Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Senate Passes Bush's Massive Illegal Spying Program, Immunity for Telecoms

Posted by Scarecrow , Firedoglake at 6:35 AM on February 13, 2008.


There are nearly 20 weak Democrats who simply cannot be relied upon to stand against the Republicans when fundamental rights are at stake.
15081773191a1dcc5005.thumbnail
constitution

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!

 

The US Constitution and the principle that no one is above the law suffered a numbing setback, Tuesday, when every Republican Senator, Independent Joe Lieberman and 18 faux Democrats voted to gut the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, one of the most important bulwarks again tyrannical government since 1789. The Senate voted 68 - 29 to ratify the President's massive illegal spying program and provide immunity for the telecoms who invaded the privacy of millions of innocent Americans.

The Fourth Amendment has been handed down to us unchanged for over two centuries:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Almost none of that is left if today's bill stands. In an age in which "bipartisan" has come to mean weak Democrats joining unanimous Republicans to vote against the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment would be eviscerated by a bill that provides a virtual blank check for the executive to invade the privacy of Americans:

-- The President can direct US spy agencies to intercept every e-mail, telephone or internet communication of every American and anyone legally in the US with only the most minimal safeguards. Although the bill was supposed to deal with exclusively "foreign" communications, the techniques it sanctions will in fact sweep up domestic and foreign combined.

-- Acting without individual or particularized warrants from any court, spy agencies can sweep up millions of communications without differentiating between those warranting surveillance and those not. Procedures for separating out totally innocent persons or communications that have nothing to do with foreign intelligence or any security threat to the US are minimal to non-existent. Procedures allowing a secret court to review such procedures have been weakened, along with measures to correct violations of even these limited procedures.

-- Persons spied upon have no ability to determine what information the government has collected, or to affect what the government does with the information. Americans will never know which persons or government agencies were shown private information about them, and if restrictions are placed on their activities or travel because of this secret information, it will be impossible for victims to determine why or to challenge the information.

-- Telecommunication companies who participated in government's illegal spying activities, and those who ordered this, would be forever immune from any consequences for their actions and cannot be required to disclose what they did.

-- As bad as the Senate Bill is, the Senate rejected an effort to make the bill the exclusive means by which surveillance can be authorized. So the President arguably can conduct further spying on Americans even without the minimal protections left in the Bill.

There were courageous efforts by Senators Dodd and Feingold and about 29 other genuine Democrats to stop or mitigate the damage, but those 31 or so votes define the limits of the Constitutional Wing of the Democratic Party. As important as the Presidential election is, increasing these numbers has to be an ongoing priority. We need more people like this (h/t Matt Stoller).

Not one of the 49 Senate Republicans stood up for the Fourth Amendment. And there are nearly 20 weak Democrats who simply cannot be relied upon to stand against the Republicans when fundamental rights are at stake.

These Democratic Senators will forever be remembered as having failed their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution on one or more key votes. Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Whitehouse voted to mitigate the worst provisions, but ultimately voted for the Bill; Feinstein voted against stripping immunity but then voted for the bill.

Obama voted for the Constitution in an early vote, but he was not present for the final votes; we could have used a little more "yes we can." Clinton also chose to be somewhere else. I assume we will not again hear campaign arguments about voting "present."

As Jane said yesterday, it's up to the House to stop this disgraceful bill. Sign the petition to tell them not to cave like the Senate did.

More from C&L, emptywheel, Glenn Greenwald, ACLU, and two Constitutional heroes, Feingold and Dodd.

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, democrats, republicans, fisa, dodd, feingeold

Scarecrow is a regular blogger for FireDogLake


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
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:
I Would Be Alarmed
Posted by: lmwilker on Feb 13, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Except that the War On Drugs had already gutted the 4th Amendment when the Courts decided schools could randomly drug test students and when the Courts decided companies could act as law enforcement officials and randomly test and "pre-screen" workers.

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

» RE: I Would Be Alarmed Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: I Would Be Alarmed..... Posted by: grethart
I said it before...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 13, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. and I'll say it again; Elected as the majority, rules like the minority.

Have they failed to cave to Bush on ANYTHING yet?

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

In These Times
Posted by: QQOblivion on Feb 13, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In any other times, after (not if) the president signs this bill, challenges against its constitutionality would have the new law utterly voided by the Supreme Court. But in THESE times the SC is packed with Right Wing jackasses (who think even torture is okay). The best those who support the constitution can hope for is a 5-4 decision by the Court AGAINST that piece of worthless paper our Founding Fathers meant as a guide to build (and to continue to run) a nation.
DAMN those in Congress, including the cowardly "Democrats" (such as my Senator Salazar), who have voted for the continuation and expansion of literal tyranny.
They are TRAITORS to America and everything it used to stand for!

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

As I watched the proceedings
Posted by: Quannah on Feb 13, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yesterday, I was appalled. I hope that every person remembers what their Senators did yesterday. Those who folded like a wet napkin don't deserve to be in Washington! Get them out the next time they run for re-election! They could give a rat's ass about our rights! Time to send them PACKING!

As I've stated before, we get the government we deserve. If they won't stand up for us, we need to stand up to them and tell them "enough is enough!"

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

It's all on Harry Reids' Shoulders.
Posted by: weslen1 on Feb 13, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harry Reid had no business bringing this bill to the floor for a vote. I firmly believe this is the result HE WANTED ALL ALONG.
He has said all along, "We don't have enough votes." OK fine. Then you don't bring it to a vote. The original bill should have been allowed to be reinstated and the August bill passed under coercion allowed to lapse. Leave it to the NEXT president to decide the kind of bill HE/SHE needs to have written, not a criminal administration who will, hopefully, leave office in 11 months.

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

How the Senators Voted
Posted by: ELurie on Feb 13, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is the complete list, but the only mystery is in the top list of Dems who voted YEA. (And yes, I did place Lieberman among the Dems.)

Sourced from
Roll Call

Grouped By Vote Position and Party
YEAs ---68
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---29
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Obama (D-IL)

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

» RE: How shameful Posted by: Quannah
» Yea voters: traitors one and all Posted by: hurricane hugo
» From Illinois Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: How the Senators Voted Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: How the Senators Voted Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: How the Senators Voted Posted by: Doubtom
Survellance & the Telecoms
Posted by: remoran on Feb 13, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The road to dictatorship starts and ends with passivity. The Dems sold us out on the wiretapping bill. Nothing will improve until public financing of campaigns becomes reality and that will not happen unless we demand it as Congress will never let it happen. Banks and corporations rule, pols are minions and because of this we, the people, are being screwed. We are in trouble and the fools we have as our reps simply don't get it. It matters not what party as long as greed acts as the operative way to do business. Very sad, very troubling.

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

re "How they voted"
Posted by: CJC on Feb 13, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any of the senators who voted for this bill and who are up for election this year, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be challenged in their state primaries or general elections.

The number of Democrats voting Y is a huge disappointment. Their constituents need to hold their feet to the fire. What were they thinking of?

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

I thought Obama was there and voted against it~wtf? n/m
Posted by: kww355 on Feb 13, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

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

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Harry Reid blows dead bears..! Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
theres a much simpler explanation...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Feb 13, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
jobs...

its bad that the telcoms will not be held accountable for their crimes...it will be even worse if innocent (ie..those not involved in illegal wiretaps) telcom employees are forced to take the fall for their bosses...for example..if the telcoms are hit with heavy fines and then retaliate with a series of mass layoffs under the pretense of paying the fines...who do you think the ppl that get fired will blame when they go to vote??...

it is also worth pointing out that the constitutionality of the wiretaps in question has already been upheld in us v butenko [494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)]...bush and his telcom cronies are guilty of violating a statutory law..but not the US constitution...

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

» addendum... Posted by: Annapurna1
» Fines?! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Fines?! Posted by: Turiye
stormy7
Posted by: STORMY78 on Feb 13, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN SPYING ON AMERICANS SINCE BEFORE 911. THE HAVE DIRT ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHICH THEY USE TO BLACKMAIL THEM TO GET THEIR VOTES.
WE HAVE LOST OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS. WELCOME TO THE NEO CON DICTATORSHIP.

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

Rule of Law, Eqaul Justice, Due Process..what a fucking joke..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Feb 13, 2008 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
History will record this as being the worst and most disloyal Senate and Congress to our beloved Constitution..

The rule of law and equal justice and due process mean nothing any more for the elite ruling class and corporate fascists..

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

I still get a shot ay one of um
Posted by: crazy carlos on Feb 13, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
QQOblivion--I'm in the same boat as you with Salazar-But his asshole Brother?? is in my district. Me and John are going to have a little go around in a few months. Crazy Carlos

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

where is the republican public outrage
Posted by: grkjr on Feb 13, 2008 6:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there no republican that finds this totally unacceptable (senator or citizen)??? Does the repubican public like their congress elected representatives, follow in lock step to this president. It is too hard to beleive that the "rule of law" has simply being abandoned by such a large group of citizens that adhere to the conservative perspective. Would sure appreciate the thinking of this group on this issue. 1) fear driven by 9/11 ? 2) fear driven by party loyalty? 3) Really thinks that our freedoms are secondary (not the foundation upon which our strength comes from) to possible attacks? 4) Specifically why does one think that the govt., which is perceived as being too large by the conservative view, now to be enlarged to ensure that our most precious liberties are monitored..

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

Blackmail
Posted by: Schroeder on Feb 13, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would seem that it is only because this corrupt person masquerading as president and his corrupt administration have been listening for some time and must have some mighty good stuff on those who continue to support the crimes of the Bushites.

Let's face it, it's far more important to determine if Clemons allowed himself to be injected with steroids than it is to take any action to do what needs to be done.

I am so ashamed of my country!

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

MR.dresser
Posted by: davidperrone on Feb 13, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS IS THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS VOTE IN THE HISTORY OF THE CONGRESS. THIS IS A VOTE AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. BUSH AND HIS ACCOMPLICES IN CONGRESS ARE CLEARLY BREAKING THE LAW. AND THIS VOTE IS THE VEHICLE THE BUSH PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERMINE ONE OF OUR MOST BASIC RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. THE ONLY REASON THEY WOULD WANT THIS BILL IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GREAT DEAL TO HIDE. THINGS THEY HAVE DONE THAT WILL SHOW THAT THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS WE ALL KNOW THEY ARE

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

Thank You For Identifying the "Weak" Dems
Posted by: hadashito on Feb 13, 2008 7:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The voters of the US owe a debt of gratitude to AlterNet for identifying the Democratic senators who voted with Republicans on this bill. They may now be called to account and answer for their "weakness" in their respective states when election time comes around - - that is, if their constituencies are paying any attention.

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

Harry Reid-Weakling
Posted by: dougo on Feb 14, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harry Reid is supposed to be the majority leader.Why then does he ALWAYS give in to Bush?I am dumbfounded by this chicken shit pissing his pants every time Bush bullies him. What is he and the rest of the Democrats afraid of, Bush?Anthrax? Some leader this wimp has turned out to be.He makes Peewee Herman look masculine.I had so hoped for some backbone from this bunch but apparently a jelly fish has the edge on this bunch.Look up Harry.Don't look at your shoes when Bush talks to you. Man I'm tired of getting fucked without even a kiss.

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

» RE: Harry Reid-Weakling Posted by: master09
Come on, get it right.
Posted by: rotorooter on Feb 14, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article stated that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) voted for the bill, when she actually voted against it. This is too important to be scewing up. Is there an editor in the house?

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

The Continuing rape of Our Social Contract
Posted by: socrates2 on Feb 14, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imwilkin is on point, as are the rest of the letter writers. And they have a perfect right to be furious!
The Fourth Amendment began to take a serious gutting under the Burger-Rehnquist courts. Nothing like a prohibitionist bureaucracy intent on limiting individual rights and repressing minorities to kick-start that Carrie Nation-like evangelical fervor against evil drugs and its purveyors.
It was quite easy in the 70's and 80's to go down that slippery slope and unilaterally carve out exceptions--under the pretext of "The War on Drugs"--to our perfectly good social contract (US Constitution); especially when a particular set of behaviors inflames a certain segment of society and few voices stand up to defend our _Sacred Document_ for fear of being labeled witch-lovers or "soft on crime."
Today, Hillary and Obama defaulted. No surprise there. They do not want to be labeled traitors or terrorist-lovers. These Presidential candidates would rather betray our US Constitution!
After all, a 200 year old "piece of paper" is not self-executing. It requires People to stand up for it. Now we know where these candidates stand and what they're not willing to stand up for.
I will not waste my vote on such betrayers of our most sacred historical document, our social contract, and the rights it was written to memorialize...
Our Founders, from Paine to Franklin to Jefferson, must weep from their graves. They must thank God Almighty they did not live to see this dark, inglorious and shameful day in American history.
I am glad I voted for Gravel.

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