[Infowarrior] - Telecom amnesty update

[Richard Forno]

(c/o IP)

SATURDAY OCTOBER 27, 2007 08:32 EST

Telecom amnesty update

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/27/amnesty/index.html

Several developments over the past few days demonstrate real progress
in the effort to stop telecom amnesty. This Newsweek article by
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball details the efforts triggered by
bloggers, along with MoveOn, to stop the bill, led by Chris Dodd:

A White House campaign to win quick passage of a major surveillance
bill has hit a new snag in recent days: four Democratic presidential
candidates have signaled their intention to oppose the measure as it
is currently written.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut took the lead last week when he vowed
to filibuster a version of the bill overwhelmingly approved by the
Senate Intelligence Committee. . . . In a statement blasting the
program as "unconscionable," Dodd said he would "do everything in my
power to stop Congress from shielding this president's agenda of
secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness."

No sooner had Dodd issued his statement than MoveOn.org -- along with
leading liberal bloggers such as DailyKos -- launched their own
campaign to pressure other Democratic presidential candidates to
commit to the same position. In mass e-mails, MoveOn urged its
supporters to call other Democratic senators running for president
and encourage them to back a filibuster of the bill. Dodd's campaign
reported $200,000 in new donations in the first 36 hours after he
issued his filibuster threat.

By Wednesday, at least two other candidates -- Sens. Barack Obama and
Joe Biden -- had joined with Dodd in pledging to oppose any
surveillance bill that includes immunity for the telecoms. Sen.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front runner, released a more
equivocal statement, saying she was "troubled by the concerns" raised
about the bill and pledging to "study it very hard." The statement
continued: "As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would
support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward
that would convince me differently."

That all demonstrates emerging and increasingly effective anti-
amnesty positions from everyone in the Democratic field -- except
one. As Matt Stoller noted, even the New York Daily News, in the
course of criticizing efforts to derail telecom amnesty, mocked
Clinton for her nonsensical statement about whether she would
filibuster.

Demonstrating the increasing significance of these efforts, Chris
Dodd has now been invited to appear this Sunday on Meet the Press,
where he will be the only guest for the entire hour. His stance in
defending the Constitution generally, and his specific efforts to
stop telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping, will undoubtedly
be a major topic (see Dodd's superb Senate floor speech this week on
these issues here).

The letter-petition to Harry Reid and the Senate Judiciary Committee
-- co-written and co-signed by several bloggers along with groups
such as the ACLU, EFF, MoveOn, Color of Change, Center for National
Security Studies and Working Assets -- is here, and I'd encourage you
to sign it (here) as but the very first step in the campaign to stop
telecom amnesty. Reid is going to be the key target -- and the key
problem -- here, as is evident from the quote he gave to Newsweek:

But the maneuvering by the contenders -- and the role played by
MoveOn -- also raised concerns among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill
that presidential politics might impede efforts to reach a compromise
on such a sensitive and important national-security measure. "We need
to get things done on this bill," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
told reporters Tuesday.

That's brilliant. George Bush continuously decrees: "Give me
everything I want on this bill or I will veto it." In response, Harry
Reid says: "I'm very upset by people trying to delay or stop this
because the only thing that matters is that we get a deal." To Reid,
apparently, it doesn't matter what the terms are of the deal they
reach or how much they give in to the White House. All that matters
is that he deliver something to the White House -- like a good boy --
that makes George Bush sufficiently happy to sign. It is possible
that Reid means something else -- i.e., that he only wants to ensure
that the Senate pass something to send to Bush, regardless of whether
it meets all of Bush's demands (including amnesty) -- but only time
will tell.

As things stand, the FISA bill is currently in the Senate Judiciary
Committee where Chairman Pat Leahy, at least thus far, is reportedly
committed to stripping the amnesty provision out of the bill. Having
this bill come to the floor without amnesty in it would force the
Republicans to offer it as an amendment and would mean they would
need 60 votes specifically in favor of amnesty in order to put it
back in (because Dodd would filibuster any such amendment).

That is much harder to accomplish than having the bill reach the
floor with amnesty already in it and then have to drum up 60 votes
for the bill generally. Thus, the key right now is the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and Dodd's website is the place to go to find
out how to keep up the pressure there, completely with a current whip
count of Committee members who are for or against amnesty.

Finally, there seems to be this notion even among members of Congress
in their more enlightened moments that amnesty ought to be considered
if the White House finally agrees to show them documents -- regarding
the "legal justifications" for warrantless eavesdropping and the
"rationale" for the telecoms' actions -- which they have been
concealing thus far. But this claim makes no sense on multiple levels.

First, as Marty Lederman notes, the White House's willingness to
disclose these documents in exchange for promises to vote for amnesty
-- i.e., their use of these documents as political leverage --
demonstrates that there is no valid rationale, and never has been,
for refusing to turn them over to Congress. Why would Congressional
Democrats agree to give up something so extraordinary (telecom
immunity) in exchange for the White House's "agreeing" to do what it
is required in any event to do -- namely, comply with Congressional
oversight demands for these documents?

Secondly, as any litigator will tell you, when you allow one party in
possession of all documents voluntarily to show you the ones they
want -- while concealing others -- the only picture you get is a
distorted, biased and one-sided picture. The only mechanism for
actually getting the truth is to compel the White House to turn over
all documents, not to have Senators make a pilgrimage to the White
House to look at the ones the White House has specially selected for
them.

Finally, and most importantly, if it is really true that these magic
documents show how innocent and reasonable were the telecoms'
actions, then they will win in court. FISA and other statutes already
provide immunity for them if they acted in good faith. There is no
reason for Congress to put itself in the position of judge in this
matter -- there already is a real judge in a real court presiding
over these cases.

If the secret documents which Dick Cheney is magnanimously agreeing
to share are really as exculpatory as Cheney's good friend Jay
Rockefeller claims, then the telecoms will win in court and all will
be good in the Republic once again. The better the secret magic
documents are for the telecoms, the less is the need for amnesty.

Granting amnesty to telecoms all because Dick Cheney showed Congress
a handful of carefully selected documents which he is required to
show them anyway is nothing more than an exercise in deceit --
enabling Congressional Democrats to claim that they went along with
amnesty only because they "forced" the administration into this
meaningless "concession." If Congressional Democrats end up voting
for amnesty, nobody should be the slightest bit fooled by what will
be their claim that they did so only because they stood firm and
"forced" the White House to show them these documents.