With 100 votes cast (a nice round number), our unscientific RK poll on Sen. Webb's FISA vote indicates that only 10% of the RK community completely agrees with him on this issue. Another 25% have mixed feelings or aren't sure what to think. The remaining 65% -- a clear majority, obviously -- says that Webb's FISA vote was "wrong & goes against everything he stands for."
Again, this is completely unscientific, just a snapshot of what the RK community appears to be thinking right now. It also appears to be what the Daily Kos community is thinking as well, except there it's probably 95% instead of 65% who believe the vote was wrong. Thoughts?
I agree with Webb 95% of the time. Good enough for me to continue supporting him - but yeah this vote was mind boggling.
I'm not happy with this FISA vote, but I'm not furious at Webb.
The issue to me is whether he should have stood his ground based on principle. I'd like to see a good/real explanation as well, which I'm sure will be logical, but ultimately it looks like he caved for practical reasons. Which, to me, does not trump principle in this case.
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroo...
The gist of it, is that he, Senator Feingold & Tester tried to amend it but couldn't, and then he sent a letter to the House-Senate Conferees to keep the House provisions.
Quote from Webb:
"Our current FISA bill expires in two days. As someone who has decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence, I believed it was necessary to implement a surveillance program that provides professionals an updated set of tools to properly respond to terrorist threats. However, I plan to urge my colleagues who sit on the Senate-House conference committee to adopt House provisions that better protect Americans from Executive branch overreach."
Simply stated, he felt that some kind of authority was necessary rather than letting FISA expire unrenewed. His ammendments to fix the faulty provisions of the bill failed and he has since sent a letter to the Senate-House conference members asking then to adopt the fixes.
There is no justification whatsoever for his August vote for the PAA or his more recent votes. Sen. Webb is simply wrong here. He's not listening to his consituents, to Sen. Feingold, or to himself on the campaign trail in 2006.
In fact, I heard a rumor that they have a special red computer terminal that beeps every time a new post goes up on RK. Has anyone else heard the same thing?
I know FISA is an emotionally charged issue. We knew that there would be upset among many, either way. Webb spent months consulting legal scholars, those in the security community, civil liberty advocates, etc., etc. and decided that we needed a law --if imperfect-- in place. This was not an unprincipled or whimsical vote. It was one that took a lot of thought -- and, as you know, he tried hard to perfect the bill to preserve the privacy of innocent Americans.
Senator Webb's office is well aware that I disagreed with him on the vote. I wrote and told them why, but disappointment that the vote did not go the way I wanted it to does not equate to disappointment in Webb. He's doing what we elected him to do - considering difficult issues thoughtfully, carefully, and after weighing the factors involved - and then making difficult decisions. He's not trying to be popular. He's willing to take the heat for his decisions and will never be a weather vane a la Mitt Romney. The day Jim Webb starts making decisions based on popularity or his fear of the reaction of the netroots is the day I lose respect for him and start questioning his judgment.
From his web site:
"I similarly reject full immunity and prefer a middle-ground solution that would allow court cases to proceed under appropriate circumstances.
Again, I request that conferees adopt provisions in the conference report that more closely track the House-passed FISA bill, or that conferees craft compromise provisions that exceed the "checks and balances" protections and immunity provisions in the Senate-passed FISA bill."
O.K. So it sounds like Senator Webb rejects "full immunity" for the telecoms but voted against the Dodd Amendment because, unlike Senator Dodd, Senator Webb WOULD grant immunity to the telecoms in "appropriate circumstances." Also, in his letter to the conferees, he urges the adoption of provisions that "more closely track" the House FISA bill.
My questions are:
1. What exactly is the "middle-ground" solution Senator Webb prefers?
2. What are, in Senator Webb's view, the "appropriate circumstances" for granting immunity to telecoms?
3. Why, in Senator Webb's view, is FISA's existing good faith legal defense to liability insufficient?
4. What specific provisions would need to be included in a conference report in order for the report to, in Senator Webb's view, "more closely track" the House FISA bill?
I may have missed them, but I haven't seen the answers to these questions.