Why is the Dem Congressional Leadership Abandoning the Constitution and the Rule of Law on FISA?
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher
June 22, 2008
Okay, the gory details of betrayal have been splashed across BuzzFlash and in other news outlets for a couple of days. After a tease that seductively seemed to promise some backbone on the Constitution, the Democratic leadership in the House (and the Senate's capitulation is a 'comin, based on Harry Reid's recent statements) capitulated, caved, put on their knee pads and gave the White House the unconstitutional green light to spy on Americans, along with giving immunity to Telecom companies for breaking the law for cooperating with illegal WH snooping.
Yes, there are some cosmetic alterations in the bill, just enough to give the Dem Capitol Hill leadership some cover, but even the White House was apparently surprised at how much the Dem leadership gave to a president with the highest disapproval rating in history -- and what they gave was, essentially, retroactive immunity to the Telecoms and Bush (if the Telecoms didn't do anything illegal, then Bush didn't either, right?) and the WH the right to now legally violate the Constitution.
In his first major disappointment (we would have done what he did on the campaign finance issue, given what the Republicans are going to do to evade it through chaneling funds through the RNC and 527s), Obama (who if anything is known as a Constitutional rights stalwart), is going to go along with the bill, but pledges to put up a fight in the senate on Telecom immunity. Of course, the catch here is that he is not going to get enough votes to filibuster the bill, and so it will pass the senate too.
So BuzzFlash is going to offer five possible reasons that the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is once again laying down like a rug so that a president who is as popular as Hitler at a Miami Beach synagogue can ravage our rights.
Then we want you to weigh in with your thoughts below:
1) There has been ongoing speculation that several key Dems in the House and Senate were briefed on the FISA violations -- early on while they were happening -- and didn't formally or informally protest to any great degree. In short, if the House and Senate acknowledge, in legislation, Bush's illegal actions, they would possibly be setting up members of their own party -- some in leadership -- for eventual criminal prosecution, not to mention the embarrassment of the party for enabling the FISA debacle. (This theory also holds true on why the Dems have not more aggressively pursued the issue of WH sanctioned torture and murder of detainees).
2) On the Telecom side, just show us the money. The Telecom lobbyists have been in overdrive attempting to protect their clients, and the Telecom companies have been lavishly handing out campaign contributions. This speaks for itself.
3) The Dems still fear being labeled as enabling terrorism. They long ago lost the framing debate on this issue and have never seemed able to reposition the threat as one that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to appropriately deal with.
4) It's an election year, and a prolonged battle with the White House would obscure other election issues that better favor the Dems. This might explain Obama's concession, along with his campaign's desire to show that he's not "weak" on terrorism. But, for Obama who has been superb at changing the frame of Republican shibboleths, it's a return to accepting the GOP debate points at the expense of the Constitution and our civil rights.
5) The Democrats figure it's easier (most polling shows Americans support the Bush FISA bill, probably because of the effectiveness of GOP talking points, not because they actually know the core issues at stake) to go along, because they assume that they will control the executive branch in November. If this were to come true, the best case scenario would be that Obama would issue an Executive Order that he would comply with the FISA law prior to the Bush-enabling one about to be passed by the senate (after being passed by the House last week).
Finally, we should note that the majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Bush "Get Out of Jail and Continue Spying on Americans" bills -- 128 Dems in the House voted against the bill, with 105 voting for it. Only one Republican, if we recall, voted against it.
But the important issue relating to the above five hypotheses -- and there are more -- is that this abomination of the Constitution was supported and pushed by the House leadership. Steny Hoyer -- Nancy Pelosi's number two -- was the point person on the "negotiations," and it wouldn't have ended up the way it did without Pelosi's green light. Reid, in the senate, has always been ready to go along with the WH demands, even if he's occasionally voiced minor quibbles with it.
So what are your theories as to why, a few short months from an election, the Dems on the Hill are giving up basic Constitutional rights and letting the WH and Telecom companies legally off the hook?
Tell us your thoughts by commenting below:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net




Technorati Tags:
Fisa and Obama
FISA
The correct answer is "none of the above"
Bush and Cheney are immoral, unscrupulous, power-hungry, evil people. They stole two elections for personal power, lied us into an unnecessary war for personal gain and power, and committed far too many crimes to list here. What would people like them do with the ability to commit illegal wiretaps?
Well, we know what Nixon did with such a power, and compared to Bush & Cheney, Nixon was an absolute saint (I'm not defending the guy, but a lot of liberals would prefer Nixon re-incarnated to those two). Nixon used wiretaps against his "enemies list" to gain information that would allow him to win (by cheating) a second term.
So, if you were as evil as Bush and Cheney, what would you do with those powers? You'd wiretap every member of Congress (both sides of the house) in order to gain blackmail material. Material you could use to influence the wording of bills, and of votes on those bills.
You might, for instance, be able to force Nancy Pelosi to say that "impeachment is off the table" no matter what further crimes come to light. You could almost certainly force a yes vote on a bill designed to retroactively clear you of wiretapping crimes. You could get pretty much whatever you wanted.
One thought. There is no way Bush and Cheney could ever contemplate handing such power over to a democratic president for fear that the new president might be tempted to use it well and expose their crimes or to misuse it to steal their ill-gotten gains. They're probably not thrilled with the idea of McSame (combines Bush's stupidity and Cheney's evil and violent temper in one package) having such powers either - he might not choose to expose their crimes but he's as greedy as they are and would use those powers to steal their money.
These two do not respect the law and wipe their backsides on the constitution. Do you really think they're going to hand over power at the end of the year? They're not going to let a pesky constitutional amendment stop them...
why demos caved...
Bought and paid for
Why Dems are giving in
FISA - letter to Pelosi
My letter to Pelosi. I tried sending one to Hoyer but his site is designed to block non-constituents from communicating. Next is Feinstein - who will sell out the Constitution as quickly as did Pelosi and the other 104 Democratic bush-babies.
Ms. Speaker,
I am shocked, disheartened, and disgusted that you have facilitated the destruction of our 4th Amendment rights (under the Constitution, which you swore an oath to uphold and defend) with your vote for the FISA legislation today. I had hoped that you would side with the rights of the people instead of with an authoritarian administration, and TELCOS which demonstrated once again, that enough money can buy any legislation they want. What you have done is reprehensible and one hopes that you will face an enlightened and enraged constituency come November. For my part, although I am not in your District, rest assured that I will spend what I can on getting out the truth about your betrayal of our most cherished values.
Sincerely,
FICA
They proved exactly who they really were all along.
This is the first time some of us 'activists' have something so blatant and concrete to point to, to wake everyone up to who exactly was undermining the party. It wasn't the Right, this time.
I've watched McAulife, Schumer Reid and Emanuel all control the power and purse of the DSCC and the DCCC to bring in Congressional candidates only fitting their requirements - for a bigger whiter male pro-business pro-hard line foreign policy agenda.
-It was those same people who worked to bring Lieberman back in and to keep out any new blood, the more forward Progressive thinking Democrats -like Lamont and Hackett and other anti-war type candidates.
-It was Pelosi and Harmon and Rockefeller and Schumer and Reid and Feinstein and Reid, who were in all along on the FISA, Patriot Act Bankruptcy Act, anti-Habeas etc., etc., while pretending they just didn't have the votes.
I've never been so embarrassed as a Democrat to hear Harry Reid, on an almost daily basis, on national TV cry "They wouldn't let us do this ...or that...boo hoo... those mean Republicans...". Seriously, didn't you all just cringe??
-But it was Hoyer and Emanuel and Harmon and Pelosi who forced out the Iran provision out of last springs 1st Defense Spending Bill,
because Hoyer said it would destroy the Troop Withdrawal provisions in the next bill, only weeks away.
--And then stripped out the Troop Withdrawal Provision in the next bill too.
-It was that same gang who by their cowardly acts have diminished the number of those voters who publicly claim they are Democratic voters- pushing them into the Independent or non-voting columns.
--And it was that same gang that were solely responsible then, for 6 straight election losses.
---And worse yet, once Howard Dean came along and redirected control of the Democratic party back into our own districts and excited the voters back into the party with just enough power to finally win an election, the first thing that same group did when they got the Congressional keys back, was to tell Howard Dean and the 'activists' to go screw ourselves.
And then proceeded to sink the party lower than anyone ever thought possible.
With all due respect to Hillary - most of these same guys supported her. Had she won -you could count years more of the same bullshit. Not so much because of her personally, but the insiders who backed her.
If it wasn't for Dean and Feingold and Obama -none of us would likely be here.
Oh by the way, I ran a blog for Feingold 08 when he seriously considered the run.
He quit after those same insider Senate Dems who destroyed Hackett and Lamont and brought Lieberman back - made it clear they weren't behind him. Feingold campaigned for Lamont, and we now know who they wanted as a candidate - Hillary Clinton.
Nationalism is not terrorism. And an adversary is not an enemy.
Although I largely agree, I think the OpEd missed a key element.
I hate to admit it, but my congressman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) is largely responsible for pushing retroactive immunity. It could have been because it wasn't until July 17, 2003, that he wrote himself a little note to cover his own ass and shoved it to the back of his desk.
What had the Bush administration uncovered by circumventing FISA between 2001 and 2003? Certainly nothing related to terrorism, or else theyd have advertised it.
So instead of seeking the advice of Dems on the senate judiciary panel Rockefeller inexplicably prevented them from legally weighing in back when he copped out on our 4th amendment rights. Some "oversight" senator Rockefeller. It is notable that the lion's share of Dems on the Senate and House Judiciary have been firmly against retroactive immunity. And even most of the other Dems on Rockefeller's defense intelligence Senate Select Oversight Committee are against his proposition as well!
But why did he not go to his lawyer friends on the Dem side at the time? His public explanation was that he feared weakening the system in place because of the threat of terrorism, although the fact is it was already covered by the existing FISA law. And why, since that time, has Rockefeller been so ardently supportive of Bush's wiretapping? To even come close to answering that question, several dots must be connected. First of all, Senator "Jay" (as he likes to be called) is heir to a family megafortune, and folks in his district realize that he has plenty of cash. Could telecom lobbyist money really sway his vote? There are, after all, serious limitations in place due to campaign finance laws. It's doubtful that the amount they've donated is enough to sway him. It'd likely take some real capital to cause him to pimp the FISA fix the way he has.
I'm not suggesting that he's "on the take". But the likely answer (at least from my perspective) is only slightly more complex than that. According to press reports, Sen. Jay made between $2 million to $11 mllion in unearned income last year. But he owed between $5 million and $25 million due to a mysterious bank loan. To me, that sounds suspiciously like a standard hedge fund loan. Could it have resulted from a call from one of the major players to raise quick money for some serious leveraging?
I'm just asking questions here.
After all, why would anyone suggest that any amount of money might sway his vote? For a bit of perspective, one might do well to remember the legacy of the Rockefeller fortune. Few, if any folks remember the days of the robber barons when his petroleum giant namesake doled out dimes to depression-era children on the street in order to impress the public. Making big money may well be in the Rockefeller DNA, no matter how that era is covered by the new history books.
Lest folks believe I've taken out futures on the tinfoil hat industry, as a local activist I've personally met, and worked with a fellow who has been on Senator Rockefeller campaign staff for a number of years. Awhile back, he told me candidly, face-to-face, that he was alarmed that in his Washington D.C. office, Rockefeller had nearly as many New York stock brokers as lobbyists visiting him. This fellow has no ax to grind, and in fact still helps Rockefeller get out the vote in my district every time he runs.
So my theory is that my senator's hooked up with some serious offshore hedge fund insider trades, and thanks to illegal wiretapping, Bush knows it. And he, along with the telecoms are using it to "persuade" Rockefeller into doing their bidding.
Most folk don't realize that insider trading by their congresscritters is entirely legal, even though it does raise a serious conflict of interest. The only reason Senator Bill Frist left at the height of his political career was because any serious inquiry into his own "Martha Stewart moment" would have exposed congress' insider game.
I strongly suspect that insider trading is rampant on both sides of the aisle, and the Bush administration is holding it over their collective heads. Otherwise, why haven't Dems passed the bill fashioned to put a stop to it, as co-sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash)?
Oil and defense industry futures look very bright right now, so most of Congress will likely "make hay while the sun shines" on them. Meanwhile, the rest of America's getting pissed on while the media reports rain.
Screw the DLC Libercrats!
Blame Pelosi and Reid.
FISA
Pseudo Dems
agreement
leadership
Pelosi & Hoyer Caving to Bush
Pelosi & FISA
Why is the Dem Congressional Leadership Abandoning the Constitut
Banana Republic
Follow the money
P O'd ...AS USUAL
Democrats and Republicans
FISA
Because the Democrats are all on the same payroll as the Republicans. They murdered the last honest politition when they got rid of Paul Wellstone.
We need a poor peoples' party to represent the 90% who aren't protected by the two party system.
Kick ALL the bastards out. None can be trusted.
The Old Hippy
Congress and FISA
FISA
'THE NEW REPUBLIC'
reason the democrats seem to be abandoning the constitution
I've wondered about that, too
A PARTY OF 1
Proof is in the pudding
So the success in this administration in somehow staving of any further attacks on our soil (thanks for that, by the way), completely obscures the failures they have in upholding the constitutional principles that mean so much to all of us. Ironic that these guys who are so anti government seem to have NO problem with spying, illegal search and seizure and detention without cause or end. someone needs to spy and tape them talking amongst themselves (similar to the Enron geeks cackling about grandma paying through the nose), so that they might see the value of privacy. wouldn’t you like to hear the vileness that they truly believe in.
so democrats, who are in principle, more principled and generally kind, somehow have nothing to swat the march towards big brother, since in the name of it, we have been free of attacks. Makes you wonder about conspiracy...like if a dem gets into the Whitehouse, are the attacks going to start up again? Who really believes that they need to communicate over telephone or email in order to carry out a suicide bombing or some such thing? If i were a Muslim fanatic, as per this govts terror labeling, nothing would have stopped me from doing some evil. could it be that the aggressive big brother Goliath, stomping around the world that is stopping the tiny Davids – what’s the real story?
The New Bipartisnship
Unity Can Be Forged In The Struggle To Impeach President Bush
Who cares about a goddamned piece of paper anyway?
Did Obama vote with the majority?
'Fear of Loss'
kick the bums out
See here: Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity:
_________________________________________________
"It is time we start holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regime’s agenda. Surely the plans for retroactive immunity for Bush cronies inside his regime and for cronies in the telecom corporations who broke the law by spying on American citizens without warrants, is outrageous and needs to be brought before the bar of Justice. All the money raised on this page will go to fund accountability for congressmembers supporting retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps. You can read more about the campaign here, here and here.
After Dick Gephart betrayed the majority of House Democrats and plotted with Bush, Cheney and some Blue Dogs to thwart the will of the majority and rubber stamp Bush’s decision to attack and occupy Iraq, he was forced out of his role as Democratic Leader. Steny Hoyer deserves the exact same fate."
_________________________________________________
Think this is a pipe dream? Go read the links. Blue America has already, since 2006, gotten jerks like this replaced by progressives who DO respect the Constitution in many districts. And with enough $$$ we can do it more this fall. Oh, yeah, we can definitely make their "Fear of Loss" become a reality.
------------------------------
*If my links don't work, I'll post them bare in a follow-up post.
a reply
Pelosi Floor Statement on FISA
Why Are The Democrats Selling Out?
Will My Vote Count?
Why A Do-Nothing Congress ?
Why Bother Now????
100% On The Money !
RELENTLESSLY CONTACT PEOLIS AND REID
Nancy Pelosi has actively
DLC folks!
So Get Rid of Them!
FISA And More
Fire Pelosi in November
Nancy Pelosi has become a Republicon stooge. I just sent a contribution to Cindy Sheehan (www.cindyforcongress.org) and will be voting for Sheehan in November.
I hope Obama will make some noise and derail telecom immunity in the Senate but I doubt he's going to make waves. I doubt he believes that much in change. The Dems have been a big disappointment over the past couple of years and are really pathetic now. If this horrible bill passes in the Senate, I will seriously consider a vote for Nader/Gonzales in November. They seem to have read the constitution and understand why we have it.