Crossposted from
West Virginia Blue.
With the exception of the strictly nonpartisan el cabrero, it's pretty safe to say that we're pretty partisan Democratic bloggers here.
So it's probably confusing to some readers why we've been beating up on Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller so much for months on his FISA compromise to provide immunity to telecom companies for their complicity in George W. Bush's illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
The answer is pretty simple. He's wrong.
When he's making agreements with President Dick Cheney on a bill, it's clear he's not acting as a Democrat should. He's acting against the interests of the American people.
Glenn Greenwald:
On October 18, it was announced that Dick Cheney and Jay Rockefeller had reached an agreement on a new FISA bill that would dramatically expand the President's warrantless surveillance powers beyond what the original FISA law provided. It also would provide full-scale retroactive immunity for all telecoms which participated in the President's illegal spying efforts, a gift that would effectively end all efforts to investigate the administration's illegal spying programs and hold the lawbreakers accountable.
That day, The Washington Post announced that "Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration" which "would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants."
The Rockefeller-led Senate Intelligence Committee, within a matter of a day or so, quickly passed the White House's desired bill, one which The New York Times, the next day, revealed had been secretly worked on for months by Rockefeller and, through emissaries, Dick Cheney. As Russ Feingold said yesterday, the Rockefeller proposal passed by the Intelligence Committee "simply gives the Administration everything it was demanding, no questions asked."
Many are crediting Big Tent Democrat with first suggesting that Senator Chris Dodd be the one to place a hold on Rockefeller's bill
Senator Dodd deserves all of the credit in the world for standing up to this terrible legislation. But it was the Democratic bloggers and online community, including MoveOn.org, that has lit up the phone lines of offices backing his effort.
But we've not won a victory. We've won a lull. We've won time. For the next few weeks, there will be a push by Rockefeller and other administration appeasers for a bill with telecom immunity. Certainly those appeasers on this issue will be well-financed by the telecom industry. I'm sure many of the corporate lawbreakers will invest all of the funds of their shareholders into keeping themselves out of court. Afterall, that's not their money. So shareholders in telecoms, those who haven't divested themselves yet, are going to have to ask questions at board meetings and shareholder gatherings: are they paying for the legal protections of individuals who knowingly and deliberately broke the law as they went outside their corporate responsibilities?
The winning of time given to us by Dodd and the grassroots is not a small thing by any means.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who also sits on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee with Senator Rockefeller:
"I have read the documents and senators who haven't read them would be shocked to see how flimsy the case is on which the administration bases its case for immunity. As far as I can tell, these documents are being kept secret to protect the president's political security, not national security."
Time also gives us more time to better inform our fellow citizens of what is wrong with Rockefeller's bill. So far, many people have relied on the ill-informed and inaccurate reports by journalists like Joe Klein at Time. Now that Rockefeller's compromise failed to sail through as the corporate media pundits predicted, people are going to have time to reach their own conclusion as so succinctly stated by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.):
"The president has threatened veto. ... He's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies!" said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
A question Rockefeller nor his staff has been able to answer is if this FISA update is so necessary to national security, why would Bush veto it if telecom immunity is stripped from it? Does anyone believe it can really be about protecting the public if Bush is willing to put the interests of telecom corporations ahead of national security?
Senator Rockefeller has shown only contempt to those who have disagreed with him on this.
We've often written positive things about Senator Rockefeller, from the birth of his grandchildren to his support of SCHIP. We're here to support Democrats. But we don't offer blind support. The support ends where the erosion of the rule of law and the Constitution begins.