Tags
Granted, the one from Connecticut has Joe Lieberman as a colleague and that more than balances things out.
Look who co-sponsored the amendment to remove retroactive telecom immunity from the FISA bill:
S.AMDT.5064
Amends: H.R.6304
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (submitted 6/26/2008) (proposed 7/8/2008)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To strike title II.TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S6299
STATUS:
7/8/2008:
Amendment SA 5064 proposed by Senator Dodd.COSPONSORS(11):
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] – 6/26/2008
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 6/26/2008
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] – 6/26/2008
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 6/26/2008
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 6/26/2008
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] – 6/26/2008
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 6/26/2008
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 6/26/2008
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 6/26/2008
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 7/8/2008
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] – 7/8/2008
[emphasis added]
There are just a few senators who are conspicuous by their absence, eh Claire?
They’ll be voting on the amendments today. The prognosis is not good.
Here’s the release of Senator Dodd’s prepared text:
Floor Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd
On the Amendment to Strike Retroactive Immunity from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
As Prepared For Delivery
Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to strike Title II, which would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies
Mr. President, for many Americans, this issue may seem very difficult to follow – it may seem like just another squabble over corporate lawsuits.
But in reality, it is so much more than that. This is about choosing between the rule of law and the rule of men.
For more than seven years, President Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he neither respects the role of the Congress, nor does he respect the rule of law.
Today, we are considering legislation which will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who are alleged to have handed over to this Administration the personal information of every American-everyone phone call, every email, every fax and every text message. And all without a warrant.
Some may argue that in fact the companies received documentation from the Administration stating that the President authorized the wiretapping program and that therefore it was legal.
These advocates will argue that the mere existence of documentation justifies retroactive immunity– that because a document was received, companies should be retroactively exonerated of all wrong-doing.
But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.
But that logic is deeply flawed Mr. President.
Because the question is not whether companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, were there actions legal? It’s a rather straightforward and surprisingly uncomplicated question. Did the companies break the law?
Either the companies complied with the law as it was at the time, or they didn’t.
Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it.
Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.
If we pass retroactive immunity, none of these questions will ever be answered. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Retroactive immunity will be granted.
So Mr. President, this is about finding out what actually happened between these companies and the Administration.
It is about holding this Administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. It is about reminding this Administration that, “Where law ends, tyranny begins.”
And those aren’t my words, Mr. President – those words were spoken by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Mr. President, it is time to say “no more.”
No more trampling our Constitution.
No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.
No more.
These are our principles.
They have been around at least since the Magna Carta.
They are enduring.
What they are not is temporary. And what we should not do in a time where our country is at risk, is abandon them. That is what is at stake here today. Allowing retroactive immunity to go forward is by its very nature an abandonment of these principles.
Like generations of American leaders before us, we too are confronted with a choice.
Does America stand for all that is still right with our world? Or do we retreat in fear?
Do we stand for justice that secures America? Or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?
Mr. President, whatever our political party-Republican, Democrat-we were all elected to ensure that this nation adheres to the rule of law. That is our must fundamental obligation – not as partisans but as patriots serving their country.
The rule of law is not the provenance of any one political party – but of every American who has been safer because of it.
President Bush is right about one thing: this debate is about security. But not in the way he imagines.
He believes we have to give up our rights to be safe.
I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice.
I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker.
The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was both tragic and stunning.
But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple.
As Dwight D. Eisenhower who served our country both as President and as leader of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War Two, said:
“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”
That is why I believe history will judge this President harshly for his disregard for our most cherished principles.
And if we do not change course and stand up for our Constitution, for what is best in America, for what we know is right and just, then history will most certainly decide that that it was those of us in this body who bare equal responsibility for the President’s decisions-for it was us who looked the other way, time and time again.
Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise to it.
Support this amendment.
Stop retroactive immunity.
Stand up for the rule of law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
###
Here’s the text from the FISA bill that the Dodd amendment would remove:
H.R.6304
FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)TITLE II–PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS
SEC. 201. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new title:
`TITLE VIII–PROTECTION OF PERSONS ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT
`SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.
`In this title:
`(1) ASSISTANCE- The term `assistance’ means the provision of, or the provision of access to, information (including communication contents, communications record
s, or other information relating to a customer or communication), facilities, or another form of assistance.`(2) CIVIL ACTION- The term `civil action’ includes a covered civil action.
`(3) CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES- The term `congressional intelligence committees’ means–
`(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
`(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
`(4) CONTENTS- The term `contents’ has the meaning given that term in section 101(n).
`(5) COVERED CIVIL ACTION- The term `covered civil action’ means a civil action filed in a Federal or State court that–
`(A) alleges that an electronic communication service provider furnished assistance to an element of the intelligence community; and
`(B) seeks monetary or other relief from the electronic communication service provider related to the provision of such assistance.
`(6) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `electronic communication service provider’ means–
`(A) a telecommunications carrier, as that term is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153);
`(B) a provider of electronic communication service, as that term is defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code;
`(C) a provider of a remote computing service, as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code;
`(D) any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications either as such communications are transmitted or as such communications are stored;
`(E) a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D); or
`(F) an officer, employee, or agent of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).
`(7) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY- The term `intelligence community’ has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
`(8) PERSON- The term `person’ means–
`(A) an electronic communication service provider; or
`(B) a landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance pursuant to–
`(i) an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;
`(ii) a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code; or
`(iii) a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h).
`(9) STATE- The term `State’ means any State, political subdivision of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United States, and includes any officer, public utility commission, or other body authorized to regulate an electronic communication service provider.
`SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.
`(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that—
`(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;
`(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;
`(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;
`(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was–
`(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was–
`(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and
`(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and
`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was–
`(i) authorized by the President; and
`(ii) determined to be lawful; or
`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.
`(b) Judicial Review-
`(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.
`(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).
`(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall–
`(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and
`(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materi
als, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.`(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court’s written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.
`(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.
`(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.
`(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.
`(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.
`(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
`SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.
`(a) In General- No State shall have authority to–
`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider’s alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;
`(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider’s alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;
`(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or
`(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.
`(b) Suits by the United States- The United States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.
`(c) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of this section.
`(d) Application- This section shall apply to any investigation, action, or proceeding that is pending on or commenced after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
`SEC. 804. REPORTING.
`(a) Semiannual Report- Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Attorney General shall, in a manner consistent with national security, the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution, fully inform the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives concerning the implementation of this title.
`(b) Content- Each report made under subsection (a) shall include–
`(1) any certifications made under section 802;
`(2) a description of the judicial review of the certifications made under section 802; and
`(3) any actions taken to enforce the provisions of section 803.’.
SEC. 202. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 101(b), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
`TITLE VIII–PROTECTION OF PERSONS ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT
`Sec. 801. Definitions.
`Sec. 802. Procedures for implementing statutory defenses.
`Sec. 803. Preemption.
`Sec. 804. Reporting.’.
TITLE III–REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS
SEC. 301. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS- The term `appropriate committees of Congress’ means–
(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
(2) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT- The term `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’ means the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)).
(3) President’S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND PROGRAM- The terms `President’s Surveillance Program’ and `Program’ mean the intelligence activity involving communications that was authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007, including the program referred to by the President in a radio address on December 17, 2005 (commonly known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program).
(b) Reviews-
(1) REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT- The Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other element of the intelligence community that participated in the President’s Surveillance Program, shall complete a comprehensive review of, with respect to the oversight authority and responsibility of each such Inspector General–
(A) all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the product of the Program;
(B) access to legal reviews of the Program and access to information about the Program;
(C) communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program;
(D) interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and transition to court orders related to the Program; and
(E) any other matters ident
ified by any such Inspector General that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review of the Program, with respect to such Department or element.(2) COOPERATION AND COORDINATION-
(A) COOPERATION- Each Inspector General required to conduct a review under paragraph (1) shall–
(i) work in conjunction, to the extent practicable, with any other Inspector General required to conduct such a review; and
(ii) utilize, to the extent practicable, and not unnecessarily duplicate or delay, such reviews or audits that have been completed or are being undertaken by any such Inspector General or by any other office of the Executive Branch related to the Program.
(B) INTEGRATION OF OTHER REVIEWS- The Counsel of the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice shall provide the report of any investigation conducted by such Office on matters relating to the Program, including any investigation of the process through which legal reviews of the Program were conducted and the substance of such reviews, to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who shall integrate the factual findings and conclusions of such investigation into its review.
(C) COORDINATION- The Inspectors General shall designate one of the Inspectors General required to conduct a review under paragraph (1) that is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to coordinate the conduct of the reviews and the preparation of the reports.
(c) Reports-
(1) PRELIMINARY REPORTS- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other Inspector General required to conduct a review under subsection (b)(1), shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress an interim report that describes the planned scope of such review.
(2) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other Inspector General required to conduct a review under subsection (b)(1), shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, in a manner consistent with national security, a comprehensive report on such reviews that includes any recommendations of any such Inspectors General within the oversight authority and responsibility of any such Inspector General with respect to the reviews.
(3) FORM- A report under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. The unclassified report shall not disclose the name or identity of any individual or entity of the private sector that participated in the Program or with whom there was communication about the Program, to the extent that information is classified.
(d) Resources-
(1) EXPEDITED SECURITY CLEARANCE- The Director of National Intelligence shall ensure that the process for the investigation and adjudication of an application by an Inspector General or any appropriate staff of an Inspector General for a security clearance necessary for the conduct of the review under subsection (b)(1) is carried out as expeditiously as possible.
(2) ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR THE INSPECTORS GENERAL- An Inspector General required to conduct a review under subsection (b)(1) and submit a report under subsection (c) is authorized to hire such additional personnel as may be necessary to carry out such review and prepare such report in a prompt and timely manner. Personnel authorized to be hired under this paragraph–
(A) shall perform such duties relating to such a review as the relevant Inspector General shall direct; and
(B) are in addition to any other personnel authorized by law.
(3) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL- The Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Security Agency, or the head of any other element of the intelligence community may transfer personnel to the relevant Office of the Inspector General required to conduct a review under subsection (b)(1) and submit a report under subsection (c) and, in addition to any other personnel authorized by law, are authorized to fill any vacancy caused by such a transfer.
[emphasis added]
Go ahead, give Claire McCaskill a call today. (202) 224-6154