Category: Rule of Law

Presidential Politics and FISA

I want to take a moment to note that Senator Barack Obama was present and voting in favor of every amendment a majority of Democrats supported today. He did vote for the Specter-Whitehouse substitution amendment and the Feinstein “good faith” decision by the FISC, two amendments that arguably should have been opposed for their damage to the rule of law, but in the grand scheme of things his vote is acceptable.

Senator McCain was present and voting in lock-step with the Republican Party to defeat every amendment that would have improved the bill.

Senator Clinton was not present and did not vote on any amendments, nor cloture.

Today there are primary elections in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. Senators Obama and McCain left the trail to vote in the Senate today. While I would have been happy if Mr. McCain had decided to continue to campaign, Senator Obama should be praised for coming to the Senate and vote on FISA legislation.

It would have been great to have Senator Obama use his microphone as a presidential candidate to bring attention to the legislative fight. He was not an outspoken critic of the FISA legislation, but he took time to vote the right way on a major primary election day. Good for him.

Update:

It should be noted that Senator Obama’s vote was, in the end, not critical to passing or stopping any of these amendments, as none of the amendments we wanted to pass passed and cloture was not stopped.

Update II:

Here’s Senator Obama’s statement on FISA today, via email.

“I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people – we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don’t sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort.”

Fair enough. Again it was great to have Obama voting today, but it would have been better to have him as a vocal partner in the fight over the last four and a half months.

Update III:

It’s worth noting that Obama voted against cloture on the SSCI bill, but skipped the vote on final passage. The bill passed handily and the presence of both Clinton and Obama to vote on final passage would not have changed the outcome.

FISA Vote Tallies: Part II

The Dodd/Feingold Amendment 3907 to strip retroactive immunity from the underlying SSCI bill just failed, 31-67. 51 votes were needed to pass.

Voting with the Republicans were the following eighteen Democrats (again, rough count):

Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Joe Lieberman also voted against stripping retroactive immunity.

Not present and voting was Senator Hillary Clinton, the only presidential candidate serving in the Senate to miss the vote.

Before the vote, Senator Dodd raised a very interesting point that I haven’t previously seen discussed. Three out of of four congressional committees that looked at FISA reform legislation were opposed to retroactive immunity. The Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary, and House Intelligence committees all rejected retroactive immunity for the big telecoms. Only the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence supported retroactive immunity. Yet because the SSCI version of the FISA reform legislation was the underlying bill, we’re stuck with RI coming out of the Senate.

Update I:

Feingold’s amendment 3912, which would have limited bulk collection, failed 37-60. Again, by rough count, more than ten Democrats voted with the Republicans to ensure this amendment failed. I don’t have the full count yet, Updated with all twelve Dems voting with the GOP. but here’s who did vote with the GOP on this one:

Bayh, Carper, Johnson, Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Inouye, Lincoln, Pryor and Webb

Update II:

Bond’s amendment 3938, which includes an exception for wiretaps related to WMDs, passed by voice vote.

Update III:

Kagro X at Daily Kos writes of the demise of the Senate. I quote nearly in full:

In rejecting the Feinstein “exclusivity” amendment to the FISA revision considered on the Senate floor today — an amendment that failed by a vote of 57 Ayes to 41 Noes, thanks to another “painless filibuster” of precisely the type we were promised would not be tolerated on this bill — the Senate has voted to say that although they were passing a law governing surveillance, it was OK if the President decided that he really didn’t like the law very much and wished to make up his own instead.

Exclusivity — the purpose of the amendment that “failed” — meant simply this: that the law they were passing was the law, and it was the governing authority for how surveillance could be conducted in America.

The Senate just rejected it, so that means that they’re passing a law, but if a president decides later on that he thinks there’s really some other controlling authority besides the law, that’s OK.

The original FISA, of course, had exactly such an exclusivity provision in it. That the new revision of the law will have had that provision explicitly “rejected” can mean only one thing: that nobody will know the actual state of “the law” on surveillance, because the “law” as written might not really be “the law” at all. In fact, it could be something entirely different, and maybe even something you’ve never heard of — or indeed will never be allowed to hear it, because it’s top secret. Or hell, you may not ever hear it because the President will make it up as he goes along. It won’t matter what the reason is, in fact. All that will matter is that “the law” supposedly governing surveillance says that there may or may not be some other authority that really controls. Maybe. Maybe not! Tee hee! Isn’t “law” funny?

This is a terribly sad day for our country.

Update IV:

The Specter-Whitehouse substitution amendment #3927 just failed 30-68. Voting against it were liberal senators like Dodd, Biden, and Murray. They opposed it because it would have taken the cases pending against the big telecoms and substituted the federal government as the defendant in all of them. It was a special treatment amendment and had it passed, it would have undermined the rule of law in America. That said, 31 votes for it were almost all Democrats.

Update V:

Feinstein’s “good faith” amendment to move consideration of cases to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (#3919) failed 41-57. 60 votes were needed for it to pass. While the Democratic caucus was largely in favor of this, some liberal senators like Dodd and Menendez again voted against it for the special treatment it would have provided the telecoms.

Update VI:

The SSCI bill just passed cloture, 69-29. In addition to Joe Lieberman, I believe 19 20 Democrats voted in favor of cloture on the SSCI bill. Here is my currently incomplete the complete list:

Baucus, Conrad, Feinstein, Kohl, Lincoln, Landrieu, Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Pryor, Salazar, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, Inouye, Webb, Casey, Ben Nelson, Carper, Johnson, McCaskill and Bayh.

I’ll update that list when I have all the names.

I will also be looking closely to see which Democrats vote for cloture but against final passage. I don’t see any reason why a Democrat should have voted for cloture and while final passage is a relevant vote, the cloture vote was a lower threshold to stop this bill.

The Senate is taking a break for meetings, but will resume debate post-cloture after 2 PM Eastern. Senator Dodd is expected to take the floor and talk in opposition to the bill for up to four hours. The vote on final passage should take place later this afternoon or evening.

FISA Vote Totals: Part I

Whitehouse 3920 was agreed to by voice vote.

Feinstein 3910 – the exclusivity amendment – failed 57-41. 60 votes were needed to pass.

Republicans voting with the Democrats were Republicans Hagel, Murkowski, Snowe, Collins, Sununu, Specter, Smith, Voinovich, and Craig. Democrats voting with the Republicans was Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The good news is that Senator Obama was present and voting with the Democrats. Hopefully he’ll be around throughout the day to contribute to our vote totals. Senator Clinton didn’t vote on the exclusivity amendment, though the Potomac primary is taking place today and all presidential candidate senators should be in the Maryland, Virginia, and DC region. Senator McCain voted with the Republicans on this amendment.

Update I:

Feingold/Webb 3979 (sequestration) failed miserably, 35-63. By my tally, thirteen fourteen Democrats and Joe Lieberman voted with the GOP to kill this amendment: Feinstein, Rockefeller, Pryor, Johnson, Inouye, Levin, Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Bayh, Conrad, and Carper.

Order of Senate Amendment Votes Today

Last night Senator Reid listed the order in which FISA amendments will receive votes today. Voting starts around 10 AM Eastern. I’m pulling links for each amendment from Cboldt’s great post on the UC agreement. Three of the eight remaining amendments require 60 votes to pass, the others require a majority to pass.

  1. Whitehouse amendment #3920 (compliance reviews) (60 votes required)
  2. Feinstein amendment #3910 (exclusive means) (60 votes required)
  3. Feingold/Webb amendment #3979 (sequestration)
  4. Dodd/Feingold amendment #3907 (strike immunity)
  5. Feingold amendment #3912 (certifications)
  6. Bond amendment #3938, as modified (WMDs)
  7. Specter/Whitehouse amendment #3927 (substitution)
  8. Feinstein amendment #3919 (FISA Court) (60 votes required).

FISA Process, Unanimous Consent, & Dodd’s Filibuster

I’m going to do two things in this post. First, I will explain the likely legislative process on FISA in the Senate and House. Second, I will discuss Chris Dodd’s course of actions regarding a filibuster and where that stands now.

Tomorrow looks to be the big day for FISA votes in the Senate. Senator Dodd’s amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the underlying SSCI bill will be given a vote – it will need 51 votes to pass. Other amendments pertaining to retroactive immunity will also be given votes – Whitehouse’s substitution amendment and Feinstein’s “good faith” amendment. The bad news is that these amendments are all likely to fail, though Feinstein’s might have the best chances of passing, even with a 60 vote threshold.

Following the votes on all remaining amendments – a number are still out there on Title I of the SSCI bill and would succeed in improving congressional oversight of domestic surveillance – there will be a cloture vote on the bill. If we have any hope to stopping retroactive immunity and a bad Intel bill in the Senate, this is it. Most likely, though, the Republican caucus will be joined by a significant number of conservative Democrats and cloture will pass. After cloture, Senator Dodd will have up to four hours to speak in opposition to the bill. He may share some of that time with Senators Feingold, Leahy, and Kennedy. No more than 30 hours after cloture passes, there will be a vote on final passage of the SSCI bill. That will probably pass and the Senate – thanks in large part to the diligent work of Jay Rockefeller and the decision-making of Harry Reid – will have given George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the big telecom companies what they wanted.

As the Senate version of FISA reform legislation is dramatically different from the RESTORE Act, passed by the House last November, there will be a conference committee to sort out the legislation. Unless both chambers quickly pass another 15 day extension to the Protect America Act, the conference committee will have to finish their work and send it along for votes by this Friday, when the PAA is set to expire. Once it’s out of conference, no amendments will be allowed to the legislation, so the bill will only be voted on by the two chambers and not modified any further.

Now, here’s where things get worse. It’s possible that during the conference committee, Blue Dog Democrats in the House will side with the GOP and lobby hard for retroactive immunity. If the conference report strips retroactive immunity (that is, if Title II of the RESTORE Act prevails over the SSCI version), then the conference report will most likely fail to pass in the Senate. Jay Rockefeller and somewhere between 14-16 Blue Dogs in the Senate will join the Republicans to oppose the bill. When the Senate voted on the Protect America Act last August, sixteen Democrats voted with the Republicans in favor of the bill; that roster is a good starting place for potential aisle-crossers this time around. We’re clearly up against real obstacles in both the House and Senate Democratic caucuses.

To finish up the process side of this, the conference report will be introduced in the Senate (and House), cloture will be filed, cloture will ripen, there will be a cloture vote, there will be up to 30 hours for debate (though no guarantee it will all be used), and then there will be a vote on the conference report. Again, it’s my understanding that the goal of the Senate leadership would be to have all of this take place by Friday if no extension is passed. Without an extension, the telecoms will likely have retroactive immunity by the end of this week.

Now, I think there’s a need to look back at this process and answer some questions about what brought us here and what, if anything, could still be done by someone like Chris Dodd to stop the bill from moving forward. I’ve previously been highly critical of the unanimous consent agreement brokered by the Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate, but will be offering a defense of Dodd’s vote in support of the agreement in the context of the course of events and what alternatives existed in this legislative fight.

The short version is that the unanimous consent agreement which negotiations between Democratic and Republican leadership produced about two weeks ago included a cloture vote (which will be taking place tomorrow) and that limits the ability of Senator Dodd to draw out debate beyond what is currently taking place. Cloture was filed on the underlying SSCI bill on Friday, so today’s debate has been taking place while it is ripening.

The question at hand is: Has Dodd done all he can? Has he filibustered? Is he breaking his promise to filibuster any bill that includes retroactive immunity?

There are a number of levels at which I can try to answer these questions. The short view is the UC agreement that’s governing the debate, which Dodd consented to, does not allow him to draw out debate beyond tomorrow’s cloture vote. Did not objecting to UC constitute a failure to uphold his promise to filibuster? I don’t think so, and here’s why:

The negotiations had been very slow going and hinged in part on the vote totals required to pass each amendment. While some Senators were willing to raise their vote total to 60 (Feinstein, Cardin & Whitehouse), Dodd refused. As a result of standing firm, he was able to get consent from people like Rockefeller who didn’t want Dodd’s amendment to require a simple majority. But the tradeoff was that he had to consent to the UC agreement as well. That included cloture. Now, the reality is that had Dodd sought to extend debate following his amendment’s failure, someone would have filed cloture at some point on him. There’s no way to reasonably argue that cloture would not have been filed to stop Dodd from talking and move to vote on final passage. In that regard, I don’t think consenting to cloture in the UC agreement constitutes him breaking his word on the filibuster.

The other main feature to note in the negotiation of the UC agreement was that it was taking place under duress. Senator Rockefeller was threatening the Democratic leadership that if they didn’t sort out a UC agreement that would allow debate to move forward, he and a block of Blue Dog Democrats would support Republican efforts to pass cloture on the SSCI bill before any amendments could be voted on. Recall that Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs had previously voted with the rest of the Democratic caucus to stop the Republican efforts to have cloture on the SSCI bill earlier in the fight. The threat Rockefeller was levying was simple: agree on how we’re going to proceed or you won’t get to put any amendments onto the SSCI bill.

The UC agreement included a simple majority vote to strip retroactive immunity from the underlying bill. Dodd had long said that he sought a majority vote on his amendment – that’s why he stopped the SSCI bill cold last December, by refusing UC on the motion to have all amendments require 60 votes. Agreeing to the UC agreement allowed him to have that. Disagreeing would have likely prevented from their being any vote to strip RI from the SSCI bill.

Though it’s unlikely that any Democratic amendments receiving roll call votes under this UC agreement will pass, it’s also worth noting that the agreement did include updates to Title I to make it technically somewhat better through the manager’s package. I’m not going to sit here and tell you it went all the way to turning it into a good bill – it didn’t. But it is more than we would have gotten had Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs sided with the GOP and steamrolled the process.

If Dodd had objected to UC, we would not have a chance to amend the underlying bill. We would not have gotten the improvements agreed to in the manager’s package. Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs would have flipped, and we’d end up with the SSCI bill moving forward in worse shape. I’ll grant that we’re going to end up fairly close to that point anyway, but I do not think that objecting to UC because the option was open to him would have been the best course for Chris Dodd. This way, his amendment to strip RI will get a vote tomorrow. It needs a majority to pass and there are 50 Democrats in the caucus. We’re not going to get closer to defeating retroactive immunity in the Senate than that and it’s simply a shame that so many Democrats support immunity. It’s also a shame that Harry Reid does not have the same control over the Democratic caucus as Mitch McConnell has on the Republican one.

Lastly, the rules of the Senate aren’t what they used to be. The rules don’t allow Dodd do to a stand up, “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”-style filibuster like Strom Thurmond did on civil rights legislation. From a practical standpoint and in my assessment, Dodd has been filibustering the SSCI bill since December 17, 2007. His filibuster has allowed us time to organize grassroots pressure on the Senate. It has allowed us to get get votes on amendments that will improve the underlying bill. It has kept the Republican Party’s efforts to destroy the rule of law in the spotlight for all to see. It has taken an issue that Bush, Reid, and Rockefeller wanted done in a matter of hours so the Senate could go on Christmas vacation and stretched the process out over eight weeks. At a certain point, we have to recognize that we simply do not have the 41 votes needed to defeat cloture and uphold Dodd’s filibuster.

I know that Dodd’s course of action may not be what some people expected. Given the reality of the situation and given the rules of the Senate, I can honestly say that I do not know what else Dodd could have done to ensure a different outcome. That may not be what some others think, but please note that I make this judgment this as someone who desperately wanted to see the Senate kill retroactive immunity and has been as thoroughly invested in the fight as just about anyone else out there.

In my eyes, the blame for retroactive immunity passing in the Senate will lie with two people: Jay Rockefeller, for holding a gun to his Democratic colleagues while trying to ensure his buddies at Verizon and AT&T get their “Get Out of Jail Free” card, and Harry Reid, for inexplicably choosing to make the SSCI bill the underlying bill before the Senate and not the better alternatives provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives. Reid also circumvented Dodd’s hold on the SSCI bill; under normal circumstances, the hold would have been the most powerful weapon Dodd had it his disposal. Reid’s decisions, more than anything else, made it impossible for us to pass a bill without retroactive immunity in it.

At the end of the day, to defeat retroactive immunity and to uphold a filibuster, Chris Dodd needed more support for his efforts than exists in the Senate. He needs 40 other Democrats and the sad reality is that there are not 40 other Democrats who are opposed to retroactive immunity. Dodd was our strongest ally in the fight, but he couldn’t win it on his own. I respect and appreciate the work he has done and though I wish the outcome were different, though I wish he could have done something to else to stop this legislation from moving forward, the obstacles set by Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and an all-too spineless Democratic caucus were too much for him to overcome.

***

It should be worth noting that I no longer have any connection to Senator Dodd’s campaign, nor his Senate office, and I am speaking solely for myself here.

Greenwald on Retroactive Immunity

Glenn Greenwald offers another response to the Wall Street Journal editorial hawking retroactive immunity for big telecom.

The telecom amnesty debate is controversial but it is not complicated. The Government asked telecoms to break numerous federal laws in exchange for profit. Some telecoms refused to do so and others — such as AT&T and Verizon — agreed to break the law for years. Which behavior do we want to encourage and reward — (a) telecoms which turned down the substantial government contracts to enable warrantless spying on Americans because doing so was illegal, or (b) the telecoms which purposely broke our laws by allowing illegal government spying on Americans? How can that even be a debatable question?

As the Senate votes on amnesty tomorrow, the only real question is whether telecoms which broke our laws should be accountable in a court of law for their illegal behavior (the way things are supposed to work in a country that lives under the rule of law) or whether Congress, lavishly funded by this industry, will pass a law that has no purpose other than to give them the retroactive license to break our country’s laws with impunity.
…
Whatever else is true about these telecoms that are about to be granted this extraordinary gift from Congress — no matter how many times they are lavished with the creepy Orwellian phrase “patriotic corporate citizens” — it is undeniable that they are deliberate lawbreakers. That’s why they need amnesty in the first place. Any amnesty advocate who denies that central fact is arguing from a position of deep dishonesty. Bestowing retroactive telecom amnesty is nothing more than the latest step in creating a two-class legal system in America, where most citizens suffer grave penalties if they break the law, while our most politically powerful and well-connected actors are free to do so with impunity.

Take action now and ask the Senate to oppose retroactive immunity for big telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T that helped the Bush administration spy on American citizens.

Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.

Benen vs. WSJ

Steve Benen takes on the Wall Street Journal’s FISA-related editorial today, which notably discusses something called the “anti-antiterror left.” Benen responds:

First, referring to the “anti-antiterror left” is just sad. The Wall Street Journal isn’t just some random posting on the Free Republic. Editors should probably try to aim a little higher.

Heh, indeedy. At least Mitt Romney had the balls to call us terrorists.

Benen goes on to provide a series of substantive rebuttals to the vacuous arguments provided by the WSJ.

Second, as far as the WSJ is concerned, any legal requirements, and any effort to provide checks and balances on administration power, is necessarily seen as the U.S. “tying its own hands in the fight against terrorists.” The newspaper’s editorial board, in other words, believes the only responsible course of action is to let the Bush White House have unfettered surveillance powers over Americans, without exception. What about the possibility for abuse? We should simply trust the administration to be restrained and responsible. Those who disagree are guilty of wanting to weaken America.

Third, the WSJ is so unhinged, it argued, in print and without a hint of jest, that the left’s “goal” is to prevent wiretaps. It’s as if the Journal’s editorial board has slept through the last couple of years of debate, and feels comfortable simply making up rationales to smear those who take the rule of law seriously.

And fourth, my personal favorite, is the notion that Congress and the president have to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings, and clear companies that already broke the law of any wrongdoing, otherwise the telecoms will never cooperate with the federal government again. It’s as if the WSJ has no idea what “warrants” and “judicial oversight” even mean.

Let’s be candid: The WSJ is providing noise and nothing more. There are many arguments out there that try to undercut efforts to solidify congressional oversight of domestic surveillance. I’ve been watching pretty much every word said in the FISA debate on C-SPAN 2 and trust me, the Senate Republicans aren’t doing much better than this. Facts are not relevant, only narratives that make Dems look bad. Though Carl Hulse of the NY Times wasn’t interested in telling the substantive legislative story of what’s happening in Congress, he was spot-on in his assessments of how this is going to turn into (or rather, continue to be) a vacuous political pie fight that culminates with Democrats being likened to terrorists.

The Politics of FISA

Carl Hulse of the New York Times has an update on this week’s FISA debate in the Senate. Not surprisingly, the piece appears on the NYT Blog and not the actual print edition of the paper.

The article is solely a rehashing of what political narratives each party will try to use to shape the debate. From the get-go we see Hulse has adopted Republican framing of the debate, describing it as one of “national security.” Actually, as someone who has been deeply involved in this and in regular contact with Democratic Senate offices on their work on this legislation, this is a debate about American civil liberties, the status of the rule of law, and ensuring that the Congress doesn’t pass unconstitutional legislation.

In a paragraph that could have been better used to describe the substantive policy differences of Democrats and Republicans on FISA, Hulse lays out the he said-she said of competing political narratives.

With Republicans making it clear in the last few days that they again will make the terror fight a main element of their campaign message, the exchanges could get more heated. But Democrats plan to fire back and are planning a series of Congressional hearings to show how Bush administration policy has weakened the military, reducing its ability to respond to threats while impairing the National Guard’s ability to react to domestic catastrophes.

I really wish the media would recognize that important things are happening in the Senate. Legislation is being debated that may be turned into political ads this cycle, but will also be determining how the US government conducts surveillance of Americans for the next six years. Likewise, I wish the Senate Democrats were more willing to use their power to conduct hearings to correct problems, not merely document them for the press.

The reality, though, is that the FISA debate has largely been intertwined with political narratives about national security and terrorist threats. The Democrats remain petrified of the thought that the Republicans will say mean things about them to the press and in campaign ads. They worry that if they don’t give the President everything he wants – as Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid seem intent on doing – that the RNC will put attack ads on the air, telling America that Democrats are giving terrorists the same rights as American citizens. Never mind that Democrats are pushing legislation that does nothing of the sort. Never mind that even if the Dems march lockstep with the GOP on this issue, the Republicans will still run attack ads accusing them of siding with the terrorists, or in Mitt Romney’s case, accuse them of being terrorists.

The inability of Senate Democrats to work from a fundamental understanding of how Republican attacks works is no small part of the story of why they are caving so profoundly on FISA legislation. The fear-driven Democratic caucus under the milquetoast leadership of Harry Reid is on the verge of passing the SSCI bill, despite the strong possibility that they will not pass a single amendment to improve the underlying bill.

By this time Wednesday morning, it’s likely that the voting will be done in the Senate and the only obstacle to retroactive immunity will be progressive Democrats in the House. At this point, I can’t speculate optimistically about the chances for the House holding strong. We can expect Republicans in the House will support en masse the SSCI bill; if the Blue Dog Democrats decide they want retroactive immunity for the telecoms, it will almost certainly guarantee that the Senate version will pass largely intact, just as President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the CEOs of Verizon and AT&T wanted.

Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.

Phone Companies

As readers of this blog know, I’m helping CREDO Action run their campaign to stop warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity, which to this point has focused mostly on the legislative fight in the Senate. But CREDO Action is an arm of CREDO Mobile, a cell phone company, which is also connected to Working Assets, a telephone and credit card company. It’s all somewhat complicated and I can’t promise I’m accurately representing the breakdown.

Will Easton has a post up on the CREDO Blog comparing CREDO to the big telecoms AT&T and Verizon. Needless to say, CREDO comes out on looking pretty great compared to their Bush administration-partnering, illegal spying-enabling competitors.

First Feingold Amendment Fails

Russ Feingold’s amendment 3915 on use limits just failed, 40-56.

Next up is Feingold’s amendment 3913, which would ban reverse targeting of Americans.

Update:

Feingold’s reverse targeting amendment, 3913, has just failed as well. The vote was 38-57.

It’s my understanding that there will be no other roll call votes tonight, only voice votes. Up next appears to be Bond’s amendment 3941….and as I write this, Bond’s amendment 3941 passes by voice vote. It sets out the FISC standard of review and time limits for telecom objections to acquisition directives. I’m not quite sure what the content of this amendment was beyond that, but given it was offered by Bond & Rockefeller, you can safely guess that it doesn’t enhance oversight or curtail executive powers. [Small Update: Bond 3941 changes a review period from 30 to 90 days.]

Update II:

So far, in three roll call votes on FISA amendments agreed to late last week to set vote totals required for passage, each amendment to improve the underlying SSCI bill has failed. The Democratic caucus has not held in these votes (the Cardin amendment was best, but lacked Senator Clinton’s presence and fell 11 votes short of passing). What we saw today is most likely to be what we will see on other amendments that require 50 votes, with 40 votes being unlikely in most instances.

I’m sad to say that the way things are heading, we will be left with a very bad SSCI bill being voted on this coming Tuesday, as the amendment process will not achieve any notable improvements as things are proceeding now. In some regards, we just don’t have the Democratic votes to pass amendments needed to improve the underlying bill. But that’s a small-bore concern here – part of the problem, but in no way an adequate explanation in whole.

The blame must lie at the feet of Senator Harry Reid for failing to negotiate achievable vote standards on the amendments that he might be able to hold the caucus together for, for failing to hold the caucus together on votes like tonight that only required a majority to pass, and, most of all, for bringing the SSCI bill as the underlying bill and not the better alternatives from the Judiciary Committee and the House.

Update III:

The Senate will continue debating FISA amendments on Friday and Monday. All remaining amendments will be voted on this coming Tuesday. After the amendments are voted on, there will be a cloture vote, followed by a vote on final passage.

As we have a couple days before the next votes, now’s a great time to hit your Senators with emails asking them to support the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the underlying SSCI bill. Take action through CREDO’s email tool now and make sure the Senate hears us in the final days of this debate.

Update IV:

The roll call for Feingold 3915 is up; the final tally was 40-56. Voting “no,” with the GOP, were Democrats Bayh, Carper, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, and Pryor. Joe Lieberman also voted with the GOP. Senators Clinton, Obama, Ben Nelson, and McCain did not vote. McCain was in DC for CPAC today, so I’m not sure what his excuse for not voting is.

Update V:

The roll call for Feigold 3913, on reverse targeting, is up. The amendment failed 38-57. Voting “no” with the Republicans were Democrats Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Salazar. Once again, Joe Lieberman voted with the GOP. Absent from the vote were Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain, Ben Nelson, and Dorgan. Senator Clinton has missed all three roll call votes on FISA amendments thus far, while Senator Obama has missed two out of the three votes.