Recent Comments

Categories

  • Cartoons
    • Rell and Her Vetoes
    • Moral Compass
    • Gas Prices on the Rise
  • Corporate Watch
    • Big Oil Drank Your Stimulus Check
    • Blumenthal Tells Internet Company to Stop Snooping
    • Public's Right-to-Know Prevails
  • Courts
    • Accused Johns Plead in Prostitution Sting
    • In Foreclosure, Judge's Hands Tied
    • Fighting Foreclosure on Cornwall Street
  • CT Elections 2006
    • Closure on 2006 Democratic Primary
    • Daily Kos Poll Finds Many in CT Would Change Vote
    • Edited: Waxing Nostalgic
  • Election 2008
    • Rosa's 9 Sentences In The Limelight
    • Quick Update From the DNC Floor
    • Local Delegates Take Deep Breath
  • Environment
    • Environmental Groups Mad at Rell's Proposed Changes
    • Wind Turbines Pitched In New Haven
    • DeLauro Sees 'Perfect Storm' on Oil
  • General News
    • Rell Delivers The Check to Common Ground
    • Kirkley-Bey on ending the cycle of violence in Hartford
    • City Youth Strut Their Stuff
  • Health Care
    • Rell Prepared to Ignore Council's Recommendation
    • Decision To Join Charter Oak
      Not Easy For State Hospital
    • Five More Hospitals Enroll In Charter Oak
  • Iraq at Home
    • Five Years of War
    • Hartford Passes Anti-War Resolution...5 Years Too Late?
    • Lindorff Makes a Case for Impeachment
  • Labor
    • Yale-New Haven Hospital Hands Union $2M
    • Fighting to Keep Living Wage Law in Manchester
    • Protesters Dog Hartford Schools Superintendent as Unions Fight Tooth and Nail for Jobs, Benefits
  • Legal
    • "Democracy Victory" At VA
    • Challenging Connecticut's Bail Bond System. Is it Constitutional?
    • News Analysis: FOI Request Reveals How School Officials Came Across the "Douche Bag" Comment
  • Local Politics
    • Clergy and Gov's Office Weigh in on Hartford Violence
    • Hartford Rallies Against Violence
    • Hartford Mayor Writes Governor and Chief Justice
  • Media Matters
    • New Haven Independent Interviewed in New York Times Story
    • Tell Zell Unveils Courant Buyout List
    • Newspaper Reductions Prompt Class Action
  • News Links
    • State Government Home Page
  • State Capitol
    • Heating Assistance Bill Passes in Special Session
    • Lawmakers Still Working Out the Details
    • Special Session Starts with Pomp and Circumstance

Dodd’s FISA Speech from the Senate Floor Tuesday

by CTNewsjunkie Staff | July 8, 2008 10:15 PM
Posted to General News

Christine Stuart file photo

Floor Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd on the Amendment to Strike Retroactive Immunity from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: As Prepared For Delivery

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to strike Title II, which would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies

Mr. President, for many Americans, this issue may seem very difficult to follow - it may seem like just another squabble over corporate lawsuits.

But in reality, it is so much more than that. This is about choosing between the rule of law and the rule of men.

For more than seven years, President Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he neither respects the role of the Congress, nor does he respect the rule of law.

Today, we are considering legislation which will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who are alleged to have handed over to this Administration the personal information of every American—everyone phone call, every email, every fax and every text message. And all without a warrant.

Some may argue that in fact the companies received documentation from the Administration stating that the President authorized the wiretapping program and that therefore it was legal.

These advocates will argue that the mere existence of documentation justifies retroactive immunity— that because a document was received, companies should be retroactively exonerated of all wrong-doing.

But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.

But that logic is deeply flawed Mr. President.

Because the question is not whether companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, were there actions legal? It’s a rather straightforward and surprisingly uncomplicated question. Did the companies break the law?

Either the companies complied with the law as it was at the time, or they didn’t.

Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it.

Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.

If we pass retroactive immunity, none of these questions will ever be answered. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Retroactive immunity will be granted.

So Mr. President, this is about finding out what actually happened between these companies and the Administration.

It is about holding this Administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. It is about reminding this Administration that, “Where law ends, tyranny begins.”

And those aren’t my words, Mr. President - those words were spoken by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Mr. President, it is time to say “no more.”

No more trampling our Constitution.

No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.

No more.

These are our principles.

They have been around at least since the Magna Carta.

They are enduring.

What they are not is temporary. And what we should not do in a time where our country is at risk, is abandon them. That is what is at stake here today. Allowing retroactive immunity to go forward is by its very nature an abandonment of these principles.

Like generations of American leaders before us, we too are confronted with a choice.

Does America stand for all that is still right with our world? Or do we retreat in fear?

Do we stand for justice that secures America? Or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?

Mr. President, whatever our political party—Republican, Democrat—we were all elected to ensure that this nation adheres to the rule of law. That is our must fundamental obligation - not as partisans but as patriots serving their country.

The rule of law is not the provenance of any one political party - but of every American who has been safer because of it.

President Bush is right about one thing: this debate is about security. But not in the way he imagines.

He believes we have to give up our rights to be safe.

I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice.

I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker.

The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was both tragic and stunning.

But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower who served our country both as President and as leader of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War Two, said:

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”

That is why I believe history will judge this President harshly for his disregard for our most cherished principles.

And if we do not change course and stand up for our Constitution, for what is best in America, for what we know is right and just, then history will most certainly decide that that it was those of us in this body who bare equal responsibility for the President’s decisions—for it was us who looked the other way, time and time again.

Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise to it.

Support this amendment.

Stop retroactive immunity.

Stand up for the rule of law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.