Eric, do you know where to find information on Obama's voting record?  Has his record been examined and could RK post it if there is any interest?
Thanks.

is a great source.  

On the Dodd Amendment to strip telecom immunity, Obama voted yes, Webb voted no, and Clinton was absent.

On the overall bill with telecom immunity (which retroactively makes legal all of Bush's secret Fourth Amendment violations and illegal warrantless searches), Webb voted yes (which is why I'm so critical of him), and Obama and Clinton didn't vote.

In Obama's partial defense, by the time of the final vote on the bill, the handwriting was on the wall.

The vote on the Dodd Amendment was 67-31 (All 31 were Democrats but 17 Dems, including Webb, voted the wrong way.)  The vote on final passage was 68-29 because Obama didn't vote (and it looks like one other Senator switched but I haven't taken the time to figure out which one).

On the Dodd Amendment, every Republican and Lieberman voted for telecom immunity (except Graham who was not present (49 total).  Every Democrat voted to strip telecom immunity (31 total), except these 18 (Clinton was not present) who voted to legalize Bush's illegal wiretaps through the use of telecom immunity:

Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA)

When it came time to vote for cloture to end Dodd's filibuster.  the same coalition of Republicans, Lieberman, and 18 Democrats voted for cloture. Two more Democrats (Baucus of MT and Whitehouse of RI) switched and joined them.  Obama voted with the 29 Democrats against cloture.  (69-29)

Then it came time for a vote.  The vote for the bill was the same as the vote for cloture, except by then Obama had left. (68-28).  By then, I think it's fair to say Obama couldn't have affected the bill's chances.  (And to be fair to her, neither could Clinton.)

He had some good amendments.  They got voted down.

He opposed the principle of the core bill, but voted for it.

He wrote a letter to the House to ask them not to support it.

This is an issue of principle - the principle is called the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

This just feels like the last straw!  I'm sick and tired of hearing about congressional Democrats being sooo sorry that they couldn't vote with their hearts.  

Enough is enough.  The reasons given are always the same LOSER reasons and this isn't a fight we can lose.  This is our generation's turn to protect the Constitution, and it's one of the primary reasons we fought so hard to get Webb elected.

The main question is whether Webb will vote to sustain the filibuster when this thing comes back from commiittee.

Only when Webb is on the record supporting a filibuster should we give his office a moment's peace.  Until then, it's time to set fire to the battlements and call, call, call!  

1. NO
2. YES*
3. YES
4. NO
5. NO

* if the applicable laws did not explicitly require the disclosure and the  disclosure violated civil rights or other laws or common law privacy rights

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

n/t

Why a lot of people are mad about this bill (I am too, though for different reasons).  My key difference with most people is the telecom company thing.

The telecom companies who provided personal information were acting in good faith.  They received official-looking NSL (National Security Letters) directing them to disclose this information in accordance with some nebulous sections of the Patriot Act, and they complied based on the assumption that the Government's request made in good faith, that it was legal, that it was information they would be able to get with a warrant anyway, and that it was necessary.

It was the Government that acted in bad faith.  And I believe the Government should be held accountable for it.  But saying it's the telecommunication's industry's fault instead of the fault of the responsible Government agents and agencies (a) is passing the buck and (b) doesn't ensure that those agents and agencies won't try to find some other way to circumvent your civil rights in the future.

So I don't object to that specific part of the bill. It's kind of large swathes of the rest of the bill I hate....

The telecom companies who provided personal information were acting in good faith.  They received official-looking NSL (National Security Letters) directing them to disclose this information in accordance with some nebulous sections of the Patriot Act, and they complied based on the assumption that the Government's request made in good faith, that it was legal, that it was information they would be able to get with a warrant anyway, and that it was necessary.

First, you have no idea how it went down.  Why?  Because the Admin and telecoms have been stonewalling every attempt to find out.  

Second, it's ludicrous to imply that telecoms were easily turned away from a mountain of tradition and law by some "official-looking NSL".  I can't overemphasize the quality of the lawyers they have working on their behalf.  They knew exactly what they were getting into (whatever it was).

Third, this bill immunizes conduct that violated at least four Federal statues, all of which the telecoms had been operating under for years.  This is not some situation where the Feds just persuaded the telephone man to overcome his own sense of decency and give them a quick peek.

about who's been acting in "bad faith" here. The #1 "bad faith" actor is obviously the government, currently under the (mis)management of Worst President Ever.

...I don't trust the bit telcoms as far as I can throw them.

The "telecom immunity" provision has little or nothing to do with the telecommunications companies.  The Dems offered the telecoms indemnification, meaning if they violated the Fourth Amendment in good faith, the Government would have to pay.

Bush said no.  He wouldn't indemnify the telecoms, because Bush doesn't care about the telecoms.  He cares about being caught doing impeachable offenses.

You're right. It WAS the government acting in bad faith.  But because of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity," you can't sue the Governmeent.  The ONLY way to find out what's going on is to sue the telecommunications companies.

Get it now?  I'm going to talk about it on the air at 5 pm.  If you want to hear how these suits work -- or call in to challenge me or ask a question -- go to RadioInsideScoop.com.

I mentioned this the other day, but it's worth saying again.  By letting the companies off the hook we set a precedent that allows them to merely do whatever the Government asks without feeling any need to fight back.  The companies have no incentive to fight back or resist.

While it might not be fair to these companies (given their actions followed the 9/11 attacks), by allowing any company to be held accountable for giving away private information we are giving every company an incentive to say "no".  They will fight much harder if they know it'll hurt them (as well as hurting the Constitution).

There are already good faith immunity provisions written into FISA that prevent them from being liable if they, indeed, acted in good faith from a warrant or the appropriate certification from certain officials.

If they obeyed the law, they cannot be found liable.

But it's fairly clear, that, instead, what they did is break the law because the Bush administration asked them to. The law is supposed to trump -- the President is not, in fact, the king.

The only way FISA works is by assessing penalties to BOTH the telecoms AND the executive branch officials that break the law. The only way we're ever going to find out what happened, however, is if these lawsuits proceed.

It's a coverup of massive proportions.

and said so and declined to participate, unlike the other telcos. NSA then dropped a $100 million gov't contract with Qwest and the CEO found himself being investigated for insider trading.

And bear in mind this all started in FEB 2001, which was way before Sept 11th 2001, the whole reason Bush said he needed this warrantless wiretapping was because of 9/11. So, I don't buy the argument any of them were acting in good faith. They didn't just receive NSLs, they were approached by the NSA in a meeting.

Quote from the Washington Post:
"Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts."

...was posted recently at:
http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

"Congressman Reyes writes to President Bush.

Washington, DC - Congressman Silvestre Reyes, D-TX, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sent the following letter to President George W. Bush today regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The text of the letter is below:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year - until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations - including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes

Member of Congress

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence"