Dodd speaks up strongly against immunity for illegal wiretapping---how important is this to Obama and Clinton?

It was nearly two years ago when Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times broke the story that the American government, at the highest levels, was illegally spying on American citizens. They won a Pulitzer Prize for that story,the biggest to break since Woodward and Bernstein broke Watergate in 1973.

Are you, like me, just old enough to remember the ripple effects through the 1970s of Watergate?

If so, you might join me in being surprised that the reaction to the 21st century illegal wiretapping story was for Congress to try to enact a measure that retroactively made all the illegal wiretapping legal (granting full amnesty), and moreover granted immunity to the participants, including the telecommunications companies, from lawsuits.

With the measure to provide this protection on the floor, Senator Chris Dodd took a strong position against it. In January, he spoke movingly and persuasively about the need to err on the side of less secrecy in a democracy, the need to trust courts to handle these matters with appropriate protection of state secrets, the need for Republicans to stop blocking honest debate and voting, and appealed to his colleagues to not be persuaded by fear-mongering. (Click here to read the transcript of that speech.)

When it came time to vote to extend the temporary surveillance law including the amendment to provide immunity to telecom companies, the GOP voted block and the Democrats split---19 voted in favor of immunity.

What about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? How did they vote?

Barack Obama took the time to vote against extending the surveillance law with the telecom immunity amendment attached. Hillary Clinton abstained from voting. Both candidates were allegedly in the DC area at the time of the vote (February 12) for that area's primaries.

The Senate approved reauthorization of this law: 68 in favor, 29 opposed. The measure now faces a battle with the House, which opposes it so long as it contains the telecom immunity amendment. (The House voted to not reauthorize the law 229-191.)

Although the focus is on telecom immunity, this is really a security and liberty issue; it's about civil liberties. This measure is actually about requiring warrants. Providing immunity to telecom companies that provide wiretapping without warrants is an important point to consider, but is simply the tip of this iceberg.

The immunity amendment, as Senator Dodd explained in his speech, is unnecessary, "The truth is that, since the 1970s, FISA has compelled telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance, when it’s warranted—and what’s more, it immunizes them. It’s done that for more than 25 years."

He went on to explain what the real stakes are here, "So cooperation in warranted wiretapping is not at stake today. Collusion in warrantless wiretapping is—and the warrant makes all the difference, because it is precisely the court’s blessing that brings presidential power under the rule of law."

This week, President Bush delivered a radio address in which he hounded for an hour on the same point: it's a threat to national security (read: be afraid, Americans, be very afraid and sacrifice your liberty for security). He even vaguely threatened that massive terror attacks are on the horizon, attacks that would make 9/11 look like nothing. However, he provided no additional details, or sources, and intriguingly, the threats only came up when the measure he supports is in jeopardy. In short, he was throwing his support behind the amendment to the law using his typical tactic: do it or else (insert terrible threat du jour).

He doesn't personally benefit: the amnesty is simply for the companies, not for him. But he does get two benefits: (1) if the cases (approximately 40 lawsuits against AT&T, Verizon Communications and Sprint Nextel) never go to court, his role is unlikely to be called into legal questions, and (2) his agenda benefits, and that's why he kept attempting to drive the fear point home. It nearly obscured his secondary fear point: telecom companies won't cooperate and provide illegal wiretapping if they fear legal ramifications.

Color me confused but I'm baffled why that's a problem. Let's see: a major corporation refuses to do something illegal because they don't want to break the law or suffer legal consequences.

Isn't that an underlying foundation point of our culture and legal system? Isn't the point of a punitive legal system to discourage law breaking?

I understand what Bush's position is. I understand how a lot of people think we need to throw liberties, civil liberties--one might even bring up the Constituition here---out the window if we employ the magic phrase: threat to national security.

I disagree.

And I'm not sure what changed in my lifetime so fundamentally that we are willing to believe that we must sacrifice our liberty for our security---and you can talk to me of towers, and domestic terrorism, and I will cry for that day along with you. You can tell me of the many people who want to harm our nation and its citizens, end our way of life. I will feel patriotic and protective.

But I will never, ever agree that liberty and security are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps I am too much a child of the 1970s and understood just enough of what Watergate meant. Perhaps I was deeply imprinted at a young age by the horror of the citizenry who discovered a scandal about illegal wiretapping. I must have listened closely and been influenced by the principle that one did not break the law or rules to win.

In today's world, it seems quite a few people (including some with a lot of power) hardly care what path we take to get where they think we need to go...they don't care who or what liberties they trample.

I'm amazed that people are willing to toss our legal system out the window so quickly and easily, are so willing to subvert it. I'm amazed there is such a lack of political trust in one of the three established branches of our democratic government: the judicial side.

Fortunately, not all telecom companies are willing to comply.

Fortunately, not all  citizens are willing to comply.

Now let's get our politicians to join us in being unwilling to comply. Let's take a stand: if you want to be our leader, then you must show a determination and willingness to protect our civil liberties.

Chris Dodd is right when he says:

It took three decades, three branches of government, four presidents, and 12 Congresses to patiently, painstakingly build up that machinery. It only took one president to tear it down. Generations of leaders handed over to President Bush a system that brought security under the law, a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping he could conceive.

...

The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.

And that ought to be the epitaph for this presidency: “sacrificing liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.” Worse than selling our soul—giving it away for free!

Note: Because I compared Watergate to this current illegal wiretapping, I kept considering why thirty years ago less ended a politician's career and blackened his reputation, making him one of the most reviled politicians, whereas today it created a president's reputation and cemented his leadership status. Why does the one case outrage us, and the other case cause us to agree to sacrifice our civil liberties? I have a theory: Nixon's actions were the political equivalent of corporate espionage---all were for his own personal benefit. Bush's actions are allegedly for the good of us.

Additional reading and inspiration for much of my opinion:

"Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms," by Glenn Greenwald

"Senate OK's immunity on wiretaps, Backs telecoms' role in surveillance efforts," By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, February 13, 2008 

"Bush Again Demands Telecom Immunity, President Repeats Calls For Lawsuit Protection Over Wiretaps; Would Surveillance Suffer Without It?," WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2008

"Telecom Amnesty: Congress should stop lawbreaking, not reward it—as the Senate's spy bill does." By Timothy B. Lee at Slate

Julie Pippert also writes at Using my Words.

Comments

[Glennia]

Excellent post, Julie. This is just ONE example of the steady erosion of civil liberties under the Bush Regime.

[cynematic]

*Fantastic* post, Julie. I absolutely agree with you--while the world is a volatile and dangerous place, I'm not so sure the Little Bush Boy Who Cried Wolf deserves our trust every time he reminds us about wolves.

Thanks for doing the legwork on providing additional resources for your position.

[Cheryl]

Thank you. One thing that you didn't mention about Chris Dodd is that with his speech in January, he left the campaign trail and singlehandedly filibustered his own party. I think that speaks volumes about his character.

A quote frequently attributed to Benjamin Franklin is "those who would give up essential freedom for apparent security deserve neither." I wish more Americans would think about that.