Tomorrow (Wednesday) at approximately 11:15 AM EST the Senate will vote on the FISA Bill.  Please call your Senators on this in the morning first thing.

I watched the proceedings for about four and a half hours this afternoon.  It is quite amazing and I have come away from that experience with the feeling that this FISA bill is extremely important—much more important than I originally thought it to be.  I will be very surprised and extremely disappointed if Senator Barack Obama votes for it “as is”.

Following are my impressions and understanding.  Take what you can use and disregard as you wish.  Realize that I’m an ordinary citizen like most of you. My understanding may be less than perfect and I welcome anyone who can make authoritative corrections/additions to please do so.

It appears that there are not one, but two and perhaps three new amendments to this FISA bill that will be voted on tomorrow morning:

This proposes that we strike title TWO from the bill entirely.  (Title two is the part that grants retroactive immunity to the Telecoms.)

This leaves the Title Two (the immunity) portion intact but holds Title Two in limbo for three months.  During those 90 days Congress would have to receive the delivery of a report by the Inspector General's on the president's secret surveillance programs. Immunity would then follow after that point, but the provision might provide an incentive for the administration not to drag its feet in complying with the investigation, [my opinion is that if they at least don’t do this much then they will never get that information from the Bush Administration] and it would give Congress the opportunity to reconsider once it actually knows what behavior it is immunizing.

My impressions of the people and their presentations this afternoon follow:

Patrick Leahy (D) from CT   

Position:  He supports the Dodd Feingold amendment to FISA.   In other words, he wants the telecom immunity struck entirely from the bill.  Leahy didn’t beat around the bush with political niceties.  He said that if we leave the Telecom immunity provision in the bill that this means that we cannot go back and ask:  “Who in the White House ordered this illegal surveillance?  Who went outside the rule of the law?  It is not about Telecom’s guilt.  It is about the civil rights of citizens being violated by the executive branch playing cowboy.  In addition, Leahy pointed out that these citizens would be denied due recourse of the law.  He said it gave the Bush administration the green light to be unaccountable for their behavior in ordering illegal wiretaps of American citizens.

Arlen Specter (R) from Pennsylvania 

Position:  He thinks that while the current FISA bill is better than the last one, that it is still not too late to make the bill better.  He wants to strike the telecom immunity clause.  His reasoning is similar to that of Patrick Leahy (D) who spoke earlier on this in that he believes it denies recourse of citizens who may have already had their Civil rights violated.  Specter further argued that it is not the business of the Senate to act in judgment of the guilt or innocence of whether or not the Telecoms acted in good faith in regard to obeying the administrations requests for unwarranted wire taps and if they grant Telecom immunity, that is in effect what they would be doing and that is outside the business of the legislative branch.

Sheldon Whitehouse (D) from Rhode Island 

He argued against the Telecom immunity clause. He too went into detail explaining that it is not the business of the legislative branch to determine whether the Telecoms acted in good faith because 1) they don’t have the necessary information to make that determination and 2) that is outside the Senate’s responsibility as a legislative branch

Senator Rockefeller (D) from W VA    

I swear if I didn’t know better, I would say that he was a Republican and Arlen Specter was the Democrat based on the behavior of these two men today.  Rockefeller was arrogant, snobbish, and dismissive.  He left the impression of being above it all.  Rockefeller wants the FISA bill passed as is.  There was just something about his hurry up and get it done attitude that I found very abrasive and rude.   He wanted the bill passed now as is that is that.  “Because I say so”—was about the gist of presentation.  I didn’t have an opinion of him until today and now I don’t like him—and not because he represents a viewpoint different from mine, but more from his demeanor.  (And I ask:  What the H. is a Rockefeller doing as a Senator from West Virginia?  Is he another carpetbagger?  Isn’t New York the home state for the Rockefellers? In fact, what the H kind of a joke is it anyway that a Rockefeller is a Democrat?)

Tom Carper (D) from Delaware

He wants to pass FISA now “as is” with no changes.  His demeanor was not as bad as that of Rockefeller, but his reasons remind me a lot of the ones that the Bush Administration gives for Iraq.  “No we don’t want to talk about what we did wrong, we just want to forget that and move forward.  He said it is not a fair bill but that it is OK moving forward.  In other words, if we can just forget about those citizens whose civil liberties may have been disregarded by the Bush administration not following the law, then everything will be OK.  Not a convincing argument for me.

Carl Levin D from Michigan  

He is against passing with the telecom immunity portion intact.  He expressed sympathy for innocent Americans who had privacy rights violated at behest of administration who places itself above the law.  He is against the dismissal of civil.  Levin was more harsh in his comments against the current administration that the previous Senators.  He stated that judicial review is unsatisfactory in the bill and that it is in fact a sham review.  Of course they will claim their actions are legal is what he said..  A congressional grant of immunity is not fair.  This leaves innocent Americans without any legal remedy.  Hard to understand how Attorney General can declare that his is fair.  This sets precedence that our laws will be less of a deterrent.  Retroactive immunity is not necessary under title one of this bill.   We don’t need title II.  Telecoms have respective immunity in a manner authorized by bill and in fact they can be compelled by the bill.  What they will not do is unlawful intelligence efforts.  Bingaman doesn’t affect Title One.  Allows title one to go in without

Saxby Chambliss R Georgia 

Of course he wanted pass FISA as is with no change

Reid Democrat Senate Majority Leader
I was impressed with him.  He said that he will vote no on FISA. He openly criticized the White House by saying that they refused to come to table to deal with this .  Reid argued that America is strengthened by reverence for our Constitution and our law.  He even went so far as to say that Bush will be remember for his disregard of the Constitution and his abuse of power.

His speech was wonderful intelligent and passionate.  He was absolutely great.

He began by graciously thanking Reid and his leadership.  For Dodd, what is at stake tomorrow is where the rule of law or rule of men prevails.  He was extremely critical of the Bush Administration.  He really went after them and he made a lot of good points that other senators had not made. One of them was that there were telecoms who stood up to the Bush Administration and told them no that they would not surveil without a warrant. [He didn’t say this but I know from research related to my real work that one of the companies who stood up to Bush and said no was Qwest.  As a result they lost a multimillion dollar contract AND coincidentally, their former CEO is in jail now.]

-since 1978 we have had a FISA court.  Why did not these companies go before that court to determine if the warrant was justified?

- Dodd said that we must have no more trampling on our Constitution and no more excusing those who violate our principle of law.

-Allowing immunity to go forward is an abandonment of our principles of law.   Dodd is a great speaker. 

-He said that the notion that we must give up rights to be secure is wrong.  He said that by defending our  rights and protecting our  rights makes us  tronger.

- You can’t protect America if you don’t protect the Constitution

Rule of law recall what happens when no rule of law.

-We must stand up for our constitution