I, like many others who've bothered to register at Daily Kos, have flipped out about the 2008 FISA amendments that were given the OK by the House last week--particularly the de facto "immunity clause" to any telecommunications corporation that has violated federal law over the past seven years. (I'm sorry that my first diary is about an issue that's been covered ad nauseum here, but at least I'm writing something!)
For those of you unfamiliar with Congresswoman Lowey, she is no Blue Dog; representing a solid Democrat district that includes most of Westchester County and part of Rockland County, she has served in Congress for a 20 years, will breeze to re-election again this November and will continue to be a reliable liberal voice in the House as long as she decides to keep running. She's been a big supporter of equal rights initiatives, public broadcasting, progressive social issues and draws conservatives' ire with her NARAL 100% and NRA F ratings. She's a big Hillary Clinton fan and played a big part in bringing the former First Lady to New York (but as SaintCog wrote, is more than happy to help the Dems send Barack Obama to the White House).
I hoped that Lowey would balk on the FISA compromise and thought that the telco immunity amendment would cause major concern. However, Lowey was one of the 105 Democrats who voted Yea on the bill. I know, I know ... I can't expect to agree with my representative on every issue, but the FISA/immunity issue is a sore point for me (and a lot of you) because the Democrats ought to call out the current administration, the former Congressional majority party, the judicial branch and their big-business allies out on at least one issue.
On Sunday. I was feeling chatty and decided to send Rep. Lowey an email expressing my concern about the FISA compromise:
Dear Representative Lowey,
As one of your constituents in New York's 18th District, I am writing to express my disappointment in your decision to vote "yea" on HR6304 (FISA Amendments Act of 2008).
These amendments allow for only a paltry review and prosecution of any case where telecommunications corporations have broken federal law in order to spy on American citizens, and grants what amounts to immunity to these corporations for any crimes they have committed over the past seven years.
Also, the warrantless surveillance allowed in this act and its amendments is a direct violation of the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Military, intelligence and law enforcement organizations must have access to information that may reveal threats to our nation's security. However, our government and its agencies have ample resources from which to gather this information without having to resort to unconstitutional means.
By voting to extend FISA with these recent amendments, you have announced to your district and your nation that you care little about protecting our constitution and protecting our citizens from having their rights violated. You have also decided that upholding our nation's laws is of little importance and have decided to bestow immunity upon criminal entities and a presidential administration that acts with callous disregard to the law rather than pursue justice for any law-abiding citizen affected by illegal surveillance.
I have voted twice to re-elect you as my representative to Congress, believing that you bring wisdom and strong leadership to Washington on behalf of my community. However, as you have chosen to allow the government and companies to pursue blatantly unconstitutional activities, I am left doubting your judgment.
I would appreciate greatly an explanation of your yea vote on HR6304 and how this act and its amendments benefit your country and your constituents without sacrificing the American ideals of liberty and justice.
Standard stuff, really.
Today, Rep. Lowey responded:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008. I appreciate the benefit of your views, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
In March 2008 the House of Representatives passed legislation to modernize FISA. This well-crafted proposal would have outlawed warrantless surveillance and did not provide immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program. I strongly supported this legislation.
The Senate ignored the well-crafted House bill and instead passed its own ill-conceived legislation that would have granted warrantless spying, allowed the Administration to conduct surveillance activities outside the purview of the FISA Court, and provided blanket immunity for telecommunications companies. I strongly opposed the Senate bill.
The compromise legislation the House considered, H.R. 6304, is far closer to the House legislation and a significant improvement over current law. It would require judicial approval before surveillance could begin; prohibit the Administration from conducting surveillance outside the purview of the FISA Court; prevent reverse-targeting, a tactic used to spy on Americans without a warrant; include unprecedented reporting and oversight requirements; and update FISA to incorporate modern communications technology.
For those reasons I supported H.R. 6304. It does not provide immunity for federal officials who administered the Terrorist Surveillance program, but unfortunately it does include provisions that will likely lead to immunity for telecommunications companies. I do not support immunity. However, the bill would be such an improvement over current law, I determined it would be better to support this bill than to maintain the status quo and allow for warrantless spying on Americans.
Throughout the FISA debate, my goal has been to give law enforcement and the intelligence community the tools it requires to combat the very real threat of international terrorism while preserving our civil liberties. These are not mutually exclusive goals, and I believe that H.R. 6304 accomplishes both. While I oppose the inclusion of immunity provisions, it prevents warrantless spying on Americans by requiring individual warrants based on probable cause, protects American citizens' rights while abroad, and places the entire surveillance program under judicial review. The compromise, while far from perfect, is a vast improvement over current law.
OK. I'm still trying to digest this, but to be honest, I'm more encouraged than disappointed even though I disagree with the vote. I agree with most of Lowey's reasoning, but the immunity chip forced in by the Republicans and conservative Dems shows how far we have to come to get caveat-free progressive legislation passed on Capitol Hill.
Lowey seems to know this, but there aren't enough strong liberal voices in Congress to provide enough strength to do this now. It's an odd irony--Nita Lowey didn't vote against this on her own, but if there were more Nita Loweys in Congress, illegal spying and telco immunity wouldn't even be issues in the first place.
I've always been registered as an independent although I usually vote for very liberal candidates (including Nader in 2004). I've never decided to declare myself a Democrat because of the submissiveness shown by the party to the Republicans in recent years when strength of character and defense of our Constitution was what we needed most.
But change is in the air. I've been an Obama supporter since before the primaries, and feel encouraged enough by his campaign to donate money--something I'd never done before for any candidate. I'd never even written my House representative until Sunday. I've been addicted to reading Daily Kos and other netroots-style sites for the last few months and have realized how important it is to build a massive liberal base of the Democratic party--it's our nation's best chance for peace, prosperity and morality. When kos calls for not just more Democrats to be elected, but better ones--and getting a great response--I'm delighted that liberals are shooting for higher goals.
On Monday, I mailed a New York voter registration form and switched my party affiliation from "Independent/No Affiliation" to "Democratic Party." There's something special going on, and I want in.
(... and a "thank you" to Congresswoman Lowey for her response.)