FISA Debate in the Senate: Senator Chris Dodd's Remarks

Senator Chris Dodd(D-CT), along with Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) have all announced that they will filibuster the FISA legislation before the Senate, which passed the House last week with retroactive telecom immunity.

Here is an excerpt of Senator Dodd's remarks from tonight. In the speech, Dodd not only expresses his opposition to retroactive immunity for telecoms, but he also skewers the Bush Administration for its long train of abuses and usurpations(to borrow from the Declaration of Independence).

And let me make clear, at the outset of this debate, that this is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize the importance of domestic surveillance – in an age of unprecedented threats. This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance.

And that difference—the difference between surveillance that is lawful, warranted and that which is not—is everything.

Mr. President, I had hoped I would not have to return to this floor again under these circumstances – hoped that in these negotiations we would have been able to turn aside retroactive immunity on the grounds that it is bad policy and sets a terrible precedent.

As all of my colleagues know, I have long fought against retroactive immunity, because I believe, quite simply, it is an abandonment of the rule of law.

[...]

Opponents of immunity, including myself, have stated that we would support a reasonable alternative to blanket retroactive immunity.

No one seriously wants to financially cripple our telecommunications industry. The point is to bring checks and balances back to domestic spying. Setting that precedent would hardly require a crippling judgment.

It’s much more troubling, though, that our Director of National Intelligence even bothers to speak to “liability protection for private sector entities.”

This isn’t the Secretary of Commerce we’re talking about, but the head of our nation’s intelligence efforts.

For that matter, how does that even begin to be relevant to letting this case go forward? Since when did we throw entire suits out because the defendant stood to lose too much?

It astounds me that some can speak in the same breath about national security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the Republic!

And so, at the rock-bottom of its justifications, the telecoms’ advocates are essentially arguing that immunity can be bought.

Give the whole speech a read, it's worth it. And thanks to Senator Dodd for standing up for the Constitution and rule of law. He's been a consistent and strong voice on this issue.