Bush Would Forgo New FISA Programs to Make Sure Dick Gets Immunity
Bush says he wants a new FISA bill, and he wants it now.
The White House told Democratic congressional leaders Saturday that President Bush opposes a 30-day extension of an expiring eavesdropping law and instead wants an expanded version to be passed by Friday.
“The president would veto a 30-day extension,” a senior administration official said. “They’re just kicking the can down the road. They need the heat of the current law lapsing to get this done.”
To which Reid appropriately pinned any blame on Bush.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the veto threat "shamefully irresponsible" and "simply posturing in advance of Monday’s State of the Union address."
"There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap," Reid said. "But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress."
Reid’s response is useful. But he needs to say one more thing. If Bush vetos a 30-day extension, he will be doing so for one reason and one reason only: because the existing legislationg, PAA, doesn’t offer immunity to telecoms–and with it, to Dick Cheney and everyone else in this Administration who pushed the telecoms to continue their spying even after the acting AG, Jim Comey, refused to certify the program for a period in 2004.
Bush is willing to forgo implementing new FISA programs (all the existing ones will continue for at least six months) all because he wants Dick to get his immunity … now. This is about Bush putting Dick’s interests–and his own–above the security of the country.
The call for amnesty is relatively new. It didn’t appear in the DNI versions of the bill from circa Military Commissions Act of 2006 (there was also a Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, S.3931).
I think the first calls for amnesty come in April 2007, after the TSP and other programs (or whatever, the administration is playing semantical games with the word “program”) had been under the umbrella of the FISC, and certain previous practices that had been conducted without a warrant and without FISC oversight were ruled to require detailed surveillance applications.
FISA historical summary 2005-2007
Wouldn’t that also be after it became clear Hepting is going to get to discovery?
I haven’t correlated the various civil suit timelines with the demand for retroactive immunity / amnesty.
I’d check Hepting, al Haramin, and the rough time of consolidation of the cases in Judge Walker’s court. But I’m pretty sure a significant number of cases had been filed and pending well before April 2007.
Something triggered the change. Maybe as simple as starting to feel the heat, or being miffed at having the assertions of state secret having to be made over and over again.
Here’s the EFF’s collection of documents.
One of the senator’s comments last week (Bond, I’m pretty sure), in the same vein, was that a statutory remedy was necessary because the assertion of state secret wouldn’t necessarily be effective against a judge, and our enemies might learn methods and procedures in the ensuing debate.
OT — EW left a comment for you (#95) in Orwell thread. Don’t want to go off topic here, but just want to make sure you see it, even though it is well south of EPU territory.
cboldt, nice to have you back, really appreciate your comments the past few days.
The broader, maybe useful, point I neglected to say was that, according to the administration itself, the surveillance statute and the immunity provisions are separable. If the WH had obtained the surveillance bill it drafted in 2006 (S.3931 contains administration-originated language, not Congressionally-originated language), then it would not have obtained the retroactive amnesty is started seeking in April 2007.
Wonder whether they knew in April what Comey would say under oath in May before Congress…not like they couldn’t have spied to find out, after all.
If I recall correctly, Comey’s SJC appearance was announced only at the last minute, unlike his HJC appearance weeks before, for which there was standard notice. That struck me as a curiosity at the time.
Though they may have assumed he’d say it to HJC beforehand.
Just lost my reply to another WordPress burp…
Anyhow, I suspect there must have been some discussion well in advance about what Comey would/wouldn’t say to either the HJC or SJC or they wouldn’t have bothered with him. Once voiced, it could be “heard”.
That said, I don’t think it was any one event that tripped the demand for immunity. It was likely a confluence or cascade of events, indicating to the administration that it had jumped the shark and could no longer count on key parties getting their backs when they needed it. November 2006, for example, or Mark Klein’s comments and testimony.
The relative silence that’s greeted Klein has been telling, IMO, as if the administration didn’t want to draw attention to him. Ordinarily there’d be a horde of flying monkeys attacking the messenger to discredit them — why not Klein? Because he’s got the smoking gun?
Crikey, you too? I thought it was just me….
It was Chambliss – Jan 25
I don’t think it’s the case, but the thought enters my mind that the administration may be demanding amnesty just to create a political issue. IOW, it is in fact indifferent to obtaining statutory immunity, other than the extra footwork necessary to stonewall the courts, but has made the demand for statutory immunity in order to MAKE an issue that need not exist. A bad-faith demand, if you will.
I think this isn’t the case, because the administration has a pattern of over-reaching, then making the same sort of flip flop from “we don’t need a law” to “we urgently need a law” on Military Commissions and on Interrogation techniques. FISA is a repetition of that pattern.
“another WordPress burp…”
Its been buggy here this morning, inviting me to do things I didn’t ask it to do.
Bob in HI
Yes, that is our new Mark Foley/Larry Craig Feature!
Small voice in the wilderness here, with a fundamental question… If the wiretapping/spying/whatever that Cheney and the telecoms have been doing all along is unconstitutional anyway, how can they be immunized against prosecution? In other words, if they were not following the guidelines of the law to begin with (such as with the original FISA law), and they just did their own thing, then wouldn’t that be unconstitutional? I think there has been a LOT of case law about violation of rights, etc.
How does Congress legislate around something like that if the basic issue is Constitutional in nature?
By the way, I tried to contact Mary Landrieu’s office a short while ago and got a message that her mailbox is full …
“I want it all, I want it now.”
1. Freddie Mercury
2. George W Bush
3. All of the above
I think everone misses the real elephant in this room marcy;
with immunity they can get away with whatever they took under the guise of national security
this includes both cheney and the telecoms
there is also the prospect of gathering information for themselves they wouldn’t otherwise be able to gather
they could find what laws will be passed, what regulations would be rescinded, what laws would not be passed
they would be able to play the market accordingly
this is more then spying on you and me, it’s stealing
FWIW, I’ve always had a hunch it was largely about theft.
When you view economic data as ‘intelligence’, how could you possibly avoid collecting financial data in your efforts to ‘enhance security’? You couldn’t.
Arguable, economic data (and financial data) are forms of ‘intel’.
So of course they’re going to collect it.
They just want to make it sound as if they won’t, so everyone will agree to turn their heads the other way.
very nicely put, gonna cut and paste and use your line of reasoning as well
I think you are spot on, and throw in all the Sibel Edmonds stuff and you have a really nice stew.
Scott Horton on Reid, Mukasey, Bush, Bradbury and all the usual suspects:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002251
Mukasey just hasn’t met a finer lawyer than Bradbury. That’s kind of like hearing from the women who thought Ted Bundy was such a great guy. Can no one take Mukasey out and introduce him to some other
serial torture solicitorslawyers? If ever something makes you ponder on the function of a bar, it’s hearing Mukasey say he just can’t quit Bradbury: “I want to continue working with him.”I think there are a lot of separate influences on trying to get immunity, but don’t lose sight, too, of the fact that you are talking about NSA and telecom employees who may be not too thrilled about working on this program anymore and McConnell’s experience with the Booze Hamilton “supervision” of the SWIFT program and the “creative” administrative warrants they used (and I have to think that may be in the nature of what Bush’s AG sign offs would be) was that a court ruled them completely bogus and opened a door to criminality for all of those entities involved. They escaped, but teeth only have so many layers of skin.
Then you have the discovery that there was at least one gap periods in the program. Not only that – there is the problem that McConnell kept misrepresenting to the everyone about the kidnapped soldiers. No one has ever asked, publically, the pay off questions on that incident; namely, what happened after the 3 day period when the Judge was given an opportunity to rule on the emergency surveillance? Any decision that it was done in bad faith and directly contrary to an earlier ruling by the court on what could or couldn’t be done might put the person who signed off, Gonzales, directly in the cross hairs with FISA court. I tend to wonder if that wasn’t behind his walk away and Judge Lamberth’s sudden chattiness on how the FISA court isn’t shy about kicking liars out of the court and refusing to allow them to act. Imagine warrant requests that need, statutorily, to be signed off on by a small group of 3, including the AG, and the FISA court has barred the AG.
Alright, I am going to try this again; lost to the ozone last time. It is an interesting question as to what triggered the demand for immunity. The one thing we can be certain was not the cause was an abiding concern that the cash strapped telcos would be put out of business by liability verdicts. My guess is that it was not one single factor, but a totality of circumstances that came about somewhere along these lines.
The wheels started to come off for the Administration with the SCOTUS decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld at the end of June 2006, where the court stuck a dagger in their unifying theory of everything, Article II/AUMF. They kept rolling along though, because they could in secret. Then other chinks in the armor started popping up. al-Haramain and the other cases in the 9th Circuit were hanging around in spite of dedicated efforts to shut them down. Anna Diggs Taylor skewered them in ACLU v. NSA, Mark Klein’s affidavit was filed in ACLU v. Rumsfeld, the surreal hospital scene is described by Comey and the Gonzales makes a lying idiot of himself in Congressional testimony (pick any one of the times). And some where in there is an instance or two of Lamberth, Kollar-Kotelly and/or other FISC judges taking the Administration to the woodshed (which, of cours, is what I believe is also behind the sudden “heroism” of Goldsmith, comey, etc.). By spring 2007, the totality of these circumstances added up and they knew they were screwed and, more importantly, realized that too many other people were figuring out the same thing. The gig was too close to being totally up; gotta demand immunity now.
My reply to you was devoured too.
Short version: the FISC decision was a COURT telling the administration that it didn’t have the power to do what it was doing. I think this is a big fat straw, although the points you raise were certainly part of the “amnesty demand calculus.”
Separate interesting point: The administration argued in April 2006, when it provided the draft legislation, that FISC was eminently qualified to decide issues such as the legality of the TSP. Last week, Senator Bond argued 180 degrees opposite, saying the FISC is NOT competent to undertake that sort of legal analysis. [cites omitted here, screw wordpress and the horse it rode in on]
Yeah I tend to agree that (my actual guess is that there was kind of a rolling series of increasingly strenuous “get real, that crap ain’t gonna fly” moments at the FISC; informal at first and building from there) was probably the most significant piece of the puzzle. And it was further problematic in that the water carrying lawyers spooked because their meal tickets were starting to flash before their eyes.
The one thing we can be certain was not the cause was an abiding concern that the cash strapped telcos would be put out of business by liability verdicts.
Senator Bond agrees with that.
Heh heh. That has got to be the first time I have agreed with Kit Bond.
Rayne – Agreed on that. And i am sure promises have been made too.
I wonder about that…I don’t think unless they’ve pooled some resources that the trad telcos can pony up the cash to buy a big chunk of the 700 Mhz spectrum.
What would they have promised, that not any one of the bidders would have control of a critical mass of the spectrum, I’ve wondered. Been racking my brains about this since it’ll influence some decisions I make.
Oh, it may not be the spectrum auction necessarily; further deregulation of some sort is more likely and some kind of nefariousness on net neutrality…. Telcos have gotten some kind of chits though, in addition to their large fees they have been charging the government to spy, you can count on that.
And in the background, in the realm of the corporate world, AT&T and its competitors/co-conspirators feel the increasing pressure of non-traditional competition chipping away at their foundations.
off topic,
is the lake being drained?
over at the sister site I’m being asked if I want to download wordpress
coming in another time, cannot load any comments
something up with mods?
carry on!
Is it mere coincidence that Word Press is experiencing ‘technical’ problems as we’re ramping up our advocacy against FISA… NSA? Telcoms?
I can’t assert this with the level of confidence appropriate to this blog, but my hazy recollection is that over at FDL during the December dust-up over FISA, when emailing and such was being advocated, the site practically froze. I couldn’t account for the behavior by looking at anything on Site Meter — no paralyzing traffic seemed to be present. I don’t recall hearing of any explanation from the mods. It seemed very odd at the time. Almost as though something was sequestering packets and then dribbling them back out into the toobz somewhat later.
Once is a blip. Twice is interesting. If it happens a third time when FISA is the topic — unroll some tinfoil, ’cause it’ll be hat-making time.
In December, Jane mentioned in a comment that they suspected they were under a DOS attack. They did not want to draw attention to any potential interference, so after that comment, the subject was dropped. I never heard whether they confirmed that that was in fact the case. I’ve been wondering if we would see problems arise again when FISA came up again…
I would add to the coalescence from bmaz and cboldt, the IT scandals to which Waxman’s February 15 hearing promises to accrete heat. There is an analog possible, as well, in the discrete intervals for which emails were deleted in 5-6 departments of the executive; resembling the patchwork rule of the executive which had to ask WHC Gonzales to override the FISA construct during the months-weeks gap Comey described. I support bmaz’s assessment of goldsmith too. However, I noted Lederman and Luban’s recent article one of a two part series on the RHJacksonian 3Level zenith to nadir assessment of presidential permissable autocracy was vetted by a tier of former olc-ers including Goldsmith. I think olc is a difficult entity to characterize, as their job is to justify experiments for the president’s pleasure; my take was the republican party was too ill prepared to anneal its new constituency into any uniform identity that could simplify olc’s work; instead they fell back onto the totalitarian model of how simple it is when only 1-3 signatures are required. I agree that Cheney would like to make telcos happy, but I think very little about stodgy bellcos with ample liquidity to their assets. One very Republican pursuit at the outset of term 1 Bush2 was the effort to weaken tort advocacy, but use of the federal register to deploy fiats has met with lots of failure, though there is an interesting paper at the American Constitution Society about how viable that effort remains.
This is really freaking me out…Bush is quietly trying to push through a nuclear deal with Turkey within the next give or take, 90 days…coincidentally with the Sybil Edmonds story hitting the World news…and then…who does he install to oversea WMD stuff at the State Department that is at the epicenter…Wolfowitz!!! No coincidence!..The Neocons are up to no good and this is the motherlode story that ties in Plame, Grossman, Brewster Jennings, WMDs, Iraq, and everything else…why isn’t anybody digging into this? The following is an interesting article about some of it:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/…..th-turkey/
The Sibel allegations have been public for months. And the Wolfowitz appointment came long before this latest blitz on Sibel.
There is a possibility the Turkish nukes is related, but Wolfowitz isn’t.
27 “and prove harm” would be true for a Bivens type action, but FISA has a statutory award that isn’t prefaced on the proof of damage.
Which goes a bit to 16 as well I guess.
There are the lawsuits under the FISA statute that allows for civil penalty recovery – and for those there need be no showing of damages per se other than the statutory violation, and also under those, Congress probably can grant immunity. Then there are the lawsuits for violation of the 1st and 4th amendments under color of law (and it is kind of interesting that a few of the approaches on amnesty have required a showing that they were acting pursuant to AG direction and assurances – which I think would help the plaintiffs on their color of law argument) and for the Constitutional violations, I do pretty much disbelieve that Congress can indemnify for those kinds of violations. I’m thinking the “separation of power” argument that seldom gets made, but which is central to a Bivens type of action, is that there are powers that neither the Congress, nor the Executive, nor the Judiciary can validly claim (which is pretty much what the SUp Ct said in Milligan for that matter, with respect to other violations of the Bill of Rights) and in that regard, I think that Congress cannot validly “waive” or provide amnesty for the government and government actors for violations of the Bill of Rights and for usurping powers which cannot Constitutionally be granted to that government nor its actors.
But it doesn’t really matter. I’m not seeing that we have much left in the way of laws in a country that can’t take torturers and torture solicitors and put them in jail where they belong – a country that has an Atty Gen who can’t even cough up that torture is torture. A country where the military’s approach to the suffocation/torture death of an Iraqi General, after CIA and Military torture, is a 60 day green zone detention for one of the many involved.
What do you really say about a country that is at this point? Not much, apparently. We don’t have even one Presidential candidate who has any interest in saying they will make sure torture and torture murders are punished. That pretty much leaves all other topics behind imo. I don’t see how you do anything, ever, once you have a DOJ that has gone through 4 OLC heads, 3 AGs, 4 DAGs and still has not one of them willing to say torture is torture (and indeed, most of them on board for putting MORE torture chain of command onto the bench to be our Federal Judges of the future)and should be punished. Instead, you have not one person at DOJ who has stood up on this issue and almost every single past or present leader in DOJ directly involved in the soliciation, coverup, or direct participation in torture, or conspiracy to torture, or conspiracy to solicit torture, or conspiracy to cover up torture.
There truly isn’t anything much more repugnant you’ll ever find and there has been so much effort to make peace with torture and idolize the torture conspirators that we really aren’t going to have a point where this country “changes back” We have now and for all times, a torture supporting Dept. of Justice and one that is so highly politicized, we will no doubt soon see that it is torture supporting, as long as you are one of the “in” crowd – an even more disgusting standard to run up the pole.
I just get beyond sad thinking of it and thinking of how such a few people sent this country to that point, and how they are all sitting back now, with their academic and corporate slots, and calling themselves heroes for what they have done.
There is a side of me that agrees with your thoughts on Constitution based liability, but the practical side of me says they can indeed do that. First off, constitutional basis or not, the caselaw seems pretty clear that the sovereign has to agree to liability attachment or it is a non-starter; so I think if they really did a thorough job of closing the various modalities of redress, it would be effective, even under you theory. I have the thought that if concern over telco damage liability is the issue (which of course it is not) why not leave a basis available for equitable relief and full discovery… Never fly, but it might help flush out the fact that this is all about covering up illegal and immoral acts.
On a side note, am curious what your thoughts are on the Padilla sentence. I was kind of surprised, and thought it was really a pretty good slap at the DOJ under the circumstances of what was expected (although I thought the entire case should have been bounced, but nobody is asking me). Sure has not been much discussion after it was handed down; from either side.
Mary, thanks for the info and clarification. IANAL, so I tend to get confused about what fits where.
As an addendum to what you wrote, it all seems to come down to the money. Corporate shareholders seem to have more rights than the average citizen — and there is certainly not much concern about the welfare of the middle class. There are some companies, such as some of those that helped to bring about the subprime crisis, that should be allowed to go belly up — and maybe shareholders would suddenly become much more involved in the companies that they invest in. Bush will see that no one except the US taxpayer loses any money.
I have a strong suspicion that as soon as the “economic stimulus” package gets hammered down, we will see gasoline prices start going up again. Bush, Cheney, and all of their cohorts are laughing all the way to the bank…It is corporate welfare disguised as a “tax rebate.”
They have done a wonderful job of perverting constitutional law for their own gain. What do you call a country such as what we have? Banana Republic seems pretty apropo…
22
Let’s not take it out on the horse, ‘kay?
Well, okay, but the donkeys sure have been beating up on each other lately…..
OT: Mike Lux at Open Left rides the Amtrak out of New York and overhears someone behind him making cell phone calls trashing McCain as he tries to organize conservatives in opposition. Turns out it was former Senator Rick Santorum.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3426
Some eye-opening comments about other GOP Pols as well.
“and prove harm” would be true for a Bivens type action, but FISA has a statutory award that isn’t prefaced on the proof of damage.
Bond’s use of language is exceptionally sloppy, and has to be augmented somehow in order to find what he might mean. I figured he was referring more to the point of “standing” as in being able to show that one was in fact subjected to the surveillance.
Although, he may well have meant “damages” in the traditional civil sense as in money damages, or some civil harm that the courts have found common-law compensible by money, even if there isn’t a clear monetary loss.
I completely agree with your sentiments 1) that there are certain individual rights that in constitutional principle are reserved to the people but in practice are lost, and 2) that this administration has corrupted the values associated with “torture.”
I’m amazed at the extent of Congressional complicity and public stupidity, but Western Civ. is on its trip in the swirling toilet bowl that history provides all empires.
here’s my prediction;
if fisa is passed without telecom immunity bush will simply say the entire episode is “executive priviledge” and the entire discussion becomes mute
That wouldn’t get him far, perris. Executive Privilege can’t shield criminality on the part of the executive.
And Fourth Branch doesn’t even have that fig leaf, if the court’s rulings about the Energy Task Force documents give any hints as to the coverage he has.
I think you are giving Roberts and alito too much credit
executive privilege would prevent us from finding out if they committed crimes, these judges wouldn’t even let it go far enough for discovery
I think both Roberts and Alito must have some feeling for the anger out here; there’s a point at which they both have to worry about impeachment, being the newbies to the bench.
There’s also nothing stopping Congress — if they can find their spines — from proceeding with an investigation because it is criminal and making it clear that they are doing so because the executive is hiding a crime.
This is all a PR exercise at this point. Nothing that political will power cannot overcome.
No chance of impeaching Roberts and only a nano-micron of a chance on Scalito; really none there either. They are there to stay; absolutely critical that there be no more like them though. The next two seats are, barring something weird or tragic, going to be Stevens and Ginsburg, which means we only hold serve and make no real gain; not holding those two is game over though. The rest of your comment i agree with totally.
Well EW; Bill, Tom, Giselle, the foot, and all the other, secondary, Patriots will be here is about an hour. We have a proper welcome set up for our east coast friends; it is raining like holy hell. Has been all day. Hope that boot has a rubber sole….
Found an eccentric survey of biographs of jobless neoCons morphing from FredThompson’s former campaign to Romney’s; interesting reminder that AJ Scalia hothoused in olc; the link discusses his son’s similar conservatism, though the source is quoting Charlie Savage. I think it may take a genuinely Democratic congress to pass any meaningful revisit to the privacy losses in the wiretap cases; given Scotus’ bent toward standing as the Cerberos at the portal, it was chagrinning that the aclu case on appeal came to the halt it did, but it might take more adroitness than DoJ currently can summon to prevent VaughnWalker from another careful ruling, even before the stage when the whole packet consolidated to him after his initial hearings in the Hepting matter, is treated as a semigestalt.
My own theory is that when someone in the White House told Bush he had to grant immunity to the telecoms if he wanted to save his Dick, Bush always the dim bulb took it too literally.
Is anyone having a problem reaching FDL via either the tab here, or loading it in IE (7)? I know WordPress has gotten in the way of more people than me posting; but I can’t load their page at all or reach it from here for the last 8 hours since about 1PM Eastern. I played with the Hosts file–it pings fine–it tracerts fine but the page won’t load and their is a Redirect in the IE bar on the lower left, and trying to access via history or google cache does nothing.
I am a Safari dude, but have been having intermittent problems all day; but only intermittent.
I just tried it, it loaded fine IE7 WinXP.
Earlier today, accessing emptywheel wordpress wanted me to install something. It prompted for an ID and an email address.
Clearly WordPress knew you were the real Jodidog….. Heh heh
The Brady and the Foot have arrived in all their glory.
Yep same here–all of a sudden about 1PM I started getting Word Press prompts to install a new wordpress for my blog–(the one I don’t have) and then I was able to reach FDL for a few minutes–then the page went to 404 and now it won’t load. Otherwise the browser works fine. I guess I could try other browsers–I’ve tried everything else. You can run Safari on Vista and I could try FF or Opera.
Tbogg/EW/ and any other tab but FDL will work as far as tabs/Blue Dog
At least I can follow the possibilities of what will go down in the Senate tomorrow here. Whatever happens, I sure hope they deny Bush his Cheney/Addington coverup right before the State of the Union. Even if its delay, that always gives time for something to happen.
What reprehensible irony that McConnell who cries like a baby for up or down votes, and other Republicans are blocking debates on amendments–although a couple of the amendments are a thin veil for immunity.
I have to say–although I’m not sure what the impact would be on the outcome, there is no reason that the two leading candidates would not be on the floor of the Senate tomorrow fighting like Hell and trying to show some leadership. The husband of one of them went to enough law school to understtand what’s at stake tomorrow as well.
Apple makes great boxes.
does it say this when you try?
This is emma.ziaspace.com, the eight core Xserve.
1) All FDL pages revered to 404 error.
2) Tried: multiple pings –pings fine.
Tracerts fine.
If I type the IP address in the address bar, 38.119.55.162, then I get the page “This is emma.ziaspace.com, the eight core Xserve.”
I can reach http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/ ; it loads fine unless bmaz or EW has posted a football thread or something else since this one.
I’ve cleaned the cache (aka cleared TIFS) defraged, used sfc /scannow at the cmd prompt, but if I try http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/ the page won’t load and I see the beginning of “Redir” at the IE space bar. I’ve scanned for spyware etc. but the only site I’m having problems with is FDL.
I also opened up the Hosts file at C:WindowsSystem32DriversEtc and tried putting in the IP address in the two formats recommended for the Vista Host file–still no dice trying Hosts with nothing changed, one, and then two.
I can’t think of anything else. I’ve seen this before for a few minutes and I suspect then the bandwidth was exceeeded for the server. I know their could be DNS attacks but they’re rarer and the site would be down for everyone then I think.
Thanks for trying to help.
I used to have the same, or similar, issues with FDL prior to the big FDL revamping and subsequent EW joinder. As I said before, I have relatively new Intel MacBook and use Safari. When I couldn’t get in, I almost always could on Firefox which I downloaded just for that purpose. sometimes, this would go on for a couple of days and then, all of a sudden, everything would work fine on Safari again. No clue what the deal was. Things have been pretty good ever since the switchover; every now and then an issue for a few minutes of so, but really pretty good. Today was very sketchy though. Had same things you and Bob Schact reported and lost a couple of comments, one a long one that pissed me off so I started copying and saving the text just in case. Been fine for the last 5 hours or so. Have you tried loading and using Firefox?
Thanks much for the suggestion. I have FF–I used to really get into it, even getting the O’Reilly Hacks book on it–I love the extensions and the options it provides that IE never has.
They also update and fix problems very fast.
I’m going to try it now.
Firefox works like a charm. It loaded in a flash and all the tabs work. *g* the font is even bigger and easier to read with FF. You can dial up a font in IE Tools>Options>Ignore Font Styles/Sizes on Spec web pages or click the lower right corner in IE7 by using Ctrl+ Left mouse.
Thanks very much. I could kick myself for not having done it before, and again for not figuring out why I’m having a problem with one site that pings fine in IE. I also checked my security and entered FDL in it.
After losing comments at a few places, I decided to try using a text editor. That takes only a little longer (I’m slow anyway), I catch more errors (although not all), and I have the comment saved long enough to try posting it again if need be.
I had not even thought about the possibility of immunity from criminal prosecution being legislatively considered. I see that I need to review the express language of the legislation.
The telecom immunity issue is hugely important, but a quick slam dunk of the version of legislation favored by Bush and Cheney might serve to allow little-known surveillance activities currently underway to continue without encountering major obstacles. If the situation is as more and more of us are thinking, wherein to the extent it’s technically possible all telephonic and Internet transmissions are subjected to some process for gleaning select personal and contact information, there are significant resource expenditures and there are many classified contracts in play. Also, decentralized storage of and distribution of collected data are under ongoing contract-dependent development, to the end that key “facts” on a person of interest can be quickly pulled together from discrete government and private repositories. There’s always a chance that someone will blow a whistle, or that some adversely affected person or business will go public and possibly even file a lawsuit. While constitutional issues might be pressed, legislation giving the executive branch the strongest and most secretive possible hand would tend to discourage anyone’s raising a stink. If telecom immunity language does not survive, and if Democrats in Congress declare victory and grant Bush and Cheney everything else they desire, the victory for the intelligence-industrial complex will be enormous.
a shit stain by any other name is still a shit stain
The domain name firedoglake.com translates to IP address 38.119.55.162 I’m not too sure about this but I think FDL has a redirector implemented. Your problem MAY have to do with security on your router or your browser that keeps keeps you from redirecting.
Pete, this is what you’re missing:
Dangnabbit, I owe ya a Coke, Neil!
good news ought to be told twice!
Thanks for the Clinton update. I know before I couldn’t reach FDL Christy said Obama had a fundraiser, but I gotta tell ya–and he’s been my guy–you’re a constitutional law professor–you are talking about change. Obama knows
that if you get the nomination (or even if it goes to a brokered convention with Super Delegate 3 Card Monte since SD’s are 37.777777 of the Dem vote (I got a kick out of Hillary’s trying to rearrange the Deck for Michigan and Florida and agree wholeheartedly with EW)–that he’s going to have to go after the horror stories of the Bush administration and hit them with a wrecking ball–what a great place to start by raising holy hell on the floor of the Senate and showing what hypocrisy McConnell and those liars are pushing on this country.
I think he could rearrange that fund raiser and I can’t think of a more worthy cause. And now if Senator Clinton is going to the floor, I’m not a political advisor or tea leave reader, but I’d think it does put some pressure on Barack to do the same and put into practice what he’s been preaching.
Jane just posted on FDL that Hillary is gonna vote no on cloture tomorrow…
Wonder if she is going to debate?
Serious political points could be scored, along with Obama, too…
“I could play today,” the New England Patriots quarterback {PICTURE] announced to a standing ovation on a snowy morning in Foxborough. “This entire team has had the best support. We are going to Arizona for one reason and one reason only: to bring the trophy back to Foxboro.”
Brady, who had a mild high ankle sprain, was without the protective boot spotted on his right foot on Monday outside his supermodel girlfriend’s home in New York. Later that day and on Tuesday, he was sans boot, sparking even more speculation about his condition.
Brady was nowhere to be seen until yesterday, when a Boston Herald photographer spotted him returning to his Back Bay digs with a noticeable limp.
—–
Intrigue!
Clinton and Obama will both be at work tomorrow to vote against cloture.
If that’s so, it’s good news and it’s absolutely what they should be doing. They also should take advantage of the fact tonight and tomorrow that they are among the hottest teevee hotties right now to put some hot white light on what’s going on with S. 2248. I wish I could wave a wand and put the consciousness that these EW threads bring into the bell shaped curve of Americans who should understand how reprehensibly many of their Senators are behaving.
I took a poll of several Sunday NYTimes readers at the little grocery store in my neighborhood. All of ‘em knew something was going on, but didn’t have much idea of what.
Pete, Neil and LooHoo – i agree good news as to both. I’ll give just slightly more credit to Hillary because she said so first. But not much more credit; and I am a little perturbed at both for taking this long. And they need to do more than just show up and vote; they need to take some leadership roles in this and really make some noise like Pete said. Say what you will about john Kerry in 2004, he did say some tough things (not enough, but still better than i have seen out of Clinton or Obama to date). The GOP has no credibility outside of the 25 percenters; I just don’t understand why our candidates can not just start calling bullshit as, you know, bullshit. It is stupifying.
I’m with you all the way. Bmaz–as media goes, besides possibly the Giants or the Patriots, who right now can snap their fingers and get nanosecond wall to wall coverage 24X7 on every network the way Obama and Clinton can.
They should be making this an issue. I would shudder to think that any calculations by either Penn, Doyle, Bill Clinton, Wolfson or Axlerod would be worried about getting hit by Republicans. If ever a phony egregious situation was setup–it is the nastiness of all parties involved in trying to secure immunity including Cheney and Addington, and the lawyers at DOJ and NSA involved in this. And immunity doesn’t take into account the other crucial components that aren’t even covered by the SJC version that have been explored so well at EW.
BTW if anyone wants a bigger font on these sites, (my eyes aren’t quite what they were when I was “a kid” be sure and go to Tools>Options>Accessability and put a ck in “ignore font sizes on specified web pages>apply because it works wonders and the comments become very easy to read.
Heh, on a Mac, all you have to do is hit the Apple key and either the + or – to increase or decrease text in any application. It really is a better mousetrap once you get used to it.
On a PC, hit control+ to increase and contol- to decrease text size.
I love Macs and the superior Unix based stability, and their great features, and I love the information that I’ve read lately that shows that they are gaining a percentage of sales now that is significant.
I have run Safari no problem on a Windows box.
The MacBook Air is interesting–I haven’t seen one up close yet.
I see them everwhere, and can never understand the stats that show the boxes are only about 4-5%. I also think both companies should make it very easy to use the others’ software including the OS’s. You shouldn’t have to play with virtual machines to run OS X Leopard on a Windows box.
One of the next big waves is going to be small internet machines that do what the Iphone does, and more but are cheaper. It’s a shame the Itouch can’t email–that was a deliberate decision and can be corrected if Apple wants to.
Beautifully articulated.
41 – Part of the difference in Bivens is that you are addressing the actions of the individuals and their individual liability as opposed to merely the sovereign’s liability though. Also, while the applications have been absolutist, the concept of absolute and even qualified immunity has been as applied to act within the scope of the sovereign’s delegated authority. There really isn’t much that speaks to acts that exceed express limitations on that authority set forth in the Constitution, but I think that argument, as an argument, flies.
Back on torture, which has me more upset, I think the Constitution makes it pretty clear that the government is not intended to have, and does not have, the power of attainder or to engage in cruel and unusual punishment. Further to that but more in the FISA vioaltions setting, I don’t think the that the Executive branch has the power to write its own warrants pursuant to having written its own laws in the form of an OLC opinion, and then claim that the Executive branch has absolute immunity for its invading the province of the legislature and writing an unConstitutional law, or invading the province of the Judiciary and writing its own unConstitutional warrants.
So I think that there are both separation of powers arguments (Executive is not immune for liability for acting as the legislative and judicial branches) and scope of authority (Executive branch is not acting within the scope of its Constitutional authority when it acts to visit attainder on targetted individuals or when it acts to expressly and intentionally violate the 1st and 4th (and 8th and 6th and …) amendments and cannot claims immunity for such ultravires acts, just as a President who commits rape or drunken driving vehicular manslaughter etc. while binging is acting outside the scope of authority. Then the Bivens arguments may apply to the individuals or corporate “persons” withour reliance on collection of damages from the sovereign premised on a wiaver by the sovereign. But that’s just one take and everything pretty much requires a country very different than the one we have now, after so many “fine” men and women have left their mark on DOJ over the last 7 years and so many more “fine” examples have been placed on the bench.
I don’t care who wrote it – Bybee signed off on Yoo’s torture memo and he still sits unimpeded on the bench of the Federal Circuit Court. Imagine that – imagine what we woul have said, once upon a time, about something like that in Russia? The man who signed off on massive authorizations to torture, sitting on the Federal Circuit Court bench, with no voices raised.
Re: Padilla, I think it is how Cook sleeps with herself, to pretend that she actually paid attention to the government disappearing and torturing a citizen for years, while holding a disgraceful Nifong X 2 press conference on the “dirty bomb” charges, while invoking torture victim after torture victim in the litany of cross-confirming sources. She knows she caved over and over and over and she’s trying to dredge a shred of self respect out by making it, not about her failures, but about DOJ getting a scold and told she was going to take some time off the sentence because of his harsh treatment.
It’s just how we sweep under the rug and keep the place looking tidy. Neither side really wants to talk about Padilla bc he is the uncomfortable conversation, isn’t he? Not really a great guy or a good guy. But also not a guy who was going to do what they held and tortured him over – and yet, they can’t really ever come forward and say they were depraved cretins for torturing numerous people, under numerous approaches, to cross confirm a lie just so they would all look better. On the other hand, it’s harder to raise a banner to ride into battle on behalf of a murdering gang member who went over and trained to be a fighter in Chechnya. So it’s like having someone vomiting on the sidewalk – everyone just gives a berth and walks on, trying not to dwell on it.
52 – I think that is the concern of Feingold and Whitehouse vis a vis minimization – bc their versions of minimization when I read them awhile back involved destruction of US citizen information that was nontargeted info.
Good news on Clinton and Obama, but I guess we’ll wait to see what really comes of it. My emails to both last weekend were basically to the effect that if neither of them individually, and both of them together, couldn’t keep 40 Dem Senators on the same page, there is no reason to show up and vote for them as President, bc if they can’t line up even 40 Senators behind their lead, they won’t get judicial nominations, legislation, programs, etc. through and all their campaigning is just posturing. I pretty much believe that. Think what you get as the successor to Stevens or Ginsburg with McConnell’s crew actually fighting – and lining up, as they ALWAYS do, 2 or 3 to 15 or so blue dog Dems, until a compromise acceptable to them is put forward. That’s what we’re looking at if Clinton and Obama prove that they can’t even line up 40 Dems on cloture.
Failed
Leadership
nightall-dream of limping quarterbacks and Justice with an inflatable cast over her exposed breast.
Actually, that law is out there; the problem is that there is literally about nothing that won’t be unconscionably contorted into “the course and scope” by Federal trial judges. Take, for instance, the contortions in the Plame/Wilson civil suit by Bates. Please. I have personally seen worse than that to be honest; not that Bates wasn’t awfully bad, he was. But that is what you face when litigating this stuff. Conceptually I am all in with you; but I have to be honest about what I have seen in practice, and it isn’t pretty or right. Yet there it is. Agree totally with your take on Cook; however, I really thought she would hammer Padilla far more than she did (even though the whole thing ought to have been bounced). As much of a cop out as it was, it was better than I expected and could not have made the Torture Twits happy.
Mary, I know you have said you are beyond sad, but I am glad you at least keep posting about the legal details. IANAL and I find it reassuring that the law is not necessarily failing us, just the people.
Your throwing down the gauntlet to Clinton and Obama is great.
Leadership indeed.
bmaz, why cannot any ‘unconscionably contorted’ legal opinion be revisted on the offending jurists if and once this nightmare is over?
Oh, what I described has been going on for decades; it is very ingrained and absolutely not just a function of the Bush nonsense. Once a trial judge makes such a determination, the standard on review (appeal) makes it very hard to overturn. I know the words I use to describe the phenomenon make is sound like some rare and rogue act, but it is standard operating procedure on governmental liability cases; in spite of that fact, i still believe the words are an accurate description. Not a particularly comforting explanation to be sure, but pretty accurate. To give an example everyone knows and understands, how the hell can you say that deliberately leaking the name of an undercover and covert CIA case agent and her front company to serve your political expediencies is within the proper course and scope of duties of a Vice President of the United States? Yet the facts in Plame’s complaint had to, by law, be assumed to be true and in her favor; and that was what she alleged and what the court through Bates said he assumed and found for purposes of his decision, and he STILL found that Cheney was acting within his official duties and job so he was entitled to immunity. Because of what I have seen and experienced over twenty years, I predicted that would be exactly what the court would do the second i read the complaint. Sure enough, that was indeed what happened. For once, at least, it is not just some new perversion for the Bushies; it is the same old crap. But there it is nevertheless.
Is that the same John D. Bates who denied the GAO’s suit to have Cheney hand over the records of meetings with the energy corpses in 2002? Good heavens.
Heh
Mary, I really appreciate your commenting here. I learn so much from you. Great point in your letters to Obama and Clinton last weekend. Leadership…
OT from WAPO this morning on the SOU a-dress.
WTF?
His “probably final address?
Fuck you, WAPO it IS his final bullshit
Does the WAPO have editors or is Bush planning a Coup?
“That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight. For the first time in four years, he will come before Congress able to report some progress in tamping down violence in Iraq. Yet the public appears to have moved on from the war — and possibly from Bush himself.”
Here’s a talking point re the “immunity issue.” Just took this bit off an AP story (at The Guardian website) related to bush’s address tonight. Re earmarks, he thinks they should be debated separately:
That’s an AP paraphrase; they did not use quotes.
But it strikes me that the very same idea should be turned around and used with regard to immunity.
Clearly it’s a “judicial earmark.” But how can a legislature intrude on the judiciary?
88 – now give WaPo some credit, they may be thinking that he is still going to give his, “I am not a crook” address to the country before he leaves.
bmaz – I definitely agree with you on the practicalities of how scope of authority is often treated by the courts, but I think we are “talking down different paths” so to speak. *g* What has not been addressed much in case law is what happens to a scope of authority argument for immunity when the person does something prohibited by the Constitution.
Granted that Cheney’s office’s participation in outing a CIA agent is beyond the pale, I think that is distinguishable on a couple of grounds. First grounds is that no one found any IIPA or statutory violation (which is pretty hard to believe, still) only certain persons fibbing and Cheney isn’t one of the ones found to be fibbing. I do think that if there had been any criminal violation provable, he’d have had a much harder time arguing that it was within the scope of his authority to commit crimes.
More to the point for some of what I conflated (torture and snooping kind of being rolled into one ball) the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit outing covert agents. However, the Consitution does prohibit general warrants, does prohibity the Executive Branch from acting as Judicial and Legislative branches and vice versa (ok – lets keep it simple and ignore admin law for now where yes, the Exec does its own amount of legislating and judiciating), does prohibit attainder, does prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, etc. This is where there is a paucity of case law – where the action undertaken is one expressly prohibited by the Constitution. There, I just don’t see how even an absolute immunity argument can hold.
Now, will there be lots of arguments that can be made to the contrary? Sure – and there will be every possibility that a Judge will convolute to find authority, especially a Dist. Ct. Judge (where have all the Judge Keith’s gone *sigh*) and especially where most law on authority skews to cover. But the whole reason a Bivens action exists against the individuals, as opposed to a recovery from the sovereign, is the concept that it is NOT within authority to violate the Constitution.
So I think we are in violent agreement that the courts will not make any actions of this kind easy to carry. But I do think that enough can be crafted together to give the telecoms and their Presidents, CEOs, the specific AGs involved, etc. some real, true fits under a theory other than FISA or privacy statutes statutory recovery and to give them fits that Congress can no more foreclose those separate, Constitutionally based, claims with amnesty than they could amend the Constitution by themselves – they cannot take the limits that the people spelled out in the Constitution and negate them by making the Executive Branch and its agents free to violate them by legislation, and they cannot by legislation take away the rights the citizens retained by granting amnesty for those violations.
Winners as arguments? Probably not in this country any more, but definitely I think some good enough arguments to keep the telecoms on edge for awhile even if there is amnesty. The problem for that approach, though, does go to who will be able to show damages to get past standing? There won’t be the assumed damages of the FISA statute. The Sixth Circuit case – did it get appealed on or was cert denied on it? That may set the scene to undercut any Bivens type of action – if the denial of standing by the 6t had cert denied.
Work calls.
Again, conceptually I agree, but a great many of the cases I have seen in the courts I have been around were exactly this as they are based on clear violations of fourth and/or fifth Amendment grounds, often after the underlying criminal trial court had specifically found direct and egregious violations of said rights. Same result.