Thank God someone has the nerve to stand up to these people. I was asked by one of our readers why so many Senate Democrats are caving on this issue. It's the same reason they cave on the war and everything else that matters. It's because they have no backbone. They're afraid that the Republicans will say that they're soft on terror, so they vote for legislation that they know is wrong. That's pretty much it. They're afraid for their jobs and the other guys scare them more than we do.
First up in terms of voting will be the cloture vote that Sen. McConnell moved on Friday, regarding closing debate on S.2248. If the "no" votes take it, then there is a subsequent cloture vote to allow for a 30-day extension of the PAA, as I understand it, so that both the House and Senate can take time to go through the materials on NSA domestic spying that the Bush Administration finally turned over to the House Intel committee late last week. (Piles and piles of paper, which they have been pouring over all weekend, I hear.)
If that fails, then we are potentially back to debate on S.2248 and all of the proposed amendments that various groups have been trying to put forward to improve the bill -- or change it in some way, depending on the amendment. And we are again facing the potential of a Dodd filibuster, among other efforts to block wholesale passage of telecom immunity and basket warrants, among other constitutional and legal problems with the bill.
Or Sen. Reid could remove the bill from consideration altogether if the 30-day extension is not agreed to, the PAA would expire on Friday, and we would then go back to the FISA bill as it stood before this whole chain of idiocy began -- and we could start fresh with the House RESTORE Act as a base for negotiations potentially. Or any number of other scenarios that can be spun out from there.
After the jump, Senator Reid's remarks, as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor concerning these votes...
Just a few hours from now, President Bush will stand in the well of the House of Representatives, just a few hundred yards across the Capitol from here, to deliver his final State of the Union address.
It’s a fair bet that in this speech, he will continue the drumbeat started by Dick Cheney last week by trying to scare the American people into believing that if he does not get his way on the FISA bill now before us, America’s national security will be gravely jeopardized.
I have said on more than one occasion in recent days that the we face: a faltering economy at home and a failing foreign policy abroad – call upon us to rise above partisanship.
I have said on more than one occasion that we extend our hand to the President and Congressional Republicans and hope they join us in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship.
But, M. President, in my twenty years in Congress, I have not seen anything quite as cynical and counterproductive as the Republican approach to FISA.
The American people deserve to know that when President Bush talks about the foreign intelligence bill tonight, he’s doing little more than shooting for cheap political points – and we should reject his efforts.
Members of Congress from both parties have legitimate policy disagreements on FISA.
Some of us believe that history proves the need for more protections against government abuse. Others support the law the way it stands.
But all of us – Democrats and Republicans – want to wage an effective fight against terrorism.
All of us – Democrats and Republicans– want to give our intelligence professionals the tools they need to win this fight.
We will be taking two votes: the first is on whether to invoke cloture on the Bond-Rockefeller substitute to the FISA bill that we have on the floor.
The second is a cloture vote on whether to extend the authorities of the Protect America Act for an additional 30 days, while Congress works to pass a new FISA bill.
I will oppose cloture on the substitute, and will support cloture on the extension.
An extension will give the Senate time to fully debate this complex issue and pass a longer-term law that protects America without compromising the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
Both the Intelligence Committee bill and the Judiciary Committee bill authorize the same surveillance tools our intelligence community needs. Democrats and Republicans stand together on all of the terrorism-fighting components of these bills.
Some Democrats, including me, support the additional privacy protections in the Judiciary Committee bill. Others are satisfied with the protections in the Intelligence Committee bill.
But all of us believe that the Senate should have an opportunity to vote on these important questions.
As a result, many Democrats, including Chairman Rockefeller, are going to oppose cloture on the substitute because they object to the heavy-handed tactics of the Republicans we saw last week on this legislation.
The Republican leader filed cloture on this bill after it had been on the floor for just a few hours. He filed cloture after Republicans blocked every amendment they could from being offered and blocked all amendments from getting votes.
In simple terms, this means the Republicans were filibustering their own bill. Let me repeat that. The Republicans were filibustering their own bill. In my time in the Senate, I can’t remember this taking place.
Meanwhile, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush has actually threatened to veto a temporary extension of FISA.
Let’s remember – a temporary extension would guarantee all the terrorism-fighting tools remain in effect. There is absolutely no policy or security problem with an extension.
All it would do is give us more time to work toward bipartisanship while the law continues uninterrupted.
There is no reason to vote against an extension – or for the President to veto one- - except for political posturing.
None of us want the current law to expire. But if it does expire because of Republican tactics, surveillance will not end.
All surveillance orders issued under the law we passed last August, the Protect America Act, are effective for one year, so they will continue until at least August of 2008.
Even in a last resort -- if the current law expires, our intelligence professionals can get surveillance orders under the FISA law as it existed for several decades before we passed the Protect America Act last August. FISA includes provisions for emergency warrantless surveillance.
Again, no one is arguing that the law should be allowed to expire. Doing so would send the wrong message.
But the safeguards in place ensure that our war on terror will not be adversely affected. Anyone who says otherwise, from the President on down, is not being truthful.
Why do Democrats seek an extension? We still believe that bipartisanship is appropriate and possible. The economic stimulus package shows us that when circumstances are dire, we can work together.
The Republican leadership’s actions in this FISA debate have not given us reason for confidence that they are interested in working with us, but we owe it to the American people to give them every opportunity to work with us.
Democrats have requested a 30-day extension repeatedly. Each time, Republicans have said no.
Compromise, M. President, is a two way street. Bipartisanship is a two way street.
As I said last week, we are willing to pass an extension of current law for two weeks, 30 days, 18 months – whatever our colleagues want. But we need to pass an extension now if we are to ensure that the law does not expire. The House is going out of session shortly.
Already, Democrats have introduced several amendments to strengthen the bill:
- Sen. Feingold sought a vote on his amendment to provide FISA court documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Whitehouse sought to offer an amendment to give the FISA court authority to review compliance with minimization rules, to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications are inadvertently intercepted. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Cardin sought to offer an amendment to sunset this legislation in four years, rather than six, to make sure the Congress returns to this legislation sooner to evaluate how it is working. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Kennedy sought to offer an amendment providing for a report by the Inspectors General of the relevant agencies to review the conduct of these programs in the past. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Feinstein sought to offer an amendment making crystal clear that FISA is the exclusive means by which the executive branch may conduct surveillance. Republicans blocked her.
Whether these amendments pass or not, M. President, we should be allowed to have votes on them. That is what the U.S. Senate does. We take up bills reported to us by our committees, senators offer amendments to them, and we let the Senate work its will. The Republicans can’t block us from voting on any amendments and expect us to follow along. Senators are entitled to a vote on their amendments.
And with Republicans blocking every amendment, we haven’t gotten to the crucial issue of immunity.
Let’s not forget: the question of retroactive immunity wouldn’t even be before us if President Bush hadn’t ignored Congress and established his own process outside the law.
But far from taking responsibility for his actions, the President bullies and threatens the Congress he is supposed to work with. He is like the kid in the schoolyard taking his ball and going home when he doesn’t get his way.
When the President talks tonight about how important this program is and how it must continue, I say to him that he must reconsider his political posture and ask his colleagues in the Senate to support an extension.
We are the deliberative body. Let us deliberate.
I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the substitute amendment, so that the Senate can return to considering and improving this bill.
We must pass a bill that gives our intelligence authorities the tools they need, while protecting the privacy of all Americans.
And I urge my colleagues to support the extension, so that we can ensure that current authority does not expire while Congress works to pass a new and stronger FISA bill.
Here we go again. The Hill reports that Bush is putting pressure on the Senate to pass his the FISA bill giving immunity to the telecoms -- and of course, Bush invokes national security:
“If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened,” Bush said in a statement.
We've seen this play out too many times. In a column from last November, Dan Froomkin explained what Bush does -- and how Democrats respond:
...Bush has learned that the higher he ratchets up the rhetoric, especially if he can accuse his critics of being weak on terror, the more likely Congressional Democrats are to fold. He's simply counting on that happening again.
Senator Dodd is going to filibuster FISA. This should be a no-brainer for Democrats.
But now that Bush has played the terror card, Democrats will undoubtedly cave. Not a question of whether it happens, more like how quickly it happens.
Did you get that? The same phone companies who simply HAD to give the feds all of our most private phone information, including calls you made and received, without the necessary court order, are now willing to stop that same surveillance because the feds didn't pay their bills on time. And it resulted in lost evidence:
''We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
Really, were we listening in to Osama when the greedy phone companies shut off the wiretap? I think someone should be asking just which company did this, and just what evidence we lost? Was this a terror case? Could innocent Americans have been killed?
So to the big phone companies, the rule of law doesn't matter. Promises to protect your privacy don't matter. But if you don't show them the money, suddenly all their "we had to illegally spy on you to defend national security" talk goes out the window. National security isn't so important to the big phone companies when money is involved. I'm so heartened that the Democrats are going to give these same greedy, un-American companies immunity in only a few weeks.
I must say, I'm extremely impressed with Senator Dodd and his staff today. Dodd fought an uphill battle all the way on this, slowly but surely gaining ground, and today he won, and on a hugely important issue. He demonstrated leadership, rather than simply talking about how he might lead in the future, and really did something good for the nation.
The Senate late Monday delayed its consideration of a vote on a new government eavesdropping bill until January.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed the bill because there were more than a dozen amendments planned, and not enough time left on the legislative calendar to manage them.
Matt Browner-Hamlin at the Dodd campaign website has more, including this statement from the Senator: "Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy."
If you approve of this kind of leadership, maybe think about saying so with a donation. It's not so much the amount, but the message -- that we care and we're paying attention and that doing the right thing matters.
Things aren't going very well of late in Democrat-land, and I think these two sequential posts from Daily Kos are a good illustration of the problem.
First, there's the Dodd filibuster of the telecom immunity bill. As Joe wrote earler today, the Democrats are planning to give Bush and the Republicans a huge victory this week by granting companies like AT&T and Verizon retroactive immunity for having helped the Bush administration illegally spy on innocent American citizens.
As I wrote the other day, in terms of why the Dems are caving (again), there's more than enough blame to go around. I like Harry Reid (and Nancy Pelosi), but he's our leader. And the same rule we apply to Bush applies to Reid (and Pelosi on other issues): At some point the leader has to take responsibility for our failures. Then there are the Dems in Congress overall. I like them a lot less than I like Reid and Pelosi. Far too many of them are scared of their own shadows and/or closet Republicans (or in the case of Joe Lieberman, out-of-the-closet Republicans).
Then there's the Democratic consulting class. As Joe and I are both members of that class, neither of us thinks they're all bad. Some of our best friends are Democratic consultants. But, someone is giving the Democrats bad advice (though it's entirely possible that the Dems are getting good advice and not listening). And finally there's the non-profit class in town. Our multi-million dollar advocacy groups. Where are they? Where have they been? And what do they have to show for their efforts other than the dismantling of most of our rights and most of what we stand for as a party, a movement, and a country over the past 7 years?
There's a reason that Harry Reid, once beloved by the blogosphere, is at a 4% approval rating in the Netroots. People are fed up with losing, and fed up with excuses from our leaders, our members of Congress, and our non-profit advocates. We all give a lot of time and money to these people. If all we're going to do is lose, we can do that for free without lifting a finger.
TPMmuckraker has a new article up entitled, "Reid Chooses Admin-Friendly Measure as Basis for Surveillance Bill." You can read the article for yourselves, but bottom line is that Harry Reid is being accused of caving to the Bush-enablers in his own party who are pushing for legislation to grant retroactive immunity to AT&T, Verizon and other telecom companies that helped the Bush administration illegally spy on innocent Americans.
At this point, I don't know who to blame. Harry Reid for not getting firm with his own Democratic caucus? Democratic committee chairs like Patrick Leahy and Jay Rockefeller, either of whom has the power to throw a wrench in Bush's plans? Organizations like the ACLU, who are taking the lead on this issue, but whose "campaign" on this issue, and privacy overall, still remains a mystery?
I do know that the blogs (including Glenn Greenwald, Christy at FireDogLake, and our gang, to name a few) have been going nuts on this issue, and the issue of privacy overall. But the blogs aren't enough. We don't have election certificates. We don't have multi-million dollar advocacy budgets. And those who do don't seem to understand anymore how to win, or how to even fight back. (After the jump: Where was the non-profit advocacy?)
And before anyone says that lots of money and time was spent on advocacy on this issue, I'm sorry, but what do we have to show for it? Where is the nationwide buzz about privacy (hell, where is the nationwide campaign about privacy?) Where are the Harry and Louise TV ads? Where is the discussion about how this issue affects every American who has ever had phone sex, committed adultery, or had a bit too much fun explicitly chatting with someone online? You better believe our current crop of politicians, and our current crop of non-profits advocates, wouldn't touch that side of these issues with a ten foot pole (no pun intended). But they're the very issues that affect real Americans, and they're the issues that would get America's attention and make them understand that what Bush did, what AT&T and Verizon did, and what Congress is about to do, have actual real-life impacts on their lives. But launching a campaign like that might embarrass our politicians and our board members and our donors. So, better to lose with our heads held high while our country falls apart around us.
Once again, push comes to shove and liberals are caught unprepared. The politicians on the Hill and the big-money non-profits failed to lay the groundwork that would enable everyone to do the right thing on yet another core progressive issue. It's the Alito nomination all over again. After months of inadequate hearings and inadequate non-profit advocacy, the vote was a foregone conclusion because our side kind of sucked.
I really don't know what to say any more. Our side, on the Hill and in the non-profit sector, honestly believes that there is no other option than failure. They honestly believe that no matter what they do they'll lose. So they give it the old college try, "knowing" that failure is the only option.
I'm tired of failing. I'm tired of having to rely on people who don't know how to win. Whether it's our leadership, the Dems in the caucus, our national non-profits, or the whole freaking party, something has got to give. We are losing our country.
Civil liberties groups got a stunningly unexpected win Thursday as the Senate Judiciary panel passed their version of the new government spying bill out of committee without including a provision giving immunity to telecoms being sued for helping the government secretly spy on Americans.
The biggest winner from the development is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose suit against AT&T in federal court would almost certainly have been wiped out by the immunity provision.
The provision - which was part of the version passed by the Senate Intelligence committee in mid-October - was widely expected to make it into the bill, due to the administration's full court press on the issue, the telcos small army of lobbyists and the vocal support of California Democrat Dianne Feintstein. Feinstein's vote was expected to reverse the Dems 10-9 advantage in the committee.
But after a long day of complicated finagling over technical amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and proposed alternatives to total immunity for companies such as AT&T and Verizon, committeee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) decided to send the bill out of committee without an agreement on immunity.
It's not over by a long stretch, but this means that people like Feinstein who want to give Verizon and AT&T immunity for having helped the government illegally spy on their customers now need 60 votes to include telcom immunity in the bill (i.e., enough to beat a filibuster). They may have those votes, since Feinstein isn't the only sell out. Still, now each Senator has to go on the record as to whether they support illegal spying on American citizens, and that's a vote that probably even faux Dems like DiFi would like to avoid.
Gee, had the Democrats been harping on this issue for the past several years, as I'd been suggesting, the climate would be ripe to respond to these incredibly dangerous comments from this senior Bush official:
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Get that? The Republicans think that privacy means the government and private industry have the right to know everything about you, so long as they don't share that information with anyone other than the government and private industry. So privacy now means your secrets are safer from your neighbor, but not Big Brother or every corporation in America.
Sick, just sick. And there isn't a damn thing the Democrats plan to do about it, other than give Verizon and AT&T immunity for conspiring with the government to illegally violate your privacy.
Here's what our incompetent commander in chief, the guy lost the war in Iraq and let Osama go, had to say today:
"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Hmm, let's see:
1. America doesn't have an attorney general because Bush let his old guy resign after he broke too many laws for even the corrupt Bush administration. So tell us again why we don't have an attorney general.
2. Weaken our ability to intercept communications? Congress sent Bush a new domestic spying law and he vetoed it because it didn't grant Verizon and AT&T immunity for illegally spying on innocent Americans' phone records. Had nothing to do with his ability to intercept Al Qaeda - Congress gave him that, and he vetoed it. So again, it's Bush's fault we don't have a new domestic spying law.
3. Funding the troops? Huh? Congress fully funded the troops. They're fully funded until after New Years. It's only November 1. What is he even talking about?
Our president is a liar. That's because he comes from a party of liars. All the extremists leading the Republican party know how to do nowadays is lie. They look in a mirror, pick out the worst things they're doing, and then blame the Democrats for it. Bush let Osama go? Blame the Democrats! Bush bankrupted the country while Clinton left us with hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus? Call the Democrats fiscally irresponsible because they want to add a few billion to a program to insure millions of children.
The Republicans, personified by Bush, have nothing left to stand for, nothing left to run on. All they can do is lie. Because to admit the truth would require a few hundred impeachments and or permanent stints at Gitmo.
Putting aside for a moment Obama's splitting of the civil rights baby in half, something he wouldn't do to any other minority, in the "good" Obama news category, he announced that he's supporting Senator Dodd's filibuster of the telecom immunity bill (the bill that would give Verizon, AT&T and other companies immunity for having helped the government illegally spy on innocent Americans). And that's good. Hillary, on the other hand, is being less good, and folks are being urged to contact her and urge her support for the filibuster. More on that here.
Senator Dodd (D-CT) just threw a wrench in Democratic plans to pass George Bush's "it's okay if AT&T and Verizon spied on you" bill (I'd written about some of the Dems caving to Bush on this earlier today). Dodd just put a hold on the bill, which means they'll need 60 votes (out of 100 senators) in order to proceed to the bill, and even then, it will take them 30 hours to do so. And if Dodd wants to really be a mensch, he can object to the final vote on the bill, the motion to go conference, and then on the conference report as well - coming to a grand total of, at least I'm told, 120 hours of debate that will be needed to finish this bill. A real pain in the butt.
It doesn't mean the bill is dead. But it does mean that it's a lot harder to proceed, and it means that Senators, including Democratic Senators, will now have to go on the record as to whether they think it's okay to cave to George Bush and give AT&T and Verizon immunity for helping the feds illegally spy on their own customers. There's going to be a whole lot of pain if they have to keep voting on this, and there should be. The Democrats need to be taught a lesson that there's a price to pay for their own wimpiness.
But someone else who isn't wimpy, Senator Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Leahy today said that he is not pleased at all about the little deal that Intelligence Committee chair Rockefeller brokered with Bush on this legislation. But not to be outdone, Diane "I've never seen a Democratic proposal I didn't want to sell out to the Republicans" Feinstein says she's prepared to stab the Dems in the back and support Bush on this. Gee, what a surprise, Di-Fi showing no backbone and siding with the Republicans. And she wonders why so many people on the left are constantly beating her up.
God love the Democrats in Congress. And they wonder why so much of the party, and the public at large, hates them. As one of our readers said in an email to me a good two years ago, what makes you think the Democrats aren't going to continue being spineless once they're in the majority? And she was right. The Democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV), reached a deal with George "24% in the polls" Bush that gives Verizon and AT&T immunity for helping the government spy on you, their customers, illegally. They needed a court order, didn't have one, but gave all of your personal info about your phone calls to the feds simply because they asked. Now, Verizon and AT&T claim that the feds told them it was totally legal to give up all of your personal phone call info without a court order, so Verizon and AT&T had no choice. Funny, but if my lawyer went to Verizon and AT&T, demanded the phone records of other customers, and told the companies "hey, this is totally legal, you don't need a court order," Verizon and AT&T would have told my lawyer to go to hell. But not so much when the government comes calling and wants to spy on our own citizens. Could Verizon and AT&T have simply gone to a court to make sure all of this was legal? Uh, yeah, you'd think. So, the Republicans, being the big business gravy train they always are, are now here to bail out Verizon and AT&T for illegally spying on you.
And why do Verizon and AT&T need this immunity bill anyway? We were told by Bush that all of this spying was legal. Now it seems there's growing concern, by Bush himself, that maybe he did in fact illegally spy on American citizens. Well, in that case, yes, the appropriate congressional response isn't outrage and a massive investigation of just what rights were violated by illegally spying on innocent American citizens. No, according to Mr. Rockefeller, the appropriate response is to do what Democrats far too often do when confronted by threats from people who are at 24% in the polls: They cave.
Senator Rockefeller is the embodiment of why this congress is so hated by so many, and why Democrats have such a credibility problem on national security and other "tough guy" issues. Someone explained to me, right before the 2004 election, why they just couldn't vote for John Kerry: "How is he going to defend my kids when he won't even defend himself?"
If Rockefeller can't bring it upon himself to run the Intelligence Committee any differently than his GOP-lapdog predecessor, then he shouldn't be permitted to run the committee any longer. Republicans wouldn't stand for this kind of insubordination, this kind of spineless pandering to the opposition. Why do we? And when our party leadership lets it continue, without exacting a price, why are we surprised that it happens again and again and again?
Why didn't Verizon go to court and demand a court order to release your private phone records, like the law says they need? Oh, let's have a look at how the Washington Post characterized what Verizon told them:
The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in criminal investigations.... Verizon and AT&T said it was not their role to second-guess the legitimacy of emergency government requests.
Yes, it's not Verizon's and AT&T's role to follow the law - the law that was set up specifically because of fears of government spying - and require the government to show up with the court orders that are required under the law. No, not Verizon's and AT&Ts job at all, that one. (Funny, but if a woman is being stalked by some pervert who's threatening to rape or kill her, and she calls Verizon or AT&T, they're not going to give HER the perv's phone records or identity because that would be wrong. Interesting that their overriding interest in saving lives only applies to some lives, apparently.)
So basically, what Verizon and AT&T have just said, is that they will turn over any of your private phone records to the government any time the government wants, with no court order whatsoever, in violation of the law, provided that the government say it's really really really important.
What country do we live in?
A country where we have no privacy.
To quote Frank Rich, we're all "good Germans" now. We're all to blame. Well, not all of us, but certainly the Democrats in the Senate who can't find a testicle between them to stand up to this ongoing outrage. The Senate Intelligence Committee is getting ready to pass legislation tomorrow or Thursday granting AT&T and Verizon immunity for illegally spying on you. Why? Because George Bush, Mr. 28% in the polls, threatened them that they'd better.
In particular, the problem in the Intell committee is most likely Feinstein, Bayh, Mikulski and Nelson - Democrats who don't have a very big backbone, and then wonder why we we're mean to them. But what about on the Senate floor? Why doesn't a Democratic Senator object to the legislation, put a hold on it? Sure, they'd have to have a filibuster vote, and we might lose, since so many other Dems are wimps too, but let's put it on the record, who supports domestic spying in violation of the law, let's at least get a vote count so we know who the enemy is. (And would it kill the Senate leadership to finally require some kind of legislative loyalty from the Democratic caucus? Any at all?) Now is one of those times when Senator Feingold's acts of courage would be most welcome.
The House, fortunately, isn't planning on passing the immunity provision. But, if the Senate does, then the decision goes to a House-Senate committee (called a conference) where they iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. If the House holds firm, these bastards aren't given immunity. If the House caves, they are.
Folks, you have no privacy any more. And worst yet, your government doesn't care, your politicians don't care. And far too few Democrats care either. Every week we see stories about millions of records being let go to the public in such-and-such computer database. And what do we hear from the Democrats in Congress, from our Democratic leaders in Congress? Nothing. Well, at least from the Senate side.
Let's revisit Verizon's absurd defense again:
"Public officials, not private businessmen, must ultimately be responsible for whether the legal judgments underlying authorized surveillance activities turn out to be right or wrong -- legally or politically," wrote Wayne Watts, AT&T's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "Telecommunications carriers have a part to play in guarding against official abuses, but it is necessarily a modest one."
Yeah, um, a few points here. First, if private businessmen want to assume the responsibility as caretakers for our most private information, because they want to make a few trillion bucks, then those private businessmen had better learn the law and actually take care of our personal information. For Verizon to say that it's just too blond and dumb to understand complicated things like throw weights "legal judgments" (you can almost hear them titter in their letter as they flip their hair) is beyond bizarre. First off, you're freaking lawyers - you're getting paid half a million a year to make those complicated legal judgments. Second of all, and more importantly, there wasn't really a legal judgment here to be made. You weren't given a court order, that little document you're required to have before releasing your customers' most personal information. So the legal judgment necessary was this:
Did the government give us the court order required for us to release this information? No.
Pretty complicated legal judgment there.
Oh yeah, and don't forget what we've been learning the past few days. It looks like Bush's domestic spying on your phone records and your phone calls started BEFORE September 11. In fact, it started his first week on the job (AT&T was asked to spy on its customers seven months BEFORE September 11). That means it had nothing to do with September 11, even though that's what he's always said. That would also mean that Verizon and AT&T wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the court of public opinion if in fact they were approached before September 11 to turn over your private phone records to the government like you were some kind of common criminal, or East German citizen.
But let's not let the Republicans off the hook. The gun nuts ought to be going ballistic right about now. But they're not. The government can violate any privacy law it wants, provided it says it's really really really important. Would that include compiling databases of gun owners? Uh yeah. I'm certain such lists must exist after September 11. But the gun lobby that normally goes nuts over such things hasn't said boo. The right wing is just as complicit in accepting the diminution - the repeal - of our freedoms. And nobody, outside of you guys, even cares.
