Senate Democrats were elected to lead, so don’t follow the president

December 6, 2007

Guest Post by Caroline Fredrickson, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

[Editor’s Note: We’ve been closely following developments on the Hill regarding the latest FISA bill, which is on the move in the Senate. With an update on the latest progress, as well as a look at what’s at stake, my friends at the ACLU have contributed this guest post. -CB]

When Americans elected a Democratic Congress last year, the country was calling for an end to the president’s unchecked appetite for power. Now the president is begging the Senate to let him continue spying on Americans without warrants and to give telecommunication companies immunity if helping the government spy on Americans is found to be illegal — and for the record, it is. It is time for Senate Democrats to act.

Senators must say no to the bill reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which effectively guts the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It is essentially President Bush’s dream legislation, because it allows the government to collect all communications coming in or out of the United States with no need for a warrant and gives the telecoms immunity for violating our rights. The bill resembles the Protect America Act passed this summer — the ACLU called it the “Police America Act” because of the damage it did to civil liberties — but there’s one key difference. The PAA is set to expire in February, but the bill President Bush is asking Congress to pass would largely make those changes permanent. Every future president — Democrat or Republican — would be free to violate our rights with as much impunity as the Bush administration.

But senators can do something. They can change history. The question is, will they?

The FISA bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (.pdf) is better than the Intelligence bill because it doesn’t give the telecoms immunity and only allows the government to monitor communications where one party is a “specific individual target.” It stops short of handing the president powers he has been jockeying for ever since he took office.

So why aren’t Democratic leaders putting their weight behind the Judiciary bill? Americans need to call on Senator Reid to take up the Judiciary bill. He has the power as leader to decide to set the Senate’s agenda — he should use it.

FISA already gives the government all the powers it needs to spy on people who aim to do us harm. Bush has promised to veto the Judiciary bill if it passes, and he claims the Democrats will be responsible if he loses tools he needs. But even if Bush vetoes the Judiciary bill, the government hasn’t lost anything — FISA is still in place, and FISA still gives the government the power to conduct surveillance.

Our senators need to decide what’s more important to them: the rights and demands of the American people, or the wishes of a lame-duck second-term president who has destroyed any chance of having a legacy? Clearly the president wants them to give him greater powers to spy on Americas — in violation of the Constitution. Congress needs to stand firm and defend the rights of the American people. Our freedom depends on it.

“Congress needs to stand firm and defend the rights of the American people.”

Yeah, we know that. We keep telling them that. Have they listened?

Not so’s you could tell.

  • “… why aren’t Democratic leaders putting their weight behind the Judiciary bill?”

    Because there are no leaders in the Democratic Party, that’s why.

    All elected members of Congress now need tons of money to get there. TeeVee time, in private hands and without regulation in the public interest, is not only disgustingly free of artistic or intellectual content — a wasteland beyond even Newton Minnow’s scariest nightmares — it is very, very expensive. The only source for such money is from profit-focused corporations. It is they who who lead, politicians who follow, and we citizens who pay (in more ways than mere taxes). The Police America Act is corporate-convenient, no matter which Party nominally rules. Ergo….

  • The great difference between George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden is that while one managed to fly a few planes into some buildings and a Pennsylvania meadow, the other demands permission to fly many planes into the Constitution, the American way of life, and the People’s right to privacy.

    Other than that, they’re pretty much two apples that have fallen from the same tree—and that tree bears the name, “Control through Fear….”

  • What continues to puzzle me is why any legislation was ever needed in the first place, much less that we now are faced with “fixing” a really bad bill.

    Words cannot adequately express my disappointment and anger over this issue. I am tired of the “don’t worry, we’ll fix it later, so let’s all just go along with more stupidity” attitude that seems to have descended upon these people.

    I’m just sick about it, and frustrated that something that should be so easy to see and stand up for appears to be beyond the capabilities of too many of these Democrats.

  • Thank God for the ACLU!

    But one is certainly led to wonder WHY Americans should even need to contact the Democrats in droves to pressure them to restore our Constitutional rights. Don’t get me wrong — I know it’s needed, since we’ve seen them support so many of GW Bush’s unconstitutional demands. But are they so damned blind they don’t already KNOW the right thing to do? Don’t they KNOW America is outraged at Bush’s violations of countless laws, treaties, and rights? Keeping the Democrats in line is like herding cats or trying to shore up a mound of earth with toilet paper. I’m exceedingly weary of it, having voted for the Democrats in 2006, only to be stunned at their performance since then, and having sent hundreds of emails and signed petition after petition.

    Steve

    FWIW, nobody in the US really knows what part OBL played in 911. He’s on the FBI Most-Wanted list for several other terrorist acts but not for 911.

    On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

    The rest at http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

  • After the revelations this week with Iran /NIE any politician should be put on notice that support of Bush/Cheney should also be charged with committing
    War Crimes ( right along with Bush/cheney Rice gonzalez ET Al).Maybe that will improve the voting for continuing with the US Constitution as it was written and meant to be followed.

  • Pingback: Linkdump Blogging | Broadsides

    • Comments are closed.