Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

by Jonathan Singer, Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:01:30 AM EDT

This past Thursday Chris Dodd responded favorably to calls from this site and elsewhere that he put a hold on legislation that would grant telecommunications companies blanket immunity for enabling the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Now Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have joined in the act, releasing conditional statements suggesting that they would support a filibuster of the aforementioned legislation in its current form -- though not seemingly addressing the potential of supporting a filibuster of similar legislation that also contains telecom immunity.

As a result of these not entirely definitive statements from Clinton and Obama, MoveOn.org and a number of other groups are asking their members to call the two Senators -- either to their official Capitol Hill offices or to their presidential campaigns -- asking them to state in no uncertain terms that they would support a filibuster of legislation granting this blanket immunity. In short, a move to shield these corporations from potential liability would (a) end existing litigation, which could be one of the only paths to finding out just what the Bush administration has been doing to spy on Americans and (b) seriously undercut the rule of law by granting ex post facto immunity for potentially illicit activities.

So if you are interested in getting involved by making a quick phone call or two, here are the numbers to call:

Clinton Presidential: (703) 469-2008 Senate: (202) 224-4451
Obama Presidential: (866) 675-2008 Senate: (202) 224-2854

And for more on the effort, check out this good write up over at TPM Election Central.

Update [2007-10-24 13:47:9 by Jonathan Singer]:Greg Sargent has a new statement out of the Obama campaign:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

That sounds just right.

Tags: Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, FISA, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

I don't see how Obama/Clinton are less definitive than Dodd on this.

by dblhelix 2007-10-24 08:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

The difference seems to be as follows: Dodd is saying that he will filibuster any bill that contains telecom immunity. Clinton and Obama appear to be saying that they would filibuster the current bill in its current form, but not necessarily the current bill with slight changes but also still containing telecom immunity.

by Jonathan Singer 2007-10-24 08:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

No, Dodd didn't.

This is what he said yesterday in his FDL chat:

[I]f you're going to break a filibuster then you need to have those 41 votes to do so. And it may come to that, if in fact this legislation, this language in the FISA bill remains.

And that is to strip out this provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it's been rewritten. It that doesn't work here; if this bill leaves the Judiciary with this provision still intact then I'll be filibustering this bill.

by Adam B 2007-10-24 08:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: No, Dodd didn't.

I agree w/ Armando/BDT that efforts should be directed toward members of senate judiciary at this time. I don't see why flooding the presidential lines is constructive -- at this time.

by dblhelix 2007-10-24 08:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

That's because the country has a moral obligation to provided limited immunity for the assistance the telcom executives provided to the FBI and NSA in the 9/11 hunt for Al Qaeda. The books I have read with insider accounts suggest that the executives, who expressed concerns, were assured that their cooperation was legal by the Bush Administration. These executives committed their companies to aiding their country following a major attack on a US city and did so in good faith.

If the country does not honor the assurances these companies were givin regarding 9/11 assistance, then the United States will be hard pressed to ask companies to help in the future.

Now, I am aware of the concerns about immunity being overly broad and unintentionally covering unrelated events, so it is reasonable to be careful with the language of the bill. But, I would be inclined to vote against any Democrat forcing a knee-jerk blanket ban on immunity just to make points with the left blogs to prop up a flagging vanity Presidential campaign.

by hwc 2007-10-24 08:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

Ah, the lefty blogs strike again. Beating up on Democrats who AGREE WITH THEM.

The James Joyce quote about Ireland applies equally to the Democratic Party: "The sow that eats its young"

Maybe the lefty blogs should rally the troops to put pressure on politicians who don't agree with them like, I dunno, Republicans?

by hwc 2007-10-24 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

Aren't all of these candidates in a primary? Shouldn't we pressure them to give us specific answers on issues we care about? Isn't that a good way to figure out what kind of president they will be?

I don't understand why this type of push should be considered off-limits. Dodd took a strong stand on an important issue and the netroots turned up the heat high enough to finally force answers about it from the two supposed front-runners for our party's presidential nomination. And for those who are in the senate, let's see them put their votes where their mouth is.

More of this please.

The Iowa caucuses get closer every day and I hope the netroots continues to work on highlighting the differences (or not) between the candidates. If it takes rallying the troops to demand answers, so be it. The primary process is important.

by clockwerks 2007-10-24 10:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

Shouldn't we pressure them to give us specific answers on issues we care about? Isn't that a good way to figure out what kind of president they will be?

Sure, if you have access to the classified material that would enable you to evaluate the language of the bill instead of just reacting to what amount to sensationalized tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

I've read several of the books dealing with the participation of the telcom and financial companies in the post-9/11 anti-terror fight. The more I have learned about it, the more I realize that we are talking about a very nuanced gray area with no absolute answers. Tough calls, here. Very difficult questions. IMO, the lefty blogs lack the information to reasonably impose simplistic demands. These kinds of calls are why US Senators get paid the big bucks.

by hwc 2007-10-24 10:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

I've read those books too. I understand the case for immunity. But here's the problem.

The threshold issue concerning immunity is that we don't know what we are granting immunity for, and there's good reason to think we'd be giving a free pass for activities that go well beyond "patriotic cooperation after 9/11."

I've been burned before by the mindset that goes "well, the Senators must have secret evidence that I don't, so I have to trust them" - most notably on the war in Iraq. There are a number of liberal Senators I'd give my proxy to on this one, but so far I haven't seen any of them reassuring me that telecom immunity is no big deal. Seems to me the blogs are digging deeper than most of the Senators at this point in time.

by Steve M 2007-10-24 12:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

That article doesn't say that any telcom company accepted the alleged NSA proposal in early 2001. Not to mention that unsubstaniated allegations from an indicted executive looking for a plea deal aren't necessarily definitive pieces of evidence!

This is precisely my point. We have NO IDEA what is specifically being covered by an immunity proposal in a Senate bill. Without that knowledge, it is reckless and irresponsible to reject any and all immunity provisions.

I don't know about you, but if we get information that a terror cell is e-mailing Osama bin Laden, I would like to think that we could ask the telcom industry for help in tracing IP numbers.

I would prefer that my US Senator evaluate the specifics of any immunity proposal, carefully weighting constitutional and national security issues, on a case by case basis -- not commit to a knee-jerk blanket rejection based on a phone campaign from the netroots.

by hwc 2007-10-24 12:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

I would prefer that my US Senator evaluate the specifics of any immunity proposal, carefully weighting constitutional and national security issues, on a case by case basis -- not commit to a knee-jerk blanket rejection based on a phone campaign from the netroots.

Yeah, I would prefer that, too. But I'll decline to join you in this fantasyland where every member of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body makes a careful, thoughtful, conscientious decision on every aspect of every bill, including the telecom immunity issue. As of yesterday, Hillary hadn't even read it.

One of the reasons to raise a shitstorm is so legislators come to realize that hey, I've never heard of this issue but it's apparently a big deal to my supporters, I'm going to take a really close look at it. If you just sit back and say hey, I trust my Senators to parse every word, then you wake up someday saying wow, how did they ever slip THAT into the Patriot Act?

The point of the pledge the netroots are attempt to exact is not that there can never be any telecom immunity, ever. The point is that they don't want to let people hide behind a limited statement like "I won't support the bill in its present form" because then it's like bang, add some meaningless paragraph and "oh, I changed my mind because that new paragraph resolved my issues."

Like yourself, I know a lot about this issue, and I strongly believe there is no factual predicate for any telecom immunity provision right here and right now. After appropriate vetting, I could see it as a reasonable law, but that process simply hasn't taken place and it won't be taking place within the next handful of days. The appropriate approach is not to stick a band-aid on the immunity provision and try to ramrod it through, but to strike the provision entirely and consider it later after exposing it to an appropriate amount of sunlight.

by Steve M 2007-10-24 01:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

i they obama/clinton are wise; the telecoms may have been threatened by bush admin....so it may be that partial amnesty or stiff censure/oversight might be the answer

by pate 2007-10-24 08:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

This is getting ridiculous. 'You do what I tell you word by word.' Pure blackmail. When will those so-called liberal blogs and moveon grow up?
A bunch of typical elitists who have no concern about other urgent needs of ordinary voters.

by areyouready 2007-10-24 08:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

The lefty blogs are to the Democratic Party as the Jesus Freaks are to the Republican Party.

by hwc 2007-10-24 08:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Does that include you?

I see you have no problem using these Jesus Freaks to get your message out. Maybe along with your disclaimer that you support Clinton, you should put that as a disclaimer in your posts here. That you think you are talking to a bunch of lefty Jesus freaks might be of interest to your readers.

by Chris Bowers 2007-10-24 08:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Does that include you?

Like this one your site has been touting?
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=2032

by: Matt Stoller
Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 16:00:14 PM EDT

If any of you out there want to fund something against Hillary Clinton's campaign from the progressive side, I know of a good opportunity. Email me for details if you're interested.
Matt Stoller :: Anti-Clinton Opportunity

The residual troops push has failed miserably, and I guess it's time to shift gear?

by areyouready 2007-10-24 08:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

Jonathan, you shouldn't have put those two numbers up for Obama and Clinton now they might get ambushed by right wing nutters placing all types of crank calls.

by nzubechukwu 2007-10-24 08:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama and Clinton on Telecom Immunity

the numbers are public and on their senate websites

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-24 09:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

I'd support a Bill with telco amnesty IF

it had provisions substantially improving Statutory protections for communications privacy going forward. With the telcos facing billions in statutory damages under the Wiretap Act, there's leverege we won't see for a long time.

At Feingold's listening session 2 weeks ago, I suggested amending the Wiretap Act to cover the location data collected by cell carriers and other wireless providers, so that realtime traces would require warrants, and histories would not be maintained without an opt-in.

The Senator didn't commit, but called the suggestion "interesting," saying he'd need further study.

by benmasel 2007-10-24 10:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'd support a Bill with telco amnesty IF

benmasel:

Thank-you. Your post gets at the complexity of this whole issue and highlights why it doesn't lend itself to blanket "demands" by the blogosphere.

I doubt that 1 in 1000 bloggers making these "demands" even has the most superficial understanding of the complexities of the issues (legal, national security, etc.) behind these FISA bills, telco immunity, and so forth.

At some point, we have to have some belief that our Senators actually do make a good-faith effort to reach reasonable decisions on very, very difficult issues with no cut 'n dried answers.

On a related note: this is the downside of the Bush administration's secrecy, stonewalling, incompetence, and over-reaching claims of executive power. The administration has squandered the confidence of the American people that is essential to effective government.

by hwc 2007-10-24 10:49AM | 0 recs