Dial "Dem" For Immunity?

With the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled to mark-up the FISA Amendments Act tomorrow, a movement against immunity for telecoms hasn't translated into legislative promises by even traditional Bush foes.

Currently four of the 19 committee members (Delaware's Joe Biden, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Massachusetts's Ted Kennedy and Maryland's Ben Cardin) have vowed to oppose immunity. Chair Pat Leahy, top Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Illinois's Dick Durbin and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl are taking a wait-and-see approach to whether telecommunications companies deserve retroactive immunity for going along with the National Security Agency's illegal spying program. The other members of the committee have not issued statements and did not respond to The Nation's request for their position on immunity.

So after approving Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey yesterday, Senators on the Judiciary Committee, particularly Democrats and the moderate Specter, are once again agonizing about whether to defy the President.

Two weeks ago, it appeared the Senate would essentially offer no resistance. The Senate Intelligence Committee passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, 13-2, which included immunity. Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller, who has received a combined $42,000 from AT&T and Verizon this year, penned a Washington Post editorial arguing that the heat should stay solely on the Bush Administration. "[If] the government were to require [telecoms] to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future," Rockefeller wrote.

But the matter became a cause celebre by Net Roots activists like MoveOn.org who pressured Democratic Presidential candidates to filibuster a FISA bill with immunity. Chris Dodd positively responded to the charge and soon the other Democratic Senators running for President-Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- followed his lead.

Then, at a Judiciary Committee hearing last week both Leahy and Specter expressed their skepticism about granting immunity without knowing the extent of the companies complicity. And this week Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, has come to Capitol Hill telling lawmakers that AT&T worked with NSA to compile a database of e-mail and phone calls of ordinary Americans.

What's discussed at the mark-up tomorrow may provide clues on whether committee members will scrutinize the role of telecoms in the abuse of executive power, or, ahem, let the companies off the hook.

Comments (35)

1. They're not going to let Jay Rockefeller (and others)....

   lose a big chunk of campaign money.

   It'll pass.

   Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 5:07pm

2. I believe Mask is right here. The gutless wonders we having posing as senators and congressmen have no sense of the high office they hold. They are playing the sit it out and wait til it's our turn game, but they may not get their turn due to their gutless performances.

   Let's see, rubber stamp W's war funding requests, approve his AG who thinks the executive branch should be able to do whatever the hell it feels like, and then table a move for impeachment of vice president Dick Cheney. I am starting to wonder which side of the isle these assholes sit on. It sure ain't on the dem side.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/07/2007 @ 5:12pm

3. "And this week Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, has come to Capitol Hill telling lawmakers that AT&T worked with NSA to compile a database of e-mail and phone calls of ordinary Americans."

   Hope to hear more details about AT&T's "passive role" in breaking the law. Only one who should get immunity here is Mark Klein. If the Executive Branch tells you to break the law, that doesn't mean or shouldn't mean you get a pass. This should be a no brainer, and our money hungry politicians have to ponder this?

   Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

4. Hope to hear more details about AT&T's "passive role" in breaking the law. Only one who should get immunity here is Mark Klein. If the Executive Branch tells you to break the law, that doesn't mean or shouldn't mean you get a pass. This should be a no brainer, and our money hungry politicians have to ponder this?

   Posted by ONEVOTE 11/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

   OV,

   The answer to your question is a solid yes. Not only have our disloyal representatives sold their country down the drain, but they've also sold their souls. These people would sell their children for a buck, well, maybe not their children, but they'll sell our children for a buck.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/07/2007 @ 5:25pm

5. I really don't get it with the democratic congress. With as much whining that's gone on about the partisan bullying of the republicans, you'd think that now that they're at the controls we'd see some action on behalf of the people who put them in power. Instead we get this pussyfoot compromising that, like Wolfgang1 indicated, just may work against them a year from now. It obviously is not working now, what with 11% approval ratings!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/07/2007 @ 5:31pm

6. "Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller, who has received a combined $42,000 from AT&T and Verizon this year, penned a Washington Post editorial arguing that the heat should stay solely on the Bush Administration. "[If] the government were to require [telecoms] to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future," Rockefeller wrote."

   Their "support"? So does Senator Rockerfeller have future illegalities in mind that require the "support" of corporations? If all avenues have failed to keep the government accountable (including the press), then maybe the backstop would be corporations saying, "thanks, but no thanks" when approached by government agents to help do something that is clearly illegal.

   This whole thing is just unbelievable.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 11/07/2007 @ 5:39pm

7. These people would sell their children for a buck, well, maybe not their children, but they'll sell our children for a buck.

   Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/07/2007 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person

   You got that right WG. These pathetic parasites are legitimized mafia feeding off the taxpayers of this country. Saw Bill Moyer's Journal the other night where Kevin Martin (FCC Chair) is trying to fast track an administrative ruling allowing further media consolidation (as if we don't have enough already) before resistance can mount. Just F_____ing Unbelieveable.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2007 @ 6:16pm

8. hmmm...why not have massive hearings and grant immunity to those who come clean with incriminating evidence on the executive branch?

   sounds like a good compromise...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 7:08pm

9. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 7:08pm

   The program is classified, so there's no evidence they actually did anything wrong. That's why they want immunity NOW, cuz if the Hillary Admin de-classifies it to hit the Bush guys ex post mortum....it's the telecomms that would get hit, not Bush.

   Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 7:28pm

10. I don't think any FISA amendments will stop Ma Bell from telling on her customers. Even if this amendment passed, they have ways of getting around it. You can take away immunity but you can't do away with anonymity.

    Posted by ACook at 11/07/2007 @ 7:35pm

11. Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:28pm

    Gee Mask, if a possible Hillary admin de-classifies Ma Bell's alledged wrong-doing with the Bush folks, who's to say Ma Bell won't expose her and Slick Willy's alledged wrong-doings?

    Posted by ACook at 11/07/2007 @ 7:40pm

12. Posted by ACOOK 11/07/2007 @ 7:40pm

    Uh, because they don't have any information on same?

    BTW, Hillary probably wouldn't do it until AFTER the telecomms got immunity either. They're donors to her too, no doubt. Point is...the TCs don't care, they just want CYA for caving into Bush on probable violations of the FISA laws.

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 8:02pm

13. Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 8:02pm

    My take on this is, any Senator or Congressman crazy enough to go after the TC industry can kiss their political careers goodbye.

    Posted by ACook at 11/07/2007 @ 8:17pm

14. Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person

    hmmm...if 50 foot queenie promised to prosecute the war criminals i'd almost feel good about voting for her if she gets the nom...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 8:32pm

15. Posted by ACOOK 11/07/2007 @ 8:17pm |

    if the tc industry will help hang our fascist leaders high, well i'll overlook their collusion with said fascist leaders...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 8:33pm

16. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 8:33pm

    I am sure we can expect the same helpful attitude as that received from the oil execs in their truthful testimony.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 8:48pm

17. "if the tc industry will help hang our fascist leaders high, well i'll overlook their collusion with said fascist leaders..."

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 8:33pm

    Wait a minute, let me get this straight, you're willing to overlook the TC's possible involvement regarding FISA violations in exchange for them rolling over on the feds? You've been watching too many Shark and CSI shows.

    IBBLE, I can just about guarantee the TC industry is not going to rat out the WH or any other branch of the govt. If they did, no major corporation will ever do business with them again. Big companies don't tell on each other.

    Posted by ACook at 11/07/2007 @ 8:58pm

18. MASK

    Pretty good summation of a lot of ChimpCo.

    Nope, can't tell ya,..secret, shh. Ignore the man behind the curtain...

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 9:05pm

19. hmmm...if 50 foot queenie promised to prosecute the war criminals i'd almost feel good about voting for her if she gets the nom...-----Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 8:32pm

    Not a chance.

    Want to hear the Biggest Self-Delusion of the Year 2009? It'll be guys like John Nichols (to a lesser extent) and guys like HSUB saying this...

    "If Hillary will push it, they can go for a post-Presidential impeachment...there's nothing un-Constitutional about it!"

    which goes on for maybe as much as four years, with no movement by the Hillary Admin or the Dem Congressional leadership to "bring Bush and Cheney to justice".

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 9:11pm

20. Posted by CRABWALK 11/07/2007 @ 9:05pm

    The whole point is to bury it...not just the Bush Admin, but the TCs. No lengthy "discussions" about the topic. The TCs don't want the bad publicity that they were wire-tapping their CUSTOMERS!

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 9:18pm

21. it would be a riot if in the fine print of the bill the immunity turned out to be free measles vaccines.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 10:21pm

22. 2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE Contributions from Selected Industries Display:

    Computers/Internet

    Barack Obama (D) $933,343

    Hillary Clinton (D) $882,100

    Mitt Romney (R) $548,987

    Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) $305,395

    John McCain (R) $245,287

    Ron Paul (R) $215,563

    John Edwards (D) $206,156

    Bill Richardson (D) $80,560

    Fred Thompson (R) $70,511

    Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) $50,375

    Christopher J. Dodd (D) $43,725

    Sam Brownback (R) $38,463

    Duncan Hunter (R) $20,650

    Mike Huckabee (R) $16,950

    Dennis J. Kucinich (D) $11,490

    Tom Tancredo (R) $8,440

    Mike Gravel (D) $4,195

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 10:39pm

23. 2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

    Contributions from Selected Industries Display:

    Telephone Utilities

    John McCain (R) $168,832

    Hillary Clinton (D) $106,391

    Barack Obama (D) $89,126

    Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) $38,350

    Mitt Romney (R) $21,850

    Fred Thompson (R) $20,725

    John Edwards (D) $20,451

    Bill Richardson (D) $14,750

    Ron Paul (R) $10,477

    Christopher J. Dodd (D) $10,450

    Sam Brownback (R) $9,032

    Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) $1,000

    Mike Huckabee (R) $1,000

    Duncan Hunter (R) $100

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 10:41pm

24. Posted by ACOOK 11/07/2007 @ 8:58pm | i

    fine...then hang THEM high...

    nice consolation prize...lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 11:28pm

25. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 10:41pm

    Clearly the pols have the interests of the common man foremost in their minds.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2007 @ 07:56am

26. Mark Klein's account of AT&T's secret [tinyurl.com].

    Posted by drhammer at 11/08/2007 @ 08:39am

27. The telecoms, in a calculated move to ensure government access and favorable legislation, sold our constitutional guarantees down the river.

    "I vazz only followink orders.", has never been a good enough excuse.

    Fuck them and their immunity.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/08/2007 @ 08:44am

28. Contributions from Selected Industries Display:

    Telephone Utilities

    Hillary Clinton (D) $106,391

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 10:41pm

    Thanks for the back-up, FZ, for Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 8:02pm....I figured she was probably #1 in donations among Dems from the telecomms.

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 09:32am

29. Thanks for the back-up, FZ, for Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 8:02pm....I figured she was probably #1 in donations among Dems from the telecomms.

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2007 @ 09:32am

    First, thanks for the campaign donation info. Frosty.

    Of course Hillary would be the top receiver of campaign donations. She's the one picked to win (at least on the dem side) by those donating the money.

    These people aren't stupid. They pay campaign donations to both sides so that no matter who wins, they are owed "favors". I just wonder what name Hillary's campaign folks have come up with. What was it with Bush's people....Rangers? Maybe Hillary can name the top donors green berets, black berets or perhaps seals.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/08/2007 @ 10:07am

30. Lots more at stake here than political contributions from the telecoms. Looks like there is some "civil liability" potential for AT & T as well. Stored Communications Act looks like it was violated big time, not to mention specific contractual relationship provisions relating to privacy between customer and provider. Interesting that Qwest apparently felt it was okay to tell NSA no, whereas AT & T felt compelled to break the law.

    "AT&T gave feds access to all Web, phone traffic, ex-tech says

    By Ellen Nakashima The Washington Post

    WASHINGTON -- His first inkling that something was amiss came in summer 2002, when he opened the door to admit a visitor from the National Security Agency (NSA) to an AT&T office in San Francisco.

    "What the heck is the NSA doing here?" Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, said he asked himself.

    A year or so later, he stumbled upon documents that, he said, show the agency gained access to massive amounts of e-mail, Web search and other Internet records of more than a dozen global and regional telecom providers. AT&T allowed the agency to hook into its network and, according to Klein, many of the other telecom companies probably knew nothing about it.

    Klein will be on Capitol Hill today to share his story in the hope it will persuade Congress not to grant legal immunity to telecommunications firms that helped the government in its warrantless anti-terrorism efforts.

    Klein, 62, said he may be the only person in a position to discuss firsthand knowledge of an important aspect of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance. He is retired, so he isn't worried about losing his job. He carried no security clearance, and the documents in his possession were not classified, he said. He has no qualms about "turning in," as he put it, the company where he worked for 22 years until he retired in 2004.

    "If they've done something massively illegal and unconstitutional -- well, they should suffer the consequences," Klein said.

    In an interview this week, he alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the help of AT&T and without obtaining a court order. Contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he thinks the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns and for content.

    He said the NSA built a special room in San Francisco to receive data streamed through an AT&T Internet room containing "peering links," or major connections to other telecom providers. Other so-called secret rooms reportedly were constructed at AT&T sites in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose, Calif.

    Klein's documents and his account form the basis of one of the first lawsuits filed against the telecom companies after the government's warrantless-surveillance program was disclosed by The New York Times in December 2005.

    Claudia Jones, an AT&T spokeswoman, said she had no comment on Klein's allegations. "AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers' privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security," she said.

    The NSA and the White House also declined to comment.

    Klein is urging Congress not to block Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action suit pending in federal court in San Francisco, and 37 other lawsuits charging carriers with illegally collaborating with the NSA program. He and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed Hepting v. AT&T in 2006, are urging key lawmakers to oppose a pending White House-endorsed immunity provision that effectively would wipe out the lawsuits. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the measure today.

    In summer 2002, Klein was working in an office responsible for Internet equipment when an NSA representative arrived to interview a management-level technician for a special, secret job.

    The job entailed building a "secret room" in another AT&T office 10 blocks away, he said. By coincidence, in October 2003, Klein was transferred to that office. He asked a technician about the secret room on the sixth floor, and the technician told him it was connected to the Internet room a floor above. The technician handed him wiring diagrams.

    "That was my 'aha' moment," Klein said. "They're sending the entire Internet to the secret room."

    The diagram showed splitters glass prisms that split signals from each network into two identical copies. One copy fed into the secret room. The other proceeded to its destination, he said.

    "This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style," he said. "The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T's customers but everybody's."

    One of Klein's documents listed links to 16 entities, including Global Crossing, a large provider of voice and data services in the United States and abroad; UUNet, a large Internet provider now owned by Verizon; Level 3 Communications, which provides local, long-distance and data transmission in the United States and overseas; and more familiar names, such as Sprint and Qwest. It also included data exchanges MAE-West and PAIX, or Palo Alto Internet Exchange, facilities where telecom carriers hand off Internet traffic to each other.

    "I flipped out," he said. "They're copying the whole Internet. There's no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything."

    Qwest has not been sued because of media reports last year that said the company declined to participate in an NSA program to build a database of domestic phone-call records out of concern that it may have been illegal. What the documents show, Klein said, is that the NSA apparently was collecting several carriers' communications, probably without their consent.

    Another document showed that the NSA installed in the room a Narus semantic traffic analyzer, which Klein said indicated the NSA was doing content analysis.

    Steve Bannerman, Narus' marketing vice president, said the NarusInsight system can track a communication's origin and destination, as well as its content. He declined to comment on AT&T's use of the system.

    Klein said he went public after President Bush defended the NSA's surveillance program as limited to collecting phone calls between suspected terrorists overseas and people in the United States. Klein said the documents show that the scope was much broader."

    Posted by OneVote at 11/08/2007 @ 10:37am

31. opensecrets.org is the place for all your politoshopping needs

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 10:39am

32. Posted by ONEVOTE 11/08/2007 @ 10:37am

    Wow, these guys have really crossed the line.

    So, what's to stop these assholes from planting evidence against anyone they don't like? Any of you right wing idiots thought of that? Suppose you end up on W's list of bad people because you weren't a Ranger campaign donator, or worse yet, you ran against him or said something about him he didn't like. What's there to stop him from planting evidence against you. If they have access to this, they also have the means to manipulate it.

    How much are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security before we end up a complete police state?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/08/2007 @ 11:43am

33. I wonder how long it will take the GOP smear machine to kick into action to make this Klein fellow look like he's a communist working for the Chinese government, Russian or a child molestor. If he really has any damning evidence, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll do anything and everything to discredit him.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/08/2007 @ 11:48am

34. I wonder how long it will take the GOP smear machine to kick into action to make this Klein fellow look like he's a communist working for the Chinese government, Russian or a child molestor. If he really has any damning evidence, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll do anything and everything to discredit him.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/08/2007 @ 11:48am | ignore this person

    Here is a whistleblower who is not only going to get it from his employer, but also the federal government. I would say the dude has a modicum of courage wouldn't you? A TRUE patriot in every sense of the word.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/08/2007 @ 12:49pm

35. Correction:

    Here is a whistleblower who is not only going to get it from his "former" employer, but also the federal government.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/08/2007 @ 12:54pm