If you read the DailyKos last week, you know I have tried repeatedly to talk to my Senator Jim Webb or his legal staff to get an explanation as to why Webb voted the way he did on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill. See Last Week's Diary. Well, I got an "answer."
Webb had stated he was against giving President Bush amnesty for all of Bush's illegal and unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment in demanding telecommunications companies secretly surveil without a warrant millions of American citizens who had committed no crime.
Webb had also said he wanted "exclusivity," i.e. a requirement that the new surveillance law actually bind the President, as the current FISA law does.
Yet Webb did exactly the opposite. He voted for a bill that pardons the President for his past crimes, hides those crimes so that Americans can never discover them, and makes clear that the President is NOT BOUND BY ANY LAW in this field.
It's pretty gruesome stuff. And I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.
The issues, as always are "exclusivity" and "retroactivity." "Exclusivity" means that the President must act "exclusively within the law." Webb voted for the Feinstein amendment to require exclusivity, but the amendment failed to reach the nearly impossible bar of 60 votes that Majority Leader Harry Reid had set up for any bill other than the President's.
"Retroactivity" retroactively legalizes the illegal spying the President asked telecommunications companies to do. Sometimes called "telecom immunity," the provision doesn't just legalize illegal warrantless spying going forward, it also gives the President amnesty and secrecy for his past acts. Webb voted for one amendment barring retroactivity and against another (the Dodd amendment) stripping the bill of the provision. Both Democratic amendments lost.
The real interesting question -- beyond the scope of this diary -- is why the heck Majority Leader Harry Reid is bending over for the President by including these provisions in the base bill to begin with. After all, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a very good bill that Reid could have made the base bill instead of cowtowing to Bush and Senator Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And why should the DEMOCRATIC Majority Leader require DEMOCRATIC amendments to get 60 votes while what BUSH wants requires only 50 votes? Particularly when Reid claims not to want any of this? Maybe some Nevadan here can get Reid to explain HIS cravenness. (Hint, Hint! I'm waiting!) Or maybe we just need a new Majority Leader.
In any case, the bill Webb voted for would have made clear that THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN SPY ON ANY AMERICAN AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON because it specifically does not require the President to act within the law. Thus, Webb voted for a bill that would not only (illegally) abolish the protections in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that prevent this illegal activity, it would also retroactively legalize the East-German-like police state Bush had already set up, all the while keeping its contours secret from the American People. At the same time, Webb made clear that that he actually DIDN'T want to vote the way he just did and instead supported the House RESTORE Act (This bill, the Responsible Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act, carefully balances civil liberties with the need to protect national security.)
So why did Webb vote against his own stated position? He has yet to explain.
The House last week saved us all when they insisted on rejecting the Senate monstrosity. But the bill will go to conference and come back to Senator Webb, probably in a week or two. This is NOT over.
So I've been pressing Senator Webb for an answer and strugging mightily to get his staff to allow me to talk to his legal staff to get an answer. (They would only put me on the phone with some intern who didn't know much about the bill, and then they excoriated me for going public about my conversation with this "phone answerer" WHILE STILL KEEPING ME FROM SPEAKING WITH THE LEGAL STAFF who presumably would know the answers).
So here's the update. Here's their most recent email to me.
Senator Jim Webb's response to your message
From: corresponce_reply@webb.senate.gov
Dste: 10:36 am
To: Mark@RadioInsideScoop.com
Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to my office in Washington. I am pleased that because of the Internet, more than 100,000 Virginians will send their ideas directly to me this year.
Please be assured that your views are very helpful to me and my staff. As the Senate addresses crucial economic, domestic and foreign policy issues facing our nation, we will be sure to keep your comments and ideas in mind.
I encourage you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.
If the subject of your communication is time sensitive, involves a personal issue relating to the federal government (such as help with a passport, claim for veterans' benefits, or immigration) or requires more detailed attention, please contact my office directly toll free at 1-866-507-1570.
Again, thank you for contacting my office, and I hope you will communicate with me often in the future.
Sincerely
Jim Webb
United States Senate
Please do not reply. This is not a working email address.
And here was my response (to three working email addresses, namely his scheduler, his press secretary Kimberly Hunter, and the staffer Jessica Smith who did not want me talking to a non-lawyer on his staff)
- Will I be allowed to meet with my Senator?
- Will I be allowed to talk with any of the attorneys on his staff regarding the FISA bill?
Please let me know.
Mark Levine
I also called the toll-free number. (What the heck? The email tells me to do this if my issue is "time sensitive." And it is!) I asked yet again to speak to a lawyer on Webb's staff regarding the FISA bill. The person who answered the phone said that he just dealt with "constituent services" but promised to pass my message along and asked me my concern.
I told him I wanted to know why Webb voted for a bill that he has stated publicly he strenuously opposes. I said that it makes no sense, but the Senator has yet to explain. I said I had sent several emails, called several times, blogged about it, and done radio and television shows about it but STILL had gotten no answer. And I said it was time sensitive, because the bill will come back to Senator Webb and I wanted a firm commitment from him that he will stand up for what he claims he believes.
I left my phone number and was told someone will call me back. Needless to say, I'm not optimistic.
I will update this diary if and when they give me an answer. If I don't hear in a day or so, I'll start calling again. I urge every Virginian here to do the same.