Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why the Progressive Movement Couldn't Stop the Bush FISA Bill

Posted by Matt Stoller at 5:01 AM on August 6, 2007.


Matt Stoller: We have to get our house in order if we are to restore civil liberties.
ph2006052301170
Sen. Dodd expressed his own frustration with the passage of the FISA bill this past weekend.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Matt Stoller, originally appeared on Open Left

There's a wonderful discussion in the comments of the last post on why the FISA bill passed, on what motivated 57 Democrats to vote to expand Bush's executive authority. In Glenn Greenwald's interview with Chris Dodd, Dodd himself expresses astonishment at the vote. There are really two parts to this question. One is why Blue Dogs caved, and two is why there was no basically no organizing or lobbying done to stop this bill from moving.

Let's talk politicians first. Did these members betray their principles? Were they scared of Bush? It's easy to make the argument that they are afraid of Bush, that they are frightened. And in a sense, it's not an either/or. Still, we must also consider the possibility that these 57 Democrats believe in a more expansive security state and do not support civil liberties. They are not liberals, and they just don't agree with us.

It may sound silly and obvious, but we must remember that there are different politicians out there who think different stuff and have different priorities than we do. When these politicians do things that are murderously awful, it's not always out of craven fear. Sometimes, though not always, it's just because they are people who believe that a corrupt police state government governs best. We don't. And so it's our job to put candidates in office and support those candidates that are going to advocate for our values. And we're doing that.

Still, as a movement, we have only one crop of politicians in office, those elected in 2006. Pretty soon, we'll have another crop. Don't forget that every other person put in Congress on the Democratic side had their instincts, ideas and politics honed by a fiercely reactionary media and political structure. Most of them raised huge sums of money and put it into TV ads. Most of them think criticism from the right is to be feared, and that the left is fringe, though Democratic leaders are beginning to get addicted to internet money.

Given the age of our movement, it shouldn't be a surprise that the progressive caucus is weaker than it could be, or that Bush is still able to govern. It's never been about Bush, after all, it's always been about right-wing coalitions.

And this brings me to the second point. Why did this bill happen suddenly this week, with little warning? Why did it create a situation where activists had basically no time to act? Where was the communications breakdown? I've hinted before at the rank incompetence of Anthony Romero's ACLU. For instance, the group has the worst and most insulting messaging I've ever seen on a political action item, with their 'Find Habeas' campaign done by PR shop Edelman (which also counts Walmart as a client). The ACLU considers this campaign a success, since it brought a lot of signups and donations, though it did not in fact restore habeas. In other words, the ACLU is designed to fail.

We saw that their narrow legalistic strategy failed here (as it often does). The ACLU should have been coordinating with the liberal House leadership on bills like this, giving outsiders weeks of notice so organizing can actually happen. We may not have been able to stop the bill, but at least we as a movement could have fought the fight. That this did not happen suggests an immense and unforgivable incompetence at the ACLU.

We have to get our house in order if we are to restore civil liberties. That means telling the truth about our liberal groups and their complicity in massive strategic and moral errors like this. Anthony Romero has a lot to answer for. In six months, when this bill comes up again, the ACLU has another shot. Let's hope Romero acknowledges error and works to take corrective action.

Digg!

Tagged as: aclu, fisa, dodd, democratic congress

Matt Stoller is a political activist/blogger in DC, and was an editor at MyDD from November 2005 until June 2007. He also consults for the Sunlight Foundation, FreePress.net, and Working Assets as well as proactively networking other progressive bloggers/internet activists and progressive professionals.


Latino Migrant Beaten to Death in Penn
A predictable outcome of the overheated immigration debate in this country.
Post by yave begnet. July 24, 2008.
House Hearing on 2004's Lessons Sheds No New Light on Flawed Election
Old arguments and explanations abound about the last presidential election.
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. July 24, 2008.
McCain: Time to Start Rationing Veterans' Healthcare
'McCain received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America.'
Post by Steve Benen. July 24, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Why the Progressive Movement Couldn't Stop the Bush FISA Bill" you ask...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Aug 6, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the dems are just as ego-centric and selfish as the rethugs... That’s why!

They couldn't bare the thought of staying beyond their intended and I'm sure "Well Deserved break" any longer than they had to, so they sold us all down the river with more Illegal Legislation stripping the American people of even more civil liberties. Cretins, if they weren't such self-serving narcissists our nation wouldn't be in such trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Constitutional Protections?
Posted by: wehaveseenthismovieb4 on Aug 6, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.freedomfchs.com/unwarranted_surveillance.pdf

It seems improbable that the incidents described below can happen multiple times a day, for the past 6 years, in two different states without the knowledge of, participation in and protection of rogue elements of law enforcement, including federal agencies. Sadly, one is left with only one conclusion, that warrant less surveillance, in the form of criminal menacing, harassment under the color of law, reckless endangerment, and using vehicles as deadly weapons, are illegal COINTELPRO/MKULTRA-like tactics employed by government intelligence agencies against innocent citizens for purposes of denying First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/church finalreportIIIa.htm

It begins with ...

Criminal Menacing/Aggravated Stalking and Death Threats
… being tailgated by vehicles with high beams glaring, menacingly in your rear view mirror. Eventually, your local police begin eyeballing you in traffic, as if they know who you are. It begins when you notice license plates that end in JEW, JFK, D1E, XXX, WOW, GUN, WAR, NSA, FED, EVL, GIT and RF N MF.

It begins with daily sightings of former Chevrolet Impala police cruisers, now re-painted in civilian colors with blacked-out tinted windows. It begins with sightings of unmarked Ford Crown Victorias and Mercury Marauders

Fourth Amendment Violations begin with …
… phone taps ... hearing echos of your voice when leaving yourself messages, noting perp license plates. It begins with “directed conversations”, when your friends and co-workers conversations mirror exchanges between you and your wife, spoken only between the two of you, in the privacy of your own home or car.

Selective Enforcement begins with …
Your local police inability to find the CD you provided documenting your targeting, and detectives believing the garrote found hanging from a tree in your front yard got there due to “high winds”. After taking pictures of unmarked police cars blocking the right of way, the police cars aggressively follow you into your driveway. After questioning why you were taking their picture, you offer the detectives a copy of the CD describing your targeting; in response they literally walk backwards, as if you’re offering them a package with a bio-hazard warning label.

Reckless Endangerment/ Using Vehicles As Deadly Weapons begins with …
… oncoming unmarked white vans, daily approach your vehicle, at extrmely high speed, while dangerously close to crossing over the center line, threatening head-on collisions.

It begins with yearly nuisance auto accidents, for which the other driver is ticketed. The damage seldom exceeds $1,500. Sometimes the officer issuing the citation writes the wrong statute on the ticket resulting in the offender’s case being dismissed.

Signatures of Intelligence Agencies
The military precision of these daily warrant less attacks, indicate a depth of technical resources, personnel and planning that can only be the acts of government intelligence agency/ies. Providing a CD describing your targeting, including still photos, video and license plates, to the FBI brings no response from the Bureau.

Conclusions
In a war against asymmetrical enemies such as international terrorists, fanatic personality types, in positions of public trust, are easily distracted and mislead, while having their eyes taken off the ball. Our targeting is only the tip of the iceberg. The cost to our country for this extremist behavior is already enormous and the meter is running.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speak Up!
Posted by: reval on Aug 6, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did your representative betray your trust and the Constitution to cast a YES vote in support of this rubbish? Now's the time to let him/her know. Go HERE, to see how your representative voted. Go HERE to find your representative's contact page. Let them know that you will not forget their betrayal.

Then work to insure that they remember your promise.
~Rev. El
PS. If your representative cast a sane vote, let them know that too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I sent this to Waxman
Posted by: BitcoDavid on Aug 6, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Below is a copy of an E-mail I sent to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.

Dear Sir,
I am overwhelmed, appalled and, above all, bitterly hurt over the recent sell out, by our elected DEMOCRATIC officials, in the granting of expanded warrantless wiretapping powers to President Bush. It appears to me, that our "loyal opposition" is more concerned with their vacations than with our precious civil liberties.
Perhaps this would be a good time to switch from wearing orange, the color chosen to represent the growing desire for impeachment, to wearing black, as a sign of mourning for the final, tragic death of the Democratic Party, and, more importantly, the Constitution, itself.
Is this some sort of strategy? Please tell me how anyone can assume that the man who sat, bald facedly lying and mocking your entire branch of government, can, in any way, be trusted with carrying out the very same spying operations which he so vehemently claimed as non-extant, only one week prior. Please tell me how ceding the civil liberties of American Citizens to an, obviously, power hungry tyrant and his cabal of cronies can, in any way, be seen as doing the job with which you have been entrusted.
Can we expect this level of mealy-mouthed spinelessness, when Bush declares martial law, suspends elections and declares you, our Congress, to be obsolete and irrelevant?
Enjoy your vacation, Sir. You just may return to find your office being guarded by a mercenary from Blackwater Security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael A. Anderson
Posted by: manderson on Aug 6, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats, some of whom voted for the FISA bill, are the other half of our one-party system of political theater, managed by the military-industrial (emphasis on INDUSTRIAL) complex.

George Carlin called it the "Ownership Party". George Wallace said "there isn't a dime's worth of difference...". Both of them are right. If you think, as a progressive, that the Democrats will be a more equitable ruling party, you are sadly mistaken. The lessons of WW1 and WW2 should be heeded.

WW1 was fought to an armistice, and managed by industry, although Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat...but THAT party does not exist now. Read USMC Brig. General Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket", and Scott Nearing's "The Great Madness" for more info. The Allies were funded by Wall Street, which viewed neither side, Axis OR Allies, more morally just than the other, and saw it only as a business opportunity (Disaster Capitalism? Mmmm....sounds familiar). Europe at the time (1914) was an armed camp, held together by all sorts of interlocking treaties and intermarriages. War was declared by the U.S. after combat stalled in the trenches in 1916, and it looked like the Allies MIGHT lose. Wall Street then put the pressure on Wilson, and he caved (sound familiar?), and 116,000 American lives were lost so that Wall Street could collect their dough. The seeds of WW2 were sown with the Treaty of Versailles, which resulted in the impoverishment of Germany through war reparations, which were the loans Wall Street REFUSED to forgive from the Allies.

It is worth mentioning that Germany, BEFORE WW1, was a rising industrial and colonial power, and a threat to the U.S.-Brit system. They still make good stuff, but they're more docile now...

WW2 was managed by a Democratic administration set on TOTAL WAR, ABSOLUTE victory, and laying the ground for the present neo-liberal global economic state...managed by us, of course, and the establishment of the present security state, somewhat modified by President Big Dick and TheVeryBig CorporationOfAmerica, Inc., but essentially the same. Industry was TOTALLY mobilized for the war effort, and while they didn't quite make the numbers, profit-wise, that they made in WW1, they didn't miss any meals on our account. FDR has been made out in the Corpo media as being a traitor to his party, but history, looking at it from a WAR footing, shines a better (?) light on him.

That does not, however, diminish his New Deal contributions....which ALL of us have grown up with, in some form or another.

Oh, and, PS...the DEMOCRATS are the ones who introduced the draft legislation currently tabled in committee waiting for action. Let's see what sort of media campaign arises when the draft becomes "necessary".

Getting our "house in order" will entail CHANGING THE WAY MONEY WORKS...otherwise, we change nothing. To quote an account manger from Dillon, Read: "Cash flow is more important than your mother". I certainly don't want his nose in MY business! Local networks of financing, buying less without credit, and preparing for climate change and Peak Oil are a way to start. The networks are out there, and changing or spending habits will be a hard job, but, for example, people in Europe seem to live pretty well with fuel-efficient cars and no Wal-Marts pretty well. And, gee whiz, they have Art, Rock and Roll, and CULTURE, too!

And, speaking of something European---Universal Health Care will only happen here if we can change the way money works. The Democrats will only come up with some sort of variation on the "privatized" system...they make their money from Big Pharma, too.

So...beware the Democrats....too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Why did this bill happen suddenly...?"
Posted by: channing on Aug 6, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was not sudden, it was set into motion when the neocons began their chorus of "summer terrorism from the gut" routine. The symphony of fear-mongering that emerged a month or so ago was identical in timing and transparency to the fear-coding that obscured every inconvenient truth before the '04 and '06 elections, as well as nearly every other repug-crisis during that period... neocons can figure out when a marketing strategy is falling flat, so they replaced the code system with "expert intel" quotes from mystery sources, freeing them from direct responsibility for manipulating National Security for Political gains.

There had to be more then one democrap sellout who was concerned they'd be in the next unfortunate aircraft... Fear must have played a role here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zionists saturated
Posted by: Nick on Aug 6, 2007 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All branches of government

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» When will you anti-semites Posted by: Ellie1
Maybe "believe in a more expansive security state and do not support civil liberties"
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Aug 8, 2007 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other words, the bastards LIED!. They lied to get the cushy jobs, power and access, and now they'll do what they damned well please. The title of this piece is misleading, I think - there is no "reason" here. It's the same old same old: we were had again. I do think there's one more thing, though: I've noticed that some of our democrats have changed directions all of a sudden like they were brought up short on a rope. I wonder if this is the result of the NSA and other "spy on everybody" policy? You don't get to the highest offices in this country by having a perfectly clean record. It's a piece of idiocy that I've always felt was not just ridiculous, but a a danger, because it leaves our highest government officials vulnerable to blackmail. There are no angel available for election; we shouldn't require the appearence of angels. It only guarantees we'll get people good at lying and at hiding it.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]