RK ARCHIVE - UPDATE: Webb Stonewalling on FISA Continues

If you read my diary at Raising Kaine last week, you know I have tried repeatedly to talk to my Senator Jim Webb or his legal staff to get an explanation as to why Webb voted the way he did on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill. And they responded by encouraging Lowell to remove my diary.

Webb had stated he was against giving President Bush amnesty for all of Bush's illegal and unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment in demanding telecommunications companies secretly surveil without a warrant millions of American citizens who had committed no crime.

Webb had also said he wanted "exclusivity," i.e. a requirement that the new surveillance law actually bind the President, as the current FISA law does.

Yet Webb did exactly the opposite. He voted for a bill that pardons the President for his past crimes, hides those crimes so that Americans can never discover them, and makes clear that the President is NOT BOUND BY ANY LAW in this field.
It's pretty gruesome stuff. And I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.

The issues, as always are "exclusivity" and "retroactivity." "Exclusivity" means that the President must act "exclusively within the law." Webb voted for the Feinstein amendment to require exclusivity, but the amendment failed to reach the nearly impossible bar of 60 votes that Majority Leader Harry Reid had set up for any bill other than the President's.

"Retroactivity" retroactively legalizes the illegal spying the President asked telecommunications companies to do. Sometimes called "telecom immunity," the provision doesn't just legalize illegal warrantless spying going forward, it also gives the President amnesty and secrecy for his past acts. Webb voted for one amendment barring retroactivity and against another (the Dodd amendment) stripping the bill of the provision. Both Democratic amendments lost.

The real interesting question -- beyond the scope of this diary -- is why the heck Majority Leader Harry Reid is bending over for the President by including these provisions in the base bill to begin with. After all, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a very good bill that Reid could have made the base bill instead of cowtowing to Bush and Senator Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And why should the DEMOCRATIC Majority Leader require DEMOCRATIC amendments to get 60 votes while what BUSH wants requires only 50 votes? Particularly when Reid claims not to want any of this? Maybe some Nevadan can get Reid to explain HIS cravenness. Or maybe we just need a new Majority Leader.

In any case, the bill Webb voted for would have made clear that THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN SPY ON ANY AMERICAN AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON because it specifically does not require the President to act within the law. Thus, Webb voted for a bill that would not only (illegally) abolish the protections in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that prevent this illegal activity, it would also retroactively legalize the East-German-like police state Bush had already set up, all the while keeping its contours secret from the American People. At the same time, Webb made clear that that he actually DIDN'T want to vote the way he just did and instead supported the House RESTORE Act (This bill, the Responsible Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act, carefully balances civil liberties with the need to protect national security.)

The House last week saved us all when they insisted on rejecting the Senate monstrosity. But the bill will go to conference and come back to Senator Webb, probably in a week or two. This is NOT over.

So I've been pressing Senator Webb for an answer and strugging mightily to get his staff to allow me to talk to his legal staff to get an answer. (They would only put me on the phone with some intern who didn't know much about the bill, and then they excoriated me for going public about my conversation with this "phone answerer" WHILE STILL KEEPING ME FROM SPEAKING WITH THE LEGAL STAFF who presumably would know the answers).

And here was my response (to three working email addresses, namely his scheduler, his press secretary Kimberly Hunter, and the staffer Jessica Smith who did not want me talking to a non-lawyer on his staff and hinted to Lowell that I shouldn't be allowed to blog about my conversations with the Webb non-legal staff.)

I also called the toll-free number. (What the heck? The email tells me to do this if my issue is "time sensitive." And it is!) I asked yet again to speak to a lawyer on Webb's staff regarding the FISA bill. The person who answered the phone said that he just dealt with "constituent services" but promised to pass my message along and asked me my concern.

I told him I wanted to know why Webb voted for a bill that he has stated publicly he strenuously opposes. I said that it makes no sense, but the Senator has yet to explain. I said I had sent several emails, called several times, blogged about it, and done radio and television shows about it but STILL had gotten no answer. And I said it was time sensitive, because the bill will come back to Senator Webb and I wanted a firm commitment from him that he will stand up for what he claims he believes.

I left my phone number and was told someone will call me back. Needless to say, I'm not optimistic.

I will update this diary if and when they give me an answer. If I don't hear in a day or so, I'll start calling again. I urge every Virginian to do the same.

Comments

Gee, maybe they're not responding to you because after reading (Catzmaw - 2/21/2008 8:36:46 PM)

your multiple diaries on this matter it's pretty clear to them that there is no explanation which will suffice to quench your righteous rage. I mean, as far as I can see you're not really adding anything new to what you've already posted in at least three diaries. Honestly, WHAT explanation COULD they give you that you would find satisfactory? Moreover, since you keep approaching this issue in attack mode why would you expect a real answer?

There's a point at which being the gadfly becomes pointless. They know you're mad. They know you don't agree. They know you would not regard any excuse or explanation they can offer as legitimate or justifiable, so they're just battening down the hatches and hoping you blow over.

Lots of luck on your daily phone calls. I certainly know that when someone's calling me to argue about and attack me every single day on one particular issue I rush to the phones to answer those calls. It should be a great success.

Keep on keeping on (IechydDa - 2/21/2008 11:25:12 PM)

The Senator needs to know that voters expect his protection from those who want to usurp constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights. If Sen. Webb can't or won't explain why he acted in apparent contradiction to the interests of his constituents, then that non-response needs to be known by those who elevated him to care for this sacred trust.

He's already replied (Catzmaw - 2/22/2008 4:23:12 AM)

It's just that some people aren't satisfied with his explanation. They keep demanding more detail, more evidence of justification, more elaboration. But since they're dealing from the perspective that a) FISA at the minimum was completely adequate for its purposes; and b) ANY expansion of the capacity of this country's government to conduct surveillance on American citizens constitutes an impermissible abrogation, if not abolition, of the Fourth Amendment, it is impossible for Webb to tell them anything which will make them step back and say that maybe he was right. The whole proposition that if Webb wishes to retain any credibility with people taking this position he must explain himself and engage with them in hours of discussion and meetings, etc., is really a straw man argument. The real point of the demand is to force him, apparently by dint of constant talking at him, to decide he's wrong and change his mind. I'm just saying it's a waste of time.

Two Quick Points (BP - 2/22/2008 10:42:23 AM)

1. He has not replied. His staff has blown a lot of smoke, but has not answered any of the important questions regarding his recent votes and his thoughts and conclusions on FISA-related matters. See: http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

2. You say, "[t]he real point of the demand is to force him, apparently by dint of constant talking at him, to decide he's wrong and change his mind. I'm just saying it's a waste of time."

Yes, you're right. Such nerve we have! Contacting our elected representatives in order to get them to change their minds on public policy matters! What do we think this is? Some sort or representative democracy or something?

Yes, you're right. It's all just a "waste of time."

Hey, nothing's stopping you (Catzmaw - 2/22/2008 2:48:57 PM)

I'm a big believer in communicating with my elected representatives. That's why I e-mailed my own concerns about the legislation to his office. But let's not pretend that constantly calling and writing on the same issue is going to change anything. All it does is net the persistent writer a reputation as somewhat OCD. And as someone who spends much time dealing with people who want to cover the same ground over and over long after an issue has been decided, trust me when I say that it just becomes "that annoying guy bothering me again" versus the question of whether his points have any validity. Sometimes less is more, and if you wish to be effective you won't waste time constantly harping on the same theme. It's better to wait for the time to ripen to reintroduce the subject under other circumstances.

As to the assertion that his staff hasn't answered the question, that's not true. They have answered it. I've posted in one of Mark's other diaries the statement I received from the office which went something to the effect that Senator Webb sought the opinions of everyone from civil rights lawyers to security experts to defense experts to others who had strong objections and made a decision on the basis of what he learned and what he knows from his own extensive background in the military and as part of the Pentagon. He made a call and he's sticking by it. You call it blowing smoke. His staff is calling it his answer.

Good To Hear From You (BP - 2/22/2008 3:42:34 PM)

Once again, the catz have not gotten Catzmaw's tongue!

As Mark points out in his diary, the time to discuss this matter with our elected representatives IS "ripe" because the whole FISA mess is likely to come back from conference fairly soon.

You're right when you say that constituents who become known as "those annoying people who keep sending e-mails" are typically ignored. That's why I've chosen to proceed Martin Luther style and nail my questions to the RK door.

Here, I'll digitally nail them to the door once more:
http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

And, I'll continue to urge all the loyal RK readers in Senator Webb's office to return Mark's phone call and answer his questions. The FISA issues raised by Mark and others are just too important to ignore.

He has not adequately answered his vote on the Dodd Amendment (Ron1 - 2/23/2008 2:29:08 PM)

striking Title II from the FISA Amendments Act, which would have removed retroactive indemnification/amnesty for the telecoms.

He claims he is against immunity. Then he voted against Dodd's amendment, and his staffers explained that his vote against Dodd's amendment was because he didn't want good faith immunity provisions thrown out. Well, those provisions already exist in the base FISA law. So, 1) either the Senator is misinformed about what the FISA Amendments Act entails, 2) he voted against Dodd's amendment for some weird legislative strategy, or 3) he doesn't really want to fight against retroactive immunity.

Despite what you say, there has been no good response by the Senator or his staff to this crucial vote. He wrote after the FISA Amendments Act passed that he hoped the conference committee would come up with a compromise that is closer to the House's version of the bill. But, boy, it's beginning to look like alot of posturing when he votes the other way on key provisions. If he had voted for the Dodd Amendment and for passage of the whole bill, that would be one thing. But that's not what happened here. His vote helped give the clear indication that the Senate will not fight against retroactive immunity, making it much more likely in the end that the Democrats end up capitulating on this issue.

We have a right to expect our Senator to answer clearly and forthrightly on this issue.

Adding carrots to sticks (jsrutstein - 2/22/2008 3:28:02 PM)

I think it's important to remember that Webb stood with Feingold in opposing telecom immunity in December. The real reason he probably voted the other way more recently is because he, like most of us, didn't think the House Dems would find the courage to stand up to Bush's lies about the consequences of letting the law expire. Now that we have this momentous example of calling Bush's bluff and living to tell about it, we should encourage all those who previously wavered, including Webb, to vote the right way henceforth. This isn't to say that attempts to shame him into admitting his mistake ought not to continue, but if he can see that rewards for good future behavior can be had, we can point our servant in the right direction.

Incidentally, if the success Obama's had in talking up his being against the war before it was launched results in his getting the nomination, I think Webb's inconsistent record in standing up to Bush will hurt any chance he had of being Obama's running mate. Perhaps Webb doesn't care about that. Perhaps Webb doesn't care if a majority of his Democratic constituents have a problem with his votes. Perhaps Webb will get lucky and not have to face a serious primary challenge in 2012. Perhaps Webb won't even run for re-election. Perhaps Webb is just SO different from your average politician that he won't care that upon taking office in 2009, the junior Senator from VA, Mark Warner, will instantly be more popular than Webb.

If Webb really turns out to be that deaf to those he serves, then I'll agree with Catzmaw that reaching out to him is a waste of time, even if we were to have something nice to say.

It's still no small consolation we no longer have Allen up there.