Chris Dodd

Today is Warrantless Wiretapping Filibuster Day

Bob Fertik — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:40:19 -0500

Update: Reid put the bill on hold until January. Your calls and emails won the fight for now, but we'll have to gear up for another battle then...

Today is the day Senator Chris Dodd is leading his long-promised filibuster against immunity for the telecomm giants that have illegally wiretapped all of our calls and emails since 2001.

If you like Big Brother (or what Glenn Greenwald calls the Lawless Surveillance State), do nothing.

If you prefer Freedom, visit Dodd's special filibuster site and call, fax, and email your Senators.

Latest news: Dodd to Speak on the Floor at 11 AM

Following Senator Dodd's speech there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Intelligence Committee version of FISA legislation. After that vote Senator Dodd will be holding a press conference to talk about how he will continue to fight against retroactive immunity and stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Please note - this is all going to take place ahead of a filibuster, which is expected to start later today.

Do What Chris Dodd Says

Bob Fertik — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:04:20 -0500

Here's a good email from Matt Browner-Hamlin, Chris Dodd's Campaign Blogger. Let's just do what he says:

1. Watch the video
http://chrisdodd.com/whistleblower

2. Call the Senate Judiciary Committee for free over the Internet, tell them to oppose retroactive immunity, and post the result of your call:
http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

Dear bob,

In spring of 2006 I started seeing people put special notes to government agents in their email signature. The thinking was that if a government official was going to read your email, you might as well put a line in at the end to remind them that they were doing so illegally.

Yesterday afternoon I sat down with AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein. He's the technician who revealed that the NSA has secret rooms for sweeping up massive amounts of electronic communications on the internet - the story that prompted these sardonic email signatures.

Klein is calling on the Senate to not grant telecommunications companies retroactive immunity. He's also testifying to the scale of the Bush Administration's electronic surveillance:

"Everything you could imagine you use the internet for flows through these cables. It's not only international traffic, but a huge amount of domestic traffic too."

Klein is speaking out in defense of the rule of law because he knows how deep the rabbit hole of domestic surveillance really goes.

Watch the video of Klein talking about why he opposes retroactive immunity:

http://chrisdodd.com/whistleblower

Klein is a hero for coming forward to bear witness to this dangerous violation of Americans' privacy...but the best way to honor his courage is to stand with him and with Senator Dodd to ensure that the companies that partnered with the Bush Administration can be held accountable for their actions.

Take action today - Call the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them to oppose retroactive immunity.

http://chrisdodd.com/whistleblower

Chris Dodd Speaks for All Of Us

Bob Fertik — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:59:53 -0400

Finally! After six years of shock and silence, one Senator is finally standing up for the Constitution - and America's real national security. Watch Chris Dodd's historic speech here.

Mr. President, for six years, this President has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn’t respect the role of Congress nor does he respect the rule of law.

Every six years as United States Senators we take the oath office to uphold the Constitution. Our colleagues on the House side take that oath every two years. That is important.

For six years this President has used scare tactics to prevent the Congress from reining in his abuse of authority. A case and point is the current direction this body appears to be headed as we prepare to reform and extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Many of the unprecedented rollbacks to the rule of law by this Administration have been made in the name of national security.

The Bush Administration has relentlessly focused our nation’s resources and manpower on a war of choice in Iraq. That ill conceived war has broken our military, squandered resources and emboldened our enemies.

The President’s wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq and has made our nation less secure and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated in the world.

Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib – where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane and humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them.

Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the nation, the prisons at Guantanamo Bay have instead become the very symbol for our weakened moral standing in the world.

Consider the secret prisons run by the CIA and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture.

Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions – who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than the laws he had sworn to uphold.

And consider, of course, the Military Commissions Act – a law that allows evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence.

It denies individuals the right to counsel.

It denies them the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions.

And it denies them the single most important and effective safeguard of liberty man has known – the right of habeas corpus, permitting prisoners to be brought before a court to determine whether their detainment is lawful.

Warrantless wiretapping, torture – the list goes on.

Each of these policies share two things in common.

First, they have weakened our ability to prosecute the global war on terrorism – if for no other reason than they have made it harder, if not impossible, to build the international support and cooperation we need to fight it.

And second, each has only been possible because Congress has not been able to stop this President’s unprecedented expansion of executive power, although some in this body have tried.

Whether or not these policies were explicitly authorized is beside the point. In every instance, Congress has been unable to hold this Administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. In each instance, Republicans in the Congress have prevented this body from telling this Administration that “a state of war is not a blank check.”

And those aren’t my words, Mr. President – those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who was nominated by Ronald Reagan.

And today, it appears that we are prepared to consider the proposed renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – a law that in whatever form it eventually takes will almost certainly permit the Bush Administration to broadly eavesdrop on American citizens.

Legislation, as currently drafted, that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped this Administration violate the civil liberties of Americans and the law of this country.

Mr. President while it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement on existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.

That is why I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed.

It is time to say “no more.”

No more trampling our Constitution.

No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.

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 do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them.

My father was Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals during 1945 and 1946.

What America accomplished at those historic trials wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It took courage – when Stalin and even a leader as great and noble as Winston Churchill wanted to simply execute the Nazi leaders, we didn’t back down from our belief that these men—as terrible as they were—ought to have a trial.

We did not give in to vengeance.

As then, the issue before us today is the same.

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, I am well aware that this issue is seen as political. I believe that Democrats were elected to strengthen the nation – elected to restore our standing in the world.

I believe we were elected to ensure that this nation adheres to the rule of law and to stop this Administration’s assault on the Constitution.

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

Mr. President, I know this bill hasn’t even been reported out of the Judiciary Committee yet.

But I am here today because if I have learned anything in my 26 years in this body—particularly during the last 7 years—it is that if you wait until the end to voice your concerns, you will have waited too long. That is why I have written to the Majority Leader informing him that I will object to any effort to bring this legislation to the Senate floor for consideration.

I hope that Senator Leahy is able to remove this language – he is a dear friend and I know his respect for the rule of law runs deep.

But if he cannot, I am prepared to filibuster this bill.

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 certain 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 stunning. It changed the world forever.

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.

Mr. President, history will likely judge this President harshly for his war of choice and for fighting it with a disregard for our most cherished principles.

But history is about tomorrow. We must act today to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

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

Moderator Hurls Mostly SPIT Balls In First Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate

thepen — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:13:32 -0400

After listening to the questions asked by Brian Williams in South Carolina at the first debate of announced Democratic presidential contenders, one has to wonder how much worse the moderation would have been if it had been on the Fox Network.

There was hardly an inane smear, knock, superficial or unfair attack made against any of these candidates that Williams did not go OUT of his way to highlight or demand that they defend themselves against. We had the price of haircuts, misquotes about positions on Palestine, ties to Walmart, not to mention an entire segment on Giuliani's despicable "die under Democrats" rhetoric from yesterday, instantly elevated to the status of accepted mainstream gospel and framed as such. If most of the questions had been prefaced with the words "Karl Rove says" their slant could not have been more obvious. Even the questions selected from viewer emails seemed to be selected with that criteria in mind.

When Williams was not doing that he left no stone unturned trying to dredge up a virtual laundry list of every possible divisive wedge issue he could work in, positions on abortion, guns, illegal immigration, and even the confederate flag. The few other actual issues touched on were exploited as an opportunity to hurl other accusations, for example on the health care issue one of stealth tax raising intentions. The energy issue he tried to turn into an Al Gore, how dare you own a light bulb witch hunt, and so on.

And in his grandstand play of the night Williams painted a grim scenario of two American cities wiped out by Al Qaeda and demanded to know how each of these candidates would retaliate. The question itself was custom designed to drive fear into the heart of what deserved to be a thoughtful debate on the issues, and to substitute blind ignorant rage for sound policy. It had to be TWO cities of course because we've ALREADY lost one and a half cities under George Bush. The question begged the answer of what kind of revenge would you take, as if revenge were a policy goal. How fitting from the mouthpiece of a company in the nuclear weapons business.

To their credit each of the candidates demonstrated in turn that they are infinitely more qualified to be president of the United States than Bush ever was, and managed for most part to say what they wanted to say, as opposed to what Williams was trying to bait them into saying. We only wish one of them had called him out directly on the slant of the questions, especially the Giuliani smear.

Williams made one huge mistake, trying to embarrass Kucinich about his Cheney impeachment stance, and Kucinich hit it out of the park with some of the best passion we've heard from him yet. Likewise with Gravel, where Williams practically chortled at the chance to pick a fight on stage between the candidates, but instead gave Gravel his own moment to shine as an uncompromising antiwar choice.

What we NEED to do is take the debates out of the hands of right wing spin kings and get some moderators who aren't so bent on warping the whole affair. It's hard to imagine as long as self-interested corporations are the sponsors. But at least tonight our candidates were able to hold their own.

Christopher Dodd on Withdrawing Troops And Presidential Bid

Bob Geiger — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:59:06 -0500

Connecticut's Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd has come out in favor of beginning an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying that "…the president should announce in January that we will begin withdrawing and redeploying our troops."

In an editorial in the Sunday Des Moines Register -- and clearly laying the groundwork for the Iowa presidential caucuses -- Dodd was very direct from the first sentence of his column.

"The time has come for the United States to begin the process of getting our troops out of Iraq," wrote Dodd, who many think will indeed run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

An excerpt:

"In Baghdad last week, I joined in a conversation with a West Point graduate who is serving in Iraq. He said, 'Senator, it is nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense.'

"After spending six days in the Middle East last week - which included visits with the top leaders in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel - it's hard not to come to the same conclusion: Our strategy in Iraq makes no sense. It never really did. It is as bad in person as it appears on television. There are literally dozens of sects, militias, gangs, warlords, foreign terrorists and others killing one another for dozens of reasons in Iraq today, and American troops are caught in the crossfire.

"Our brave men and women have done everything asked of them with great courage and honor, but searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand. True peace and security in Iraq will not come at the end of an American gun. It will only happen to the degree that Iraq's leaders are willing to take responsibility for governing their own country and securing their own future. America's position should be clear: Iraqis must show they want a country now, or American troops should begin to withdraw."

Dodd has said that he will evaluate in the next month or two whether or not to pursue the presidency, but that the state of the world and the fact that he has young children enters significantly into his choice.

"I've got two very young daughters that I'm going to celebrate Christmas with tomorrow and I want them to grow up in a century in this country that offers as many opportunities as those provided to my generation," said Dodd, when appearing on ABC's This Week on Sunday. "And those are the motivations I'm thinking about and on the basis of that and the other factors as to whether or not I can win this race and attract additional support is something that I'll evaluate over the next couple of weeks."

But he conceded that he has been looking at a presidential run since the summer, including having staff already assembled in early primary states.

"I began the process of looking at it seriously last June," he said. " It's gone well over the summer and fall months. I've been to the critical caucus and primary states, put together a good staff to try to raise the necessary resources."

"I'm very worried, as I think many Americans are, about our conditions at home and abroad and whether or not America is going to be a stable and secure country in the 21st century."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Kill Bill - Neutering Bush's Torture Law

Bob Geiger — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:15:49 -0500

Of the many good things we are beginning to see before the newly-constituted Democratic Congress even assumes power, one of the most gratifying is the move by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to neuter the hideous Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), passed by the Republicans, and signed by George W. Bush in October.

On Friday, Dodd introduced legislation to amend Bush's "torture bill," remove the almost-dictatorial powers it has given the White House and neutralize the bastardizing effect it's had on the United States Constitution.

"I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country," said Dodd, in introducing this important measure. "But in my view, in order to sustain America’s moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law."

The text of the MCA may fill almost 40 pages, but it only takes a few paragraphs of Dodd's 10-page Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act (S.4060) to render its most onerous aspects moot.

I analyzed Dodd's bill over the weekend and am writing this piece to give you the basics of how it fixes the Constitutional ruin imposed by the MCA and puts the power of the executive branch of government back in its rightful place.

This should tell you all you need to know about both the disease and the cure.

Restoring Habeas Corpus Protections

No area of the MCA has drawn more justifiable fire than the section suspending Habeas Corpus -- the rights of people deemed by the White House to be "enemy combatants" to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention.

Section 7 of the MCA says that "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

In other words, don’t bother calling a lawyer, because you have no rights.

The fact that so many of these enemy-combatant determinations rest in the president's hands and the sheer vagueness of the law, combine to create a wide variety of scenarios whereby any American citizen could be arrested and held indefinitely without Constitutional protections.

Scary stuff indeed and, as surgical as the Dodd amendment is in many ways, this area is dealt with via a repeal of that entire section, thus killing this debasement of our Constitution in one fell swoop.

"The Administration-backed law eliminates the principle of Habeas Corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since before the Magna Carta in the 13th century," said Dodd. "Under the writ of Habeas Corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions. My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of military commissions."

And it does it with one short sentence -- "Section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, is repealed," reads Dodd's legislation.

Simple, to the point, and necessary to stopping the Founding Fathers from spinning in their graves.

Narrowing the Definition of 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant'

The MCA defines an unlawful enemy combatant as follows:

"A person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces).

The Dodd bill amends the definition as:

"An individual engaged in hostilities as part of an armed conflict against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.’’

Essentially, this narrows the definition to someone who would traditionally be considered an armed enemy and removes the broad discretion that would allow the government to arbitrarily define any U.S. citizen who they believe "purposefully and materially supported hostilities" against us (or our allies) as the enemy.

Says Senator Dodd: "The Administration’s approach allows the president to remove anyone he so chooses from America’s standard jurisprudence and designate him or her as an 'unlawful enemy combatant.' My legislation allows the designation of 'unlawful enemy combatants' only for those individuals engaged in armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will prove to be the exception rather than the norm."

Prohibiting Use of Information Gained by Torture as Evidence

Dodd's legislation acknowledges that torture has been proven ineffective in extracting intelligence information and points out that America's standard for treatment of prisoners will be the bare minimum used by others against our own troops.

"My bill further promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use of evidence gained by coercion in a trial," said Dodd last week. "Such a provision is critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has been proven ineffective in interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite US actions to justify their own misconduct toward future American POWs."

As it was passed, the MCA says the following regarding torture:

A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--

- the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and

- the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

The interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

What this means: The ends justifies the means and we can torture anyone the White House says might be a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

Dodd's legislation strikes these sections entirely and replaces them with this:

A statement obtained by use of coercion shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of coercion as evidence that the statement was made.

What this means: We're the United States of America and we don’t torture people.

Empowering Military Judges to Exclude Unreliable Hearsay Evidence

The Republican torture bill basically puts the burden of proof on the defense, not the prosecution which, prior to the Bush administration, was not the way our justice system worked.

The MCA says:

Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial shall not be admitted in a trial by military commission if the party opposing the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value."

So, when it comes to hearsay -- which is information not based on direct knowledge of the truth -- you're essentially guilty until proven innocent under the existing law.

The Dodd bill replaces the last (italicized) part of that section with the following: "…if the military judge determines, upon motion by counsel, that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value.’’

In other words, the judge can toss hearsay evidence if it's questionable or utter nonsense -- the defense doesn’t need to prove it's nonsense.

Authorizing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to Review Decisions by Military Commissions

The MCA provides for appeal not from traditional courts of appeals, but by a special Military Commissions Review Board, that would undoubtedly just rubber-stamp the military tribunals' verdicts. The Dodd bill kills that entire section of the MCA and instead says that cases will be reviewed by the "Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces."

Limiting the Authority of the President to Interpret the Geneva Conventions and Mandating Congressional and Judicial Oversight

If there's been one president in my lifetime that I don’t want interpreting the college football rankings, much less something serious, it's George W. Bush and one of the scariest parts of the MCA is the power it gives Bush in deciding for himself what the Geneva Conventions mean.

According to the MCA:

As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Dodd's bill simply strikes the italicized part above about Bush interpreting the Geneva Conventions and replaces it with this:

"… the President has the authority, subject to congressional oversight and judicial review, to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

That modification -- now that we'll have a Congress that will actually perform oversight -- should make about 300 million Americans sleep better at night.

The amended law would also say that Bush will issue "standards" and not "interpretations" on the Geneva Conventions.

Providing for Expedited Judicial Review of the Military Commissions Act

This is an entirely new section inserted by Dodd, saying that findings under the MCA must be reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and that an appeal can be made all the way to the Supreme Court.

Here's the new stuff that keeps the Bush administration from being able to detain you forever without trial:

"An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action under paragraph(1) shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, or order is entered. The jurisdictional statement with respect to any such appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, or order is entered.

"It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any action or appeal, respectively, brought under this section."

This is another big step in neutralizing the MCA and taking us back to the good old days of the Sixth Amendment which says we are entitled to "… a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

"I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake," said Dodd about the lack of this wording in the MCA. " And that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most important one -- it will ensure that each of the provisions of the Administration’s Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our nation’s courts, and appropriately evaluated for their constitutionality."

So there you have it -- that's the gist of how enormously important just 10 short pages of Democratic legislation can be to our country in reversing what the Republicans did to the Constitution in September.

Sadly, it looks unlikely that it will pass, based on the fact that, even with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, Bush will almost certainly exercise his veto power and it's a longshot that a super-majority can be achieved in the House and Senate to override Bush's veto. But it will at least renew the dialog and get Americans thinking more about our country's creed.

The "short title" of Senator Dodd's legislation is the ‘‘Military Commission Civil Liberties Restoration Act’’ and that's about as apt as it can possibly be.

When the MCA was passed, George Washington University Professor of Constitutional Law, Jonathan Turley, said that most Americans "don‘t realize what a fundamental change this is about who we are as a country."

"People have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system," said Turley. "What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."

And Dodd, whose father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, ended his floor speech on his legislation by reinforcing the importance of a nation maintaining its long-held ideals, regardless of temporary dangers.

"America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father, rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial," said Dodd. "In doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.