Why did Congressman Eliot Engel join Bush in spitting on the Fourth Amendment?

Written by: Cliff Weathers on Jun 20, 2008 9:46 PM EDT

Just a day after Congressional leaders introduced an outrageous measure to expand President Bush's authority to spy on Americans, Congressman Eliot Engel joined with a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats, mostly conservative Blue Dogs and members of the hawkish Democratic Leadership Council, in adopting the new FISA bill. The bill, if passed by the Senate will also give retroactive immunity to telephone communications companies for assisting the White House in illegally spying on its citizens.

The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil rights and privacy advocates are upset by the ramifications of such as measure, which was conjured up behind closed doors in negotiations among centrist Democrats, Republicans, the White House and telecommunications lobbyists.

And unfortunately for us, today's vote is the beginning of the end in the battle against the Bush's warrantless wiretapping program set in motion by the White House soon after 9/11. It also rips right into the Constitution, making a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, which protects United States citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.

But why did Engel vote the way he did? Was he motivated by lobbyist money? Is this quid pro quo? Let's check it out!

This diary is crossposted on Left of the Hudson.

The FISA bill compromise reached by the Democrats added language to provide for a "judicial review" of each case of unwarranted wiretapping and datamining by the telcos.  But, the whole judicial review is a ruse.  The review only entails the acceptance of a piece of paper from the Attorney General that says "it's okay if Verizon spys on these people because the president wants to spy on them and he says it is perfectly legal." 

Our rights, as citizens of this country, have been greatly diminished. Our conversations, our e-mails, our most personal correspondence can be sifted through by our government without just cause. This gives the Bush White House unfettered powers to go fishing to find information against its political enemies, whether or not they have just cause or there's even a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.

Big Brother has arrived and his name is George W. Bush. Congressman Eliot Engel, along with 292 members of Congress, is an enabler of this monster who occupies the White House.

In all, 105 Democrats voted for the bill and this roster is almost identical to the DLC, the centrist nano-party in the Democratic Party that usually sides with the White House's failed foreign policy and national security policies. One-hundred-twenty-eight brave Democrats voted against it, and 3 did not vote.

Immunity for telcos that clandestinely  helped the NSA in its warrantless wiretapping is an undermining of the rule of law and the privacy of every citizen and resident this country.

As far as Engel is concerned, there is a little question of his campaign donations from the same telcos who lobbied so strongly to pass this legislation. For the 2006 election year cycle, Verizon Communications was <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001003&cycle=2006">the largest corporate contributor to Congressman Engel's campaign at $32,000</a> (final numbers are not in for the current cycle, but I expect the Congressman to get a big pay raise). But preliminary numbers are in for the Communications/Electronic PACs for this cycle; they represented the interests of the telcos as lobbyists. They have been <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001003">among Engel's largest contributors </a> in this cycle at more than $26,000 in donations.

I see a little quid pro quo problem with Congressman Engel and once again, I think he's got a lot of explaining to do to his constituency when he returns this summer during recess. More and more evidence is surfacing that beyond some bread-and-butter populist issues to appease some Democrats, this Congressman is nothing more than a Democrat in Name Only.

Tags: