Sens. Feinstein, Clinton, Webb: Exactly whom do you represent?

The passage of the Senate version of the FISA bill today – a bill which includes, amazingly, retroactive immunity from civil damages for repeated felonious violations of the Constitution – is a low point for the “Democratic” Senate of the 110th Congress.

And it leaves me wondering, just like the passage of the odious bankruptcy bill before it: Exactly WHICH constituency of those senators who voted in favor of it was clamoring for its passage?

Which voters flooded those senators’ offices with faxes, letters, phone call and e-mails, all pleading for those senators to please let the poor phone companies off the hook for their wanton and repeated felonies?

Which voters demonstrated in front of the Capitol, demanding that the laws of the land be ignored for the benefit of some of the largest corporations in the country?

Which voters wrote passionately on countless blogs across the country, decrying the devastating effect upholding the law would have on the security of the United States?

Oh, that’s right: NO VOTERS DID THAT.


And why did no voters make those pleas? Simple: Because NO VOTERS BENEFITED from those provisions of the odious FISA bill – no voters, that is, except the shareholders and corporate executives of the telecom companies who were facing huge lawsuits for their lawbreaking.

It is beyond my comprehension how any senators who voted today in favor of the telco immunity provisions of the FISA can dare to claim that they represent the interests of their constituents. The only interests served by the passage of a bill granting immunity from civil damages for felonious violations of citizens’ privacy are those of the corporations, NOT those of the individual citizens who make up any senator’s state.

My own senator, Dianne Feinstein, ought to be ashamed of her vote today – although I know she is not, nor will she ever be.

Jim Webb’s vote is hugely disappointing, and indefensible.

And Hillary Clinton’s absence from the vote leaves me absolutely cold.

There are others, to be sure – and we must never forget who they are.

Because they, evidently, have forgotten who put them into office, and whose interests they are supposed to represent.

Also available in Orange


Skip to comment form

  1. And Bush’s lie about the “need” for the bill is particularly galling:

    It’s particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, without this protection, state secrets could be revealed in connection with those lawsuits — and our ability to protect our people would be weakened.

    Which, of course, is bullshite – ’cause the illegal wiretapping was taking place long before 9/11 – as early as February 2001, seven months before the attacks.

    But did anyone expect any different from him?

    My own senators – that’s another story. Sad.

  2. .Photobucket

    • pico on February 13, 2008 at 9:13 am

    the paranoid slice of America who believes that we’re in a chaotic war, and you give up your freedom in times of chaotic wars.  These people do exist – a substantial chunk of the population, at that.  So these senators are either cutting a nice deal with potential campaign donors, or caving to the ignorance of an ignorant population.  Neither is particularly flattering.

  3. I’ll hold out hopes for better the House.  Not strong hopes, but not gone hopes either.

    I’d like to see Obama start to speak on this.  God knows that McCain will.

    • DWG on February 13, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    They told us to relax about the Protect America Act, with its provisions for legalizing warrantless surveillance and immunity for the telecomms.  It would expire in 6 months and they would have the time to strengthen the bill.  And when it expired they passed it as law for another 6 years.  

    The only state secrets at risk here are the many violations of law by the Bush administration.  

  4. is not set up to be a democracy. If it were, the people would be in charge. It is set up to get politicians of a particular class elected. That’s all. All of their actions are geared toward getting into office, staying in office, and obeying the power elite. To expect anything more than that is to be distracted from the reality of the situation, I think.

    • Bikemom on February 14, 2008 at 4:05 am

    they actually were loyal to those that put them in office

  5. and they’re winning the next election, too…

Comments have been disabled.