In Immunity We Trust

It takes so long to fashion a personally satisfying essay that I've trashed my last ten or so "efforts." While I've maintained a habit of tracking all sorts of outrageous behavior by the Bush administration, the Democratic (certainly not little "d") Congress and private market decision makers, the story never seems to change: the rich get richer and the poor poorer, while taxpayer money is used to socialize the risk of institutions that have (and will continue to) privatize their profit. See here, or the J.P. Morgan and the Fed-supported bailout of Bear Stearns, the Fed's ridiculous TAF facility used to prop up the remaining investment banks, and the more recent UST-supported "backstop" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So, after months of this same old story, there was finally one act that was so disgraceful I simply had to get it down on virtual paper. A few weeks ago, you may have read about Congress passing a "modernization" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In the most profligate act (so far) of this current Congress, the bill included a White House-supported provision that granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted the Bush administration in illegally (though not decreed by a court of law) wiretapping U.S. citizens within the United States. "It could not be clearer that this program broke the law, and this president broke the law," Senator Feingold said. He said the measure makes "some improvements" in the program, "but those changes are not nearly enough to justify supporting the bill." "I do not support a result that says the president of the United States, whoever he is, is above the law," said Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy. "This bill makes the federal courts the handmaiden to a cover-up."
You may have even heard numerous Obamatons (TM*) screeching that their messiah betrayed them by supporting the passage of that bill. But, as usual, that's not the whole story.

In fact, prior to the Senate's vote on the full FISA bill, Senator Christopher Dodd proposed an amendment to the bill that removed only the immunity provision. That amendment was voted down 32-66, with 2 senators not voting. Here's how your senator voted:

YEAs ---32
Akaka (D-HI); Baucus (D-MT); Biden (D-DE); Bingaman (D-NM); Boxer (D-CA); Brown (D-OH); Byrd (D-WV); Cantwell (D-WA); Cardin (D-MD); Casey (D-PA); Clinton (D-NY);
Dodd (D-CT); Dorgan (D-ND); Durbin (D-IL); Feingold (D-WI); Harkin (D-IA); Kerry (D-MA); Klobuchar (D-MN); Lautenberg (D-NJ); Leahy (D-VT); Levin (D-MI); Menendez (D-NJ);
Murray (D-WA); Obama (D-IL); Reed (D-RI); Reid (D-NV); Sanders (I-VT); Schumer (D-NY); Stabenow (D-MI); Tester (D-MT); Whitehouse (D-RI); Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---66
Alexander (R-TN); Allard (R-CO); Barrasso (R-WY); Bayh (D-IN); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Brownback (R-KS); Bunning (R-KY); Burr (R-NC); Carper (D-DE); Chambliss (R-GA); Coburn (R-OK); Cochran (R-MS); Coleman (R-MN); Collins (R-ME); Conrad (D-ND); Corker (R-TN); Cornyn (R-TX); Craig (R-ID); Crapo (R-ID); DeMint (R-SC); Dole (R-NC);
Domenici (R-NM); Ensign (R-NV); Enzi (R-WY); Feinstein (D-CA); Graham (R-SC); Grassley (R-IA); Gregg (R-NH); Hagel (R-NE); Hatch (R-UT); Hutchison (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Inouye (D-HI); Isakson (R-GA); Johnson (D-SD); Kohl (D-WI); Kyl (R-AZ); Landrieu (D-LA); Lieberman (ID-CT); Lincoln (D-AR); Lugar (R-IN); Martinez (R-FL); McCaskill (D-MO);
McConnell (R-KY); Mikulski (D-MD); Murkowski (R-AK); Nelson (D-FL); Nelson (D-NE); Pryor (D-AR); Roberts (R-KS); Rockefeller (D-WV); Salazar (D-CO); Sessions (R-AL); Shelby (R-AL); Smith (R-OR); Snowe (R-ME); Specter (R-PA); Stevens (R-AK); Sununu (R-NH); Thune (R-SD); Vitter (R-LA); Voinovich (R-OH); Warner (R-VA); Webb (D-VA); Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)

In case you missed the point, only 32 of 100 United States Senators voted in favor of allowing court proceedings to continue to determine whether the telcos acted illegally in acquiescing to the Bush administration's request to wiretap domestic communications without a warrant. There was never an argument that the telco's acts (as well as the Bush directive) were legal under the Fourth Amendment or FISA, because those acts clearly were not. As more details on the wiretapping are uncovered, we learn that telcos that refused to indulge the government's illegal demands BEFORE 9/11 were punished through the cancellation of their government contracts and/or the opportunity to bid on future contracts. Instead, the argument (what little there was) was whether the telcos should be granted immunity for breaking the law because the President requested it of them. This proposition was resoundingly answered in the affirmative, albeit by a "nay" vote. Thus, 66 United States Senators implicitly condoned the notion that private actors can violate your constitutional rights with impunity, but without consequence, if instructed to do so by the Executive branch. This votes represents a breathtaking abdication of duty by these Senators to defend the Constitution, and I'm simply flabbergasted that very few citizens have stopped to give it a second thought. Have we as citizens become so lazy and disconnected that we simply don't care about such violations? Has our government become so corrupt that it will allow such violations of its citizenry's basic rights in exchange for a "practical solution" propounded over countless campaign donation dinners?

Interestingly, of the few names I bolded above, there were some surprises. Evan Bayh and Jim Webb, both potential Obama VP candidates, voted with Bush, on baseless grounds. Claire McCaskill, a long-time member of Obama's national campaign team, toed the Bush line as well. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, while both Republicans, were, in my mind, honorable, law and order gentleman. Apparently that's not the case when it comes to telco immunity. And McCain as absent, give me a break, are you planning more vacation than Bush as President or just joining him in a nonchalant trampling of my civil liberties?

Following up on this most traitorous of acts, the Senate met last Saturday to push through housing reform legislation. While the waterfront has generally been covered on this legislation, there are a few exceptions. How about most private merchants being required to report details of each electronic transaction they process to the federal government? Surely you heard about that? Even better, imagine a simple amendment offered by Senator Demint that would prevent the employees of the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from making political contributions when the funds to pay their salaries may come from government bailout funds? Should such an amendment be allowed to be offered and debated? The answer according to Senator Harry Reid: apparently not.

I'm beginning to think that the next administration, which, along with the congress, I believe is likely to be Democrat-controlled, may be practically no different than the six years of Bush/Republican control from the 2000-2006 election cycles. Continued protection of deviant insiders and a continuing move away from the interests and rights of the average American seems to be the course shaping up for the resurgent Democrats. With homogeneous behavior such as this, why should parties matter any longer? Is the only current goal of our elected representatives simply to be re-elected? If so, why should we oblige when the results, from both sides of the aisle, appear to be equally detrimental to the interests of the country's citizens? Am I disgusted? Indeed.