by Katie Fretland and updated
The Senate is set to vote Wednesday on a bill to overhaul rules on domestic spying that would protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits stemming from the government's warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Barack Obama faced criticism over his reversal to support the bill he once threatened to fillibuster.
Changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would dictate how the government can spy on suspected terrorists and foreign agents on American soil. The House of Representatives passed the bill after months of debate between Democrats and Republicans.
The bill raises the issue of how to protect national security without violating civil liberties and privacy.
The main dispute over the bill was whether to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated in the Bush administration's wiretapping program following the Sept. 11 attacks. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed.
The White House had said the bill must grant immunity to companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.
Bush directed telecom companies to tap phone and computer lines for about six years following Sept. 11, 2001, without the permission of the FISA court. The court was created to approve wiretaps placed domestically for intelligence gathering.
Changes to the bill would require approval from the court before the government can eavesdrop on Americans overseas. It would also allow the government to intercept communications of foreign groups with broad yearlong intercept orders.
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama voiced opposition to the bill, but now has pledged to support it, although it is "far from perfect" and fails to resolve concerns over abuses of executive power, he said.
This week, Obama explained his position to those supporters upset by his support of the compromise legislation.
The provision to allow retroactive immunity weakens the act by failing to demand accountability for past abuses, Obama said.
Obama, along with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), support the removal of that provision from the bill.
However, Obama said the compromise bill allows the FISA court to act as a monitor to prevent abuses of the civil liberties of the public. He also noted that the Inspectors General report allows for investigations of past misconduct.
"The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe," Obama said. "Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future."
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds jumped on the reversal:
"A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program," Bounds said in a statement. "Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office."
UPDATE:
Ahead of the scheduled vote today, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) said the bill is critical to the nation's security and would strengthen the ability of the government to conduct surveillance of terrorists. Rockefeller said the bill would also grant new oversights and protections for the civil liberties of Americans, by insuring a review by the FISA court before surveillance is conducted. Sen Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said the bill would not allow surveillance of innocent Americans. Unless a person has al-Qaeda "on speed dial," that person would not be surveilled, Bond said.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) spoke against the provision to allow immunity for the telecom companies.
"...it could not be clearer that this program broke the law, and this President broke the law. Not only that, but this administration affirmatively misled Congress and the American people about it for years before it finally became public," Feingold said.
"I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation."
The Senate first voted today three amendments to the bill, which all failed. Obama voted for all three. Republican presidential hopeful John McCain was not present.
An amendment by Dodd to strip immunity for the telecom companies from the bill failed 32 to 66.
An amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) to limiit retroactive immunity failed 37 to 61. Specter aimed to limit retroactive immunity by placing more power in the federal courts. The bill would have limited immunity to cases in which a federal court ruled that the intelligence activity was constitutional.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (R. N.M.) proposed an amendment to stay pending cases against certain companies.The bill would allow companies to seek immunity only until 90 days after a final report on the Bush administration's surveillance program is submitted to Congress. It failed 42 to 56.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Another example of Obama's
"CHANGE"
Posted by: George | July 9, 2008 9:27 AM
Can't wait to see the heroic Barack Obama bravely turn his tail and vote for it like Bush and Harry Reid tell him to do. Can't wait to see him contradict a year of public statements when he AGAIN repeats that national security has ALWAYS been more important to him than tcom immunity.
Bravely run away, away, brave, brave, brave Sir Barack.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 9:32 AM
Ah, yes, McCain, man of peace.
Harr dee harr harr.
He's just upset that Obama did not give the right wingnuts any ammunition to use against them hen they execute (or attempt to) yet another false flag attack on the U.S..
I say we forego impeachment until the very end and just let other countries come and get the people who stole our government at the 'voting booth' for the past 8 years.
Don't forget the most important issue, bigger than haircuts and pantsuits and cries of 'flipflopper' and 'racist' and 'swift-boater is
MONITORING THE ELECTIONS 6 WEEKS OUT.
Posted by: geraldine hussein too | July 9, 2008 9:35 AM
It raises no such debate. The NSA has been listening in on conversations between terrorists and american citizens for decades. Fretland shows an inability to get the facts straight AGAIN by not noting that there are no significant changes between this bill and the FISA bill that was before the senate in March. None. It's essentially the same bill.
The immunity will not be removed from the bill and this is merely political posturing by some democrats (Dodd) who are trying to look tough before they roll over and vote for the bill today. It's becoming so hard to make things look nice for flip-flopping Barack that poor Katie is really starting to show the strain.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 10:19 AM
BHO - I was against this bill before I was for it & realize people will see how soft I am on national security - gee, I hope they don't know I want to slice and dice our defense budget.....
Posted by: Michael Lawrence | July 9, 2008 10:26 AM
As usual, the politicians are doing the only thing they know: Control Everything they can touch.
And, as usual, it is going to hurt a LOT of people. Details here:
http://dgcmagazine.com/index.php?q=node/128
Posted by: PRJ | July 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Jeff, maybe Obama can get some advice fom McCain on how to be a real poilitcal coward. McCain ran away from his Immigration bill so fast that he didn't even vote for it. Maybe McCain can show him all the best places to hide?
Posted by: Luis | July 9, 2008 11:36 AM
The bin Laden Jr. tape is aired on the day of the FISA vote. What were the odds? Too much manipulation. Why not live in Vichy France if our own Senate is going to sell us out?
Posted by: Vivian | July 9, 2008 11:40 AM
Luis, I pwned you in another thread. McCain didn't vote for it because he wanted to reserve the ability to reintroduce the bill at a later date. The bill wasn't going to pass with or without McCain voting, anyway. I'll retell you what I told you before: At least McCain tried. Obama sat on his hands and did nothing, as usual. He has no record of leadership on the issue like McCain has. The coward and the do nothing is still Obama. The man showing leadership and courage and sticking to his guns is still John McCain. What do you think of FISA? Can you actually convince yourself that Obama didn't commit a huge flip-flop to try and look like he cares about national security?
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 12:23 PM
Jeff, as I noted in the other thread, McCain's excuse holds no water. He never re-introduced the bill. He disavowed it. He didn't keep up the fight. He surrendered to those in his party are against any meaningful immigration reform.
Posted by: Luis | July 9, 2008 12:57 PM
Jeff, McCain hasn't voted on ANYTHING in the senate since early April. Is he really present and actually voting today? It must be thrilling to see such a rare event...
Posted by: Tom O | July 9, 2008 12:59 PM
Obama changes positions as often as other people change their shirts.
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2008 2:02 PM
* * * * *
"Sen. Barack Obama faced criticism over his reversal to support the bill he once threatened to veto."
* * * * *
How could Obambi threaten to veto a bill when he is not the President? He would have to know the legislative cycle for the bill would finish before being elected (assuming he does). In any event, I thought his threat was to filibuster the bill.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"Sen Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said the bill would not allow surveillance of innocent Americans. Unless a person has al-Qaeda "on speed dial," that person would not be surveilled, Bond said."
* * * * *
The word "surveilled" (from surveillance) is a wonderful example of how people corrupt the English language by forgetting word roots. From the Seventeenth to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, at least, the correct verb would have been "to survey," which also carries the forgotten meanings of "to examine, watch, scrutinize or investigate carefully." "To surveil" is a corruption of the French word derived from the same Norman-Latin root from which we originally derived the word "to survey." It is part of standard police-prosecutor vocabulary, which is a separate argot anyway.
* * * * *
Luis: Obama needs no pointers from McCain on how to be a real political coward. He voted for the bill, which just passed, immunity provisions and all. Thus, he completed a total flip-flop on the issue in dramatic form.
Posted by: John W. | July 9, 2008 4:16 PM
Luis, you're not paying attention again. Whether he did reintroduce it or not, the act of not voting on it gave him the ability to later. No one knew then whether or not the bill would make it back but it was still important to keep the hope alive. Again, that's more than Obama did. By your logic Barack "surrendered" WAAAY before McCain ever did.
So, how do you feel about FISA. Was Barack's filibuster the shortest in the history of the senate? Nice vote for FISA today, Barack!
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 4:18 PM
Keep the hope alive? Are you kidding me? The only hope he was interested in keeping alive was his hope to be the Republican nominee for President. He had no intent to ever re-introduce the bill. Even if he did, his failure to do so was then an act of political cowardice. He turned away from that political poisition because it was to his benefit to. He didn't stand with those who continued to support the bill then, and he doesn't stand with us now. He changed his position. He no longer supports what he used to beacuse it endangered his political future. That's the definition of political cowardice.
Posted by: Luis | July 9, 2008 5:33 PM
How could Obambi threaten to veto a bill when he is not the President? He would have to know the legislative cycle for the bill would finish before being elected (assuming he does).
Pennsylvania Treatment Centers
Posted by: james | August 9, 2008 7:02 AM