Netroots Restless Over FISA Telecom Immunity and Blue Dog Dems

The Netroots are restless and up in arms. Passionate bloggers and citizen journos at DailyKos, The HuffingtonPost, FireDogLake, and here at MOMocrats have shifted attention briefly from the presidential race and Obama to a piece of legislation called FISA: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (A history of its uses and current incorporation into the Department of Homeland Security's purview here and here.) FISA's latest incarnation passed a House vote and is now up for a Senate vote next week.*

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) on the impact of FISA

After 9/11, FISA is what allowed the Bush administration to monitor emails, phone calls and any other kind of communications between and among U.S. citizens as well as those exchanges between citizens and supposed "enemy aliens" offshore who threaten our national security. The government was able to do this without a warrant, or to conduct its surveillance first and then obtain a warrant from a special FISA court if circumstances indicated further surveillance was necessary. And with regard to the telecoms (AT&T, Verizon, and so forth, but not Qwest), they were asked to do the government's bidding by allowing access or supplying data whether or not those actions had been adequately vetted as Constitutional.

The relevant article of the Constitution? The "Search and Seizure" part of the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment. Look at it in all its pithy glory:

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.

 

The immunity section of the bill proposes retroactive protection of telecoms. The 40 or so lawsuits currently filed against telecoms by citizens would be dropped (more on the lawsuits here, here, and here); immunity would permit a blanket snuffing out of discovery--the legal amassing of evidence--for ANY surveillance malfeasance committed during the years 2001-2008. And the retroactive immunity provision's existence suggests that the time for Constitutional review of FISA's scope is overdue; there is also evidence to show that the government began surveillance of citizens several months prior to 9/11, again with the help of telecoms--but as Glenn Greenwald of Salon notes, without increasing our safety. The ACLU calls FISA what it is, a wide-open invitation to "domestic spying."

Mainstream Media, my favorite whipping boy, has also in the past two weeks addressed the issue in newspaper editorials around the country (compiled here).

Up til May of this year, FISA was one of many pieces of legislation in a holding pattern. Recent rescusitation of the FISA bill in the House, and its troubling civil liability immunity clause for telecoms who acceded to the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping requests, has caused many Netroots activists to forswear further donations or canvassing on behalf of Obama until he and the rest of the Senate comes around to filibuster this bill into a coma.

I personally haven't gone that far, but there has been some WTF?? questioning as to why Obama, the Constitutional law professor, is tacking right and siding with Blue Dog Democrats on this issue. Why do we need to review and vote on this legislation now, why do we need to decide on the immunity provision now, why are the Democrats so eager to bend over to the White House on this? What kind of horse-trading is going on--both in terms of the presidency and Obama's chances, and in terms of what the Bush White House is trying to accomplish for its flush telecom friends and lobbyists before the door slams on Bush's ass? Is FISA a way Blue Dog Dems are asserting their power and independence from Obama, the putative head of the Democratic Party? Moreover, as the excellent MapLight reveals, elected reps who got money from telecom PACs supported this bill in overwhelming numbers. Isn't the telecom lobby the main engine behind this push to offer retroactive immunity--and isn't this law-by-lobbyist, special interest-driven "old politics" precisely what Obama's against? (Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, looking at you!)

I'll still vote for Obama and forcefully encourage friends and family to do so as well, but this issue is sticking in my craw. I'm working to elect Obama president, not king. And the imperial presidency Bush carved out will need some trimming down so it's of a piece with the Constitution again.

Over at DailyKos, the reaction has moved from generalized outrage, to particular outrage at Obama for his equivocation over the protection of the 4th amendment of the Constitution, to identifying the specific Blue Dog Democrats who raised this non-critical bill for a vote at this moment. (Silvestre Reyes, D-TX, and Steny Hoyer, D-MD, House Majority Leader, looking at you!)

And Obama's response to the FISA bill's debate in the Senate? A pledge to vote for the bill as is so long as the telecom immunity provision is stripped from it. But he's made it clear he's voting for the bill. Will he support the filibuster on it as he promised? We'll see.

Over at OpenLeft, Matt Stoller says, "The Obama Accountability Movement Begins."

And on the official Obama campaign website, bloggers there have started a petition to urge Obama to support the filibuster and vote against the revised FISA bill. (Another one here.)

A righteous disgruntlement has now settled over many Kossacks who realize that it may be time to target Blue Dog Democrats in the House who need "primarying" (replacing) in 2010--conveniently listed and identified by support for FISA or vote against. The rallying cry is "more and better Democrats."

Along these lines, Robert Greenwald, of BraveNewFilms, is spearheading a movement to remove the ultimate Blue Dog Democrat from Congress, one so blue-dog he might as well be red: Joe Lieberman. At Greenwald's site, there's a petition to demand that the Senate Democratic Steering Committee remove Joe Lieberman from its caucus, which would strip him of important assignments and oversight of our national security and defense.

This group plays a pivotal role in assigning Democratic Senators leadership positions on various committees, thereby giving them more power and a higher profile within the Democratic Caucus. While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ultimately has the final say, it is up to the Steering Committee to make recommendations to Sen. Reid shortly after the election. They are the ones who decide whether Sen. Joe Lieberman should remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Given Lieberman's recent endorsement of the Republican presidential candidate John McCain, why do we Dems need Lieberman, an overt and avowed McCain surrogate, on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee?

And at the moment, with regard to FISA, the pressure is on to support Senators Feingold, Reid and Schumer in filibustering this bill back into oblivion.

With the big Netroots Nation conference about to convene in July, in Austin, TX, count on the renewed vigor and proactive, multi-prong approach of the netroots to do the following:

• to push Obama left of center/hold him to his promises,
   
• to continue to support his bid for presidency,
   
• to flip more red Congressional seats to blue,
   
• and to bring "more and better Democrats" into the House and Senate.
   

What we see here is not just a battle over FISA, but the ground being laid for 2010's election. Keep your eye on the story, more to come.

*ETA: Revised FISA to be considered in the Senate after the July recess ends.

H/T to Erin Kotecki Vest/Queen of Spain on the Lieberman video, and to numerous DailyKos diaries and commenters for research.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

Comments

[debbie]

Cyn.

my god, but I love your mind.

[Karoli]

Well written. You've summarized it brilliantly. I was ready to pull all future donations from Obama until I got out in the world and listened to what other folks who aren't as obsessive-compulsive as I am about politics were saying. What I heard convinced me that other than the handful of us on the net, most people don't give a crap about this, and would interpret a vote against FISA as a vote against national security.

Part of what we need to do as bloggers, I think, is educate the folks we run into at parties, soccer games and the grocery store, because we have the most uninformed electorate I've ever seen.

[cynematic]

Karoli,
Know what you mean--I was pretty pissed too, but then realized what you did. Non-netroots voters aren't going to see it as we will if they see it at all, and it'll take more than Obama as president to keep crap like this from being tried again. Let's face it, we netroots *are* pretty OCD! :)

The Feingold clip did a great job of putting in lay terms what's at stake and what this version of FISA will do. Good for grabbing people preoccupied with paying $4.50/gallon gas on a 90 minute one-way commute to their value-sinking house in the exurbs--no wonder they have no time or energy to get informed. (The will? Well, that's another story.)

[Lawyer Mama]

Plus, FISA's scope really isn't the hill to die on. FISA's been around for awhile.

The problem is the USA Patriot Act permiting intelligence gathered via FISA to be used in criminal prosecutions. We need the wall of separation back between foreign intelligence surveilance and prosecutors.

[Michael]

The Blue Dog Democrats have not been living up to their name. Touting their fiscal responsibility, they nevertheless have almost to a man voted for the Housing Bailout Bill, which increases our federal deficit by $22 billion Dollars. There is still time however, to save face; when the bill reappears in the House, they might be persuaded to do what they claim and vote against a horrendous increase in spending. Check this site and call a Blue Dog in your state:
http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2580