I find this a fascinating example of the netroots taking action (especially in light of the current poll on this site). The name of the group is:
Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right
GROUP PROFILE
Senator Obama - we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!
(Be sure to set your "subscription" to no emails or a daily digest so you are not inundated with email from joining this group.)
UPDATE: One of the founders of this group, Mike Stark, gives some background on this "uprising" (to use David Sirota's term), and where it might lead in the future, here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
The passage this week by the House of a new FISA bill that included unprecedented retroactive immunity for telecom companies that essentially broke the law really bothered me. So noting that the bill was about to be picked up by the Senate for debate this week, I contacted Senator Durbin and Obama's offices and voiced my concern. I requested they oppose this legislation and, at the very least, strip retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
Below the fold are the lengthy responses from both Senators...
UPDATE 6-25-08 Durbin was one of 15 who voted against cloture on the FISA bill. Obama did not vote (same as McCain).
This vote has done more to shake out our representatives' true colors than any other for a long time. There are for me three Illinois surprises and one Indiana. Gutierrez, Costello and Johnson and Hill.
Costello and Hill are less surprises because they are less predictable. I am very pleased by their votes and I will likely be more forgiving of them in the future.
Gutierrez is also somewhat less of a surprise. He has a long reputation in activist circles of being an opportunist and a Daleyist. It's sad because he is so often good on so many other issues.
Lipinski is consistent. He once again reminds us of why we need to dump him.
Donnelly continues to disappoint. I'm sorry we gave as much support as we did here.
Emanuel lives up to his reputation of being essentially an authoritarian.
I'm glad to see Hare with us. He has not been as consistent a progressive as was Lane Evans, so it's nice to have him with us on such an important vote.
Bravo Bill Foster. I like him more and more. I really think our early netroots relationship opened his mind to critical issues like this. I'm not saying that we swayed or convinced him of anything, but our simple presence and early engagement has gone a long way in grounding his politics.
Now we come to the two biggies. Bean and Johnson. I will simply say that if we could find a red-dog Republican similar to Johnson that would be there for us for these votes that I would be ready to even support a Green or other "spoiler" against Bean. We are likely no longer going to need her vote for committees, so 2010 will be time to dump Bean assuming we can find a half-way decent red-dog, Obama-dog Republican.
H R 6304 YEA-AND-NAY 20-Jun-2008 12:48 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: FISA Amendments Act of 2008
Back in August, Peter Roskam issued a statement about his joy over the new FISA bill and the removal of those pesky court warrants that got in the way of governmental eavesdropping. Here's a taste:
"After months of Republican pressure, the House finally closed a dangerous loophole and updated FISA to properly guard our nation against terrorist attacks, sending the bill to the President's desk for his signature. [...]
"Current FISA law did not allow the United States Intelligence Community to effectively protect our nation. Existing law required a FISA warrant to intercept international communications transmitted over a wire, hampering our ability to monitor foreign-to-foreign terrorist threats in a time sensitive matter.
"During a time of heightened threats from global terrorism it is essential we use every tool constitutionally possible to thwart possible terrorist threats.
Warrantless wiretapping. Sounds Constitutional to me. Well now Bush wants amnesty for any telecoms that happened to go along with this previous illegal activity.
Problem is, the America people - including liberals, moderates and conservatives - don't like the idea of amnesty for those who break the law.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
By now we all know that Dan Lipinski abdicated his responsibility to protect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 4th amendment. The Orwellian "Protect America Act" was nothing more than a naked power grab by the Bush executive to avoid the protections afforded U.S. citizens by the fourth amendment.
The so-called "Protect America Act of 2007," which we are calling the "Police America Act," allows for massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts. It contains virtually no protections for the U.S. end of the phone call or email, leaving decisions about the collection, mining and use of Americans' private communications up to this administration.
On Aug. 5, before he left Washington D.C. for vacation, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski gave President Bush and former - Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez permission to run the domestic wiretapping program without judicial oversight.
A Congressman who is aware of the troubles befalling our nation should know by now that this Administration won't just let the wiretapping program gather dust. We can be sure that sometime during the next six months, President Bush will exercise the power given to him by Congress.
It is shocking to see such blind trust from "Democrats" like Lipinski who willy-nilly throw away Congress' own power in deference to a President who has routinely demonstrated to the American people and to Congress that he cannot be trusted.
In my experience as Assistant Cook County State's Attorney, I requested wiretaps and I respected the protocol involved in the process, of going to a judge and having a third party sign off on the request. It never impeded my ability to do my job.
It is particularly troubling that Lipinski again capitulated to Bush's and other Republicans' blatant use of concerns about terrorism in presenting the proposal. By bucking the Democratic Party and voting with the Republicans, Lipinski has again withered in the face of fear mongering.
This whole issue brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin once said, "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
What makes Lipinski's vote that much more egregious is it granted expanded powers to the former Attorney General, someone who has lost credibility with even the staunchest Republicans. The Gonzalez resignation is another reminder that we, the critics of this Administration's rampant disregard for our Constitutional system, must remain vigilant against a "unitary executive."
While the Bush Administration and Lipinski claim a high regard for democracy and the rule of law, their actions demonstrate a deep-seated contempt for both. Congressman Lipinski took an oath to uphold the Constitution but by repeatedly voting in lockstep with the Bush Administration and shirking his responsibility to check presidential power, he has violated that oath and our trust.
A Congressman that understands his responsibility to the American public would do well to remember that two years ago, Americans voted for meaningful, purposeful change. As this FISA vote demonstrates, that demand has fallen upon deaf ears in the 3rd District of Illinois.
It's time to stand up to the President and say 'No more!' Dan Lipinski won't do anything about this Administration; it is time to send someone to Congress who will.
The Harris Interactive telephone survey of 1,045 adults taken February 3-6 found that 77 percent have reservations about the fundamental issues raised by the eavesdropping controversy, the ABA said in releasing the survey.
Of that group, 52 percent agreed that a president should never be able to "suspend the constitutional freedoms of people like you." Another 25 percent said constitutional freedoms should never be suspended unless authorized by a court or Congress.
Only 18 percent said a president could lift constitutional guarantees any time if it was necessary to protect the country and another 5 percent said they did not know or declined to answer. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.
Now for some more troublesome and less than reassuring views from the same polling results we have these excerpts and results:
A second question asking what would justify government eavesdropping on personal communications without a search warrant or court order found 45 percent saying such action would never be justified.
A further 48 percent were divided, with 22 percent saying it would be OK based on "an anonymous tip that you may be helping to plan a terrorist attack in the United States" and 21 percent saying it would be justified based on "someone's suspicion that you may be sending money to a terrorist organization."
