Obama and Clinton's State of Surveillance

President Bush is now daring Congress to defy his demand for more unchecked power to spy on Americans without warrants, vowing to veto temporary surveillance legislation and politicize his last State of the Union address for an attack on Democrats. Last week, Democratic leaders were considering a bill to grant a one-month extension of the administration's spying powers, a "compromise" tilted in Bush's favor, but Republican tactics have finally tried the patience of Majority Leader Harry Reid. He had been managing floor votes to advance the Republican bill and squash opposition from the majority of Democrats within his caucus, but that may change this week.

"The White House threat to veto a short extension of the Protect America Act is shamefully irresponsible," says Reid, who also derided Bush's new threat as simply "posturing" for the State of the Union. Reid added that if any terror-related problems were caused by legislative delays, "the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress."

That's tough talk. It has not been matched by action yet, and unfortunately it does not add up anyway. While most Congressional Democrats have begun confronting Bush's unconstitutional demands, a few leaders like Reid and Intelligence Chair Jay Rockefeller are actually the ones pushing the Bush spying bill. That's the problem with Reid's new complaint.

At this point, Bush's "allies in Congress" on surveillance include Reid and Rockefeller. It may be hard to tell -- since Bush is repaying them with "shameful" attacks, as Reid said -- but they sidelined the more responsible spying bill to help Bush last week. (The "Leahy alternative" was backed by most Senate Democrats, and is closer to a Democratic bill that already passed the House.) Even with Reid pulling strings for Bush, Senate Democrats only fell four votes short of keeping the better bill alive. And they were missing two votes from their colleagues on the campaign trail, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yet even Obama and Clinton are back in town for a night of pomp and rhetoric at the State of the Union. They both talk about "change" and "results" -- and here's a chance to act on it. It will take more than a speech or a vote to stop Bush's bill, though, it will take leadership. That means confronting the people who are wrong in both parties -- an (unpopular) President and the floor manager of an (unpopular) Congress -- to stop amnesty and the blueprint for a surveillance state. It's also what many Democratic voters want to see. The grassroots group Democracy for America (DFA) is running a full page ad in this week's Times pressing Obama and Clinton, while the netroots is pleading with Senators to defend the "rule of law."

And what, exactly, can they do? I see three major options:

1. Use their influence and political capital to recruit two more votes for the Leahy bill. That's all Leahy, Feingold and Dodd need to keep their fight alive under the current rules. Obama and Clinton were endorsed by a total of seven senators who voted the wrong way last week. As DFA explains, "if these presidential hopefuls bring along the support of these senators, they can sustain a planned filibuster [and] defeat any cloture vote."

2. Use their influence and political capital to press Reid to run the floor for the Leahy bill, instead of the Bush-Rockefeller bill. This is is tough for several reasons, but there's an opening now that Bush has essentially slapped Reid around and drawn some rhetorical pushback.

3. Rally the Democratic Congress to confront Bush's veto threat. Send the one-month bill to his desk and let this unpopular president remind the entire country of his irresponsible, cynical approach to governing. Maybe his approval ratings will drop into the teens like his Vice President. (I personally favor this third option the least, since it involves gamesmanship instead of a long-term policy, which Leahy's bill offers.)

Or they could channel Harry Reid, complaining about Bush while essentially allowing him to win again.

--

Monday Update: DFA advertisement will run this week, but not on Monday as DFA originally told The Nation. Blogger dibgy responds to the options in Stepping Up:

Will it be door number 1,2,3 or 4? The truth is that it's mostly a symbolic thing for the Monday leading up the SOTU, and that's not a bad thing. It's a hell of a lot better that they're taking a public stand on this than if they weren't... on balance, this is better than I expected and maybe they can at least get the news media to pay attention to this issue with a couple of rousing speeches in defense of the rule of law. The gasbags can waste days talking about ephemeral, campaign trail dust-ups so maybe they can find a couple of minutes to talk about the [C]onstitution.

Sunday Update:

Reader "B_Kool_66" urges people to support DFA's effort here, and to rally for TV coverage to highlight the issue by contacting MSNBC's "Countdown" show at countdown@msnbc.com. Olberman has definitely championed constitutional battles before.

"METTEYYA," an informed and passionate advocate for Obama here at The Nation site, adds that Obama opposes amnesty for companies that allegedly broke the law by assisting illegal surveillance. That is true for both Clinton and Obama; and they were among the 28 Democratic senators who flatly voted down the spying bill in August. They both have strong voting records and platforms on constitutional rights, and I've credited Clinton in this space for her forceful discussion of habeas corpus. But again, I think the issue this week is principled leadership, not simply saying the right things. Bush says he'll go to the mat to bully Reid into granting him more unchecked power. He even looks ready to tarnish his final State of the Union to do it. And we need leaders who will not only vote against unaccountable spying, but go to the mat with the full power of their office and their bully pulpit to defend the Constitution.

Advertisement courtesy of DFA

Comments (42)

1. Barack Obama has consistently opposed telecom immunity. Read about it here [tinyurl.com]!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2008 @ 6:59pm

2. The president used tough language in his radio address on Saturday, saying that if the law expired, it would be "harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to infiltrate our country, harder for us to uncover terrorist plots, and harder to prevent attacks on the American people."

   sheesh, how many mexicans go in every day?

   and, to be honest, all i would need is a rowboat*.

   *don't worry, NSA. i take the tunnel.

   mr. bush, i ask you "who are all these evil terrorists?"

   BOO!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 7:38pm

3. "We need to know who our enemies are and what they are plotting. And we cannot afford to wait until after an attack to put the pieces together," Bush said.

   OH, THE IRONY.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 7:40pm

4. Thanks, Ari.

   This is, in my opinion, a hugely important issue that demands a strong stand from Obama and Clinton.

   I urge all of us to take a moment to help push for greater awareness.

   This is from Democracy For America:

   Senators Clinton and Obama must lead America forward instead of protecting President Bush and his friends at AT&T and Verizon. This critical vote is scheduled for Monday at 4:30 pm.

   Please take a moment right now and contact MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, one of the strongest media voices in opposition to President Bush's reckless abuses of power, and ask him to cover the telecom fight tomorrow.

   Tell Keith how you feel, send him the link to the NYTimes ad, and ask him to interview Jim live before the vote Monday night.

   Here's the ad link: www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/ProveIt

   Here's Olbermann's contact email: countdown@msnbc.com

   President Bush and Vice President Cheney are counting on the media silence to let Republicans win. They both know this is the American people's last chance to hold the Bush administration accountable for warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans.

   Keith Olbermann and MSNBC could help Jim shine a national spotlight on this incredibly important issue and turn up the heat on our Democratic leaders to stand up, fight the Bush administration, and win.

   Please send your email to Keith right now.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/27/2008 @ 7:41pm

5. MELBER: .....considering a bill to grant a one-month extension of the administration's spying powers,....

   So, this is how Congress spends its time.....rather creative! Next month, they can get busy again and legislate another one-month extension. Reminds of Drew Barrymore & Adam Sandler in "50 First Dates"....LOL!!

   Posted by Happy at 01/27/2008 @ 7:53pm

6. Congress is now considering a bipartisan bill that will allow our professionals to maintain the vital flow of intelligence on terrorist threats. It would protect the freedoms of Americans, while making sure we do not extend those same protections to terrorists overseas. It would provide liability protection to companies now facing billion-dollar lawsuits because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our Nation following the 9/11 attacks.

   When I go before Congress on Monday, I will speak more about how we can keep our economy strong and our people safe. I am confident that we can work together to meet our responsibilities in these areas -- and leave our children a stronger and more prosperous America.

   Thank you for listening.

   END

   same ol', same ol'

   can't sue those companies -- they love freedom and DEFENDED AMERICA after, drum roll please, 9/11.

   the bush equation: FEAR = (terrorist threat x 9/11) ÷ (children - freedom)

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 7:56pm

7. "That's tough talk. It has not been matched by action yet, and unfortunately it does not add up anyway."

   Which under the dictionary definition...has a jpeg (or png) of Harry Reid.

   Posted by Mask at 01/27/2008 @ 7:56pm

8. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/27/2008 @ 7:41pm

   doubt obama or clinton will do or say anything. can't be "soft", ya know.

   plus, i bet they can see how all this just may come in handy.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 7:59pm

9. harry reid reminds me of that guy on battlestar galactica. the one who worked so closely with the cylons.

   here he is, Count Baltar. [en.wikipedia.org]

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 8:05pm

10. I personally favor this third option the least, since it involves gamesmanship instead of a long-term policy

    and therefore is the most likely.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 8:07pm

11. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/27/2008 @ 8:05pm

    Ahh, but he was the first Klingon, too! [en.wikipedia.org]

    If you want a better idea of how lame Harry Reid is...

    Martin Scorcese cast DICK SMOTHERS as the "Harry Reid" character in "Casino"!

    Posted by Mask at 01/27/2008 @ 10:46pm

12. Ya know Ari, for all the bluster about not granting immunity to the telecom companies, do you honestly think they're going to stop giving info to the NSA, CIA, FBI, State Department, or the Pentagon? All of the big telecoms have or do break FISA laws all the time. What do they have to fear?

    You have that much faith that any Congress is capable of shutting down an entire industry for the sake of a few "private" phone calls Americans make?

    Posted by ACook at 01/27/2008 @ 10:59pm

13. Re: Telecom Immunity - Edwards e-mailed all his supporters with information about who to call and supplied numbers. I don't know if Obama or Hillary have done so but they certainly should, and really both should return to DC (as Dodd did during the Iowa caucuses) to fight against this!

    By the way, there was some discussion of who was more conservative among the three. Obama's programs fall the right of both Hillary and Edwards, and Obama already has moved to the left (as has Hillary) because of Edwards's stands and programs.

    So Obama is the most conservative of the three, and may move back toward the right if elected (seems likely if he's going to try to "bring in" Republicans.

    Posted by sallywally at 01/27/2008 @ 11:30pm

14. Posted by MASK 01/27/2008 @ 10:46pm

    ooh, the best of the bestest! midnight tonight i'll be watching the enemy within!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 11:37pm

15. "The Republicans should not pick this fight. I've been in more boxing rings then all of them combined. And when you throw a punch at me, you end up on the mat."

    sen. harry "tough guy" reid.

    http://giveemhellharry.com/blog/97/outrageous-lies

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 11:44pm

16. FZ & MASK,

    Are you two of those Gen-X kids--pre-video games and computer--I read about when US children were spending 7~8 hrs a day watching TV?

    or Did the two of you retire when you were born and your `education' consist of TV & movies? It's just impossible to remember so much junk!

    Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 12:01am

17. It's just impossible to remember so much junk!

    Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 12:01am

    i remember lots of important things, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 12:17am

18. Neither Obama nor Clinton has shown ANY leadership on this imminent constitutional crisis. Civil liberties are not on their agendae.

    After all, a vote against telecom immunity might threaten their hundred-million-dollar campaign bankrolls, and we can't have that, now can we? And I have yet to hear these two Ivy League law graduates even attempt to utter the words, "habeas corpus." Perhaps they don't teach that legal concept at Yale and Harvard? They both are too interested in maintaining the Imperial Presidency to want to roll back Bush's usurpations.

    Wanna be a servant of the People? PROVE IT!

    Posted by sjduskin at 01/28/2008 @ 03:09am

19. And this is not a matter of Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, or any of those diminishing labels. This is about defending the Constitution, which each and every one of those Senators supposedly swore an oath to do, and which many of us risked our lives to do.

    Posted by sjduskin at 01/28/2008 @ 03:13am

20. I find it ironic that Reid uses the term "posturing." Talk about projection!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/28/2008 @ 08:25am

21. Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 12:01am

    I'm sorry is this from a guy who gets his talking points off talk radio?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 08:51am

22. Perhaps they don't teach that legal concept at Yale and Harvard?

    "I guess you were absent the day they taught Law at Law School" -Lt. Caffey.

    Posted by Sliver at 01/28/2008 @ 08:59am

23. ....his talking points off talk radio?!?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 08:51am

    Son, you've got the ordering wrong.....I'm way ahead of the talking heads....on any daily news talked about by Rush & gang, I've already read and formed my opinions...sometimes espoused right here....and you know this....so, why pull a Clinton on me?? You know political junkies are ahead of old-media radio, right?

    I endorsed McCain mid-Dec., the first major `blogger' (hehe) here to do so....show us where I got that from? and I only listen to Rush, less of Hannity, and even less of Levin....(roughly 20 min./10 min./1 min respectively).

    Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 10:30am

24. And no I have no concerns at all about the government listening to me. Maybe more will seek Christ if they listened to more of my phone conservations.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/28/2008 @ 10:46am

    LOL! I wish the Gov't will catch some of my frequent dissing of Gov't restricting freedom and constant frustrations with gross inefficiencies and unfairness of it all.

    Last battle w/them bastards involved protesting my RE taxes.....BIG developers (I used to work for a decade ago :) have properties assessed at not more than half MV while us upper middle Joes, carry the full load....while the poor, don't begrudge them, have homestead exemption, a much larger % of their taxable values, to drastically reduce their taxes.

    Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 10:58am

25. LvLiberty-It's quite troubling when Americans start not caring if the government listens in and violates our basic rights.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/28/2008 @ 11:56am

26. LvLiberty-Since these terrorists use religion as justification for their actions I think it's best if we not allow freedom of religion and don't allow you to talk about Christ and should listen in in case you do.The best way to fight against religious fanatics is to abolish religion and not allow such people to gather together.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/28/2008 @ 12:08pm

27. so, why pull a Clinton on me??

    Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 10:30am

    wow.

    soon TO CLINTON will be our newest verb.

    FOXINSOXNEWS ACCUSED OF CLINTONING PRESIDENT OBAMA

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 12:49pm

28. and I only listen to Rush, less of Hannity, and even less of Levin....(roughly 20 min./10 min./1 min respectively).

    BY HAPPY

    hey, have you seen this video of those three debating:

    intellectual discussion at its finest

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 12:58pm

29. And no I have no concerns at all about the government listening to me.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/28/2008 @ 10:46am

    so much for liberty.................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 1:00pm

30. And no I have no concerns at all about the government listening to me. Maybe more will seek Christ if they listened to more of my phone conservations.-----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/28/2008 @ 10:46am

    As I've always said....cool.

    Then you aren't going to mind if President Hillary (or Obama) use those powers to "check out" some of the "pro-life" groups (maybe uses that info to put up some RICO cases)??!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:20pm

31. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 1:00pm

    LVLIBERTY "loves" the kind of "liberty" where "everybody is free to be a anti-abortion choice, anti-gay rights, pro-war fundamentalist Christian who votes Republican"....sort of like the "color options" for the Model A that Henry Ford used to offer.

    Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 1:23pm

32. Posted by SALLYWALLY 01/27/2008 @ 11:30pm

    SALLYWALLY,

    You do not have a f...kin' clue as to what you are talking about!

    Go here, [ontheissues.org] and then come again with this "Obama is a conservative" crap! He was rated HARD-CORE LEFT by this non-partisan group!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 2:02pm

33. Model A that Henry Ford used to offer.

    Posted by MASK 01/28/2008 @ 1:23pm

    america's legacy? [detroityes.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 3:02pm

34. LvLiberty-The article is about listening in without a warrant which you were good with even if it's Americans they spy on,such as yourself so I responded by saying that if we're going to do that because we're scared of terrorists then we should (since we're violating the constitution,anyway)abolish religion because then we could more easily fight against the spread of their radical views.I wasn't seriously suggesting that we abolish religion.My point is that you never want to start limiting rights because of fear because it's to easy to generate fear and start limiting more rights.That's why I'm anti gun control.I think we should all have a tank parked outside our houses, just in case.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/28/2008 @ 4:09pm

35. Will "Clintoning" replace "Swift Boating"? I'd like to see that happen, since the actual Swift Boats were an honorable part of our military efforts and don't deserve to be associated evermore with underhanded political tactics. On the other hand, associating such tactics with "Clinton" - no problem.

    Posted by sjduskin at 01/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

36. LvLiberty-Not buying the it's ok if done in the name of national defense because that can lead anywhere depending on the individuals definition of what constitutes national defense.This is another issue that isn't a left/ right issue.Go to Montana,Alaska,the upper peninsula of Michigan and other such places and you will find many on the right who are in agreement with me and would never agree with you that's it's ok to listen to me because you can learn about Christ.They believe that if you wish to hear about Christ then you should go to church,but if you listen in on them then you'd better have a warrant even if it's in the name of national defense..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/28/2008 @ 4:46pm

37. Just when i started somewhat liking and maybe even trusting Obama, he puts an alcoholic murderer ( Teddy ), his drug-addicted, alcoholic nephew who has his own personalized "get out of jail free card" ( patrick ), and the poor, innocent victim of an extremely corrupt and disfunctional family (Caroline) on stage to endorse his campaign! Disgusting!!!!!!!!! I'll still vote for him if that lowlife liberal sellout McCain gets the nod!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/28/2008 @ 5:28pm

38. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/28/2008 @ 4:34pm

    and do you think anybody plotting to do anything nasty in any serious way is going to pick up their cellphone or send an e-mail to discuss their plans?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 6:04pm

39. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/28/2008 @ 7:05pm

    maybe, but you're only gonna catch the dumb ones.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 11:20pm

40. ....but you're only gonna catch the dumb ones.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/28/2008 @ 11:20pm

    Maybe most of them are kinda dumb.....to believe in 72 (previously unMaled) vaginas await! Notice, OBL and his Doctor, aren't quite so dumb while they enjoy earthbound vaginas....as dirty old men........heheheheh! "Do as I say, Not as I Do", "Trust me!", "Di it for Allah"......works on the "dumb ones" every time!

    Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 11:40pm

41. Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 11:40pm

    kinda like joining the army to go to iraq to fight for "freedom" while you imprison people in their own homes.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 12:40am

42. Most of the data provided was pen register data anyway which SCOTUS has consistently ruled is not protected by the 4th amendment.

    True, non-content surveillance isn't covered by the 4th, but it is covered by FISA and the Pen Register statute [tinyurl.com] (18 U.S.C. 3121) which requires a court order under that statute or FISA. Consequently, such a program was illegal without a court order and the telecoms had to have know that. Immunity for such actions flies in the face of any concept of the rule of law.

    And no I have no concerns at all about the government listening to me.

    Ah, the perennial chorus of the "good German".

    God forbid the telecoms might provide information that helps stop a terrorist attack.

    And if the government had any credible evidence that the subjects to be monitored were part of such a plan, they could've easily gotten a court order authorizing the program.

    This isn't about protecting this country, this is about the idea of an Executive that doesn't consider itself responsible to the rule of law.

    In point of fact, you and others on the left have been defeated at every attempt to stop what is clearly an authority granted to the Executive Branch for National Defense.

    Not defeated on the merits at all. The ACLU lawsuit failed on standing issues. Further, your conclusion that such an authority is granted to the Executive branch falls in the face of Youngstown Steel. The President's powers aren't plenary, even in the case of national defense.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 12:01pm