When the Beltway media is happy with bipartisanship, this is what it looks like:

You’re reading that “bipartisan” vote right: 1 f’ing Republican broke ranks. This is how Greenwald put it:

But this absurd praise underscores what the Washington power structure means when they speak of “bipartisanship” — it means having the Republican Party demand something, and then having enough Democrats agree to it to ensure it passes in essentially undiluted form.

…

In January, I compiled a list of the Great Bipartisan Compromises of the Bush era and demonstrated that they are characterized by one common attribute: namely, they are supported by almost all Republicans and then enough Democrats from a split caucus to ensure its passage.

That list is located here, and it’s a damning critique of the way Democrats and the Beltway media have approached bipartisanship. It’s a sham, meant to fool people into believing we’re getting good policy here. To be clear, this law is good for only the phone companies and the people in this administration. No one else benefits.

If this wasn’t clear, Greenwald highlights the following:

To The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a “formality” which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: “I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get.”

The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate is broken. This needs to stop, and we need “better Democrats” as Atrios puts it.

At least my rep, Rep. John Larson, was on the right side of this bill.

This is frustrating, but I don’t have time to address this. Apparently, Democrats have agreed to a “compromise” on the telecom immunity issue, and from all reports, they basically caved to the Administration by asking for a meaningless concession. This reeks of lobbying money, but I don’t have time to dig into this. Instead, I’ll point you over at the writers at ObWi who have a series of posts and links to the wider blog and news world for more information. Here’s the key point:

Most importantly, though, when the government asks someone to break the law, they hold a lot of the cards: the prestige of the Presidency, the power to exclude companies from federal contracts, and so on. Just about the only reason someone might have to say no, other than conscience, is the fear of legal liability. By immunizing these companies, we make it much more likely that the next time some President who thinks he has dictatorial powers asks a company to break the law, it will do so. And that’s just wrong.

The U.S. doesn’t need a President “who thinks he has dictatorial powers” for this to be a problem. We just need a President who believes that the law shouldn’t apply to them. Maybe they think they’re acting in the greater good, but are mistaken. Maybe they’re eavesdropping on political opponents masquerading as legitimate counter-intelligence. We have one now who believes in signing statements and no accountability for his office. Just look at the firing scandals in the various federal agencies. We don’t want to make breaking the law easier of all things.

Anyway, here are the links. The excerpt above is from the first link below:

• FISA “Compromise” by Hilzoy
• FISA: Why It Matters by Hilzoy
• Steny’s Bold “Ignore the Rubes” Strategy by Publius

Read them all. They each address the issue from a slightly different angle, but the conclusion is consistent: the Democrats caved on a policy that is wrong for America, wrong for people who believe in liberty, and wrong for the safety and security of the nation. This compromise doesn’t do anything to help the war on terror, it simply makes it easier for the government to pressure private companies to break the law.

Also, be sure to follow some of the links, especially to Greenwald, who has a series of posts up going into excruciating detail (as only a lawyer could do) if you’re into that. The post linked in this paragraph is the most interesting, but if you want more background on how the bill came to be, who wrote it, and other pertinent details, check out the posts from a few days ago about Steny Hoyer (and no, he didn’t write the bill).

His delivery is over the top for my taste, but the points he brings up about the law itself, about the holes in the President’s logic, and about the telecom immunity portions are dead on. The President is lying about the role of this bill and the immediacy of action. In fact, this bill could die tomorrow and the surveillance begun under the PAA would be in force until the next President comes into office. The President and the Republicans are putting on a show, prioritizing telecoms and their own lawbreaking over you, me, and the rule of law in our land.

It would be nice if those law-and-order conservatives who scream about immigration laws would step up and treat big companies with big donors the same way. The law here is clear. All I ask is that the President and the Republicans follow it and speak truthfully about it.

Here’s Sen. Russ Feingold explaining the problems with the expansion of FISA:

I’m not really too worried about the government reading my emails today, and I suspect that most Americans are the same way. This isn’t about that, at least not to me.

This is simple, and I wish politicians would have the guts to make the real worst case scenario. The way “warrantless wiretaps” work means that there is no longer any oversight on the spying done by the executive branch (the NSA reports up through the DOD to the President). That means that when, say, Democratic Congressmen are overseas and using email, it can be spied on by the government without any oversight. No underling or whistleblower would have any reason to question the data collection.

For Democrats, do you trust this administration not to abuse this power under any circumstance? Even if, say, they felt that some piece of legislation or spending was critical to the national security of the country?

For Republicans, would you trust a President Clinton to not abuse this power under any circumstance?

We have laws so that “the greater good” justifications don’t lead to abuses. All this law requires is some government functionary fills out some paperwork and shows it to a judge within 3 days of data being collected. For the cases where the agencies want broad based collection in place, most of the proposed changes allow for that.

None of these need telecom immunity, nor do they need the complete removal of oversight. I don’t have enough time to explain the different bills and amendments out there. Take a look at Greenwald’s latest on this. It’s long, but it’s a good summary of the relevant issues, the different bills, and the various amendments that might make a palatable change.

Explaining the situation with the FISA filibuster on Countdown. He’s a good man, and I’m happy he stood up for this. The question at the end there, about whether he would better serve CT and the American people by taking a more visible role in the Senate, is on all of our minds. I know CT Republicans are taking issue with the time he’s spending on the campaign trail on what seems to be insurmountable odds to capture the nomination. At the same time, he’s keeping these issues on the front burner in our national discourse and sometimes you need a candidate to be in the race to fill that role.

Also, Dodd was rather forgiving of Reid’s actions here. This is the best explanation for Reid’s behavior I’ve heard so far. It seems ironic that it had to come to the guy who was pushing back against Reid’s agenda for this week.

(video found via My Left Nutmeg, which has more on the Dodd Majority Leader chatter)

Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have managed to get the FISA bill pulled until after January even though Harry Reid tried to get a vote on the bill today. Harry Reid has been a disappointment, and this Congress has been awful all around, both parties. Of two bills that strengthened FISA protections, Reid chose the bill that contained retroactive immunity and fewer safeguards for our privacy and against executive abuse. This even though Dodd had put a hold on the bill, which Reid has honored from Republican senators time and time again. There is no explanation for this.

Here is Sen. Dodd explaining why he held the floor for hours today and was prepared to go 30 hours if necessary.

I also should point out that he is still campaigning hard in Iowa. He isn’t the sexy choice, but he showed real leadership today, giving up the chance to campaign to come back to Washington and fight for an issue he truly cares about. The other candidates, who supposedly supported Dodd and the filibuster, couldn’t be bothered to leave their campaigns behind. That’s disappointing. It’s also why, even given the historic opportunity to elect the first minority or first female President, I will be voting for Dodd.

This fight isn’t finished, and Dodd and Feingold will need your support in January as this bill comes up again. Follow the news and contact your Senators and Congressmen about this issue. It’s important because in our system of government is built on checks and balances. Retroactive immunity is an additional insult in this bill. These companies could’ve done what others did, and refused to cooperate without a court order.

But the most damning reason to kill this provision: The New York Times reported this weekend that these surveillance programs were started before 9/11. These programs weren’t about terrorism, they weren’t a tradeoff made because of 9/11. They were part of a larger plan by Bush and Cheney about a powerful executive branch with limited interference from Congress.

Even if 9/11 were the impetus for the bill, there were better ways to do this. Here’s Kevin Drum:

But it’s still worth noting that it didn’t have to be this way. After all, hardly anyone, either liberal or conservative, would have objected if the Bush administration had gotten telecoms cooperation as a genuine emergency measure following 9/11. As Ron Suskind reminds us in The One Percent Doctrine, this was the situation at the time: Al-Qaeda terrorists had just attacked the country; further attacks seemed highly likely; our intelligence network was scrambling and nearly blind; we had good reason to believe that Osama bin Laden might be negotiating with Pakistani radicals to obtain a nuclear weapon; and credible reports suggested that al-Qaeda might also be on the road to manufacturing weaponized anthrax. Under the circumstances, asking telecoms companies to cooperate on an interim basis even in the absence of legal approval would hardly have been inappropriate.

But that’s not what happened. As Suskind also reminded us, instead of requesting temporary cooperation and then asking Congress for the implementing legislation within a few months, the Bush administration insisted on going it alone. Dick Cheney had long been obsessed with reasserting the power of the executive branch, and Bush himself was obviously smitten with the idea of being a “wartime president.” It was a toxic combination. As a result, instead of calming down after the initial panic and getting Congress fully involved, Bush and Cheney insisted on moving ahead for years in a legal gray zone.

So now we end up where we are today. Instead of an emergency request that was quickly put on a firm legislative foundation, we have a legal quagmire. And because Congress — Republicans and Democrats alike — went along with this even after we had gotten our bearings and had no excuse for continuing to operate on an emergency basis, they’re just as happy as anyone to put this whole episode behind them and cave in on the retroactive immunity issue.

And what happens the next time a president demands telecoms cooperation for years on end without legal justification? Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it?

That is the problem. As Dodd says in the above video, we learned these lessons during Watergate and the Nixon administration where the Church Committee recommended what became the FISA law. History is bound to repeat itself unless we learn from it.

I’m proud that Chris Dodd is my Senator. He understands the essence of what has been wrong about the Bush years and is fighting to bring us back to a more sane balance.

It’s a remarkable thing that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is writing an explanation of the RESTORE Act at the Huffington Post. What’s also remarkable, but not surprising considering the Republican influence in the media, is that he’s blogging because neither he nor any other senior Democrats could get Time Magazine to print a response to a factually incorrect article by Joe Klein that distorted the provisions of this important legislation.

Go read it, as it explains the safeguards and balancing that the RESTORE Act does in order to keep the government from spying on private citizens, political opponents, or businesses and allows our agencies to spy on terrorists and other foreign nationals.

Not a video this time. The image above shows the current vote commitments on a FISA bill that includes telecom amnesty. This is not a partisan issue but one of the basic rule of law. As I read somewhere online today, this isn’t a liberal or progressive issue, it’s a basic Constitutional issue.

Click on the image to see a list of Senators on the Committee. I know some of our readers have Senators from their home states on the Committee (NY, PA, AZ, and CA come to mind). Call them. Get them to commit to a Nay vote on this bill if it includes an amnesty provision.

(PS. This is a great use of simple technology to build a better platform. Donate to Chris Dodd and reward good leadership!)

Update: Please sign this petition to Harry Reid asking him to back this effort. Immunity shouldn’t be enshrined into law.

While no candidate is perfect, Sen. Chris Dodd does the right thing more often than not. On the issue of enforcing the FISA regulations and balancing our rights protected under the Constitution with the need to fight terrorism, he has been in front of the issues. He’s going to fight the retroactive telecom amnesty provisions in this telecom bill, and has already taken action by requesting a hold on the legislation. Now, he’s committed to filibustering if his own majority leader takes the unusual step of ignoring the hold request:

That’s what I want from a candidate, someone who cares enough about these issues to actually do something about them. The crazy thing is that Dodd’s position isn’t that radical. Yet, for some reason, we have a Congress stumbling over themselves to absolve the telecoms for something they claim they haven’t done…

On a related note, I’m truly disappointed in Sen. Harry Reid. This is preposterous what he’s doing, and it’s amazing that the first actual filibuster will have to be initiated by a Democrat. If there’s one sign about how screwed up the Senate Dems are, this is it. The Republicans say they plan to filibuster just to obstruct any bills popular with Democrats so Reid puts up one cloture vote, and withdraws the bill. When a senator of his own party takes a stand on principle, asks for debate and votes to move a bill forward, he threatens to ignore him. What ever happened to fighting for what you believe in?

As Atrios says, reward good behavior: Donate to Chris Dodd’s campaign now. This country needs Chris Dodd running for President and needs Chris Dodd in the White House. I really mean this. He is a smart, honest, decent man with good credentials and good ideas. He doesn’t have the buzz of Hillary or Obama, but he definitely has the substance. Go Chris Dodd!