Constitutional expert Turley on FISA bill: ‘The fix is in’
The United States Senate is about to vote on a FISA bill that would not only expand the president’s powers of surveillance over American citizens but would also forestall civil suits against the telecoms that illegally participated in past surveillance.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, substituting for Keith Olbermann on Countdown, expressed amazement at the sweeping victory that is being handed to President Bush. “I’m betting that his wildest dreams did not include the prospect that Congress — a Democratic-led Congress — would help him cover up his crimes,” she stated. “That is exactly what the US Senate is poised to do.”
In Senate debate, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) argued strongly against telecom immunity, because it would make it almost impossible to ever find out what really happened and “the American people ought to know who in the White House said, ‘Go break the law.’”
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) noted that, “We’re considering granting immunity when roughly 70 members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the president’s wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we’re being asked to grant immunity for.”
Maddow spoke with Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who explained, “What the Democrats are doing here with the White House is they’re trying to conceal a crime that is hiding in plain view. … Nobody wants to have a confrontation over the fact that the president committed a felony. … That’s a very inconvenient fact right now in Washington.”
“The Democrats have learned well from Bush,” Turley said in amazement. “They’re just going to change the rules. … It’s otherworldly. … I am completely astonished by Senator Obama’s position — and obviously disappointed. All of these senators need to respect us enough not to call it a compromise. It’s a cave-in.”
“It’s like all those stories where someone is assaulted on the street and a hundred witnesses do nothing,” continued Turley. “In this case, the Fourth Amendment is going to be eviscerated tomorrow, and a hundred people are going to watch it happen because it’s just not their problem. … There’s not an ounce of principle, not an ounce of public interest in this legislation.”
Turley added that even though the telecoms could still be prosecuted criminally, it’s unlikely to happen. “The fix is in,” he concluded. “Tomorrow night, there’s going to be a lot of celebrating among telecom lobbyists. … What we will lose tomorrow, it’s something very precious.”
On ThinkProgress - Turley: It’s ‘A Very Inconvenient Fact Right Now’ To Say Bush Committed A Felony With His Wiretapping Program:
Last night on MSNBC’s Coundown, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley noted that just this week, a federal judge rejected President Bush’s claim that his “constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped” the FISA wiretapping law. Judge Vaughn Walker explicitly stated that the President is bound by FISA:
Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.
In other words, when Bush contravened the FISA law by authoring warrantless wiretaps through the National Security Agency, he broke the law. Turley said last night that this is an “inconvenient fact” for many in Congress to admit:
Nobody wants to have a confrontation over the fact that the President committed a felony – not one, but at least 30 times. That’s a very inconvenient fact right now in Washington.
The Senate is voting right now. They will give Bush what he wants. This is a very sad day for this country.

28 Comments
July 9, 2008 at 10:27 am
I feel sick in the stomach.
Question… my cell phone plan expires next month and I’m looking for another cell phone provider… does anyone have any recommendation on a cell phone provider that is NOT Verizon, AT & T or Sprint? I’m fortunate enough to have a land phone provider that is NOT Verizon or any of the others. I’m open to all suggestions.
Thanks.
July 9, 2008 at 10:37 am
Cats,
Qwest was the only company that turned down Bush’s order for surveillance.
RIP 4th Amendment.
July 9, 2008 at 10:51 am
I’m just sick about this.
July 9, 2008 at 10:54 am
And it’s a done deal. With no amendments.
Shit.
July 9, 2008 at 11:02 am
They voted already!? I missed it.
July 9, 2008 at 11:05 am
These are the Democrat Senators that need to be gone — they are traitors:
Bayh
Carper
Conrad
Feinstein
Inouye
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lincoln
McCaskill
Mikulski
Nelson
Nelson
Pryor
Rockefeller
Salazar
Webb
Fuck each and every one of you.
July 9, 2008 at 11:22 am
They’re reading the roll call….
July 9, 2008 at 11:29 am
Obama voted “aye.”
July 9, 2008 at 11:35 am
Apparently they are voting to strip immunity out of the FISA bill…
July 9, 2008 at 11:43 am
No, they’re voting on cloture.
Obama – aye
Clinton – aye
Sorry, I’m doing this from work.
July 9, 2008 at 11:44 am
Oops, Clinton changed her vote to “no.”
July 9, 2008 at 11:47 am
Good for Hillary. Is the voting still happening?
July 9, 2008 at 11:55 am
No idea, Cats. I lost the sound.
July 9, 2008 at 11:58 am
Just got sound back, but I have no idea what they’re voting on now.
July 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm
They are talking about health care it seems. The FISA bill passed 69-28 w/o amendments.
July 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
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)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
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)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Burn in hell.
July 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm
In more “important” news today, Jon Benet Ramsey’s family has been cleared of her murder, by way of DNA.
July 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I still do not understand enough of the legal details of this, never will most probably. ‘ve read the immunity is only valid for civil lawsuits, because you can’t retroactively give immunity from criminal prosecution, but I really do not know.
But I get this strange nauseous feeling, I always get when I’m afraid I made a mistake. I wonder whether I will have to apologize for all my pro-Obama posts one of these days.
July 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Actually, ev, under our constitution, the president can give, what amounts to, “retroactive immunity” by granting a pardon. Gerald Ford gave a blanket pardon to Richard Nixon (who, in violation of the law, refused to admit that he broke the law, so his pardon should not have been valid) for any crimes that “he might have” committed. Bush could, in theory, do the same thing. Obviously if a corporation breaks the law, they don’t put the corporation in jail but someone in the head of the company. So Bush could pardon anyone in any of the telecoms who might have violated the law. The main problem with such a blanket pardon is that it would also cover crimes unrelated to the illegal wiretapping.
July 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm
WAS,
Tiny detail, the Presidential pardon only extends to criminal actions. The immunity provision undercuts civil suits as well. I might add that that particular is actually unconstitutional.
It is up to the courts now and the Supremes are packed.
July 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
They’ve certainly covered all their bases well..
July 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm
You are right, Walt, about the president’s pardon authority extending only to criminal cases. I neglected to specify that in my response to ev’s concern. She thought that a president could not give retroactive immunity for criminal acts, and I said that this is precisely what Ford did for Nixon.
July 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm
And they can do whatever they like with the absolute confidence that nobody is going to do a damn thing about it.
July 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Another big win for the pre-1215 mindset.
Darkness is falling on the American Experiment.
July 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
July 9, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I think I shall start acknowledging Big Brother every time I phone my family overseas.. At least say hi..
July 9, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Cats,
If you are looking for a mobile phone company, try Credo. I will post this on another thread in case you don’t come back and see this. This company looks great! Very politically active and green company. Check it out!
July 9, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I made myself not clear again, Wayne and Walt. A law cannot grant retroactive immunity. A pardon is something entirely different at least in our legal system. A President can pardon someone found guilty of a criminal offense in a court of law. He cannot grant a pardon in civil lawsuits, because this would unduly infringe the rights of the complainant. A criminal is prosecuted by the government as a substitute for the whole society in order to maintain the set of rules which keep that society running. A president can pardon him, which doesn’t mean he takes away the guilty verdict, but just the consequences of the guilty verdict. Insofar criminal prosecution of the phone companies’s executives and specialists actively involved in the wiretapping should still be possible. Btw. given that, the pardon for Nixon was indeed illegal and void.
I am on shaky ground here, because the German legal system is different to yours, most of the fundamental principles are not, but lots of details are. So I may be wrong here, but I think the whole caboodle should be seen to by the courts and will be, I hope. I suspect the immunity part won’t hold water or achieve what Bush and the telecoms had in mind.
The other part of the bill contains some additional restrictions to the original FISA bill, it seems, but some sort of blanket authorization, too. That makes it two sided, but again, I am still on shaky ground. I will do some research on it, but I will never be 100% sure, because I am far from a legal expert. BnF is really qualified to make a statement on this, but I am not.