. Start dialing your international calls now while you still have some assurance of privacy.
Reid came on the floor and set up the rules. Debate will continue then votes on the amendments 鈥� Dodd, then Specter, then Bingaman.
Senator McConnell: "Blah blah blah compromise blah blah blah thanks to Bond's leadership blah blah blah鈥�"
Then Bond spoke, saying that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was created as and should be the only vehicle for oversight. May I say, you've not done a great job, sir. Even Rockefeller, whose capitulation on immunity is insane, thought the program was out of line and went so far as to keep a sealed letter in his desk disavowing it. And look where we are now. Bond also called out "far left editorial writers." !
Hatch followed Bond and attempted to rebut points made on the floor yesterday while also tearing down those who have suits against the phone companies. He argued that no one in the government has the time or inclination to monitor random domestic phone calls. Well, whether they have the time or inclination they're about to get the ability to do so, so thanks.
Hatch also repeated Bond's strange and likely baseless argument that, if the lawsuits go forward, phone companies will suffer consequences including possible physical threat to their employees. Can someone explain that to me? Who is circulating that talking point? What the hell is going on?
Feingold on Hatch's remarks that the majority of the Senate being in the dark on the specifics of the program: "Wow." He smacked down Hatch's condescending remark that it's the "black helicopter crowd" that is concerned with this saying, "It could not be clearer that this program broke the law and this president broke the law."
Feingold's walked us through the , starting before the New York Times broke the story. (Here's a little history lesson from the 老澳门开奖结果.) He brought up that old Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) story. You know, the one where the administration claimed Congress gave it the go ahead to wiretap without warrants when it passed the AUMF? That should have been another red flag that this administration is crazy-go-nuts for ridiculous legal interpretations. (BTW, here's an old and that I just found 鈥� check the date on that baby.) Then the administration was all, "No, no, no. The president's got Article II authority." Wasn't it clear when it was scrambling for prior legal cover that the administration knew it was caught with its hand in the cookie jar?
Feingold also said that, as a member of the Intel committee, he's seen all the documents and has been read into the program and, "members of this body will regret we passed this legislation." If only that would resonate鈥�
Leahy is Leahy and I love him. Oh my goodness, I love him.
Specter followed Leahy and said passing this law without knowing the full details of the program is like buying a pig in a poke. It's been a while since I've heard that and he's right. It can't be said enough that senators are voting on something that the majority of them have little or no context for. Once this bill passes and these amendments are voted down, it's done. DONE. Everything you always wanted to know about the president's domestic spying program will remain a mystery.
Senator Sanders just took to the floor and spoke for less than a minute but said everything that needed to be said. We're all for finding terrorists and preventing attacks but we must remain within the bounds of the Constitution. Sanders out.
Since votes came up quicker than I can type, I'll quickly summarize:
- Bingaman speaks on his amendment.
- Dodd is up 鈥� he had a great line thanking the blogs, advocates and private citizens who have inserted themselves into the debate saying, "Not one of them had to be involved but they chose to be." Awwww.
- Rockefeller spoke and bizarrely called it a farce that the administration was claiming that, right after the story broke, "Congress had been briefed" when in reality only four members had been. Strange line to draw when the vast 鈥� VAST 鈥� majority of members still haven't been fully briefed.
- Cantwell was next and wisely the point the language of the bill is written so vaguely that it will allow for the "broad expansion of authority to conduct domestic surveillance."
- Then Nelson, another member of the Intel committee who has been fully briefed, reiterated that he is against blanket immunity and offered an amendment against it in committee.
- Bond spoke again and made some snarky comment about briefing the New York Times with sensitive material. Sigh.
- Dodd followed with a last-minute plea for his amendment. It didn't work. The Dodd amendment failed, 32-66.
- Specter followed with a last-minute plea for his amendment. It didn't work. The Specter amendment failed, 37-61
- Bingaman followed with a last-minute plea for his amendment. It didn't work. The Bingaman amendment failed, 42-56
Final passage will be around 2 or 2:15. Stay tuned and don't do anything foolish in the meantime. We'll get through this.
Update: After the amendments were effectively killed 鈥� along with any possible hope of court review of the president鈥檚 illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program (can鈥檛 say that enough) 鈥� the votes for final passage were counted.
The votes were cast and so was the die. Final count: 69 to 28.
I can only say it鈥檚 been emotional. This isn鈥檛 the last you鈥檒l be hearing from the 老澳门开奖结果 on this subject 鈥� in fact, far from it. Keep an eye on this space for our continued and tireless work protecting the Fourth Amendment (and all the other ones, too, come to think of it).
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government鈥檚 case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 case, his claims challenging the government鈥檚 detention of him would fail. 鈥淩eviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we鈥檙e heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.鈥� In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court鈥檚 ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. 鈥淢r. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,鈥� said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 鈥淗e cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.鈥� Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the University of Chicago Law School鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.