In response to this message that I sent three weeks ago, Senator Webb sent me a relatively detailed response, which attempts to justify his position on FISA in general and retroactive immunity in particular. I find his rationalization for supporting immunity to be particularly reprehensible. If they acted in "good faith" then it's perfectly fine with him.
More below the fold:
Here is the part that I found most distressing:
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.
Am I having a nightmare here? Feinstein and Webb think that the FISA Courts, who are probably pretty busy trying to determine whether Bush's requests for wiretap approval is legitimate or simply a method to bring down the "big terrorists" like Spitzer, should be burdened with something on which they have no expertise? They should, in their wisdom, determine if a company acted "in good faith?" WTF does that mean? Hey, Senator, please note the following:
- I acted in good faith when I went through the red light, because I know that is in the country's best interest that I make my meeting in time
- I acted in good faith when I stole that ham sandwich because I know it's in the best interest of America that my family gets good treats
- I acted in good faith when I saw that Vice President skiing downhill and accidentally bumped him pretty hard because I know it's in the best interest of the country to rattle his brain a little
You all could give much better examples. The whole thing is absolutely bizzare. How the hell does "good faith" trump "good law?" Here's the only good faith I expected from Verizon: to abide by their Privacy Agreement with me that FORBID them from eavesdropping UNLESS they got a warrant - NOT "unless the Dept of Justice asks me to even without a legal warrant."
More from his response, which did give me more insight into the detailed negotiations - too bad none of them worked out. First - the man with "decades of experience":
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.
Then, he used the famous "I'll send a strong letter" strategy:
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.
Then there's the "let them sue the White House instead of the Telecoms" strategy:
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.
And finally, I can rest assured that
As the U.S. Senate continues to debate matters pertaining to electronic surveillance, please be assured I will keep your views in mind
.
Well, I hope this all becomes moot with the frontpager today re: a possible "compromise" by the White House. Even if it does, we must not forget that Senator Webb's "decades of experience" led him down the path towards allowing our sacred rights to be sacrificed to the false god of "security," as history has taught us has been the purview of dictatorships.