Dick’s Evolving Demands for Immunity
Thanks to Faiz, who watches Rush, so I don’t have to.
Once again, the Administration has trotted out Dick to lobby for immunity for himself telecom immunity. All the things I said last week about the inappropriateness of sending the guy who would most directly benefit from immunity out to lobby for it still hold.
So someone decided that they would get the person least willing to cooperate with Democrats, the person who single-handedly could eliminate the legal problem they allege the telecoms have, and the person who stands to benefit most from an immunity provision for telecoms, to head out to pressure Congress? And they thought this would work to persuade Democrats to put aside all the troubling legal issues to grant immunity?
But I’m interested in slight changes to Dick’s spiel over the last eight days of legislative wrangling. As an aside, you’d think that some of these differences might stem from the fact that your average Heritage Foundation member has about four times the IQ of your average Rush listener, but Dick’s statements to Rush are much more measured.
One thing I hadn’t noticed in Dick’s Heritage Foundation speech is that it already included (and was perhaps the roll-out of) the Orwellian "liability protection" in lieu of the more accurate "retroactive immunity."
Actions by Congress sometimes have unexpected consequences. But a failure to enact a permanent FISA update with liability protections would have predictable and serious consequences.
It must have polled well, because Dick is developing into an elaborate metaphor including a dig at trial lawyers.
One of the main things we need in there, for example, is retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States —
[snip]
RUSH: The opposition in the Senate is primarily from Democrats, correct?
CHENEY: Correct. People who don’t want to — I guess want to leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big company that may have helped. [my emphasis]
I wonder how the ACLU and EFF feel about being labeled trial lawyers?
Now perhaps it’s because Rush asked the question–whether the opposition was "primarily from Democrats"–but Dick’s pitch this time around has none of the appeal to bipartisanship that his Heritage Foundation speech did.
This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt.
That kind of makes me happy–because it suggests that BushCo recognizes that they’re going to have to do more than rely on Jello Jay to roll over for them to get immunity passed.
As Faiz notes, Dick even offers a ridiculous claim that no one’s civil liberties were violated.
We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties.
As with Dick’s adoption of a much more partisan stance, I’m pretty happy to see Dick explicitly denying that they violated civil liberties. That suggests BushCo believes that some of Rush’s listeners do believe this is about civil liberties. One of the things Russ Feingold noted the other day is that even his more conservative Wisconsin constituents see this clear as a matter of civil liberties (which was the point of Feingold’s comments on the YouTube clip). It seems that the appeal to civil liberties is beginning to make some progress.
I also find it instructive that in the Heritage Foundation speech, Dick described precisely how the telecoms assisted the government.
Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.
With Rush, Dick for the most part avoids mentioning what the telecoms did, instead simply saying they "helped."
… the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States —
[snip]
a big company that may have helped. Those companies helped specifically at our request, and they’ve done yeoman duty for the country, [my emphasis]
Aren’t those big telecoms such nice little helpers?!?!?! (Insert remark about hillbilly heroin here.)
In short, Dick seems to have replaced the fear-mongering he did at the Heritage Foundation for a partisan appeal. And he has very very carefully tried to hide anything that might scare a civil libertarian.
All the more reason we ought to be hammering a civil libertarian line for the next two weeks.
One more thing. I don’t know if this is a slip or not, but look at the way Dick describes the program to Rush (and this is as detailed as he gets):
It’s just absolutely essential to know who in the United States is talking to Al-Qaeda.
Of course, that’s not what the Administration has claimed the program is for–identifying those in the US who might talk to Al Qaeda. Remember, it’s supposed to be for figuring out what terrorists say among themselves. Dick’s description of the purpose of the program seems to violate the standards for minimization that require non-relevant conversations with US persons to be ignored and destroyed. But since we know they’re wiretapping Pulitzer Prize winning journalists (in addition to Lawrence Wright, Christiane Amanpour has reportedly been tapped), and allegedly tapping lawyers representing Gitmo detainees, I guess this shouldn’t surprise us.
As I said, Dick seems to be trying hard not to scare the civil libertarians. All the more reason to point out that Dick has admitted that BushCo has forgone traditional standards of minimization and simply helped themselves to the conversations of anyone they think is talking to Al Qaeda.
Like OJ Simpson, he wants to and will brag about what he has gotten away
with, he has worked to this end his entire political career and he is
damn proud of it… get him in his cups and he’ll show you the torture
tapes as a bonus.
Coming from Dick I would take that as a threat.
When will they call them out and follow through? How many crimes does this administration have to commit?
The only reason he would bother to go out and lobby this is because he is worried that the country will one day discover to what extent he personally obtained information by spying that he used for things like outing Plame or something like that.
Froomkin today has some on Cheney and Rushboo
“It’s just absolutely essential to know who in the United States is talking to Al-Qaeda.”
OK. But it is equally important to know who our elected officials make deals with and consort with. In other words, Dick, I would like to know what you do to justify the paycheck we, the voters, give you. You want that kind of openness? I want a quid pro quo…
Well, I think it is pretty clear that if we don’t do exactly what Dick says, the terrorists are going to win and we are all going to die.
You know you could make fun of this in so many different ways. We didn’t do it, i.e. our minions did. It wasn’t so much violating as crushing. You can’t violate what you don’t have. Etc. But the really scary part is that in Cheney world he may actually believe this.
Deliberate Misspelling coming:
EW, you have surpassed yourself. This is a really, really great lesson on framing. You caught Darth shifting frames in midstream, right out in the open.
“helped”
“helped voluntarily”
“patriotic duty to help”
“they won’t help if they have to follow the statute”
Alright already. Just put the amendment to a vote.
The term “liability protection” appears in the January 17 Congressional Record, at Page H341
That’s Dodd, last week. But notice the term reaching back to September. I’ll look at the April demand from DOJ. I won’t be surprised to see it there too.
Any Senator – Democrat or Republican – who thinks that the Administration is dealing in good faith on anything related to civil liberties or the Constitutional separation of powers – has their blinders on.
At some point, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate will have to realize that the Administration does not believe that their institutions have any power to legislate, conduct oversight, etc. and that they are in the middle of a Constitutional crisis of their own making.
They need to realize that they have to come together – Democrats and Republicans alike – to reassert their Constitutional role or they will become as irrevelant as the Administration thinks they are.
I think Schumer, Feinstein and even Specter are now beginning to realize that it was a mistake to assume any kind of “good faith” existed in the nomination of Michael Mukasey. Their own good faith was taken advantage of and they were played for chumps.
Hopefully, the rest of the Democratic Senate and their Republican counterparts will also realize that there is no such thing as good faith when dealing with this administration and that they will use that knowledge appropriately when deciding what to do about telecom immunity.
I’m hoping that my own Senator McCaskill is now outraged enough after the president issued a signing statement nullifying her attempt to establish a commission to investigate waste, fraud and abuse in the War on Iraq. Outraged enough to come out with a clear “NO!” on telecom immunity and basket warrants and anything else this Administration wants.
Edited for clarity. Schumer, Feinstein, and Specter have cast so many bad votes. The idea that they learn from their mistakes is belied by experience –and their voting records.
Schumer, Feinstein, and Spector knew Mukassey would do the dance
How many millions in bribes to elected officials, and hundreds of other cogs will be affected if they can’t get immunity? How will these politicians explain to their campaign contributors that they couldn’t wipe out the influence of the senators still willing to maintain the provisions of the constitution and not violate their oath of office? How will they find enough lawyers to defend themselves against the mythical charges from everyone in America that is going to sue them? I know I have emailed outside the US. I guess I have been tapped? Has it affected me and am I going to sue? I don’t think so.
But I would take issue with their breaking the law and giving that data to people that are using it for purposes not specified. So let’s all laugh at Arlen’s ridiculous notion to place the blame with “gubment, by substitution” (prostitution has a much better reputation) There is no more chance of Arlen’s sincerity than dick.
why can’t we get religion involved so it is a three ring circus?
Daniel Schorr comments on NPR (Neocon Public Radio) that Bush will give Telcos a presidential pardon if the Democrats succeed in thwarting immunity (h/t ThinkProgress).
Highly irregular, but apparently constitutional. The good news, if it comes to that, is that a pardon insulates a wrongdoer only from criminal liability. The beneficiary remains liable at civil law – eg breach of contract or statutory duty – which would not shut down the private suits.
If those suits survive into the next administration, their continued viability would rest, among other things, on the next president not asserting state secrets, etc., to preclude essential evidence. Inevitably, any judgments against the Telcos would probably end up before the Supreme Court. Disappointingly for the rule of law, I wouldn’t trust the majority on this Court to find any neocon conduct wrongful.
Daniel Schorr comments on NPR (Neocon Public Radio) that Bush will give Telcos a presidential pardon if the Democrats succeed in thwarting immunity (h/t ThinkProgress).
A much better solution. He put them in the spot, let him take the heat for getting them out.
The “pardon” is at best indirect, however, because he can’t “pardon away” a civil remedy that exists in statute. The indirect route (and I think it fails) is to pardon the criminal offense that is a predicate requirement for obtaining the civil remedy.
It is also important to remember that a pardon is not an exoneration. It is an admission of guilt by the party that accepts it. A pardon removes punishment, not guilt.
And what good does guilt do? What a fucked up justice system! Why does anyone wonder why there is such deep disrespect amongst the peasants for the U.S. justice system? No need to wonder.
…Daniel Schorr comments on NPR (Neocon Panic Radio) that Bush…
There. Fixed it.
Hey randiego! Quit shipping your seven year flood rainstorms over here will you? My roof has sprung a leak and I can’t take any more.
I am off in a few minutes to serve as the intrepid EW reporter on the ground at ESPN media row in Scottsdale. Your very own EW Senior SuperBowl Trash Talk Analyst! I will be reporting live and inebriated later tonight…..
Hah, Can’t wait Bmaz! I’ll make it a point to be around then!
Source: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/20…..oposal.pdf
That dates to mid-April 2007. Earliest reference I found to the specific source is April 11. The DOJ Press release is April 13.
Speaking of Orwellian, I keep seeing this phrase “alleged to have assisted the gov’t” in regard to the telecoms. I think that’s an established fact… the “problem” is the allegation that they broke the law in doing so. It seems to me that the “alleged to have assisted” gambit gives the game away on square one. All that’s left to decide is if Bushco gets another pass on attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Seems to me that if the telecoms need “liability protection,” they should hire lawyers to look out for liability ahead of time.
No professionals I know of have “retroactive liability.” There is no such thing as any malpractice insurer who gives coverage once you’ve already done something to get you in a jam.
Why is the govt planning to provide malpractice coverage for corporations? Why after the fact?
Call it “malpractice” – which is what it is! They malpracticed and harmed the public. Now they want the public to pay so they get off scott free!
“Malpractice” is doing poorly something one holds oneself out as routinely performing to a high standard. It’s negligence: I had a duty to perform to standard “A”, and barely gave you an ungentlemanly “C-”. Somebody relied on me and was hurt when I screwed up. Shit happens. Insurers underwrite its consequences for a fee so that the loss doesn’t fall on the innocent victim. Even the cost for the errant professional is predictable and spread out via the routine expense of paying an insurance premium.
Several of these Telcos intentionally broke the law and are still doing it. That’s a big step up the chain of wrongdoing, from, “Honey, sorry I didn’t pay the bills on time and ruined our credit,” to running her over in the car for the life insurance.
The Telcos did it for mixed reasons. For some, it was winning big time government contracts. For several, it was quick and easy approval for mega-mergers that generated billions in revenue and hundreds of millions in fees and bonuses. For others, it was to avoid political prosecutions by Cheney’s DOJ.
That’s a classic Faustian bargain. They knowingly harmed society in general, and their customers and others in particular. For private gain. The suspicion of that merits thorough investigation; if proven, it merits lengthy criminal punishment. But Cheney’s mantra is he takes care of his own. See, Libby, Louis Irving and Wolfowitz, Paul. So his job is to make sure the Shrubster coughs up immunity. Governing in the public interest? Never heard of it. Neither, apparently, has this Senate.
Actually malpractice, at least for us psychologists, could indeed involve doing something much worse than C level work. If a therapist has sex with a patient that is deliberate. And unethical. And in some states illegal. But definitely outside the bounds altogether. Fraudulent billing. Same thing. Or violation of confidentiality. Any number of other egregious acts. Some of which might be illegal.
I was mainly trying to find another frame, to give voters a sense of what is being done wrong.
If they want to use “liability,” then I would turn it around as “malpractice’ or something like that.
And I was being pedantic while also trying to point out the flaws in Cheney’s propaganda.
“Malpractice” is usually not living up to the “standards of one’s profession”: misdiagnosing the cause of symptoms or pleading guilty because you missed the illegal search and wrongful interrogation. Even when objectively drawn, that leaves lots of room. But not, as you say, for illegal activity such as purposefully administering incorrect drugs or actively helping a client commit a felony that endangers lives and property. That has nothing to do with one’s profession; it’s just criminal behavior.
I think we agree that Cheney’s game is altogether in the latter category. His mistakes are not reasonable or in many cases mistakes. He is intentionally usurping the king’s authority, sacking the treasury, and putting plague rats in the city’s wells to inflame the citizens of Guilder and distract them from his crimes. He needs to be called out, but the mice of the Senate refuse to confront the cat, and its GOP members continue to put party above country. We need a few good terriers, and in the case of Cheney, a hungry mongoose.
An item the MSM misses entirely is that the partisan behavior is so one-sided. Glenn Greenwald commented on that this week. There’s no FISA amendment because the GOP blocked it. There’s no budget because the GOP refused to compromise. There’s no adequate SCHIP funding because a GOP president vetoed it. Ad nauseum. It has no vocabulary to deal with this, so it shoehorns its descriptions into yesterday’s dialogue.
ok, I totally agree that they are criminals. no question at all about that, in both our views.
I won’t belabor the point. And darn…. I wish we could haul these guys into jail and leave them there for life!
Thanks for taking time to enlighten me… very kind of you.
It also makes it much easier to avoid prosecution if you can listen in on the prosecution / investigators. Deadeye Dick and Rove are not nearly as smart as commonly thought. They just have intelligence access to both sides of everything.
OT… for comic relief?
Manny heads West…
Ensures a V for the Pats?
http://www.boston.com/sports/b…..super.html
At the same time, if Bush is saying he can and will fix it himself, it completely removes the urgency for obtaining a legislated solution.
This is a powerful argument to the Congress. It protects their “Rule of Law,” they don’t have to reverse themselves, they don’t have to co-opt the role of the judiciary, etc. And it also “takes care” of the telecoms. It puts the onus and spotlight on the executive.
However a pardon is worthless if Bush gives it to hide his own part in a criminal activity.
However a pardon is worthless if Bush gives it to hide his own part in a criminal activity.
Yeah. I was thinking more in institutional terms. President Bush is trying to get Congress to absorb the political heat that results from forgiving past law breaking. Congress should protect ITS institutional values, and the Rule of Law, by leaving the power to provide discretionary forgiveness where the Constitution put it, with the president.
god, I never thought of it this way. Shrub is literally passing the buck to Congress, so he doesn’t face the embarrassment of giving the telcos amnesty.
This is SUCH an elegant solution Shrub has had no problem before doing as he pleased (as recently as a couple of days ago with his “signing statement”). Let HIM decide…
Hey now! I’ve about had it with all you guys bashing us nice cuddly trial lawyers! For all the bad rap, we are one of the few remaining firewalls between the Cheney like authoritarian governmental and big business foxes and the collective henhouses. So knock it off! Tee Hee, Heh heh. Okay, seriously now, couple of thoughts:
Well, no shit; the consequences were both predicable and serious. The legal departments for the telcos have been dealing with wiretapping and surveillance issues, both for law enforcement and the intelligence community since the advent of the freaking telephone. They are very good and very experienced. This I personally guarantee you from experience. They covered themselves and have indemnification/subrogation agreements with the government for any liability they may ultimately incur; and anybody who doesn’t believe this simply doesn’t know how they operate. In the first place as LHP and I have both explained several different times, between the FISA language and the standard statutory wiretapping/surveillance provisions, they already have far more protection and insulation that is being let on. But, on top of that, there is absolutely no chance they don’t have some form of the additional agreements I have described. They shut the freaking taps off if Dick doesn’t pay his bill; you think they just patriotically blundered into an arrangement that could incur billions in liabilities? Don’t be silly; this was “predictable and serious” and they acted accordingly.
And, as EW picked up, “may have helped” and “believed to have aided”? WTF? We are supposed to whitewash all this and you can’t even say for sure they did anything at all, much less anything of value? This is patently and ridiculously absurd. By the way Dickhead Cheney, if you are so concerned about saving lives, why have you wasted so many in Iraq?? Refusing to let California clean up it’s air will kill more Americans than the terrists will. Screw Cheney, and the ignorant Chimp he rode in on.
That makes sense. The telecoms would not leave their collective asses bare. The more I hear trial lawyers trash talk the more respect I have for them
Bmaz;
The National Lawyers Guild at their Washingtom convention end of 2007 made a resolution to impeach Cheney and Bush. Have you read that. Another lawyers convention followed in New York with diefferent but similar statements. Have yoy read them all?
Lawyers are the people who do the heavy lifting you shouls all be on this point. People on the Addington/Yoo side of the bench operate in a different lawology sort of a theocratic federalist righteousness. I think those concept were squarely addressed in the Constitutional conventions leading up to the Declaration of Indepence when what we would be as a nation were hammered out. The neocans have reverted back and are resurecting long ago nixed ideology. Jefferson, Linclon and his like would be rolling over in their graves if they could hear this treason.
Yes lawyer can be horrid some of the time but it is time they all came together for our Republic and the representitivr democracies that is being trashed ny Bush/Cheneu and company.
Yep, have read those, plus Liz de la Vega’s work too. I exchanged email with her once or twice while she was working on it. Don’t have a link for it, but I think it is on TomDispatch this link might get you there. Hey, the case is simple, easy and damning to make; all that is lacking is the will of our Congressional leaders to do it.
I don’t know about you folks, but the last couple of days’ silence on FISA in the Senate is giving me a sinking feeling. Silence equals secrecy and every time our Democratic leaders start negotiating behind closed doors, they end up giving away the farm…
I don’t know about you folks, but the last couple of days’ silence on FISA in the Senate is giving me a sinking feeling.
There are precious few clues. The best clues are Reid’s “votes on Monday and Tuesday,” with both FISA and economic stimulus being on the table. Other than that, and whatever leaked to TPM, I’ve seen nothing.
I’ve been wondering about this, too. Nothing from ACLU, PFAW or the other watchdogs, either. I’m gonna watch the Friday news dump.
Bob in HI
In #29, it should have been “Irving Lewis” Libby. I hate diminutives like Scooter, they make the perp seem cute and not responsible. But I admit I can’t stop doing it with the Shrubster. It’s just too painful otherwise.
The Telcos did it for mixed reasons.
Not that I’d necessarily call it “patriotic cooperation” if it happens in secret for 5 years running, but they’re also operating under orders that are classified, signed by the president and AG, etc. This isn’t saying “no” to the local FBI field office.
Something that hasn’t much come out, but probably should, is that the telcoms have also demonstrated that they aren’t trustworthy when it comes to protecting privacy, in general and for the long term. They’d break the law for any president.
I think we need to spell it out.
This provision will provide unlimited immunity for telecoms who cooperated with the government in spying on US citizens on US soil without a warrant.
Here’s what I think they need to do to call Cheney’s bluster into bluff. Propose and amendment that would provide immunity to teleocms for any liability related to calls placed by or received by al-Qaeda terrorists and a list of those specific al-Qaeda targets can be provided to the FISA court, sworn under oath, and the FISA court can conduct a review to determine whether there is reason to strike any names from that list as not being legitimate al-Qaeda terrorists, then the telecoms can have immunity from and against claims for liability by any of the remaining al-Qaeda terrorists on the list.
See Dick – we can take care of your concern.
EW – I heard that Cheney interview on Rush and Cheney had the weirdest cough — like his lungs were filled with fluid or something. It’s like Cheney adopted the Vader breathing to match the Vader dark side.
I didn’t hear the audio, so I don’t want to get too far ahead on this, but the sound you describe is eerily similar to symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF). We knew Darth’s heart was ‘effed up, but isn’t CHF a killer? If not acutely, then chronically? Is there a nurse in the house? Doctor?
Fractal – I’m not wishing bad things on Cheney (other than say, prosecution) but it was a weird cough. Fourthbranch was just making a very odd interrupting sound on an intermittent basis — not hacking or anything — more like a wet swallowing, like Homer Simpson choking down some drool after going ‘Mmmm…donuts!’.
Maybe he caught that ass-kicking San Diego flu? I know — from sitting next to Nancy Pelosi, who brought it back with her to the SOTU!
“He’s been dying of the same heart attack for twenty years.”
“He’s been dying of the same heart attack for twenty years.”
Any chance our VP is a zombie? Might explain a few things.
Bob in HI
Dick’s demands for immunity don’t evolve. They are there because intelligent design made it so.
I dunno. Whoever designed these asswipes ain’t that intelligent….
Are saying you think there is flaw in the system? *g*
How about “enhanced” immunity
As if Cheney didn’t already treat us like DFH’s, instead of getting a copy of the president’s (the People’s?) budget online for free, it’ll now cost you two hundred smackeroonies.
No point in making it easier for Americans to see how Bush still spends our tax dollars as if they were more gifts from dad’s friends, to bail him out of one more bankruptcy.
(h/t ThinkProgress)
The silence is uncomfortable, I agree. I would not be surprised to learn an alternate amendment is being drafted. And if it doesn’t come out right enough to pass, maybe more than one.
Dick has no shame, conscience or soul for that matter. He sure is trying hard to save his own hide.
There was one Pullitzer Prize winning journalist that do wish they had been wiretapping Judy Miller. (millions of lives would have been saved) Oh I forgot that would mean they would have been wiretapping themselves talking to Judy.
Lets see
First: Total Information Awareness via Telecomm, congress doesn’t like it, fuck em. Check.
Second: Find out everything you can about your enemy ( Congress ( Rs and Ds, Judges, and News Media ) Blackmail everybody and show ruthless efficiancy in destroying opposition.
Third: National Security Letters via 9-11 and Anthrax cool way to fill in the blanks in First.
Fourth: Repeat Second with more info.
Tada: Recipe for becoming a king is complete except for one minor flaw 2 term limit.
Fifth: Become McCains Veep, steal election and do it all over again.
There are more options than just that. Darth could Veep for either JMcC or Mittsy. Or “the convention” could “draft” him as Prez directly. (Remember how he became the Veep candidate in the first place?)
Durbin is going to hold up the DAG confirmation vote for Filip until Mukasey becomes a better pen pal – maybe.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005184.php
Apparently Mukasey’s rendition of Sister Golden Hair was off key.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3ax8NWNGA
I’ve been one poor correspondent, and I’ve been too too hard to find, but it doesn’t mean, you ain’t been on my mind
I still think calling Bush’s bluff by granting immunity for exactly what he and Cheney have admitted is the program – only snooping on calls that involve al-Qaeda – is a great way to go.
Dems – sure, we’ll be happy to grant immunity for telecom assistance in surveilling any call that had al-Qaeda at one end of the call, even without a warrant.
“Dems – sure, we’ll be happy to grant immunity for telecom assistance in surveilling any call that had al-Qaeda at one end of the call, even without a warrant.”
But the problem as I see it is “who is Al Qaeda”? I hear Joe McCarthy’s bones rattling, and out of his long-dead mouth come phrases like “Al Qaeda sympathizer” and “suspected member of Al Qaeda”, or “possible member of Al Qaeda”. You do remember how the word “sympathizer” got stretched, don’t you?
So, is anyone who donates to a Muslim charity an “Al Qaeda sympathizer”? Is anyone who contacts Al Jazeera an Al Qaeda sympathizer?
One Joe McCarthy in my life is enough.
Bob in HI
Thanks for that patriotic America song; now its bouncing around my head where my brain ought to be. Oh well, needed something to take up that unused space. Mary, I love your restricted immunity thought; problem is, they already have that immunity under FISA and the standard wiretapping statutes.
Retroactive immunity, liability…malpractice how ever you want to spin these serious illegal activities these suckers are criminals! What’s it going to take for congress to make a stand?
Monica where are you?
“Actions by Congress sometimes have unexpected consequences. But a failure to enact a permanent FISA update with liability protections would have predictable and serious consequences.”
consequences
http://politicalhumor.about.co…..erfudd.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.co…..yknife.htm
Cheney thinking about consequences
http://politicalhumor.about.co…..drevil.htm
Speaking of Orwellian, I keep seeing this phrase “alleged to have assisted the gov’t”
That can be construed more than one way. I think it’s more the shell game than outright denial. “There’s a pea under one or more of these pods, but we can’t/won’t tell you which pod(s) contains the pea.” As opposed to “We can’t/won’t tell you if there is a pea at all, even though we once said there was.”
No, the pea must remain like Schroedinger’s cat; always present, never observed. Once the pea is identified under any one shell, that fixes the coordinates and they are screwed; because they are all improper/illegal to some extent and, if by some chance that one shell is not, that narrows the potentials for the remaining shells, which are.
No, the pea must remain like Schroedinger’s cat; always present, never observed.
Quantum politics.
For anyone hanging around who wonders what the heck Schroedinger’s cat has to do with anything, it certainly appears as a potentially deadly metaphor for many of the discussions we’ve been having.
Um, can those CIA tapes both exist and not exist at the same time?
Bob in HI
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01292008.html
A Sibel Edmonds Timeline
“We Can’t Afford to Let Them Spill the Beans”
By GARY LEUPP
Okay. Tinfoil hat time. Am I the only person who wonders if there is a connection between the internet cable “interruption” affecting the Middle East today and the potential expiration of PAA in 16 days? It’s been going on all day and there still is no official explanation.
Do you have a link?
Is this the same one affecting India? Is it electric infrastructre related, or straight tubes?
Same one. Theory is a boat-anchor-caused cable break somewhere in the mediterranean, presumably of a fibre optic hard line.
Surprisingly, CNN has a good article.
Twas reported as a “cable cut”. Maybe yes, maybe no. Here’s a story link.
Quantum Cheney
I want Obama or Hillary to say something about these hearings and about Mukasey’s behavior on the stand. I will vote for the one who is willing to take a risk to save our constitution. How do we get them to “lead” on this issue.
64 – that’s not the problem, that’s the fun of it. Of course they do – so the Dems aren’t giving anything (unless there is somehow something to this “US switch” issue they have mentioned). And the Dems are not very effectively saying that this is already covered, so this says it for them – here is an amendment that clearly give immunity for helping with the “Al-Qaeda Calling” program.
This makes the Republicans, though, have to say why they want immuninity for the NOT al-Qaeda calling program that doesn’t exist.
70 – I don’t know enough about it to have tinfoil or not. As it gets explained in a dumbed down fashion for someone like me, I may go buy a roll.
63 – oh yeah, that is a problem. The only way I can see around it is to say their Al-Qaeda list goes to the FISA court to be reviewed and pared down. The immunity would be for the Al-Qaeda calls, though, not for “material support” instances. It would have to be fleshed to be offerec, but I think it is the framing of an amendment that shifts the conversation from “protect the people who helped save us from terrorists” to, “but not lawbreakers who engaged in any massive spying of US citizens on US soil without al-Qaeda being on the phone.”
It’s not an amendment that would pass – not with these Republicans, but it sure shifts the rhetoric.
It appears that two undersea cables have problems.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/…..index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..jI8e.s0NUE
Al Gore’s latest book, Assualt on Reason, in chapter #5 The Assualt on the Individual describes very clearly what we are not dealing with. Without penalty compliance is unlikely. Even with present penalties compiance may be unlikely under the executive priveledge of the new bi king and his mad uncle prick.
Handing immunity over to those compicit in law breaking renders the law moot. The assualt on individual privacy in the name of national security is now the norm. Mr, Bush has removed a signifigant oportion of our individual freedom using his AG Mukassey and predacessors.
Al Gore served 2 terms in each house and 2 terms in the White House 24 years of the highest elected offices. Nancy Peliosi, Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer are not in the same cerbral league. It is time for the Dem leadership past and president including Carter to create a leadership conference and get impeachment investigations going. Grenwald and other progressives could get behind this. We have to take some of the powers away and put a bridle on the damage that is still running at a gallop.
Amen, brother
Yes. Recommended this over a month ago on the Lake and added it to the building of the Presidential Platform for Dems as well. To use it also as a leadership development platform for basic policy strategy such as energy, health care…in addition to leadership change and actions to uphold the balance of powers…
76 –
and Iran? Any mention?
No, no mention of iran I could find in a quick Google News search, other than:
Sorry, forgot to cite: That was from The Lede.
OK, this is interesting:
So the entire Internet traffic of at least “Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain Pakistan and India” is now running through the US.
Hmmm.
On top of that, most stories are saying that much of the backup capacity goes through satellites. That’s back to old FISA technology, as I understand.
I have no idea why, but this occurring hours before the PAA expiration sure looks creepy. From what a digital idiot like me can discern from the discussions that we have had, and what I know of the law, this shouldn’t be related; but, again, it makes you wonder.
Given the lawless conduct of this President with the full approval of Congress, I don’t think it makes the slightest bit of difference what happens with PAA with respect to boat anchors in the Med. This President is the law. Just ask Leahy, who was so jocular with having Mukasey and the Senate just go on about their business as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening all around us. Just another day in the Imperium.
Well, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are certainly key players w/r/t Iran, so if some operation were afoot there could be significant info-gathering advantages there, but I’m not sure how that touches PAA since there is no need for FISC approval of foreign-to-foreign intercepts. Are you seeing anything specific there?
No, not at all; but it sure appears to be a weird coincidence.
Besides, isn’t PAA 15-day reauthorization good to go? Has W already signed it? Or is he going to refuse and let PAA lapse?
Actually I can’t believe I haven’t seen any stories on this yet, it’s potentially pretty critical.
Can someone ask cboldt if there is a signature yet? If there isn’t, PAA expires in 4 hours and the timing of this thing stinks even more.
I keep thinking, though, about Egypt right now–facing the MB’s increasing power, and facing the dilemma of Gaza. Not that it’s related. But still.
Also–the fact that most traffic goes through the US–that’s pretty much the point of a lot of what Nacchio revealed to us. It was a conscious decision made in the 1990s, I think, that meant we controlled digital communication in the same way the British empire used to control telegraph.
Except that before today’s break, there was a direct Middle East – Europe internet link that didn’t go through the US. That’s changed now. Actually apparently (from the AP story I quoted and linked) there’s also a path through China etc., but it doesn’t carry the brunt of the re-routed traffic.
Sorry, but “MB”?
Muslim Brotherhood. They’ve got ties to Hamas, and it was arguably through their mobilization that Egypt allowed the Gazans entry to Egypt. The sense is that they’re making a power play against Mubarak, and even if that doesn’t work, there’s the sense that he can’t hold them off. Obviously, Mubarak is one of those allies we assume will always be on our side. But if MB is really contesting him for power…
O.M.G. Any tame statisticians in the readership? Anybody want to figure out the odds of that happening by chance? (How close togther are the cuts?)
Nah. This was an operation.
What about Palestine?
Haven’t seen any mention of whether Palestine is affected, and a quick Google News search turns up nada. So unknown.
“What about Palestine?”
Runners and smoke signals?
Bob in HI
From an ABC News post this morning, Reid seems to have a fairly specific FISA plan in mind and is working around Super Tuesday:
Thanks for the info. I suggest we all work our own personal networks hard over the next week to get as many people as possible (from as many states as possible) calling/emailing senators, representatives and leadership (Reid/Pelosi) and telling them “No Immunity, No Basket Warrants, and Increased Minimization”.
I suggest we all work our own personal networks hard over the next week …
Hit the Senate before Tuesday. And given the battle there, I seriously doubt the House is going to monkey, in conference, with what the Senate sends back to the House.
Procedurally, the Senate will amend the House bill by substituting its text. If the House accepts the substitution (it often does), that short-circuits a trip to conference committee. The House will have to either amend or reject the substitution in order for conference committee to come into being.
Did anyone get a chance to see the TPM article “Conyers to Mukasey: Why Ban Muckraker”? It’s down now…
Tiresome. You want retroactive immunity for any laws that were broken when you listened in on al Qaeda’s phone calls? Done. You want retroactive immunity for any laws that were broken when you listened in on everyone else’s phone calls? No deal.
Why don’t they just write that into the damn law? I won’t be happy about it, because I still think they should have gotten the warrants, but I’m happy to just call the bluff. Hell, I’ll even sweeten the pot: Immunity for anything to do with al Qaeda’s phone calls, AND you can write them all parking tickets when they still have time on the meter.
Does anyone seriously believe that Dick Cheney is NOT abusing his authority here? This is a guy who used his office to dodge the police after shooting someone in the face. He doesn’t give shit about anyone’s privacy. I don’t know why the Dems can’t get their talking points together on this. “We don’t mind Dick Cheney listening to al Qaeda’s phone calls. We just don’t want him listening to YOUR phone calls.”
Or Colin Powell’s phone calls
94
LOL
102 – Muslim Brotherhood
Thx, Mary.
Hey, how exactly did both cables get cut at the same time? Were they zip tied together with some of those plastic dohickies from Home Depot for a stretch so that one errant cut got them both? Did one of those wacky bright blue Iranian Bayliners happen to be frolicking right over the precise intersection of the two cables and just happen to make a propeller cut there? What was the mechanism of this tragic act?
The only details I’ve seen are: North of Alexandria, Egypt; bad weather; ship’s anchor. No description of the two cable path geometries, relative positions, distance apart, etc.
Huh, here’s a different report:
Did I say Hmmm yet?
Cheney:
Cheney might have added that the administration would like to determine who all are talking/writing/posting/messaging about al-Qaeda. But if al-Qaeda operatives and allies know nothing else, they likely know not to use al-Qaeda in any unencrypted electronic or telephonic transmission.
Reid just rattled off the UC agreement for handling the FISA bill. I’m still scoping out the details (actually, waiting for him to wrap up his chat before I commit recording to disk. Senate is adjourning until 2:00 p.m Monday, so nothing will happen tomorrow.
Do you know if Bush signed the PAA extension?
H.R.5104 – 1/30/2008: Presented to President.
Nothing yet at WH News about it having been signed into law, although I’m sure it will be before the PAA expires.
McJoan diary on FISA status… didn’t notice any news there.
On PAA Extension, has there been some deal whereby the WH accepted it? Last I’d heard, any and all extension ideas were non grata.
McJoan diary on FISA status… didn’t notice any news there.
Scroll to the bottom of Brewing Another FISA Delay, and you’ll find an embedded audio player of Reid setting out the UC agreement. It involves (my guess without transcribing) about 12 amendments and hours of debate.
On PAA Extension, has there been some deal whereby the WH accepted it?
Yes. The WH said it would reject a 30 day extension. The WH, House and Senate negotiated and implemented a 15 day extension on Tuesday.
cbolt – i think i heard that difi’s amendment was going to be subject to a 60 vote requirement for passage. did you hear that also?
*** i’m not sure what reid said, he spoke very quickly.
i’ve got a recording of reid’s UC statement, if there is interest, i’ll try to make a quick youtube so everyone else can give it a listen… i’m going to have to listen several times to try to make sense of it.
i’ve got a recording of reid’s UC statement, if there is interest, i’ll try to make a quick youtube …
Or you can grab the audio S.2248 UC Agreement – Jan 31
I’m just going to wait for the legislative calendar. It’ll be up in a few hours, and saves me the time of listen, transcription errors, and so forth. You’ll find a need to have reference to the contents of amendment, by number, as well.
ah, i was just looking for an excuse to make a youtube, now that i have cspan cable tv (my previous youtubes were rube goldberg rips from c-span’s real player webstream).
still a few video glitches to work out, but much, much better quality than previous.
and i included the bit with the c-span announcer saying, i think, that the 15 day PAA extension included retroactive immunity. i’m assuming that was a misstatement.
As for 60 vote margins, some amendments were subjected to them, others not. I haven’t scoped out the details. I did notice that there is a cloture motion relating to final passage, and IIRC, there is a time certain for taking that vote, as well as on voting on final passage (some wiggle room on final passage, but it’s immediately after running through the amendments with time agreements).
As to the cables–Ill come back on this. But if two locations were severed, you have to suspect it was intentional. If so I suspect it has a lot more to do with fairly significant changes in alliances in the Middle East than our paltry Congressional games.
Consider–Hamas was able to communicate with the MB and a number of other allies outside of Gaza. They pulled the jail-break off in coordination with these groups, without letting Israel (or, presumably, the US) know about it. So as folks here have suggested, if you need to make sure you’re getting everything between Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt–and any outside groups–you force their traffic back through the US. (That’s not necessarily to say it was the US, though.)
Of course you really can only pull this ploy once or twice.
I really believe there’s some massive realignment going on in the ME, and we’ve missed it for the most part.
Amdocs..Comverse Infosys
Rough draft.
UC Agreement leading to final passage of S.2248
All pendiong amendments set aside
Some amendments to pass on agreement (no votes)
Feingold 3909 as modified
Whitehouse 3932 as modified
Kennedy 3960 as modified
Bond 3945 w/o modification
8 amendments on majority vote
Bond 3941 as modified, 20 minutes
Bond 3938 as modified, 20 minutes
Feingold 3907, 2 hours
Specter/Whitehouse 3927, 2 hours
Feingold 3913, 40 minutes
Feingold 3912, 40 minutes
Feingold 3915, 40 minutes
Feingold/Webb regarding sequestration, 90 minutes
60 vote threshold
Feinstein 3919, 2 hr
Cardin 3930, 60 minutes
Whitehouse 3920, 60 minutes
Feinstein 3910, no limitation on debate (majority vote to pass)
Managers amendment (usually agreed on voice vote)
Cloture on bill
Pass bill then place in the HR 3773 vehicle and send it back to the House.
It appears that for most of these they’ve set the bar just beyond where any of hte amendments will reach. Immunity won’t get 50, and Exclusivity might have gotten 53, but it won’t get 60.
When you say “immunity won’t get 50″ do you mean won’t get 50 to stop immunity being granted (my guess) as opposed to not getting 50 to grant immunity?
Zuch @129 and 131 – Interesting thought.
Yes. I think we’ll get, most optimistically, mid-40s.
Surely the experienced and savvy foreign policy pros in the White House could not miss something significant like this. Could they? Why that would be like gorging on Bar-B-Q and clearing brush while an American city and it’s people drowned.
I think the ‘trial lawyers’ is the give-away turn of phrase that reveals part of the effort to force a PAA limned in stone for eternity by Cheney, simply is a rhetorical device to attempt to embarrass Democrats; like having a play that will permeate the nickel defense, then telling the world all opponents need to set in a nickel formation. The forward looking part is to pressure Vaughn Walker to squelch Klein, and to assure the EFF’s suppressed documents archive remains stateSecreted outside of the public sphere. It is difficult to discern stateSecret from the sheer swagger of Patriot embued officials who find three signatures now simpler than running candidates against opponents whose donors include wealthy trial lawyers; better to engineer less liquidity to trial lawyers, and to assure that even if somehow Klein, Walker, and EFF eventually show Whitacre went considerably farther on his growing telco’s behalf before his fairly recent retirement than Nacchio did for Qw, although at some juncture Nacch simply said his baby bellco was out of the competition. Basically it is like defense contractor work, with very little public face, by design a confidential process. The governance style is amply evident throughout the autocratic policymaking of this administration; but I will stay home and worry about 10 nautical miles in which a judge today gave the floating military permission to raise the decibels off one coast where it might damage sea life, vitiating a TRO a week after the IX court had halted the ulf sonar high-dB project. I suppose to me by comparison the new electronics that hurts creatures looms more important than the government mining audio data; then again, I studied electromagnetic wave propagation theory and have seen how facilely a wiretap is set up, as Klein has documented; and the whales mutely beach.
Lookee here, the WaPo must of been watching a different hearing than EW and everybody else I have talked to that watched it:
Torture: “Reasonable People” Can Disagree is Lederman’s Balkinization post quoted from by Eggen. I didn’t find a citation of or link to it in his article.
Paranoia might suggest that the fibre “knockout” was engineered so that fibre taps could be installed surreptitiously elsewhere underwater. The carriers might not notice the insertion of a tap elsewhere on the fibre(s) if it had gotten knocked out anyway by some “accidental cut” they can dredge up and fix.
Unlike wire cables, it’s essentially impossible to put in a tap on a fibre w/o at least some short interruption of service (and possible detection).
Cheers,
Looking a little, looks like detection of a optical fibre break location is done by TDR on an auxiliary (power) cable or transmission line accompanying the fibre. A smart tapper would leave these intact while splicing in an optical tap, while the optical fibre and cable was severed (to cover up the “break” needed to splice the fibre) somewhere else. This introduction of a tap would be relatively undetectable w/o pulling up the whole cable.
Cheers,
Thanks for the technical description. My first impulse on hearing of the disruption was to wonder if a new splitter was coming in.
OT — did WSJ slip its leash? ‘Cuz this sure doesn’t sound like Dick’s voice, or look like his ghostwriting.
“‘Appalling Gap’ Found in Homeland Defense Readiness” according to the WaPo:
Gee, who could have ever predicted this
G’night folks. Will try to sort the FISA tomorrow. Looks like we can get document access and exclusivity, but I’m pessimistic on anything else.
Looks like we can get document access and exclusivity
On document access, beware the “as modified.” We may not know the agreement until Tuesday (or even later), after the Record is printed. “As modified” language usually appears in the Record, at the point where the amendment is put up for a vote, or just after the point where it is adopted by unanimous consent.
I’ve published a brief summary of the UC, subject of amendments, etc. You know where to find it by now.
re: fiber optic oceanic cable
Here’s an article, blast from the past–2001 about the NSA and oceanic fiber optic cable tapping…
Enjoy the read!
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.html
So…is it at all possible for us to demand a recusal and a special prosecutor for cases that may have been impacted by domestic spying, because Dick has admitted that the telecoms have spied on us, and Mukasey’s son works for a telecom?
cboldt
Actually, I only have your old one–remind me.
nevermind
Just follow the obvious…
B-maz could you recomend a good textbook on basic political science, need to brush up,ie terms, process.
Third Undersea Cable Cut off Mideast. So it’s almost certainly a coordinated attack (or else the initial attack has been followed by a me-too). But who benefits?
We were discussing that a bit in the Richard Clarke thread.
What happens is that most ME countries will have diminished internet access for at least the next 10 days, and even then, many of their communications will go primarily through the US, not Europe. (There was a comment in one of the articles about how, after a cable goes down, communication patterns often remain in the interim path).
I kind of said this before.
First, the Israelis seem to have little to no warning about the Hamas break-out, and there was coordination between Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood and someone else (I forget whether it was Ahmadinejad or Abdullah) got involved in a new way. So there you’ve got an event the Israelis (and presumably, therefore, the US) didn’t “hear” about before the fact.
But there’s another possibility. The US is prepping to put a bunch of special forces into the tribal lands in Pakistan and things are beginning to go really FUBAR there. There’s a whole lot of obscure factionalism in Pakistan, that, if you’re not seeing it, might put off a nuke or something.
So if this was NOT a mistake (and I agree, it seems unlikely), then I’d say one of those two are likely explanations. Doesn’t mean the US took out the cables–that sounds like somethign Mossad would be particularly good at. But when you consider the communication patters (and the way Israel has its own lifeline) you can imagine they’ve kept this in mind as a possible strategy for some time.
Good analysis, thanks EW. I/P is an entire realm where I’m out of my depth. I suppose Israel could well be installing taps in those lines — note Saudi Arabia lies in the affected regions.