Amy Klobuchar abandons her principles, votes for FISA bill
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) voted for cloture on the FISA bill yesterday. Now the bill cannot be filibustered and will likely become law. This is the second time that Amy has abandoned the committment she made during her campaign to defend the constitution and our civil rights. The first time was last August when she voted for the first FISA bill (the one that expired in February). So much for standing up for what she claimed to believe in.
I'm sure she will vote against the bill (and issue a press release with strong language about how she opposes it) when it passes, but the real vote was yesterday. She failed us all again.
Here's the technicalities of the vote. Since the 1990s instead of actually filibustering a bill (standing at the podium and speaking for hours if not days on end), a "gentleman's" agreement has been in effect to make the filibuster less painful. All that needs to happen is for one party to threaten a filibuster and a vote of cloture will be required to move on to a vote on the the bill/amendment. This way Senators can return to their posh apartments for dinner and a good night's rest.
Harry Reid, the spineless Senate Majority Leader, has allowed this mere threat of a filibuster to stop hundreds of bills, amendments and non-binding resolutions since the Democrats took control of the Senate in January of 2007. He has allowed the Republicans to block anything and everything the Democrats have wanted to accomplish.
Implications of Sen. Klobuchar's vote for cloture
By voting for cloture, it is likely that the Senate will vote to pass the FISA bill and President Bush will sign it into law. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) will be unable to filibuster this bill as debate is limited to 30 hours before the vote occurs.
Here are the implications of her vote:
- Amy Klobuchar thinks that the Bush Administration should be allowed to read our emails and listen to our phone calls.
- Amy Klobuchar thinks that it should be made retroactively legal for the Bush Administration to have been reading our emails and listening to our phone calls since spring of 2001.
- Amy Klobuchar thinks that the telecoms should be granted retroactive immunity for aiding the Bush Administration by providing your emails and phone conversations.
- Amy Klobuchar thinks that this illegal behavior should not be investigated. This bill will halt all lawsuits against the telecoms for their aiding and abetting of the Bush Administration's crimes.
- Amy Klobuchar thinks that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution (right to privacy) is less important than the Bush Administration's sweeping counter-terrorism dragnet.
I have contacted Sen. Klobuchar's office, but do not have not been able to get a statement on her position nor her vote. I will post her statement concerning her vote as soon as I get it or find it.
»
- The Big E's blog
- Login to post comments
Stumble It!
Unreal
One would think a former prosecutor would understand the implications of retroactive immunity.
I am deeply disturbed by Senator Klobuchar's vote today.
Role Model Shattered
Like many others, I am disappointed in Amy's vote on the FISA bill. I am still holding out hope that something even bigger is in the works that will help her redeem herself. Maybe by approving this bill, individuals in the telecom industry will agree to testify against Bush and Cheney. However, we need to have the right forum for that to happen. I am trying to maintain hope for justice and positive change. I was hoping that Amy was on our team.
She has got to go!!!!
Hey people, i hope i am not the only one who has taken notice of how bad Amy Klobuchars record is. I guess at this point we could all call her Minnesota's Joe Lieberman. I think we really need to look ahead to the next election that Amy Klobuchar will be running in, and we really need to send her packing. I know thats a long way off, but but to replace an incumbent in her own party is not that easy of a task i would like to imagine. We really need to get some progressive people representing us before it's too late!!!
Not only that, she's edging toward war with Iran too
I am not at all surprised, unfortunately. For reasons I will never understand, Amy Klobuchar was able to get elected as a progressive, although her actual views are not at all progressive.
I learned two days ago that Amy Klobuchar has, along with Norm Coleman, become a co-signer of Senate Resolution 580. That resolution would provide for a complete naval blockade of Iran, which has historically been considered an act of war. In this case, of course, stopping the flow of refined petroleum exactly hits the Iranian justification for nuclear power in the first place.
So what do we gain by war with Iran? We get immediate and worldwide retribution against U.S. interests (in other words, a massive increase in terrorism). We break our already overextended military. We finish the job of bankrupting the country. And we do it by provoking an attack from Iran, or simply providing the context for a false-flag operation which only LOOKS like it came from Iran (see Bay of Tonkin resolution).
If I were Karl Rove, I would understand that war with Iran is the ONLY way that Republicans have a chance of retaining a Republican White House and stemming the flow of blood in the Congress. My friends the mercenaries (Blackwater) and war profiteers (Parsons and Halliburton) get rich and richer. But what in the world does Amy Klobuchar have to gain in all this? I can't believe that she is siding with Jim Ramstad (House Resolution 362) and Norm Coleman (SR 580) to co-sponsor this evil legislation.
So call Amy, and ask her to withdraw her co-sponsorship
Her D.C. phone number is 202-224-3244.
Her Minneapolis number is 612 -727-5220.
Unfortunately not really a shock...
....at all.
As much as I generally admire Sen. Klobuchar her FISA voting record leaves alot to be desired and her quoting of White House talking points about how this will "protect us in the future" is very disconcerting to say the least.
Civil Rights, Law
Who would have thought that a former prosecutor would not have seen what damage retroactive immunity would do to the rule of law?
Who would have thought that a former prosecutor would have allowed a security fear to overwhelm all common sense and civil rights?
I knew Coleman would vote stupid. Had no idea Amy would too.
It'll take a convincing explanation and some exceptional senatorial work during the next couple of years for Sen. Klobuchar to earn back my support.
not all bad
i dont really agree with FISA entirely but some of it is pretty good law, like ensuring that no penalties could be applied retroactively as that is actually a right in the Constitution. (No ex post facto). Also, this blog says that FISA violates the 4th amendment and indicates that the 4th amendments grants a right to privacy. I will mail anyone who can show me the word privacy in the 4th amendment, because it isnt there anywhere. It actually only protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government for the purposes of criminal prosecution. Since FISA mainly intends to protect private companies from civil lawsuits for saving conversations over their satellites. (Telecoms have every right to record these if they so choose, as long as it is not expressly banned in your contract).
WTF?
Your argument is incoherent.
Pretty good law? You must be a Republican.
This new law is all about ex post facto legalization of illegal activity. The Bush Administration has been reading our emails and listening to our phone calls since the spring of 2001. Before 9/11.
You say:
- "Since FISA mainly intends to protect private companies from civil lawsuits for saving conversations over their satellites."
No. The telecom retroactive immunity protects the telecoms from lawsuits for providing the Bush Administration with our emails and phone calls. You are simply misrepresenting the issue.
I'm also glad to know you're a constitutional scholar and know everything about the 4th Amendment. I'll disregard all the other stuff I've read. What's your full name so I can check out all your books on constitutional theory and law from the library? Or maybe I could start reading your blog instead of all those other blogs I've been reading on constitutional law and theory. Mkthxbye.
In the old tradition of
In the old tradition of balance of powers, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that conversation can be 'seized' wiretapping is a form of trespass. The broad reaching provisions of this FISA bill, also are not precise and determinate, but would allow for reverse targeting..
http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/41/case.html#51
[Little Protection Against Reverse Targeting
The bill prohibits intentionally targeting a person outside the U.S. without an individualized court order if “the purpose” is really to target someone reasonably believed to be in the U.S., and it requires the executive branch to establish guidelines or implementing this requirement. But the guidelines are not subject to judicial review, and the bill does not include provisions approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee bill that would require the government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is to acquire the communications of an American. This important “significant purpose” language had the support of 38 Senators when offered on the Senate floor, and was included in the House bill.]