Dems Fight Spying with Clinton and Obama MIA

A trio of Democratic House Committee Chairmen are stepping up the fight against President Bush's surveillance bill this week, vowing to beat back a controversial proposal to grant retroactive amnesty to companies accused of illegally spying on Americans.

Congressmen John Dingell, Ed Markey and Bart Stupak are circulating a letter urging their colleagues to stand firm and keep amnesty out of the final spying bill. The House already passed a bill without amnesty, but the Senate is scheduled to pass a bill with retroactive amnesty as early as Tuesday. That would trigger a fight to resolve the issue in a conference committee of Democratic leaders. While a majority of Democrats in both Houses have voted against amnesty, Senators Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller have fought hard to keep the proposal on the table, quailing at Bush's repeated threats to veto the bill if it does not include amnesty.

The House Democrats' letter explains that amnesty is distinct from the surveillance bill, which grants the administration more spying powers and weakens judicial requirements for warrants. "The issue of immunity for phone companies that chose to cooperate with the President's warrantless wiretapping program deserves a separate and more deliberate examination by Congress," reads the letter. "No special urgency attaches to the question of immunity other than the Administration's general eagerness to limit tort liability and its desire to avoid scrutiny of its own actions, by either the courts or the Congress."

Last week, over two dozen House members hammered the same point in a letter to President Bush:

Corporations that handed over their customers' records without a valid court order [...] undermined fundamental civil protections and privacy rights of Americans. Congress as a whole was kept in the dark for years about these activities, and to this day, the overwhelming majority of House Members and Senators have never been briefed on these activities. We cannot be asked to immunize these actions before we know the full extent of what occurred.

According to several civil liberties groups, the developments in the House suggest that at least some Democrats are now willing to draw a line in the sand to stop Bush's abuse of executive power. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing telephone companies over domestic spying, characterized the House letters as "a significant shift in the political debate over telecom immunity." An ACLU spokesperson told The Nation that the action by House leaders is the only "ray of hope" to scuttle amnesty, because the Senate is considered a lost cause. "We need the House to stand strong and not bless this multibillion dollar giveaway to the telecommunications companies," said the ACLU official.

Most observers agree that the spying bill and retroactive amnesty are distinct issues. After all, the bill governs surveillance policy going forward, while the amnesty amendment dismisses cases challenging past surveillance. Apart from one's view on each issue –- I oppose both the underlying White House bill and amnesty, as I explained in this November op-ed –- it would be highly irresponsible for Congress to rush amnesty without basic information about what happened. Yet the administration refuses to brief members, even in classified sessions, as the House committee letter explains:

For the past five months this Committee has asked, in a bipartisan manner, the phone companies and the Administration to [provide factual and legal information that] would justify Congress telling a Federal judge to dismiss all lawsuits…Surprisingly, even at this late date, the Administration has not deemed it important enough to respond to our repeated inquiries or even to brief the Committee Members in closed session.

But there's nothing surprising about the administration's contempt for the rule of law at this point. Are Democratic leaders just figuring this out?

The past few months of the spying debate do reveal, in a depressing sort of way, both the promise and residual frailty of this (mildly) resurgent Democratic Party. There are leaders who now go to the mat against Bush, even on counterterrorism policy and even when few are paying attention. That includes people like Senators Dodd and Feingold, and the House leaders fighting this week. But even when they summon a majority of their caucus, as they have on amnesty, they are sold out by a few well-placed members of their own party. So Senate Democrats watch the spectacle of Jay Rockefeller doing his best Joe Lieberman impression, and listen to Harry Reid say that he opposes amnesty while rigging floor votes to pass it.

Meanwhile, the two remaining presidential candidates have finessed the issue with such precision, it's the surest proof that their promises of "change" do not include restoring the rule of law until the election is over. Clinton and Obama did vote the right way this summer, but they missed recent key votes, and they have refused to use the enormous megaphone they share to get anything done. Just this weekend, President Bush peddled more attacks and disinformation about spying in an interview with Fox News. The Obama Campaign was quick to rebut Bush's attack on the Senator's foreign policy, and the Clinton Campaign is plenty aggressive when counter-punching to protect The Clintons. Yet neither campaign so much as released statements from aides to rebut the President's surveillance comments, let alone launch a battle plan to protect civil liberties in the looming fight.

Both campaigns talk about how history will view their unprecedented candidacies -- and breaking political glass ceilings is no small feat. Yet history tends to judge not only one's candidacy, but one's character, assessing whether leaders acted on the conviction to do right when pressed with the choice. Amnesty is on the table now. If Congress sends this legislation to President Bush, next January will be too late. There will be no accountability for domestic spying and few levers for a thorough investigation. And the next President will inherit an office with growing power and receding legitimacy, a dynamic reinforced by Congress and unlikely to abate when even would-be presidents refuse to stand up for the rule of law.

---

Photo credit: Takomabibelot

Comments (13)

1. Many thanks for spotlighting a critical issue, Ari.

   It deserves our keen attention even among so much else that is of critical importance.

   As the picture begins to clarify re the Dem nominee, we Nationheads and other progs need to turn up the heat on issues just like amnesty that are the lynchpin to maintaining some semblance of a constitutional government.

   The timing is ripe.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/11/2008 @ 02:22am

2. What! Harry Reid is rolling over and playing a lap dog?

   I am shocked, shocked that that is happening in this establishment. Shocked, shocked, that the two front running horses have been silent on a divisive issue during their campaigns.

   Could Obama and Hillary be "more of the same"? Nah, say it ain't so, Pa! Could Hillary be triangulating her "tough girl" persona, not wanting to appear soft on those evil terrorists and hard on the rights of Americans to fight power? Why, I have never heard of such a thing. Except the Patriot Act, and doing away with FISA, allowing habeus corpus to rot in the dungeons of the USA., and voting to let Chimpy go to war in Iraq.

   Other than that, she is tough as nails on the side of civil rights and common sense.

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/11/2008 @ 07:53am

3. gee - could the other 50+ senate dems stand up and do something right while two of their collegues bust their humps trying to get elected?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 09:39am

4. It is SO critical, neither candidate will go near it with a barge pole. Not yet. Not until it's too late.

   Buck "Dem" Jay Rockefeller? And the wallets he truly reps?

   Ha.

   Posted by sloper at 02/11/2008 @ 10:35am

5. "And the next President will inherit an office with growing power"

   Sen. Obama: "I sure HOPE so."

   Sen. Clinton: "I can't wait to EXPERIENCE the feeling."

   Sen. McCain: "Of course."

   Gov. Huckabee: "We've got 10 laws that already cover this"

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 10:42am

6. This is Reid's problem, not Obama's or Clinton's. I would love for them to be there, but the next 4-8 years are on the line, if not the entire future of our party, so I'd rather the candidates stick to the campaign. I doubt the vote will come down to their votes swaying one way or another. I get tired of the bitching about them not being there. I'm sorry, but they have a lot of crap on their plates, and Obama definitely can't take time off the campaign to fly to Washington and make a vote. Hillary probably could, because she has a former president doing half of her campaigning for her, but from the look of the results, she may need another former president campaigning for her. Maybe Bush Sr can hit the road for her, he is one of her favorite presidents after all.

   Posted by bridoc at 02/11/2008 @ 11:51am

7. These idiots in the Senate are probably super delegates, who will wimp out at the convention. These various laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Constitution if is FUNDAMENTAL LAW that CANNOT BE ABRIDGED by CONGRESS or The PRESIDENT. The various communication companies need to feel the full weight of the law, so, in the future, they will resists any unconstitutional acts by the government in the future.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/11/2008 @ 12:22pm

8. I get tired of the bitching about them not being there. I'm sorry, but they have a lot of crap on their plates, and Obama definitely can't take time off the campaign to fly to Washington and make a vote.

   He can't take the time to do his job?

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/11/2008 @ 12:37pm

9. He can't take the time to do his job?

   Posted by CRABWALK 02/11/2008 @ 12:37pm

   yeah, i'm going tell my boss i couldn't go to work

   because i was too busy HOPING.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:45pm

10. An idea: Once a candidate reaches a point in the primary campaign where they are spending more time campaigning than doing their job, be it as governor, senator etc, they should resign their job or quit campaigning. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would like to assume that when I vote for somebody they are planning on finishing the job I send them to do. If not, they should remove themselves from my payroll and hope they win the next election.

    right Obama, Clinton and McCain? Are ya'll collecting your 100+k while not voting? How about your bennies and pension?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/11/2008 @ 4:18pm

11. Actually Obama and McCain showed up to vote.So someone needs to do some fact-checking. Turn on CSPAN, they're right there on the floor. Hmm, Clinton's missing. Go figure.

    Posted by jazzence at 02/12/2008 @ 12:50pm

12. At least Obama actually showed up for the vote this morning. Clinton was in the Area and she didn't even show up.

    Posted by sphynxdra at 02/12/2008 @ 1:14pm

13. "The vote also provided an opportunity to showcase the key differences on national security between presidential candidates, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), voted against immunity for telecoms, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), voted to keep immunity in the bill. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not show up for the vote. All three candidates were in the Washington area for the region's three primaries today. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/mai n3821504.shtml

    Posted by sphynxdra at 02/12/2008 @ 1:25pm