What follows is the reply I received after sending numerous emails and letters, urging Senator Webb to strongly oppose the telecom immunity spelled out in the Senate bill. It was sent out this afternoon (Friday) around 3pm of course, with the rest of the trash no doubt, a week late and a dollar short:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me.
As you know, the FISA Amendments Act would amend current law by expanding the intelligence community's authority to collect foreign intelligence through electronic means. Having served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy and as Assistant Secretary of Defense, I relied on decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence when I voted in favor of final passage of this bill on February 12, 2008. I also met with a wide variety of people who were both supportive of, and opposed to, these changes.
During the Senate debate, I supported a number of amendments that were designed to improve the constitutional protections of our citizens. Further, Senators Russell Feingold, Jon Tester, and I introduced an amendment that would have added additional checks and balances with respect to assessing the appropriate use of surveillance. Unfortunately, this amendment was not passed by the full Senate. After passage of the Senate bill, I sent a letter urging Members who sit on the Senate-House Conference Committee to strike a more appropriate balance between protecting constitutional rights and providing the intelligence community with the tools needed to monitor terrorists.
Regarding retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program, I do not support full immunity for companies who aided Government surveillance. I prefer a middle-ground solution that would allow court cases to proceed under appropriate circumstances. For example, I supported an amendment offered by Senators Arlen Specter and Sheldon Whitehouse, which would have allowed the U.S. government to be substituted for telecommunication companies in certain civil actions. I also supported an amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which would have allowed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to determine whether telecommunication companies acted in good faith when complying with government surveillance request. If the FISC determined a telecommunication company did not act in good faith, the company would not be immune from consumers' legal actions.
As the U.S. Senate continues to debate matters pertaining to electronic surveillance, please be assured I will keep your views in mind.
I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.
Thank you once again for contacting my office.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
I had held Senator Webb in the highest regard until his vote on FISA. He is the reason the Senate has been able to remain open over, what would otherwise have been holidays that Bush would have undoubtedly used to move his appointees into 'temporary' positions and eliminating the Senate's roll in the confirmation process. He gave of his time to prevent this from happening.
In light of this vote, I have begun to question his true principles. In the face of overwhelming public opposition to telecom immunity, instead of represent the voices of the Virginians who put him in office, he endorses the status quo of the Democratic Party these days: attempt (or appear) to compromise, and then concede.
The Specter amendment, as we all know, is not a 'middle-ground solution'. Rather, it is a way for the more squeamish of Senators to propose giving telecommunication companies amnesty without giving them amnesty; by having the Federal Government take the companies place in court, where at the first mention of 'national security' the case is closed.
As for the Feinstein Amendment, the court system has already determined whether telecommunication companies acted in good faith when complying with government surveillance request. They didn't. That's why it's called amnesty.
It now seems to me that Senator Webb may not be the strong-willed candidate I voted for and who I thought was standing up against the Bush Administration by gaveling in 30 second Senate sessions over Thanksgiving and Christmas. He may simply be the 'new guy' Senator, who takes his marching orders from Senate higher-ups instead of the people who put him there. If this is the case, the Senator Webb who I once admired and the Senator Webb who voted for telecom amnesty are one in the same; not a fighter for the security and rights of Virginians and all Americans, but simply a first-term Senator who just does what he's told.