But how did we get here in he first place? Why did the Democratic congress sell our civil liberties out and give blanket immunity to the corporations who broke the law and engaged in illegal wiretapping? Via the Left Coaster I came across this site Maplight which has a very interesting story about the FISA bill:

MAPLight.org's research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week's FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:

Comparing Democrats' Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.

All House Members (June 20th vote:)
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)

MAPLight.org's research department findings are based on the combination of contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) with voting data from THOMAS via GovTrack.us.

They even have a table documenting this travesty. So in other words we the people have been sold down the tubes. Democratic congress at work here.

But why am I outraged? Is it just the telecom immunity or is it more than just the bill? What is at stake here for all of us? I will let Russ Feingold explain:

When I posted my last post I had more than a few people making the outrageous claim that 90% of the country does not mind the government eavesdropping on your calls and email. Really? Well I guess they might not be living in the USA after all: Rasmussen Reports

One thing voters overwhelmingly agree, however, is that the government needs a search warrant if it wants internet providers or telecommunications companies to turn over customer records: 69% say so, as opposed to only 17% who say a search warrant is not necessary.
<snip>
By a slight margin in the new survey, voters say 44% to 41% that the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government without a search warrant should be subject to lawsuits, but 15% are undecided. The findings reflect the partisan divide in Congress on the issue, with 59% of Democrats saying the companies should not have immunity, while 63% of Republicans think they should. Forty-six percent (46%) of unaffiliated voters oppose immunity compared to 40% who support it.

Which brings me back to the bill and sections 802 and 803. When the activities of the government is shrouded in secrecy, when you cannot see the warrant let alone get to challenge it how do you ask for accountability?

What does our presumptive nominee has to say about all this?

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Can he be any more misleading and obfuscating? We made the mistake once. We, nearly 80% of us, believed after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was behind the tragedy of that day. 80% of us cheered ourselves into this disastrous war believing the president with blind faith. The chief cheerleaders were the "wise" men at the New Republic, Weekly Standard and National Review. Today they support Obama in this venture and Obama is playing to this crowd. Please do not make the same mistake again. We need us to protect our civil liberties even if it means taking one of our own to task.

Glenn Greenwald has a terrific post today about the progressive senate Democrats (even Harry Reid) lining up against this bill. I cannot say it any better than him so I will end with something that he wrote.

Glenn Greenwald again:

Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.

What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.

Update

Senator Boxer on this bill:

Unfortunately, the FISA legislation the Senate will soon consider falls short of that standard. The bill would not only deny the Court the ability to finally make a determination as to the legality of the NSA program and the extent of the spying, but would effectively guarantee immunity for the telecommunications companies who violated the privacy of their customers. This provision will prevent us from finding out the truth. We can indemnify the telecom companies, but we should not shut down the legal process. I know that many of my colleagues in the Senate think we know enough about this program. But we do not know enough. The Bush administration trampled on the Constitution, and we are not doing anything in the bill to provide real accountability. If we vote for this FISA legislation, we are perpetuating a cover-up. I want to be clear -- I support giving our government every tool necessary to track down terrorists and protect our citizens. But we also have a responsibility to uphold the constitution and the rights of our citizens.

Update II

I am linking Senator Dodd's speech today and here is an excerpt of that speech:

Here is Rick Noriega who while running in a deep red state against one of the cheerleaders of this travesty (John Cornyn) has the courage to stand up to principles:

Update III

Thanks for putting this on the rec list. Many people have asked where is Hillary Clinton on all this. Fact is she is not running for POTUS anymore. We have a nominee who sided with a Democratic congress who sold us out on civil liberties. Right now someone might be monitoring this site and every word that I am typing. I hope like Sen. Schumer the junior senator from NY has the good sense to oppose this bill. However Greg Sargent put some of this into perspective:

Tea leaf readers note that Hillary's New York colleague, Chuck Schumer, also announced today that he's voting against it. Will Hillary follow suit? It seems like a huge opening for her to repair relations with progressives angry with her over her treatment of Obama during primary. On the other hand, some Dems note a complicating factor: If Hillary votes against the bill, it could cast a bit of a shadow over the planned "unity" Hillary-Obama event on Friday.

Added to that is the fact that he is helping her with $10 million campaign debt. I keep my fingers crossed and hope that she does not disappoint us as well.

Update IV

15 senators have stood up against this travesty. 15 only. Here they are:

NAYs ---15

Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Wyden (D-OR)