Put all members of the administration, and all members of the Senate who voted for this, on 24 hour video cam - hey, if you can dish it out, you better be able to take it.

Two more nails in Gordo's coffin.

In case you missed it, you can read Steve's statement on today's votes here.

There's no bright side to this--it's an unmitigated disaster:

The bill, which expires in six years, allows the government to install permanent wiretapping outposts in telephone and internet facilities inside the United States without a warrant. However, if those wiretaps are used to target Americans inside or outside of the country, the government would have to get a court order.

So they can intercept all of our data, they just can't selectively target us.

Though the administration initially admitted that the existence of the wiretapping program after a December 2005 story in the New York Times, it has refused to disclose the extent of the operation. Officials have repeatedly denied the program is a "dragnet" that searches communications for keywords.

But statements from administration figures over the past year suggest the program is closer to a vacuum cleaner that sucks in communications and stores them in bulk. Those statements suggest many of the sucked-in communications aren't ever looked at but are available for data-mining and social networking analysis -- and inspection by NSA analysts based on that analysis or other evidence.

Unfortunately, we don't have a Democratic Party, the party of the people, majority in the Senate with 67 Republicans and DINOs to 37 democrats. We need someone like Steve Novick to represent the people in the Senate. Make that "We need Steve Novick in the Senate to represent the people of Oregon."

Jake, that is a good way to promote your candidate.

But I agree with Kevin--Jeff does have experience as an elected official.

And Steve of all people knows that Gordon Smith is in office today because the 1996 nominee (who he worked for) had no political experience.

Yes, Steve has political experience, just no experience in elective office or even as a previous nominee.

Yes, Steve has political experience, just no experience in elective office or even as a previous nominee.

Does that then translate to Hillary's experience in the White House trumping Obama (and McCain)?

Here's a link to a list of the are the Democrats who voted for this.

Let's not let this thread gets hijacked into another Merkley/Novick discussion about experience. I saw the post and thought it was worth adding Steve's statement to the coverage.

For the record, I agree with Kevin and Liz that Merkley has experience as an elected official. But, as Wayne Morse demonstrated so ably, there isn't just one type of experience that counts in making a great Senator. Steve has a lot of great political experience and obviously I think he would be the more effective Senator in Washington.

But this has already been a topic on Blue O a bunch of times and I'm sure it will be a bunch more before the primary. Let's not lose focus on what happened in the Senate today and how far it shows we still have to go to stand united as a party to stop the Republicans from sacrificing our liberty in the name of protecting our security.

Heads will roll for this--obviously in Oregon that looks to be Gordo's head.

A review of those who voted against Senator Dodd's amendment shows several senators able to claim decades of experience for themselves.

Big Brother and the Telecom Company on "You've Been Talkin' 'Bout Me, Baby" – 3:27

Just the point that I was going make, Jeff. Do people really think this will be a political loser for Smith in Oregon? If so, why? I can see a sizable majority thinking that wiretapping the terrorists is A-okay!

As for the immunity, I confess to mixed feelings. On the one hand, if they broke the law, they should be liable. On the other, if the federal government orders me to do something and says it is legal for me to do it, I'm likely to do it even if I think it's questionable. It seems the fault primarily lies with the Bush Administration, not the telecoms.

Miles, I empathize, but what you are saying is also frightening.

When the government gives an unjust order, we have to be confident in our ability to challenge the government's authority without undue or extreme punishment. Qwest told the government "no" and Qwest appears to be doing fine -- no massive government crack down, no secret disappearances.

By granting immunity to the phone companies that cooperated with the government in warrant-less wiretapping, Congress and Bush are removing ANY incentive from corporations to protect customer privacy. Businesses will have a decided interest in providing any and all information about you to the government at the whim of any curious official -- without a court order (a warrant). While I'm not worried if the CIA knows that I'm on my cell phone doing political organizing at every spare second, I don't like the idea of every word captured and analyzed for potential terrorist involvement. (sometimes I get a little steamed, like when the state requires my SSN to renew my license.)

Without immunity, the phone companies have an incentive to CONSIDER whether the expense of, or risks associated with, cooperating with the government outweigh the potential civil lawsuits and/or loss of business. You know, like Fight Club? Erin Brockovitch?

In fact, corporations do this all the time when they consider the cost of complying with environmental regulations vs. just paying the fine and dumping the toxic waste in the ocean. It isn't the ocean that wins.

Furthermore, we have just removed any reward to Qwest for their responsible behavior, by ending the threat of lawsuits against their competitors. Now we're messing with competition! What next?

So, while I'm used to assuming all of my "gut" political philosophies must be Blue, in this case I'm kinda with the Libertarians.

The Declaration of Independence sums this up rather nicely actually (but not quite enough, hence). "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them... ...they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self evident..." TJ, what a guy!

Do people really think this will be a political loser for Smith in Oregon? If so, why? I can see a sizable majority thinking that wiretapping the terrorists is A-okay!

First of all, they aren't wiretapping terrorists. That's the problem with this whole thing: who is a terrorist? The NSA doesn't know, so they are listening to everything in hopes that they will get lucky. As such, Americans comprise the bulk of the warrant-less intercepts. This is well documented here.

Essentially, we know AT&T copied every bit of of internet data in San Francisco. Again, not just foreign connections, everything. If people were to realize that the telecoms have been copying the entire internet data stream-including their internet data-opinions would begin to change.

Second of all, the Senators who voted for this are, in the words of the late, great Tom Lantos "moral pygmies." Thus Novick/Merkley have a perfect opportunity to jam this unconscionable civil rights violation down Smith's throat, exposing him as being complicit in the legalization of Bush's domestic warrant-less wiretapping program.

Of course, if they squander this opportunity, you're right, it's not a loser for Smith because it's not being covered. By the same token, it allows Novick/Merkley to define the issue: that the Bush administration is spying on Oregonians internet activity and Smith voted for it.

I'm all for supporting our veterans, but Merkley's BO post yesterday afternoon should have taken a relentless swipe at Smith's vote instead.

Novick did respond to this vote, but he stopped short of attacking Smith. He mentioned the Bush administration three times and Smith zero times.

Perfect defense only ties a game. If Novick/Merkley want to win a senate seat, they must go on the attack. Iraq is passé, FISA is fresh. Here's their opportunity.

The quickest way to make this go away is to tell a Republican that if Hillary is the next President this power is hers. If they think Hillary could tap their phone lines they'll run screaming for their bunkers faster than I can say scram.

For the record:

Who's helping the NSA?

CNET News.com asked telecommunications and Internet companies about cooperation with the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping scheme. We asked them: "Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"

Company Response Adelphia Communications Declined comment AOL Time Warner No [1] AT&T Declined comment BellSouth Communications No Cable & Wireless No response Cablevision Systems No CenturyTel No Charter Communications No [1] Cingular Wireless No [2] Citizens Communications No response Cogent Communications No [1] Comcast No Cox Communications No EarthLink No Global Crossing Inconclusive Google Declined comment Level 3 No response Microsoft No [3] NTT Communications Inconclusive [4] Qwest Communications No [2] SAVVIS Communications No response Sprint Nextel No [2] T-Mobile USA No [2] United Online No response Verizon Communications Inconclusive [5] XO Communications* No [1] Yahoo Declined comment

• = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers. [1] The answer did not explicitly address NSA but said that compliance happens only if required by law. [2] Provided by a source with knowledge of what this company is telling Conyers. In the case of Sprint Nextel, the source was familiar with Nextel's operations. [3] As part of an answer to a closely related question for a different survey. [4] The response was "NTT Communications respects the privacy rights of our customers and complies fully with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law." [5] The response was "Verizon complies with applicable laws and does not comment on law enforcement or national security matters."

In case my first comment seemed flip, let me reiterate (or maybe just iterate) that I know that they're not just wiretapping the terrorists. But I'm not convinced that my fellow Oregonians know that -- or care. I meet a lot of people who believe that national security trumps almost everything, and they don't care if a few innocent people get wiretapped so long as we get the bad guys. BCM is right that if this issue is framed correctly it's a political winner, but I think we are starting at a disadvantage.

As for the immunity, I think I need more details on exactly what happened in order to form a judgement. It's easy in hindsight to say "They should have known X and Y." But at the time, wasn't the government asking them to do something that involved a mostly classified area of the law dealing with national security. Is it reasonable to believe that corporate lawyers would be intimately familiar with national security law, FISA, and their responsibilities under those laws?

Since some telecoms did resist, that strengthens the argument that those who caved should be liable. But I still worry that the focus on the telecoms has taken focus off the government. Why was the government issuing an illegal order to the telecoms? Who was responsible for it, and why haven't they been held accountable?

A review of those who voted against Senator Dodd's amendment shows several senators able to claim decades of experience for themselves.

Let's take a look at this experience. Political commentators and some politicians in Congress have said members spend two days to half their time each week raising funds for their re-election. I suggest that some of that "experience" and success in getting campaign donations contributed to these senators deciding to vote for immunity. The obvious conclusion should be that we need campaign finance reform. Another conclusion should be that if experience comes into play it needs an ethical compass - something that was apparently missing in many instances in the Senate this week. Clearly, an ethical compass without "experience" would have been better.

On the issue of immunity, this vote could also set a precedent encouraging other corporations - Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, etc. - to ignore the law with impunity.

Here are the magic words Miles: 'Gordon Smith voted to legalize President Bush's warrant-less wiretapping program.'

Phone call this morning (in case the NSA missed it):

me- "Can you tell me why Senator Smith voted to allow the phone companies to spy on the American people?"

Smith phone-answering guy- "Ih, no, I'm sorry, I couldn't really say."

me- "Does the Senator plan to address this issue in a public forum?"

Spg- "Yes, that would be good, I'll pass that along."

me-"Do you know when his next public appearance is?"

spg- "Uh, no, I don't."

me- "Wow, you guys are real Republicans."

So, what's Wyden's provision mean? I have to drive up to Vancouver BC to have a private phone call?

If you are being specifically targetted, they need warrants to tap you in USA or on foreign soil. But, the program is not specific like that--they aren't specifically looking for anyone. What they are trying to do is listen to as much as they possibly can and hope to get lucky.

the administration initially admitted that the existence of the wiretapping program after a December 2005 story in the New York Times, it has refused to disclose the extent of the operation. Officials have repeatedly denied the program is a "dragnet" that searches communications for keywords.

But statements from administration figures over the past year suggest the program is closer to a vacuum cleaner that sucks in communications and stores them in bulk. Those statements suggest many of the sucked-in communications aren't ever looked at but are available for data-mining and social networking analysis -- and inspection by NSA analysts based on that analysis or other evidence

The Senate's bill legalizes listening outposts in telecom stations like this one exposed by a whistleblower. Essentially, they can listen to the collective, they just can't target someone specifically.

Garrett writes: "The quickest way to make this go away is to tell a Republican that if Hillary is the next President this power is hers. If they think Hillary could tap their phone lines they'll run screaming for their bunkers faster than I can say scram."

Didn't the Clinton administration (including Hillary) already have thick files on Republicans? Including IRS data, and other personal data?

Or am I dreaming this up? It wasn't TravelGate. Nor any of the Bimbo eruptions. I think it had to do with resumes and previous job applications, but my mind is fuzzy on the specifics. Early on in the administration. But I could be wrong on that...

Ah yes, FileGate...

From Wiki: "An outgrowth of the Travelgate investigation was the June 1996 discovery of improper White House access to hundreds of FBI background reports on former Republican White House employees, an affair that some called "Filegate";[169] accusations were made that Hillary Clinton had requested these files and that she had recommended hiring an unqualified individual to head the White House Security Office."

Here are the magic words Miles: 'Gordon Smith voted to legalize President Bush's warrant-less wiretapping program.'

See, I don't think that statement gets us any political traction against Smith. I think a majority of Oregonians hear that and say "Good, we need to stop the terrorists before they get us. Warrants are for sissies."

In terms of framing, we need to do a better job explaining 1) the radical departure of this Administration's domestic spying program from past administrations, 2) the real threat that this information will be abused by an incompetent government. So far, no one has convinced Americans that this could affect them, their neighbors, their kids. They see it in the abstract. We have to come up with a better frame than "warrantless wiretapping."

I think a majority of Oregonians hear that and say "Good, we need to stop the terrorists before they get us. Warrants are for sissies."

Miles, where elections are won and lost in Oregon, Portland, that is certainly not the thinking. Walk down a street in Portland and ask people if the legalization of Bush's warrant-less wiretapping is a good thing--you'll find your answer is shockingly errant.

Smith already loses in Portland. We can only defeat him if he starts losing elsewhere in the state -- places where they think warrantless wiretapping ain't so bad.