s a smokescreen. There is no requirement that the government name any target. The purpose of warrantless eavesdropping could be as vague as listening to all calls to a particular area code in any other country.
The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year.
Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Christopher Dodd and Jeff Bingaman plan to offer amendments to do that, but there is little chance they will pass. The Senate should reject this bill and start over with modest legislation that makes the small needed changes and preserves Americans’ fundamental protections.
Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA. Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins. Sound familiar?
Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.
UPDATE: And, Glenn Greenwald blogs the crushing defeat of the Constitution at the hands of politicians sworn to support and defend it. He has the video of Prof. Jonathan Turley’s interview with Rachel Maddow last night, too.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Perhaps this bill is one of the reasons for this:
Meanwhile, President Bush’s ratings are nearly or over 3 times the approval rating of Congress.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bob S.– The people are right. Congress is doing a spectacularly bad job. The Democrats won in 2006 because we wanted to have an opposition party to stop Bush. Instead, a recent poll (PDF) found that the Democratic-controlled Congress gets higher approval from Republicans (23%) than Democrats (18%).
I wouldn’t brag about President Bush’s poll numbers. He’s within the margin of error of being the least popular president in the history of presidential approval ratings. One poll last February put him at 19 percent, which beats both Nixon and Truman’s worst numbers.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Richard,
I think all of them are doing a lousy job. I’m not bragging on Bush.
I posted that as a goad to the folks with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
It really highlights that this is not a Republican/Democrat issue, but a monumental failure of both branches of government, both political parties.
I really wish the ballot had a “none of the above” option. Let’s remove all of them and start over. First question for any candidate I would have is : What laws or regulations are you going to repeal?
July 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
A good manner for Congress to boost its ratings is to force KRove to appear before the HJC to answer the pending subpoena, and if he fails to do so, to have him jailed for contempt.
The ratings would go through the roof, if only briefly.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Albert,
A good manner for Congress to boast its ratings is to show they don’t consider themselves above the law either.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Bob:
Sounds like more apologizing rhetoric on behalf of the executive. You are engaging yet again in your shell-game mode, hoping that folks will not notice.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Albert,
How is it apologizing on behalf of the executive? “Cold Cash” Jefferson was caught accepting a bribe, did Congress do the right thing and allow the investigation? NO
Neither political party did!
So when you start throwing stones at Rove and the Executive branch, consider the source of the subpoena.
As I said earlier, throw them all out! But don’t expect the Executive Branch to do something the Legislative Branch is unwilling to do.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Bob S:
People like you keep defending and apologizing for Bush, (that is, when you’re not saying you aren’t apologizing for him or “goading” us). If there’s any kind of a grand tribunal in Washington which “isn’t going to happen” because we can’t even have an investigation into one mans crimes, I guarantee the Democrats would come out looking much better then the absolute corporate power crowd on the Republican side.
Everybody knows about William Jefferson now. If he is guilty of crimes, he should pay, but he doesn’t represent a sweeping crime wave in the Democratic party. Jack Abramoff did represent that in the Republican party, but his minions are walking free all over Washington, including McCain!
At least help us support the Democrats who will try to stop this FISA travesty!
July 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Bob:
Does Rove properly assert executive privilege in refusing to comply with the subpoena?
Yes or no?
July 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Bob may not have the answer. The answer is, executive privilege does not appear anywhere in the C0nstitution but the courts have allowed the President to use it in cases involving diplomacy and national security.
Karl Rove is not the President. The Governor Siegelman case has nothing to do with diplomacy or national security. Karl Rove cannot assert executive privilege.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Folks,
I would like some help. I’m trying to find the source of Congress being able to require someone to appear for questioning and I can’t find it in the Constitution.
So, serious question, where is that power authorized?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Okay, found a couple of references and some information. Let me study up a bit.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:36 am
The Congressional Research Service has a handy guide (PDF), Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power.
It’s not going to happen with this Congress, but I’d like to see the exercise of the “inherent contempt” power last used in 1934. Most people don’t know that either the House or Senate can arrest people and throw them in jail for contempt of Congress, without involving the Department of Justice. The Capitol has its own police force and its own jail.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Richard:
In the recent congressional hearing where John Yoo was testifying, he kept getting into a tight spot and saying the justice department had told him he couldn’t answer some of the questions. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who was presiding kept stopping the testimony to ask him what privilege he was asserting. Yoo got very uncomfortable and kept saying attorney/client privilege and something else that was more vague.
Wasn’t Nadler actually trying to get him to admit to claiming executive privilege, which would have opened the Pandora’s box for the administration concerning the torture memos?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Larry– If the client was the President, then Yoo may have been trying to be clever. It’s not clever. We know that torture methods were discussed in detail and approved at the White House. We know, because representatives of the CIA testified in court, that there exists a secret Presidential finding signed by George W. Bush that authorized the torture of detainees.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Update to my comment yesterday– Karl Rove failed to show up at this morning’s House Judiciary Committee hearing. Even if there is a claim of executive privilege, that does not mean you can ignore a congressional subpoena.
Not for the first time, I want to know why Karl Rove isn’t behind bars.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Rove could at least show up and do a rap dance on the floor of the house.
If this guy isn’t arrested, I’m going to call my congressman for the upteenth time and get no response! No, really, I am!
Really!
July 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
You should try stomping your foot and holding your breath until you turn blue. (Ooops - I almost wrote bleu!)
It’ll be as effective.
Why? ‘Cause the Dem saviours elected in ‘06 used you guys to take power. Now that they have it, they’re happy to toss you under the bus like they did Sheehan, Wright, the ACLU, Patriot Act reform, FISA reform….
Shall I go on? Is there enough space.
Y’all got snookered som’thn FIERCE.
And you didn’t even see it coming..,,
(so - is Barack for or against NAFTA - it’s all SO confusing…..)
July 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
jdberger:
At least I get ticked off when my supposedly Democratic leaders turn their back on me. You Republicans just bend over and beg for more as long as you get to keep your hand gun. Remember, never say anything negative about a fellow Republican.
It’s not all bad. Remember, just a few months ago, when things looked so bad, even a Republican congress had to call a couple of their own people in for hearings. Remember Gonzales sitting there looking like he had just broken the window with a baseball. He wasn’t under oath jd. That’s right, now when people go to hearings, they actually have to be under oath.
So please stop gloating about our loses. They are your losses too.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I guess the difference is that your side is so disingenuous. At least we know what we’re voting for. And, for the most part, we don’t read the tea leaves the same way you do.
We don’t think Bush liked to take us to war.
We know that Cheney isn’t an employee of Halliburton.
We don’t think that the Iraq war is just about oil.
We know that Dems lost the last two Presidential elections.
We don’t believe Michael Moore or Oliver Stone.
Obviously you see things different. But that’s the beauty of this country and this political system. We can disagree without having to resort to violence.