Fear Rules the Day

(Note from Greetings: A sad day... the Democrats split, Harry Reid folded, and Bush passed his "retroactive amnesty" for the telecoms in what has appeared to be illegal spying on Americans. If it wasn't then why was "retroactive immunity" needed at all?

It should be noted that Senator Obama (and our Democratic Senator Casey) voted against the immunity, while Senator McCain seems to have voted for it, and Senator Clinton was the only Senator "not present" for such an important vote. I can't put it any better than Dan Froomkin's Washingtonpost.com blog, below)

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com Wednesday, February 13, 2008; 12:14 PM

Democrats on the stump like to talk about hope and change, but on the Senate floor yesterday they once again succumbed to fear.

Eric Lichtblau writes in the New York Times: "After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants. . . .

"The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush's wiretapping program. . . .

"Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism.

"'Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,' said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures. . . .

"[W]ith Democrats splintered, [Sen. Chris] Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. 'Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing,' he said. 'They're convincing people that we're at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.'"

Here are the two key votes: 18 Democrats joined with a united Republican voting bloc to reject an amendment that would have stripped the immunity provision from the bill; then 19 Democrats joined the Republicans to pass the bill.

James Rowley writes for Bloomberg about how Bush is heading to another "legislative victory by evoking fears of a new terrorist attack. . . .

"'Holding all the Democrats together on this, we've learned a long time ago, is not something that's doable,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters."

Paul Kane writes in The Washington Post that the vote was "a key victory" for the White House.

The "Senate Democrats' split on immunity echoes past party divisions over national security issues, including how strongly to confront Bush on the tools the administration uses to target suspected terrorists and their allies."

The bill isn't home-free quite yet.

Kane writes: "The Senate's action, days before a temporary surveillance law expires Friday, sets up a clash with House Democrats, who have previously approved legislation that does not contain immunity for the telecommunications industry. The chambers have been locked in a standoff over the immunity provision since the House vote Nov. 15, with President Bush demanding the protection for the industry. . . .

"House leaders vowed again yesterday to oppose the telecom immunity provision until the White House releases more information about the controversial warrantless surveillance program it initiated shortly after the terrorist attacks."

In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers took a tough line: "Although some of the requested materials have been provided to some Judiciary Committee members, much of the information has not, and it is crucial that this material be produced as promptly as possible so that Congress may fulfill its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Indeed, review and consideration of the documents and briefings provided so far leads me to conclude that there is no basis for the broad telecommunications company amnesty provisions advocated by the Administration and contained in the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill being considered today in the Senate, and that these materials raise more questions than they answer on the issue of amnesty for telecommunications providers.

In order to more fully understand and react to the Administration's request for broad-based and retroactive amnesty for telecommunications firms, who may be in a position to divulge information concerning misconduct by Administration officials, it is imperative that your provide this information to us as promptly as possible, as we have been asking for many months on numerous occasions."

But just how seriously does the Bush White House have to take such a demand from the Democratic Congress? History suggests: Not very seriously.

As Greg Miller writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Senior congressional aides said there was no clear path to a compromise on the issue. But a series of recent defections by moderate Democrats in the House raises prospects that the White House position -- or something close to it -- eventually may prevail."

The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage explains why the immunity provision is so significant. It is "a major step toward closing the last forum in which critics have challenged the operation's legality. . . .

"Although news of the program initially prompted a bipartisan uproar, congressional attempts to investigate it largely petered out. Then, in August 2007, with little prior debate, Congress hastily enacted the Protect America Act, which essentially legalized a form of the warrantless surveillance. . . .

"[P]rivacy advocates and critics of the administration's expansive theories of presidential power . . . have pushed the lawsuits against the telecoms in hope of winning a definitive ruling that the program was illegal, thereby keeping it from becoming a precedent for the future.

"'When an over-reaching executive wants to conduct illegal spying in secret, those companies are the only ones in a position to say "no" and ensure that the law is followed,' said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation. . . .

"'Therefore,' Bankston added, 'it's critical that when they fail to follow the law, they need to be held accountable -- to ensure that next time the government attempts to engage in illegal spying, those companies will say "come back with a warrant."'"

Siobhan Gorman writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "If the White House prevails in the final negotiations, it will hand Republicans a potent weapon for their 2008 campaign arsenal by showing that their party, even in its weakened state, can still beat Democrats on national-security issues."

Bush, not surprisingly, is keeping the pressure on. Yesterday, he released a written statement, praising the Senate for "a strong, bipartisan vote."

This morning came the hard sell, in an Oval Office appearance: "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country," he said. "Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison. To carry out their plans, they must communicate with each other, they must recruit operatives, and they must share information.

"The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications. Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning."

Rejecting a Democratic proposal for another extension to attempt some reconciliation between the House and the Senate, Bush demanded that the House pass the Senate bill immediately.

And he specifically addressed the immunity issue: "In order to be able to discover enemy -- the enemy's plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won't participate; they won't help us; they won't help protect America.

Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts."

But is Bush really saying that without immunity, telecom companies will reject lawful orders in the future?

That presented with a warrant or certification stating that certain basic legal requirements have been met, they would refuse to "help protect America"? That's either over-the-top rhetoric -- or he holds the telecom companies in pretty low regard.

Reid (whose procedural calls as Senate leader made the passage of the bill nearly inevitable) responded with the following statement: "Today, President Bush continues his bullying. . . .

"Due to months of White House foot-dragging, the relevant House committees have only just gotten important documents related to whether the Bush Administration followed the law and the Constitution. They need some time to review and analyze them. We must not let this critical issue be resolved by White House bullying.

"Congress is prepared to extend current law -- the Protect America Act -- by any length in order for Congress to complete the in-depth analysis and negotiations necessary for a long-term law broadly supported by the American people. If the President chooses to veto a short-term extension -- as he said he would this morning -- the responsibility for any ensuing intelligence collection gap lies on his shoulders and his alone."

Scott Horton blogs for Harpers: "If things proceed on the course now set by the Bush Administration and its brainless collaborators, and the national surveillance state is achieved in short order, then future generations looking back and tracing the destruction of the grand design of our Constitution may settle on yesterday, February 12, 2008, as the date of the decisive breach. . . .

"On the key vote, the Republicans in the Senate continued to function in lock-step, as they have on almost all significant issues for the last seven years, while the Democrats fragmented. Their vote summed up everything that's wrong with Washington politics today. Fear and hard campaign cash rule the roost, and the Constitution is regarded as a meaningless scrap of parchment, indeed, a nuisance. . . .

"The Constitution was defeated yesterday, and it was defeated by a fateful coalition between brain-numbing fear tactics and money and the resources that money buys."