Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476

I snipped off due to the large suze. Please read the full at the url

Dave
________________________________________
From: Robert J. Berger [rberger () ibd com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:00 AM
To: Dewayne Hendricks; David Farber
Subject: Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate

[Senate speeches seem to be from another century from before the short
attention span became common. This is really long. But its really good
- Rob]

Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate

June 24, 2008

Remarks as Prepared - Mr. President: I rise—once again—to voice my
strong opposition to the misguided FISA legislation before us today.
I have strong reservations about the so-called improvements made to
Title I.  But more than that, this legislation includes provisions
which would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies
that apparently have violated the privacy and the trust of millions of
Americans by participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping
program.  If we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a
domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much
unaccountable power in the president’s hands and will place the
telecommunications companies above the law.

I am here today to implore my colleagues to vote against cloture in
the morning.

And let me make clear, at the outset of this debate, that this is not
about domestic surveillance itself.  We all recognize the importance
of domestic surveillance – in an age of unprecedented threats.  This
is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance.

And that difference—the difference between surveillance that is
lawful, warranted and that which is not—is everything.

Mr. President, I had hoped I would not have to return to this floor
again under these circumstances – hoped that in these negotiations we
would have been able to turn aside retroactive immunity on the grounds
that it is bad policy and sets a terrible precedent.

As all of my colleagues know, I have long fought against retroactive
immunity, because I believe, quite simply, it is an abandonment of the
rule of law.  I’ve fought this with everything I had in me—and I
haven’t waged this fight alone.

In December, I opposed retroactive immunity on the Senate floor.  I
spent ten hours on this floor then.  In January and February, I came
to the floor time and time again to discuss the dangers of granting
retroactive immunity.  Along with my colleague and friend Russ
Feingold, who has shown remarkable leadership on this issue, I offered
an amendment that would have stripped retroactive immunity from the
Senate bill.  Unfortunately, our amendment failed and to my extreme
disappointment, the Senate adopted the underlying bill.

Since passage of the Senate bill, there has been extensive
negotiations on how to move forward.  Today, we are being asked to
pass the so-called compromise that was reached by some of our
colleagues and approved by the House of Representatives.

I am here today to say that I will not and cannot support this
legislation.  It goes against everything I have stood for – everything
this body ought to stand for.

There is no question some improvements have been made over the
previous versions of this bill. Title I, which regulates the ability
of the government to conduct electronic surveillance, has indeed been
improved.  Albeit modestly.  In fact, it is my hope that a new
Congress and a new President will work together to fix the problems
with Title I should the Senate adopt this new legislation.

But in no way is this compromise acceptable, Mr. President.  This
legislation before us purports to give the courts more of a role in
determining the legality of the telecommunications companies actions.
But in my view the Title II provisions do little more than ensure
without a doubt that the telecommunications companies will be granted
retroactive immunity.

Allow me to quote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the
matter.  It reads:

Beginning soon after September 11, 2001, the Executive branch provided
written requests or directives to U.S. electronic communication
service providers to obtain their assistance with communications
intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.

… The letters were provided to electronic communication service
providers at regular intervals. All of the letters stated that the
activities had been authorized by the President. All of the letters
also stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by
the Attorney General, except for one letter that covered a period of
less than sixty days. That letter, which like all the others stated
that the activities had been authorized by the President, stated that
the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the
President.

Under the legislation before us, the district court would simply
decide whether or not the telecommunication companies received
documentation stating that the President authorized the program and
that there had been some sort of determination that it was legal.


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com