I have repeatedly tried over the past month to get an answer from my Senator from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb, or anyone on his staff as to why he voted to give Bush dictatorial powers to spy on Americans at will.
To reiterate, Webb and 19 other Democrats voted:
- to retroactively legalize ALL unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping Bush has ever done in violation of the Fourth Amendment, by giving telecommunications companies the same amnesty the Federal Government has to disobey the law at will; and
- to prospectively give Bush dictatorial powers to spy on ANYONE at ANY TIME without ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER by making clear that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for the first time since it became law in 1978, does not require the President to exclusively act within its dictates.
This means that the President is under no restrictions except the Fourth Amendment. But since he is immune from suit under the Fourth Amendment, we are all, in effect, helpless.
The vote of Webb - and 19 other Democratic Senators (and all Republicans) - assures that if Bush electronically "breaks in" to the Watergate Complex to steal DNC secrets and covers it up, Bush gets off scot-free.
Nixon, at long last, is vindicated.
Here's an easy way to know I'm right about this. If I weren't, some member of Webb's staff would calmly explain to me that the bill does not give Bush the dictatorial powers that, in my view as a former Constitutional attorney, it clearly does. They would show me chapter and verse as to why.
After a month of hiding from me, it seems clear that Webb understands he gave Bush power to set up an East-German-style police-state right to spy with impunity. If he thinks he did not, then why won't he defend his vote? Why won't he or his staff return a constituent's phone call? Why won't he answer the serious charges I'm posting on the blogs?
For decades now, the courts have protected the Federal Government from the prying eyes of the public seeking to uphold their Constitutional rights, using such extra-constitutional doctrines as "sovereign immunity" and "state secrets." The fact that we haven't had a "sovereign" since King George III and that no "secrets clause" in the Constitution exists to trump the Bill of Rights has little sway with a Supreme Court that illegally appointed this very President to office in 2000 against the Will and Votes of the American People. He returned the favor by appointing judges that give him these dictatorial powers.
But, at least, up until now, the American People could sue the companies illegally spying on them without a warrant, to determine what the Government illegally ordered them to do.
Now, if this awful bill becomes law, the President will have complete dictatorial power to ignore pesky niceties like the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and get secrecy and amnesty for the high crimes and misdemeanors he has already committed. Nothing stands in his way. Nothing, that is, except the Democrats in the House of Representatives who are, thus far, standing firm. And any Senate Democrats who see the light, have courage, and stand up to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Three weeks, after I begged and pleaded with my Senator through a series of telephone calls, emails, and discussions with a number of staff, to please just explain the reason behind his vote, all I got was a suggestion from Webb's staff to the owner of the Raising Kaine blog that he remove my diary. That and continued stonewalling.
Two days ago, three weeks after I first contacted Webb's office and repeatedly tried to get an answer from him, I received this form letter, which I quote in full:
March 5, 2008
Mr. Mark Levine
[Virginia address]
Dear Mr. Levine:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me.
As you know, the FISA Amendments Act would amend current law by expanding the intelligence community's authority to collect foreign intelligence through electronic means. Having served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy and as Assistant Secretary of Defense, I relied on decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence when I voted in favor of final passage of this bill on February 12, 2008. I also met with a wide variety of people who were both supportive of, and opposed to, these changes.
During the Senate debate, I supported a number of amendments that were designed to improve the constitutional protections of our citizens. Further, Senators Russell Feingold, Jon Tester, and I introduced an amendment that would have added additional checks and balances with respect to assessing the appropriate use of surveillance. Unfortunately, this amendment was not passed by the full Senate. After passage of the Senate bill, I sent a letter urging Members who sit on the Senate-House Conference Committee to strike a more appropriate balance between protecting constitutional rights and providing the intelligence community with the tools needed to monitor terrorists.
Regarding retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program, I do not support full immunity for companies who aided Government surveillance. I prefer a middle-ground solution that would allow court cases to proceed under appropriate circumstances. For example, I supported an amendment offered by Senators Arlen Specter and Sheldon Whitehouse, which would have allowed the U.S. government to be substituted for telecommunication companies in certain civil actions. I also supported an amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which would have allowed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to determine whether telecommunication companies acted in good faith when complying with government surveillance request. If the FISC determined a telecommunication company did not act in good faith, the company would not be immune from consumers' legal actions.
As the U.S. Senate continues to debate matters pertaining to electronic surveillance, please be assured I will keep your views in mind.
I would also invite 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.
Thank you once again for contacting my office.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
JW:kw
Please do not reply. This is not a working email address.
The letter is signed "Sincerely" but is far from sincere. Note that Webb goes on at length with all the reasons he opposed the bill, but still does not explain why he actually vote for it? What does the bill do that's any good?
Webb says it expands:
the intelligence community's authority to collect foreign intelligence through electronic means.
But he doesn't say how that expansion occurs or how current law is insufficient. (If he ever had answered this question, his staff and I could have had a productive discussion on how to achieve the same goals without giving Bush these dictatorial powers.) Then he says he:
relied on decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence when I voted in favor of final passage of this bill
but that's just a way of saying, "I know I'm right." What he never says is what good the bill does. Nor does he say, at least expressly, "I cannot tell you what good the bill does because I want to keep that classified." Lastly he says he:
met with a wide variety of people who were both supportive of, and opposed to, these changes.
Were any of the supporters large telecommunications companies who donated to his campaign? I mean, who the heck supports this nonsense anyway other than these companies and those who believe in giving Bush dictatorial powers?
Yesterday (Thursday, March 6), I responded with a letter to his scheduler, his press secretary, and the staffer that had tried to get me kicked off the blogs.
Stark, Lisa (Webb) wrote:
> I have received your request. Thank you.
>
> Lisa Stark
> Senator Jim Webb
> Director Of Scheduling
It's been three weeks since Lisa Stark wrote this. I just now called and was told that all three of you were "in a meeting."
Yesterday I received a letter from your staff that typically does not even address the FISA questions I have repeatedly raised with Senator Webb. Senator Webb DOES NOT GIVE ONE REASON IN SUPPORT OF WHY HE VOTED FOR A BILL THAT HE HAS STATED ON THE RECORD HE OPPOSES IN SO MANY WAYS. (Sorry to yell, but because all of y'all refuse to talk with me, it's easy for you to miss the point.) All it says is he "relied on his experience." Fine. What about his experience told him he needed to vote for this bill that he opposes? What good does it do to outweigh the bad that he admits?
I take it from your failure to respond further that Senator Webb refuses to meet with me.
Also, I take it that no lawyer on his staff will even talk to me on the telephone.
Please confirm.
If I don't hear from you, I will assume that is the case, and I will post our exchange on the blogs.
I should note that I am not only a constituent and a former Congressional staffer who has worked on Judiciary issues. I am also a reporter. And in the latter capacity, I have been able to speak with the legal staffs of a number of Senate offices, including many working for Republican Senators who are not from my home state of Virginia.
Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed that the staff of a man I worked so hard to elect--my Democratic Senator from my State of Virginia--insists on stonewalling me.
I am (or at least, used to be) a fan of Senator Webb. This began as a simple request by a constituent for information. I should have a right to an answer by my Senator. And if the answer is "no comment," that at least is an answer you could provide. But please don't pretend to have answered my question when you know full well that Senator Webb has NEVER given ONE reason in support of the bill he voted for.
I intend to discuss this in a rational, calm matter with any knowledgeable person on Senator Webb's staff who is willing to talk to me about it. I would also like to know if this is a staff decision or if the stonewalling is coming directly Senator Webb himself.
If Senator Webb refuses to tell me or any Virginia constituent WHY Senator Webb voted for a bill that Senator Webb, by his public statements opposes in large part, I have to alert my fellow Virginians to the stonewalling and hypocrisy.
In sum, there's an easy way and a hard way. The easy way is a private phone call to me from someone knowledgeable about the reasons behind Senator Webb's vote -- or better yet a ten-minute meeting between myself and my Senator scheduled at a convenient time, in Washington or in Virginia. The hard way is a public battle that I don't seek but unfortunately seems to be the only way I can ever hope to get a response.
And no, I don't EVER plan to let this go until I get a response. All Webb has to say is "no further comment" but I want a response. As a voter, I deserve one.
Mark Levine
[phone numbers]
As noted, my letter was sent yesterday March 6. As no one has responded by late Friday evening, I thought the entire dailykos community should know wht has happened.
Webb simply refuses to explain his vote.
I wonder if any of you have had similar problems with the other 19 craven Democratic Senators. Here's the list:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
And every Republican and Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
Please encourage these Senators to change their mind. I suspect few will give "no comment" the way Webb has.
And please encourage your member of the House to stand firm.
The Capitol Switchboard to reach YOUR Member of Congress is 202-225-3121. All it takes is a phone call. You don't have to do all I've done to get your point across.