George Bush’s “Perfect Crime”
You guys are chatty, so I thought I’d put up some of the Feingold speech you’ve been talking about.
The telephone companies and the government have been operating under this simple framework for 30 years. The companies have experienced, highly trained, and highly compensated lawyers who know this law inside and out.
In view of this history, it is inconceivable that any telephone companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program did not know what their obligations were. And it is just as implausible that those companies believed they were entitled to simply assume the lawfulness of a government request for assistance. This whole effort to obtain retroactive immunity is based on an assumption that doesn’t hold water.
And quite frankly, the claim that any telephone company that cooperates with a government request for assistance is simply acting out of a sense of patriotic duty doesn’t fare much better. Just recently, we learned that telecommunications companies have cut off wiretaps when the government failed to promptly pay its bills. The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General released a report last month finding that, quote, "late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence." Since when does patriotic duty come with a price tag? Evidently, assisting the government’s criminal and intelligence investigation efforts fell somewhere below collecting a paycheck on the companies’ list of priorities.
Mr. President, some of my colleagues have argued that the telephone companies alleged to have cooperated with the program had a good faith belief that their actions were in accordance with the law. But there is an entirely separate statute, in addition to the certification provision, that already provides telephone companies with a precisely defined good faith defense. Under this provision, which is found in section 2520 of title 18, if the companies rely in good faith on a court order or other statutory or legislative authorization, they have a complete defense to liability. This is a generous defense, Mr. President. But as generous as it is, it is not unlimited. A court must find that the telephone company determined, in good faith, that there was a judicial, legislative, or statutory authorization for the requested assistance.
Mr. President, I also want to address the argument that retroactive immunity is necessary because the telephone companies can’t defend themselves in court. When I hear this argument, I can’t help thinking that this administration has staged the perfect crime. Enlist private companies to allegedly provide assistance in an illegal government program, then prevent any judicial inquiry into the program by claiming a privilege – the so-called "state secrets" privilege – that not only shields your own actions from scrutiny, but enables the companies to evade judicial scrutiny as well by claiming that they are defenseless. All the administration needs to get away with it is Congress’s blessing.
And that is exactly why immunity is the wrong solution. Think about what we’d be doing. We’d be saying that in matters of national security, you can break the law with impunity because the courts can’t handle national security materials. That is outrageous. Do we really want to create a law-free zone for crimes that involve national security matters? If the government’s use of the state secrets privilege is interfering with holding companies accountable for alleged violations of the law, the solution isn’t to shrug and give up on accountability. The solution is to address the privilege head-on and make sure it doesn’t become a license to evade the laws that we’ve passed.
In any event, this notion that federal courts can’t handle national security matters is insulting to the judges that this body has seen fit to confirm – and it’s contrary to the facts. Mr. President, cases involving classified information are decided routinely by the federal courts. That’s why we have a statute, the Classified Information Procedures Act, to govern how courts handle classified materials. Pursuant to that statute, courts have in place procedures that have successfully protected classified information for many years. There’s no need to create a "classified materials" exception to our justice system.
Feingold for AG!
Totally the most qualified
Dodd is in the well now!
excellent clip – did you do it marcy?
No, it came from his staffer.
still a good one, and a good speech… and i’m glad that senators are starting to make this kind of thing available. just one complaint – imo, they need to improve their audio compression. hard to think they have any equipment limitations.
Feingold makes an excellent point — the same Senate that confirms federal judges is now saying those judges aren’t up to the task of upholding the CIPA law. I wonder if you could beat some of these swing Senators over the head with examples of judges that they confirmed who did excellent work handling CIPA cases. It personalizes the issue of courts not being able to handle classified information. If somebody like Judge Reggie Walton gets confirmed overwhelmingly — what is the Senate saying now about his ability to do his job and handle CIPA cases?
the same Senate that confirms federal judges is now saying those judges aren’t up to the task of upholding the CIPA law.
The pro-immunity faction has taken diametrically opposing positions in a number of arguments. The suits are financially devastating vs. nobody can win anyway (for want of standing. FISC isn’t equipped/competent to evaluate conformity with privacy law vs. SSCI report that says FISC is uniquely qualified to evaluate conformity with privacy law.
When that sort of artifact appears in one side’s arguments, it’s a fairly reliable sign that they’re blowing smoke and hoping no single person hangs around long enough to hear the confusion.
Wishing and hoping but not counting on it:
“>Inspiration
cboldt or anyone, who is he (and other senators) addressing when he says Mr. President?
who is he (and other senators) addressing when he says Mr. President?
The chair warmer who is sitting at the big desk at the bottom of the well, front of the chamber. My guess is there are exactly two senators in the chamber at this moment. Dodd and whichever freshman senator drew the short straw for “president duty.”
Whitehouse.
So basically cboldt, this party’s over except for facade and ceremony. Votes ain’t there.
Who do you think are going to be on the House-Conference commitee and is there any slim chance that the House’s immunity is going to survive with the otherwise crappy rest of the bills that seem to cede discretion to DOJ/DNI as to what constitutes “illoegality?”
Who do you think are going to be on the House-Conference commitee and is there any slim chance that the House’s immunity is going to survive
I don’t believe there will be a conference at all. I’ve expressed that point of view for a couple weeks, and really firmed up my speculation after researching the “form” and historical application of conference committee.
House and Senate differences can be settled by passing amendments back and forth (usually with backchannel communications so the back and forth isn’t done in the dark), but if the House is firm “no immunity,” and the Senate is firm “immunity,” then there is a legislative impasse. A conference doesn’t settle it, unless one body capitulates in conference. Meanwhile, PAA gets extended as necessary.
My magic 8-ball says “Senate passes immunity, House does too.” 50-50 odds on the House making enough noise to embarrass Reid on his scheduling prowess and provoke a second 15 day extension. But even if there is another 15 day extension, or more, the ultimate result is immunity roughly as expressed in the Rockefeller bill.
this party’s over except for facade and ceremony. Votes ain’t there.
There’s certainly some amount of heartfelt sentiment, so it’s not 100% facade and ceremony, but otherwise, yeah — the votes aren’t there.
I meant to ask you also. If Reid had brought the SJC version of S. 2248 to the floor, given the vote requirements (60) for so many of these amendments or as Glenn Greenwald put it, they made sure that no amendments could possibly pass, do you think that would have made any significant difference in the final outcome of this?
If Reid had brought the SJC version of S. 2248 to the floor, given the vote requirements (60) for so many of these amendments or as Glenn Greenwald put it, they made sure that no amendments could possibly pass, do you think that would have made any significant difference in the final outcome of this?
Tough question. I think the answer is yes. I think the choice of SSCI bill as the base / advantaged position was a political calculation. Reid and Pelosi apparently concluded that the heat from “having the advantage” (on the issue of stripping immunity) would result in a heavier political price than the position they took.
If one accepts the proposition that immunity and snooping rules go hand in hand, that snooping rules DEPEND on immunity, then choosing the SJC bill would have been tough to justify “on the numbers” (SSCI out of committee 13-2, SJC on a 10-9, IIRC), as well as on the merits.
I think the “need” for retroactive immunity is fabricated out of thin air. One tell is that from the administration’s point of view, it wasn’t “needed” before April 2007. The administration has fronted FISA amendments since 2005 or so, and certainly AFTER the TSP was disclosed, without retroactive immunity. If retroactive immunity is needed NOW, to get cooperation, it was needed THEN too.
What the administration is advocating is outright elimination of privacy law, as long as the government is doing the snooping. It’s couching that in doubletalk.
Frankly, I think the government will continue to ignore the privacy law anyway, regardless of what it says.
I agree, and know you’ve been making this point for a while now.
I asked Cboldt:
Do you have thoughts on who will be in the conference?
Saw your response on the other thread. I read a lot of abstruse papers over the weekend that didn’t shed much light on how Conference committees get their composition.
My magic 8 ball agrees with yours if that’s the way this will unfold. Thanks.
I read a lot of abstruse papers over the weekend that didn’t shed much light on how Conference committees get their composition.
In the Senate, I think there are two steps. First to insist on amendments and request a conference, and second to choose conferees. Both steps are debatable.
As for choosing conferees, USUALLY the majority leader and minority leader work out a deal, and “the chair names conferees” based on that deal. But any given senator can insist on the body of the Senate electing conferees. Ostensibly, the conferees are charged with representing the view of the chamber they come from. I’ve seen UC agreements in the Senate that recite non-negotiable provisions, e.g., “if the conference committee adds/removes such and so, it will not be in order to consider the conference report.”
Some of these papers by poly sci profs, (I didn’t have any sophisticated search or go to a law library), I just googled had mathematical formulas and debated how picks are made. After skimming through them, I hadn’t learned near as much as you just explained. There was also retrospective research on how different Senates with different majority leaders had shaped the committees– but that didn’t help me much.
I enjoy learning the nuances of this Senate procedure, although so much of it at crunch time on a huge bill seems completely “fly by the seat of your pants” on the part of the Senate leaders.
It’s just terribly disappointing this is playing out so horribly, and I have read in so many places that Blue Dog Democrats in the House are being lined up by Jello Jay and his posse now.
although so much of it at crunch time on a huge bill seems completely “fly by the seat of your pants” on the part of the Senate leaders.
Quite a bit of the action is “throwaway,” where neither side is much invested in the outcome. The contentious issues are carefully managed, with some amount of contingency planning in advance — options put in place depending on the outcome of key votes.
Yes–we get to see some interesting oratory–like Dodd now, but this is as you point out very carefully choriographed (and I don’t mean by Dodd of course but by Reid, McConnell and some others with contingencies for any outcome.
I’ve disagreed with administrations as we all have, but I’ve never had anything like what I feel for this one.
President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
This speech by Dodd should be another clip for posterity…!
We’ll have another 4 hours of it coming up tomorrow . . . .
Go Chris!
i’m sure dodd’s office will post this one…. but if they don’t and marcy doesn’t, then i will.
We’ll have another 4 hours of it coming up tomorrow . . . .
Dodd’s done about one senator can do – faced with a critical number (60+) of determined proponents working against him. So, when I say “talk is cheap,” it’s not directed at Senator Dodd. But talk is cheap.
We know. But allow us to cheer on one of the few real patriots left in any branch of elected officials.
The sheer irony of this FISA fiasco is the fact that only the SSCI bill contained immunity, every other bill did not contain it…!
That’s quite true but unless Cboldt corrects me, the way this has been going with 60 vote requirements for so many amendments, even if Reid would have brought the SJC version to the floor I don’t think it would have made any difference in the way this is playing out–I used to think it would have, but don’t now.
Hapless Harry engineered defeat. No one can convince me otherwise.
I agreed with that early on, and was furious at Reid the second I found out what he brought to the floor, but given the 60 vote requirements, it seems that would have been the outcome–that they could have had that meeting of Reid and McConnell even if he had not and engineered the same outcome.
Don’t forget that Harry brought this to the floor over Dodd’s hold. That is a major breach of Senate protocol.
Yes Jim I remember that well and Cboldt highlighted it with others on many of the EW threads and I believe on his blog.
Harry brought this to the floor over Dodd’s hold. That is a major breach of Senate protocol.
Not really, not for legislation. Dodd’s objection to bringing the bill up was duly noted, and was met with a cloture motion to limit debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. Every time there is a cloture motion on a motion to proceed, that cloture motion is in place BECAUSE one Senator has “placed a hold” or objected to bringing up the bill.
It was his choice to sabotage the SJC bill in favor of the SIC bill. His choice.
I understand that fully, although I think we all agree he had plenty of help from Jello Jay and the so-called other side of the aisle. But what I’ve wanted to pin down is that if x number of Senators were determined to screw Dodd and ram through immunity, would it have mattered? I mean they would have found an alternative way I think, and that’s where I was going when I raised the question to Cboldt and to everyone else here.
no disagreement. But he could have made a different choice had he cared.
Absofrigginglutely he could. I hate to sound like such an airhead, but I haven’t ever trusted Reid.
Also as I know you’ve followed by watching what the speeches were on the floor, DiFi and Whitehouse and some others weren’t very constructive as to immunity stripping, particularly DiFi and Whitehouse. For my money they get credentialed as saboteurs every bit as much as Harry Reid.
Cboldt has done a good job of pointing out the posturing and rhetoric as well as some of the arcane procedure (to me) all along the way.
We knew that from their votes of betrayal in the Intel committee; Whitehouse was particularly disappointing in that regard.
I had such high hopes for Sheldon Whitehouse. The first appearance for him was the SJC pumelling of Gonzales. I would have saved and paid for months to be able to question Gonzales but he wouldn’t have answered. And Whitehouse came armed with his US Attorney Rhode Island bag of tools and experience.
But when that vote in SSIC was taken with only Feingold and Wyden making sense and voting against it, , I felt he had sent us a strong message about where he was headed on this and many situations to come.
I also think it is fundamentally assinine to have US Senators debating and voting on bills where they aren’t even allowed to see the paperwork behind them due to the Executive branch’s controlling arrogance and imperious stance.
Agreed. Marcy had some decent speculation as to why he voted that way, and in fairness, he has been dogged on the minimization when no others seem to even be able to spell the word (save for Feingold); so if that is his principled stance so be it I guess, but I don’t agree with his stand in the least. The other thing I will say is that just because he is a Democrat doesn’t invitiate who he is; US Attorneys and career prosecutors are all pretty law and order guys on the whole, and staunchly so, so I don’t know that his vote is that shocking.
he had help.
even if Reid would have brought the SJC version to the floor I don’t think it would have made any difference in the way this is playing out
If the base bill was absent immunity, it would have made a HUGE difference. Then it would take 60 proponents to get it in. 40 objectors could keep it out.
But the base bill was the reverse of that. Hence, it took 60 votes to strip immunity, instead of to add it.
In the Senate, the base bill has a 60/40 “presumption” running in its favor.
I think that at least one immunity-stripper only needs majority-present, but it still won’t pass.
think that at least one immunity-stripper only needs majority-present, but it still won’t pass.
That’s Feingold’s outright stripping amendment. I agree, it won’t pass. Feinstein has her pet amendment, Specter/Whithouse has his, and Rockefeller is peddling Title II as absence of immunity — Title II, says Rockefeller, leaves the government on the hook, and also requires a court to review “the facts” before dismissing the case.
With that level of complexity, and that rich of a menu, I don’t see a majority of senators voting picking Feingold’s amendment.
So, do you think that one stripper would have a better chance if no other strippers had been offered?
(Sorry if that sounds PG-13; I think you all have enough context. tee hee)
do you think that one stripper would have a better chance if no other strippers had been offered?
Yes. Reducing the number of options tends to brighten the battle line. A similar effect happens as amendments are brought up and defeated, until only one option remains. The last option standing in this sequence is the worst of the lot (Feinstein’s), and that one at a 60 vote margin.
If the order were modified to defeat Feinstein, then defeat Specter/Whitehouse, the Senate would have a “clean” vote on Dodd/Feingold.
I still see Rockefeller’s Title II, being pedaled as “not immunity.” as having substantial bamboozle power in its own right.
Do you think the order in which the immunity-related amendments are brought up will make a difference? In other words, if the Feinstein and Specter/Whitehouse amendments are brought up and rejected before Feingold’s comes up – is it possible that some Senators might vote for Feingold’s even if they previously indicated support for one of the other two?
I’m thinking of McCaskill, who has indicated that she supports the Specter/Whitehouse amendment…
is it possible that some Senators might vote for Feingold’s even if they previously indicated support for one of the other two?
Given the order of the vote, they’ll have an excuse to not support Feingold. His is the
first one up. “I voted no, because I preferred Specter/Whitehouse.”
Thanks – I guess I missed the order of the amendments.
That is not irony that is Reid dealing our democracy to the high bidders in exchange for what we have yet to know. Bad Bad Bad!!! Rights are priceless like Judas/Reid…I see it in his eyes.
Thanks cboldt and merk.
Man Dodd is telling ti the way it is.. he sure is pissed.. impeach this administration they have broken the law time after time..
Any hope in the House?
“Worse than selling our souls–we’re giving them away for free.”
Dodd is really good tonight.
Wow! Glennzilla n the Senate floor
Cool!
selise: I’ll bet Glenn would appreciate a YouTube of that.
“If the facts mattered for immunity supporters, we wouldn’t be here.”
Keep it up Senator Dodd!
Hi folks…
Dodd is delivering one of the most breath-taking speeches I have ever heard…
Our founding fathers would be proud of him…
I’m completely blown away…
Yep I agree; and I know you’ve been making this point for a while now.
This is “open” time, not Dodd’s four hours, right?
This is “open” time, not Dodd’s four hours, right?
Correct. He’s either burning time against the 2 hours allocated to Dodd/Feingold #3907, or he’s taking the currently unlimited time available under final passage.
I hope he saves some of his voice for the appointed time. More people will probably be watching because they know it’s coming. Tonight was a surprise.
If that is the case, could he here stick it to everybody and pull off a real, old-fashioned filibuster?
Oh, and thanks again, cbolt, for your replies. Learned more in the last week than a semester at Hopkins.
Ditto!
So if the telecoms get immunity, do they still tap us? Is there no end to this illegal spying on Americans?
Where is this in the budget?
Immunity means we find out nothing, and of course they still tap us. That has been the objective as well as giving cover to Cheney and Bush and the rest of the players who engineered this including many many people at DOJ, CIA, and NSA, DIA.
Loo Hoo this is not done by any rules and framework you’re used to. You’re seeing this through the lens of the law–and that’s not how this is happening. You’re not going to see any budget items for scores of things this administration is doing aside from the spying, and
“Immunity means we find out nothing, and of course they still tap us.”
Somewhere, there is someone who knows what has gone on — someone who is appalled as we are. I just pray that that someone has the fortitude to blow the whistle or holler “bullshit” on it all. Otherwise, the goose-steppers will be in control forever more…
Oh sure. There are hundreds of people, and there are at least several people in the Senate–about 25 and some in the House who know, and Goldsmith hinted at the arguments in his book, and although he disagreed with much of this, he still sells out to the conservatives by and large and rubberstamps Bush.
There are many alumna and alumni and current people at DOJ and at OLC who know. There were arguments, but many of them don’t give a rat’s ass how many laws are broken, and while some of the ex-DOJsters at FDL want to be polite to Mukasey he is the “don’t give a rat’s ass in chief.” Mukasey is basically paying lip service to Rule of Law but doing nothing to give it efficacy when it comes to this administration. If you were to interchange the Springsteen band member who played Sylvio Dante on The Sopranos, Stevie van Zandt, with Mukasey right this minute who is playing Sylvio Dante to Bush, Addington, Cheney, Fielding and Gillespie’s concept of the Unitary Executive Beyond Good and evil principal, and Stevie van Zandt had no legal traning whatsoever, he could and would contribute more improvements to the Rule of Law than Mukasey will.
Mukasey is the scum of the earth, and you will realize how much he is during the next few months.
Gosh, Pete — how do you REALLY feel about him? The sleaze is becoming more and more evident every time he opens his mouth…
I am so glad that this will forever be in the senate record – all the detail and all the outrage. I think it’s important to him to have this on record for historical purposes.
I think it’s important to him to have this on record for historical purposes.
The Church commission/committee (whatever it was) is great reading. Same arguments then as now. A number of senators objected strenuously to letting the public know the government was secretly snooping — objections well recorded for posterity.
So, some of the same telecoms that did not insist on a court order before engaging in illegal surveillance and data sharing were willing to cut off service to the FBI due to negligent nonpayment, in so doing breaking some duly authorized surveillance operations.
From a James Bone article at TimesOnline:
Laws or rules are to be taken seriously when doing so is determined to be in the corporate interest, that’s where those telecoms are coming from.
The American Civil Liberties Union mocked the phone companies for cutting off unpaid phone taps while allowing warrant-free surveillance.
A good line there too.
Congress is worthy of being mocked too — it won’t stand behind its own laws, and it hasn’t rejected the privacy law as “outdated” or “quaint.” The way I see it, Congress is setting up privacy laws, not in order to inform the people or protect privacy, but in order to FOOL the people.
Because if our laws don’t fool the people, the terrorists will know our capabilities.
Remember always, that these Telecoms and Comcos (ISP providers tapping your email and internet searches and possibly using programs like Magic Lantern modernized discussed on Wired’s site were armed with attorneys in their 50’s and 60’s who have made their entire life’s work being corporate counsel with expertise on wiretapping laws like the one Glenn Greenwald cites today on his site.
In addition, the long list of lobbyists for these Telcos are law firms with entire sections of the best and brightest experts on wiretapping and telecommunications law.
They knew exactly what they were doing. The cutoff you mention was a glitch of the type that is frequent in an agency like FBI where someone screwed around with funds to pay a bill most probably. It was quickly remedied, and if it had any consequences, proably not, you’ll never know.
Bingo. I have been trying to get that point across to everybody since last summer. I have tangled with telco lawyers on surveillance issues before; they are pro’s pros, and there is no way in hell that the telcos are exposed in any way, shape or form that people are being led to believe. As I said earlier just today, remember when telcos wanted deregulation and other things over the years? They roll out advertising campaigns to soften up the public for what they want Congress to do. Always. But not here; thats because they aren’t that worried for their skin, they are just riding along to help the Administration and because it is a hassle to litigate, even if you will be reimbursed. But they aren’t going belly up from anything. If I can get some peace and quiet from clients and family, i am in the middle of trying to write a post on just that.
Absolutely. It has been very hard for me to watch this song and dance by all the Senators, Mukasey, and the administration as to the fake vulnerablility of these companies. There were carefully ‘crafted’ agreements by their attorneys who were aided by the megalawfirms who are on the list of lobbyists who all have bottomless resources. I’d like to have been a fly on the wall as the tapping was worked out by the teams of lawyers from DOJ and other agencies and team Addington. I’d like to get my hands on the written agreements that exist and I’d sure like to read the documents that only 1/5 of the Senate has had access to.
Look forward to it bmaz. Hope there’s scoop on why Rockefeller is so bent on this.
As I listen to Dodd, I can’t help picturing Willimantic CT (since I grew up in Storrs CT) and I’m blown away that such a dump of a dead town, with its defunct thread mill and nothing else, could produce such a mind. Am I allowed to focus on this to prevent myself from drinking and crying?
Yes?
Thanks.
Dodd is now quoting the opening statement from the Nuremburg trials.
My dream is that those statements will get another repeat in The Hague when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Gonzales and others are on trial for war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
And would Mukasy be there for blocking investigations?
“We can’t untorture innocent people.”
Another gem from Dodd.
Is Dodd talking to an empty room?
No, we’re here!
…this notion that federal courts can’t handle national security matters is insulting to the judges that this body has seen fit to confirm…
Be still, my beating heart.
I didn’t think anyone in the Senate would ever actually say this.
Count me in the ‘amen choir’ on this point (!).
I agree strongly with your take on Dodd’s point, but it is with a lot of anguish that I watch as the appellate courts, cowed by 911 and the rhetoric of Conservative nattering nabobs is supporting every States Secret claim and making rulings every day that lack the courage it takes to be objective.
are they really cowed or have they just been packed with Federalist tools?
Well *g* that is a chicken-egg question if ever there was one, but as federalist bots they have been programmed to be pre-disposed to be easily cowed.
I don’t know if cowed is the word. I think evil intent is more like it.
The answer is both. And to be honest, there has ALWAYS been great deference by the federal judiciary to the government on standing and immunity/qualified immunity assertions in Federal courts. This is nothing new; although the terra/fear since 9/11 has made it even worse.
Bull-eye…that was a searing moment of clarity…loved it too…
i gotta say, dodd is speaking on the senate floor like it was an olympic sport. very impressive effort.
selise,
Did you catch Dodd’s quoting of Glenn Greenwald around 8:30? Glenn didn’t catch it, so I think he would really appreciate a YouTube if you get the chance.
Thanks again for all your hard work.
jim – i just got an email from siun on that very topic. i didn’t hear that part, but i have been in and out of the room.
but, i am recording it, so i expect to have it.
it helps that you’ve given me the time to look for it, was that 8:30 ET? if so, i can get on it right away, otherwise i’ll have to wait until dodd is done to search for it.
Yes, I would expect that the quote is between 8:25 and 8:30 eastern.
great! i’m on it.
i can’t tell you how helpful it is to know the time to look for it. thank you.
I think it’s shameful that a pitiful few actually have rallied with Dodd and Feingold considering what’s at stake…
In any event Dodd has shown himself to be formidable despite everything and I know his dad would be proud of him…
I wish he was still running for President…
The long-haired dachshund looks really good (tivo’d). Can’t seem to get my spouse to watch Dodd.
You know, if these asswipe Senators are going to steal our privacy, and reward people for breaking laws in doing so previously, they ought to at least have to freaking sit and listen to a principled man tell them why they are full of shit before they do so.
Right on!
A little OT (and maybe it’s been asked already) but does anybody know why there seems to be so little coverage of this in the blogosphere? Even FDL seems to have stopped putting up posts on FISA.
I think that’s just a matter of balance since FDL knows EW is covering it so thorougly, and there is such a head of steam now as the primaries get into the home stretch leading to the big states, but (although I’d have to look back), I think Christy has done some headlining on FISA fairly recently and LHP either there or here).
I regret that it’s not covered well at all by TV or print–and not with near the comprehensive way it is here–and is so far under the radar of the public.
Yes, I suspect that’s it. But it seems a bit too bad, I sense that it’s starting to be noticed by the msm, and blog coverage can help a lot to move that along (and also to keep up the pressure on the Congresscritters).
Major newspapers have been following FISA, and using lawyers to do it, but they only have so much space so people are not getting near the quality of coverage you’re going to get here. And I’ve been disappointed lately in some of the articles that Adam Liptak, National Legal Correspondent for NYT has done on the FISA arguments.
The WSJ as Glenn Greenwald points out today has been predictably ridiculous and simply has been lying in their characterization of FISA.
I don’t know if it’s gotten any worse than the editorial page has always been since Rupert Murdoch bought it, but given past history, I suspect it will.
i don’t know.
but i’m glad that marcy is giving us a place to watch to and analyze together.
Leaving for now…am now doing the tevo thing will get back to you-all…
from FDL commenter eCAHNomics:
Sent a few bucks to Chris Dodd…thanks for the reminder.
Dodd is a bulldog on this. It’s apparent that he thinks retroactive immunity will pass. Does anyone think he can/will pursue this on another level?
Sorry, I know if he can, he will. Can he?
Once passed and signed, there are some things that can be undone, but there are many important bells that cannot be unrung really; especially as to the basic imprimatur of legality and propriety that will be given to patently illegal acts.
Suppose retroactive immunity is instituted?
Is there still a cause of action against individual directors of Telcos? I am thinking that under Sarbanes Oxley, a director whose lax oversight permits management to commit crimes is still in trouble.
What crime? That will be the problem; the Congress will have given it’s ok that it was all proper and necessary.
Yeah, it’s a little through the looking glass–at the time of the event it was a crime, and management permitted it. But even if Congress washes the punishment away after the fact, the board still let management commit a crime (or let the company commit a crime).
I’m beginning to wonder if “Madam President” is even there to hear this excellent speech.
Yep Amy’s still hangin’ around.
She was just asked how long he’s been speaking. 2 hours 25 minutes I think she said. Looked like Amy Klobuchar.
If he needs something to read, we’ve got Hugh’s list for him.
Dodd yields the floor after 2 1/2 hours of speaking. Senate stands adjourned for the day.
Thank you, Senator Dodd. Well done, sir. Good night, everyone. Thanks for the great company. I was enthralled with the speech. I’ll read the thread in detail later – lots to learn from you all. See you tomorrow for the votes.
Ya gotta love the segue CNN is using for Anderson Cooper into Super Delegate land.
“You know Superbowl–you know Super Man–so what the heck are Super Delegates?”
They left out Supermarket, and Super Glue.
Dodd is getting things into the record that are probably going to haunt every single one of the Senators who vote against Dodd’s recommendations.
Can you imagine running for Senate this year, or in two years, and having to explain why you gave phone companies retroactive immunity, and allowed the gov’t to spy without a warrant?
How are these Senators going to face their constituents at the polls…?
Senator X: “Yeah, that was a really hard vote I took to ensure that the feds can read your emails, listen to your phone calls, and follow your online banking, but please reelect me anyway because I’m looking out for your interests.”
Yeah, that’s going to go over real well. Uh-huh…
The mind boggles.
It is critical that every one of these jerks, even our own Dems (crikey, especially the Dems) be absolutely pounded mercilessly at every appearance they make and every discussion they enter into while campaigning down the stretch. I care more about the Constitution than I do a Congressional majority; if we win one or two less seats because we held them to account, so be it. There has to be a price paid.
You’re thinking about Dems primarily; I guess that I can’t see some of the Republicans that I know being willing to support R’s who violate privacy. This FISA thing is just weird; it’s amazing that Bu$hCheney has such a tight lock on the … gonads… of some of these Repubs. Barry Goldwater must be rolling in his grave.
Say what you will about Barry, and some of it is valid, but I knew the man and he would not sanction this crap to save his life. He would be excoriating these people (probably with scotch or vodka in his water bottle in the well; but that never slowed him down).
That’s my take on Goldwater, as well.
And if you read the beginning of “Conservatives Without Conscience”, you’ll see that John Dean was going to write it with Goldwater, who saw the Rovian/Bush/Cheney wing in all their fetid filth.
I just don’t think the REAL conservatives that I know have any patience for this kind of ‘off the rails’ prying and spying done in the name of ’security’. Talk about the SuperNannyState! Sheesh.
The ones I know are ready to cluck and go along with anything Addington and Cheney have. They’re dumb as a rock when it comes to analyzing most of the EW topics. They don’t care–and it’s fine with them. The conservative lawyers I talk with have more sophisticated ways of clucking, but they’re all the same.
Looks like our 2 defenders of the Constitution running for the highest office in the land will be no shows tomorrow:
How shameful is that?
It’s regrettable but, and I hate to be cynical, they know how many of these votes are futile although to launch a fillibuster as Dodd says, they need about 40 votes.
Futile or not, they are shirking their responsibility to those people who elected them to the offices they now hold.
It would make a bold statement for them to show up and stand up for something other than whether or not the delegates in FL and MI get counted.
Yes. This has come up every time–we’ve all hawked it and of course they should be there–as bmaz says, it doesn’t get more important than the Cosntitution and there is a large enough hole in it to drive several 18 wheelers through that is eminent.
Even if I don’t seem to be able to spell it I remember it when we had it.
cboldt – if you’re still here – do you have a link to the schedule and order of amendments for tomorrow? Thanks in advance.
This information is listed for you at Cboldt’s Blog if you scroll down to where the bills are.
do you have a link to the schedule and order of amendments for tomorrow?
Order of votes
Whitehouse 3920 (needs 60 to pass)
Feinstein 3910 (needs 60 to pass)
Feingold/Webb 3979
Feingold 3907
Feingold 3912
Bond 3938
Specter/Whitehouse 3927
Feinstein 3919 (needs 60 to pass) [The above 8 votes will take all morning]
Manager’s amendment (not contentious – voice vote or UC passage)
Cloture motion to limit debate on final passage [Will start after policy luncheons]
About 5 hours of post-cloture debate
Vote on final passage [Most likely after 7:30 p.m.]
Today’s legislative calendar (this link will be stale after today) has the formal text of the UC Agreement.
Also, FWIW, the daily link to the legislative calendar is always updated before the Congressional Record is. The legislative calendar is usually up sometime around midnight. The previous day’s Congressional Record is usually up sometime between 6 and 10 a.m. – and occassionaly is delayed by a day or more.
Thanks for all the good info.
here’s the youtube clip of senator dodd quoting glenn greenwald:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAdj9aACgmM
That’s a great clip, selise, nice job!
Thanks, selise.
Heads up: C-SPAN 2 rebroadcasting a 24-minute excerpt from today’s Senate Session at 12:30am Eastern / 9:30pm Pacific. I’m guessing Dodd and/or Feingold, but don’t know for sure.
Oh for f*&^# sake, it’s Mitch McC on Tom Lantos…. never mind…
I’m kind of surprised we haven’t yet had a nationwide pattern of people spraypainting the word SPY on AT&T-logo’ed vehicles and equipment. Seems a natural.
I am just observing, not advocating.
And what about those SpyPhones? Oops—we’d better not upset Steve Jobs.
Secret Phone Slip Shows Telco Called for Spy Help, posts Wired.com’s Ryan Singel.
The above link goes to their NSA page that has the post and others.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok…..ne-sl.html goes to the post by itself.
Do US senators have to declare an interest on each occasion that
they speak about a subject where they have a financial interest or
have received campaign funding from an interested party?
I understand that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has been the
recipient of substantial contributions from Verizon and AT&T and
that contributions “skyrocketed around the same time…that the telephone companies were lobbying Congress for immunity from lawsuits for their participation in the NSA’s spy program.” (source: Ryan Singel of Wired)
Given that Senator Rockefeller is the chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee I cannot understand how it is acceptable for
him to play the lead role on a committee that has a key role in formulating legislation dealing with telecom immunity.
I know US rules on campaign contributions are different from
ours in the UK but the conflict of interest seems so obvious and
fundamental that it should surely be outlawed by any reasonable anti-bribery provisions in the rules of Congress…and I assume Congress
does have anti-bribery rules.
Any insights into the weird way that US legislators appear to be available to the highest bidders more than welcome.
It is sad, but true… They have to file campaign expense reports and indicate the source of their contributions, but I think it is a quarterly thing. The money contributors have become so brazen, however, and the elected officials so unaccountable, that we now have the situation you so succintly describe: Rockefeller is chair of that committee, and routinely receives contributions from the telecom industry.
I have long felt that such information should be disclosed before they open their mouths, but things are so out of control — such as in this debate about FISA and the money floating around — the everyday citizen has no hope of being heard.
erandall — your comment touches on a topic I’ve been thinking about for awhile… In a nutshell, our elected representatives have no obligation, none at all, to recuse themselves from deliberations and votes in which they have a financial interest. Various attempts at campaign finance reform have failed in this country, because the Supreme Court has equated campaign contributions to free speech. We can’t foreclose free speech, ergo we can’t limit campaign donations. And if “some pigs are more equal than others” (Orwell has been popular here lately), and can donate lots more money, well the Supreme Court says that is just too bad.
Meanwhile, we have a legal system that requires lawyers and judges to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest in a particular case. Since the Supreme Court has precluded restricting campaign donations (and given the make-up of the court, this is unlikely to change in my lifetime), then perhaps we need to try to rein in government corruption from a different direction. I think we need to look seriously at implementing a recusal system for elected officials.
I don’t know precisely how to implement such a system, whether to use a threshold dollar value above which a legislator must recuse themselves from any debate or vote that affects a donor, or whether to make it a proportional threshold, as in any donor that contributes more than 1% to the total of a legislator’s donations. But something must be done to address the rampant corruption in Congress.
I’m curious, how do you handle the conflict of interest question in the UK?
We don’t have any provision for political parties or individuals to
purchase television time to promote their election to public office. I
think that makes a big difference.
There are now absolute restrictions on the amounts of money that can
be spent on election campaigns by individuals and political parties.
Those who seek to campaign for or against a candidate in an election
or in anticipating an election [as opposed to reporting on an election campaign] and do so without the express authority of a candidate’s agent would lay themselves open to action in the courts. It is an election offence to spend money on promoting a candidate (or opposing a
candidate) unless you are authorised to do so and the source of funds
spent in the course of a campaign must be fully declared. Rules in the
UK have been tightened up and a number of UK politicians have been
greatly embarrassed in recent months over donations that have not
been properly declared or have been disguised.
The limits on spending and the absence of TV advertising are meant to
ensure that election contests do not become competitions between members of
a wealthy elite or the hired men and women of powerful economic
interests. While this is far from being a complete success…the difference
in the ability of commercial and other interests (in the US and the UK) to openly exercise control over legislators is striking. Our problems, in the
UK, have much more to do with the disproportionate power of those who lead the party machines. In order to deal with that we need to get rid of
First Past The Post – as I suspect you do in the US as well.
erandall — what a civilized system : ) Thanks for filling me in. Like I said, the chance of spending restrictions here are nil, and limiting TV ads is unlikely to get anywhere either. I think both of those things would be a tremendous improvement, but alas my opinion doesn’t count for much, since I have insufficient funds to bribe my way into favorable legislation : )
selise — I missed all of the speeches yesterday. Is there a link where I can watch Feingold and Dodd in their entirety? Or do you have a series of clips that cover the whole speeches? Just curious. By the way, nice job on the clip posted at Glenn’s.
i don’t know of any link, but i’m going to post a few clips later today of yesterday’s speeches (probably all of feingold’s 15 minute speech that marcy has a bit of above, and two more clips of dodd for matt who missed the whole thing also).
it probably won’t be until later today, as i’m recording today’s events and i have to be out for a bit this afternoon, but i’ll work them in.
…..
in the mean time, would love to have suggestions from anyone so inclined – when i’m working on clips i can’t be listening to live events all the time (even if i was doing the video work with 100% attention, which i’m not). so i miss good stuff.
if anyone is interested in lending a hand, grab a piece of paper and a pen when you’re watching c-span2 and note the time (est) of especially good bits you think should be made into youtube clips.
that’s what happened with the dodd/greenwald clip – i’d completely missed that bit but had people alert me to it, and jim gave me the time so i found it easily. thanks to all!
Thanks selise — I appreciate all of your effort with making the clips, they are a great resource!
So far it appears this is the place to be, perhaps EW will put up a new thread later…
cboldt — Did I miss the vote on Dodd-Feingold? I don’t see it on your list for today.
Huh, anybody around for the votes this morning?
Obama just voted aye on the Feinstein amendment. Didn’t think he was going to be around today. Good to know he took the time out from campaigning to show up. Is Hillary still in TX?
here, but not always listening live.
i’m assuming this is the thread to hang out in?
I’m having a difficult time with C-SPAN so I cannot even watch…I know this is a sad moment in history…Just wanted to “get it”…
selise and phred…I hope it’s the place to “hang”… I thought maybe the Lake would do something…I don’t like politically going down quietly…It seems unpatriotic…
Sorry about your troubles with C-SPAN. I’m streaming C-SPAN2 without any trouble at the moment. The voting on Feinstein just came in:
57-41 Aye-Nay, but needed 60 vote threshold so failed to pass.
and that is the amendment that should never have been required to get 60 votes to pass w/o a full all-out fillibuster by the republicans.
Yep. Mata Harry has really done a fantastic job of shepherding his prized Republican legislation through the Senate. Can’t wait to see what Nancy does to show everyone that anything Mata Harry can do, she can do better… Darth must be beaming…
Feingold-Webb-Tester up next, Feingold on the floor.
Thank you!!! phred!!! EW is going to have to hire you as a back-up live blogger!!!
SO, I wonder “who” was not “in the chamber” on that vote…I had someone bring up to me last night getting something on state ballots regarding no telecom immunity. Similar to how conservatives got the gay marriage issue on some strategic state ballots during the last Pres election…I have no legislative background to clarify if it could be done…But boy it did appeal to me…A for or against the 4th Amendment vote…hmmm…
You’re welcome, although my liveblogging skills are marginal at best. I won’t even attempt to list who voted which way, I’d make a hash of that for sure ; )
Very brief statement by Feingold, Kitty’s up.
Just saw this on Big Orange Satan:
and just logging in. Did Whitehouse’s amendment pass as she said?
I tuned in as the voting on Feinstein was going on, about 10:20 or so, missed anything prior to that.
Kitty mercifully brief, Jello Jay asks to place a statement in the record, and the vote begins…
So was the minimization/Whitehouse one of those Chimpy listed in his veto threat? I don’t remember.
Minimization wasn’t on the veto list that EW had in this post, unless I’m misreading the list (always a possibility). So it appears the Senate has thus far steered clear of a veto trigger.
Correct. They said they didn’t love it but could live with it.
Thanks for the clarification EW. I hope you are enjoying your travels — stay away from C-SPAN2, you really don’t want to see this disaster ; )
Feingold/Webb sounds like it’s going down with a thud. Lots of turncoats here. And McCain is there voting.
Who knew McCain had the balls to show up? No sign of Hillary.
If Obama plays this right, he can make good use of McCain’s and Hillary’s choices today on the campaign trail.
Most definitely…and he should…I was an Edwards supporter. Although I have been not-so-keen on Obama because of his personal counsel’s position in support of what the President did for Libby and Obama basically non-responsive to his counsel’s position…Today, he’s winning my vote…
Me, too. I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday on nothing more than hopefulness that he would rise to the occasion. Today he is winning my real support.
Jell Jay again makes his weak-kneed appeal, and we’re off on the vote…
Feingold-Webb-Tester goes down in flames…
35-63
Hi folks….
The Dodd Amendment 3907 is up to bat right now…
—here comes Dodd….
Dodd up to introduce Dodd-Feingold, this is it RADIOACTIVE IMMUNITY…
Kitty doing the WH bidding now.
I’m surprised Dodd is able to even speak because of his valiant effort last night…
I am truly sick that I missed Dodd in his finest hour. Following his effort in December, he became my first choice for President. I hope Obama can live up to the standard that Dodd has set.
Jane has a FISA thread at FDL.
Glad to hear it. Thanks Loo Hoo.
thanks loo hoo! see ya all over there!
Just to finish what I started, Dodd-Feingold goes down even worse than Feingold-Webb-Tester.
31-67, not even enough for cloture later.
Reid and Rockefeller had this one fixed from the beginning.
OT, but back on the perfect crimes front, how much more perfect does it get than for everyone to absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have been engaged in wanton depravity, in violation of laws, treaties, morality, constitutions, nature and pretty much every religious standard other than those adopted for Satanic rituals, and once you are done – some of your depravity sated, you get to either toss publically aside your victims like trash, or publically kill them, and not only do you never ever ever have to answer to anyone for what you did, but you get to completely remake the justice system of a nation to embrace Executive Branch sponsored torture, abuse, torture deaths and disappearances of men, children and infants and lovingly make it a part of our national identity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..72_pf.html
The “Clean Team” Takes Care of Business at GITMO.
This proves, not only how depraved, but how infantile, even the so-called “good guys” at DOJ were. It’s not as if we haven’t had years, decades and centuries of voices telling us what happens when you open the door to lawless, state sponsored, depraved acts. Still, the one thing that the excuse for lawyers who have claimed a mantle of holiness in their “defense” against Bush, have pretty much always held to is that they weren’t going to fully destroy the system of justice in this country, because they were that the victims of DOJ’s solicitations of offshore and onshore depravity wouldn’t actually be tried, no US judicial tribunal would be tainted with adopting Executive Branch torture as acceptable and judicially condoned.
And of course, like everything else gibbered by the egocentric infantile, that was nonsense too.
Starting with the Fitzgerald efforts in the Salah case, through the Padilla case in Miami, and now a wholescale, world watched, farce in Guantanamo, torture is a part of the US Judicial System now. Executive Branch torture, whether or not it actually takes place on US soil against US citizens or not (Padilla), whether or not it actually does result in death or not (frozen, tortured CIA victims), whether or not it involve innocent men of mistaken identity or the innocent named by other torture victims seeking to deliver up information that would stop their torture (el-Masri, Arar, hundreds of those released now from GITMO, thousand released from Bagram and US concentrated population camps in Iraq), whether or not it involves someone not only innocent, but who seeking to provide whistleblowing information about the guilty (Vance) – it doesn’t matter.
And whether you tip your hat to Mueller and Goldsmith and Fitzgerald and Comey andco as heroes of the piece or not, they have each played their own, quite integral, part in making torture a part of the US court judicial system now. This Valentine’s day, Torture has so many sweathearts who are either still with, or have left, the DOJ, that there may be a run on red roses.
So all the problems of Bush depravity for the GITMO trials (where JAG has been more particular than DOJ was with the Padilla trial in Miami) have been solved by a “clean team”
Gosh, see how easy it is? Disappear people, torture, humiliate and psychologically destroy them for years, then put them in a setting where they know they can never leave, never get away, and give them the option of spending time with a “clean team” or going back to constant sensory deprivation, hypothermia and anal probings from deviants — and golly, you now have ‘cleansed’ and ‘non-coerced’ statements. After all, it’s not like there was anything to fear if you didn’t say what the FBI agents wanted you to say, it’s not like you had years of torture to make you think otherwise.
God, they just won’t stop until they make EVERYONE and EVERY department an equal partner in the choreographed evil.
Ah, well, that takes care of any taint – thanks for the stenography WaPo. It’s interesting after this to go back and read this kind of heartbreaking fantasy put forward by Fallon and others in NCIS who fought against the torture – the fantasy that DOJ was saying that the torture didn’t matter anymore because with all the torture so far, it’s not as if the man COULD ever be tried – it would degrade American justice to a point below any contempt to try after the things that were done. Except that – golly, it doesn’t after all. Jeepers! Com’on Billy, get Suzie, we get to have our show in the hay barn after all!!! Let’s go see if grouchy old heart of gold Mr. Scalia at the dimestore will buy a ticket!
Everyone knew that the torture would end up in the courts. They weren’t that stupid. It always does. We’ve already lost the exclusionary rule for all kinds of 4th Amendment violations (no doubt the Justices setting the scene for making sure that the fruits of the massively criminal surveillance program are never blocked), but there really isn’t anything to compare with what is going on now.
Oh, and isn’t it interesting that the amount of time needed for the “clean team” to get their victims trust and confidence and get “clean” and untainted info, was exactly the right amount of time to make sure that the “trials” are going on during the Presidential campaign.
Golly, isn’t BUSH DOJ Justice just grand? Trust Hayden to strike just the right note in that song:
And when you see that list of 6 being tried – notice that 2 of the 3 waterboarding victims aren’t on it. Nor are the other 90 or so victims of CIA secret prisons that Hayden has acknowledged.
Apparently the Evidentiary Cleansing program was hatched by “a small group of senior officials from several agencies” And isn’t this interesting – remote viewing was apparently an option for the non-torture sessions (although no one says much about it for the torture session)
I know that some of you here don’t believe in comingling church and state, but I have to admit that I’m looking forward to this year’s DOJ Easter celebration. They’ve invited everyone who worked with them in the Bush admin, current and past. And when they reach the climactic point in their celebration, it won’t be *just* an FBI Clean Team, it will be everyone who stands up, dips their hands in a bowl, and recites in unison:
Ich Bin Pilate.
It’ll give you goosebumps.
Especially if you’re stripped naked, somewhere in the world, with the wrong name, being slowly frozen to death.
Thanks Mary, great comment as always.
We appear to have crossed the Rubicon. The criminal conduct of this administration is so pervasive and Congress so corrupt, I can no longer see a clear path to cleaning up the damage to our Constitution and any notion of equal justice under the law.