The FISA Bill
Here it is.
Immunity
As Glenn says, the "immunity" provision here sucks ass. Here’s the operative language:
[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that
[snip]
(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was —
(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and
(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
Contrary to what the WSJ suggested, this provision puts no restrictions on whether the directives were authorized by anyone but the President–all it takes to get off scott free, in this bill, is for the President to have said the program was legal, regardless of whether it was or the whether the telecoms should have questioned whether the directives were legal.
Minimization
The minimization rules on this still suck. FISC gets to review the procedures themselves, to make sure they will adequately protect US persons’ data. But the FISC does not get to review whether the government is doing what it says it’s doing with regards to minimization–the AG and the intelligence branch still get to do that.
Wiretapping Overseas
This bill provides significantly more protection for Americans traveling overseas, requiring an extra level of review before tapping an American traveling abroad.
Wiretapping in the US
This bill has slightly more protections for Americans in the US, prohibiting wiretaps if a communication is intended entirely for people within the US. That’s a slight improvement, of course, because the bill still allows the collection of information on–say–an email in which one person is outside the US.
Use of Information
The bill addresses a problem that Russ Feingold identified–what happens to data collected in a program that the FISC subsequently finds improper. Feingold wanted the goverment to have to get rid of this data. This bill strikes a middle ground: it prohibits the government from using such data in a trial or other official hearing. But it still gets to keep the data improperly collected.
Exclusivity
The bill does contain a reasonable exclusivity provision, which virtually guarantees they’ll get DiFi’s support:
Except as provided in subsection (b), the procedures of chapters 119, 121, and 206 of title 18, United States Code, and this Act shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications may be conducted.
Only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance or the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications, other than as an amendment to this Act or chapters 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, United Staes Code, shall constitute an additional exclusive means for the purpose of subsection (a).
This would seem to prevent the John Yoos of the world from pretending that the AUMF constitued authorization to wiretap.
Review of the Illegal Program
The bill takes an idea included in the House bill–a review of the program to find out what really happened–and dumps that review into the lap of the Inspectors General of the various agencies (the House bill had called for a bipartisan commission). The OPR review of the authorization of the program is included in this. An IG picked by the President and approved by the Senate will, a year after the bill is passed, present an unclassified report on the program (with classified annex). That review cannot name anyone in the private sector involved in the illegal wiretapping.
I’ll work on fleshing this out with the bill’s language–let me know what you see in the bill in the thread…
repost
I called the Obama campaign today and asked Obama to come out publicly against immunity. The person who I talked to said he’d had several calls on this and would pass it along. Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.
866-675-2008 option 6
I called that number….there was no operator available and they were unable to take messages (message system filled up?), so I pressed 0 and got a real person. She was polite and said he is strongly opposed…I said I’d like him to take a leadership position, she said she’d pass it on and that they are logging these calls.
I immediately got through to this Obama number (866-675-2008 option 6) and spoke to a volunteer named Ryan Weinstock.
The Steny Hoyer 202-225-4131 number worked the first time, too.
No answer and no way to leave a message on the above number. When you ask to transfer to an attendant by pressing zero you go back to the original message. IT’s a circle with no way to leave a message. My guess is that his machine is full?? I am going to the web at http://www.BarackObama.com.
Just letting you know.
Maybe a bunch of pissed off people tying up the phones?
His office Fax: 202-228-4260
Free online faxing: http://faxzero.com/
866-675-2008 option 6 worked for me
This is going to hurt the Dems so bad why would they roll over so many times and then beg?
This is moment where the reason for a two party system is on trial.
Dems cannot be permitted to be complicit in this. All that FISA money just collected won’t do any body any oggd if the vote is over before you can spend it.
This needs immediate action today.
As Christy said earlier
“TO THE PHONES”
Calling Obama again. Have spread info to five different blogs
Calling our own Reps too too too! What else? Someone should call into the Diane Rehm show tomorrow ( I have gotten through to many times to count the last seven years) Someone else want to bring up FISA tomorrow during the round up. 10 a.m EST. 1800-433-8850. Also Talk of the Nation today at 2;00 p.m est. 1800- 989 talk. Way to let millions of listeners know what is going on and what to do. Be polite to screeners, clear and to the point. (Dorie at the Diane Rehm show is a real patriot)
LHP EW have all those in the know (you folks) posted all the questions they want congress to be asking Scottie tomorrow? Scottie is tomorrow right?
Strategy…call the Rukes, Appropriations and any other committee that deals with the bill you are concerned with. I have had sucess speaking to the Legislative assistants who wrk with the cmmittee members so I think ading the to the list gets theessae t te rght ears.If youe critter is not on the committee they may miss the message. Turn up the heat on the committees too.
You can ask for the comittee here:
1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 459 – 1887
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437
Obama 866-675-2008 option 6
Make no misake LHP your former department is the kernel, the heart and brain, and the facilitator of the vast majority of evil in the torture paradigm, this FISA paradigm, the US Attorney hijack paradigm, and a panoply of other issues frequently discussed here. I know you and Christy have campaigned eloquently and tirelessly particularly considering the many other areas that tug at your time for insight into the workings and to change/stop the malfunctioning and that’s admirable but one thing that is not happening is that outside Main Justice the rank and file AUSAs aren’t batting an eye at any of this. They’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
so what does this mean for me?
I am a separated parent, but my ex and my son live In Quebec. I often talk about sensitive subjects related to our son over the phone.
How does Stainy’s bill affect me? Will the feds be listening in now?
You bet they will be listening! Have family in France and Italy and have no doubt every conversation is monitored. Like the recipe for a cassoulet, vacation plans at Lago Maggiore, how the visit to the health spa was, you know those things that are vital to national security. Welcome to the brave new world.
http://www.barackobama.com/spl…..onate.html
Hopefully this link works.
Looks like we are a breath away from a full unitary executive status.
“(i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful. “
This will cover everything…torture too…
Also, check out what the DOJ said to the Judiciary Committee regarding oversight…they are going after power right and left:
“The House Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction over the White House, and therefore is not entitled to see the documents requested, Nelson goes on. “While we appreciate that the Committee has oversight authority over the Department of Justice,” he went on, “we do not understand how the Committee’s jurisdiction could extend to the alleged conduct at the White House. Nor do we understand how the Committee’s inquiry will cover areas not currently subject to the Oversight Committee’s lengthy investigation.” The Justice Department, not any branch of Congress, Nelson says, is responsible for investigating violations of criminal law.”
http://rawstory.com/news08/200…..ite-house/
What happenned to the “co-equal branches”?
“a breath away” ouch
Seems to me this is Executive Permission Slip legislation. If the president or his assigns gives you a piece of paper that says it is OK to do something that is against the law, then you did not violate the law.
That is not rule of law. That is executive rule as applied by the President through the Permission Slip.
OT Sorry, but for FDLr’s…
Donna Edwards was just sworn in….saw it on CSpan.
Woot Donna and everyone else who has supported her.
She looked really happy.
A good day for US.
Donna speaking to the House now.
If you supported Donna, you should be proud and grateful.
(Okay, there will probably be a whole thread about this….ya think?)
Still can’t get a message left on the number above. The website address does not work as listed in message on the voice machine. Was able to write an email off of his website at the contact us page.
wavpeac
Hey the Obama phone number works along with the press option 6. I think it rolls over without an ability to leave a message when the lines are full.
Did the site just become very popular, is there a particularly badly timed backroom glitch, or is there a denial of service attack underway?
I just read your comment. So, it got through.
Did you get my comment about Donna Edwards?
By ’the site’, I mean emptywheel.com.
Obama:
866-675-2008 option 6
I would not press 6 until you’ve heard a few of the options. Otherwise, it loops without a pick-up or message repeat.
yes, that’s what it is saying that the lines are full.
I will keep trying.
My reading of the bill suggests that the minute you set foot outside of the U.S., the govt has the right to read all your emails, not just the ones sent while you abroad.
Interesting point. Is a stored e-mail msg the same legally as an immediate communication (such as a phone call in progress)? Would on-going surveillance cover historical info gathering?
It’s details like this which those who aren’t particularly computer literate might not notice.
The L.A. Times reported today that Sweden just passed a similar law granting the government rights to electronic surveillance, and the natives are pissed.
Got through. They are getting many calls *g*
CALL YOUR OWN REPS
from the house rules committee:
my bold.
started 10 minutes ago.
Rules committee staff told me the FISA could not be voted on until tommorrow. The House Appropriations commiyyrr did the funding language for $165 Billion H.R.2642 The Rules Committee sets the proceedure ala separate or combined vote and the date. The summary is on their site for FISA and the full bill is 2642 is on their site 180 some pages.
Is there some legislative process to slow this down while it is discussed, Congress knows “We The People” are pissed enough to throw them out they don’t seem to care.
Obama’s staff says he is with Dodd on no Immunity but no plans for a statement.
If they go ahead and pass FISA, what do we do then???? Eat it??
Can you cite language or section?
Assuming that was directed at me:
may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
All through the bill, it talks about location at the time of the acquisition even though it clearly applies to stored communications.
I like the way the statute uncouples the President’s ”authorization” of these multiple domestic spying programs from the passively voiced ”determined to be lawful”.
If John Yoo’s analysis is the gold standard for such determinations, ANYTHING the President chose to do he would determine was lawful. This legislation explicitly prevents federal courts from evaluating whether that ”determined to be lawful” was accurate or reasonable or a political flunky blowing smoke out of his ass. In other words, it is a legislative and judicial ”Hands Off!” this entire mess. That’s some pile of puke the Democratic Party is sweeping under the Constitutional rug.
This is craven legislation – and a more craven process – that will haunt the Democrats for a generation. We will no longer measure time ”before and after Shrub” or ”9/11”. It will be measured before and after the Democrats joined the Republicans to make the President a law unto himself.
What else do these law-avoiding Democrats have in store for the voters they think will swallow anything they come up with, so long as it’s not labeled ”GOP”?
Can’t someone filibuster?
I think the fix is in.
that reminds me – I told the guy that Obama’s continued silence only told all of us that “THE FIX IS IN”
Sadly, I agree.
BTW, “Margaret”, EW, Pookie…. Thank you so much for all you do. I *cherish* you.
No one can truly believe that the bypassing provisions of this new bill will be any different than the way they bypassed the old law? Our congress, to even consider such a bill when the sum total of this “war” is an attack by 20 guys is phenomenal.
The fact that this is even being considered is a testament to bribery of congress and our government after a mistake made by the telecoms. what a bailout.
I called Obama (my rep, pete stark is a sure NO vote) and got thru to a phone person. He assured me that obama is against immunity and wanted to read me his statement on it. I said, that’s great – but there is backroom backstabbing going on right now with Hoyer – and we need Obama (as presumtive Leader of the Democratic Party) to step in and STOP THIS BULLSHIT right now.
I think he got the message, and he said he would definitely pass it on and took my email for an email response. What else are people saying when they call?
PS:he said they are getting a TON of calls, please keep calling I am crying, I am so upset. I can’t believe they are such assholes…
Don’t ever let the Republicans make you cry. They would like that. We need to get our Dems in DC to learn to give back exactly what the Repubs are doing to us. We need to stop all this politically correct and polite stuff and hit them hard right where it hurts the most. I am sick and tired of the comity. It’s just crap.
authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
Who makes the determination as to whether the president’s authorization was lawful?
Was on hold for awhile as I called Harry Reid, I hope this means he’s getting lots of calls. I registered my strong disgust for Harry’s support of this abomination.
Just talked to a lovely British accented lady at option 6. I was near tears and told her that if he indeed represent Change we can Believe IN, he will hold a press conference today and tell America what Bush and teh Dem ‘leadership’ is doing behind their backs. I asked if she would give him that message and she said with emotion, “Absolutely. We are getting many calls and will pass this along.” She thanked me sincerely for taking the time to call. I thanked her sincerely for her time and efforts.
Are we sure it is in the Iraq supplemental? Because it is going to be voted on next…today. CSPAN reporting that FISA will be voted on tomorrow.
The best time line I can give you is from CBoldt:
CBoldt’s Senate Blog Scroll Down to get to the 19th
I know how we can solve the budget problems! Congress does not appear to do much of anything, so we can just get rid of it! After this becomes law, it will be a waste of money to maintain it…
This country survived centuries of legalized slavery. After that it survived decades of legalized white supremacy. A lot of Americans, women, people of color have routinely been denied their civil rights. I don’t mean in any way to diminish the absolute seriousness of this, but it’s not an excuse to throw in the towel either.
Well, I just told the poor soul at Hoyer’s office that we are going to do everything in our power to take him and the Blue Dogs down so that they will never have the opportunity to do this to America again.
Keep up the action.
Senator Barack Obama
Campaign: 866-675-2008 option 6 keep trying
His office Fax: 202-228-4260 I got through earlier
Nancy Pelosi: Her web page is down, Congress not Speaker. http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
FAX: 202-225-4188
Free online faxing: http://faxzero.com/ (two per day free per email address)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…../539/53848
Congressman Wexler makes a public stand against this travesty –
”I cannot in good conscience support the so-called FISA “compromise” bill, as the only thing that is really being compromised is our civil rights”
Senator Obama to the Authentic Leadership Courtesy Telephone please . . .Senator Obama . . .
Mukasey.
a) What happened on January 17, 2007? (I’ve asked my congresscritter’s staffer to find out and get back to me, but the odds of that are long…)
b) I love you Marcy, but ”This would seem to prevent the John Yoos of the world from pretending that the AUMF constitued authorization to wiretap”? I’ll bet you a Beamish the next time you’re in Beantown that this bill gets a signing statement saying the exclusivity clause ”will be interpreted in accordance with the President’s Constitutional prerogatives under Article I.” There’s an exclusivity clause in the original FISA bill. Why should I think that repeating it will make them pay attention?
I haven’t wondered before but I do now. I wonder where the legal standing of the signing statements never pushed as prolifically or ridiculously as during this eight years are addressed in code/caselaw or the Constitution.
OLC Memo to Bill Clinton’s Legal Counsel Bernie Nussbaum from OLC
I’m thinking that about the only way we are going to get anywhere with this is to start marching on Obama’s offices or on our phone company offices and do something that is going to get us on TV – lots of us, in lots of places all over the US. It is just about torch and pitchfork time, in all awful seriousness.
IMHO, the telecoms are just willing stooges. bmaz and many others have pointed out that they have always had all the insulation they need from criminal prosecution. This is about Vichy Dems wanting to bury evidence of their complicity with
President ClusterfuckGeorge Boosh.Contact Code Pink they network quickly and are open to ideas
Oh, God NO!!! Having Code Pink involved trivializes an issue and turns more people against it than it converts.
”Exigent circumstances” that excuse the need to get authorization before starting to surveil a target do not seem to require getting one after the fact. A significant change from current law.
Slow loading, no formatting, except for the little Flash movie ads. Other FDL sites seem OK.
I just received this email from Obama’s office:
Thank you for contacting Obama for America about proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. Senator Obama has opposed this legislation and stood with Senator Dodd, cosponsoring his amendment to remove this special interest provision from the bill that came before the Senate.
Senator Obama believes strongly in accountability, and when he is President, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, Senator Obama will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
Thank you again for contacting us.
The volunteer I spoke to read me that statement too, and I said that it was all very well to prevent it in the future, but where the problem lies is in the past, from 9/11 to 1/17/07, and things have suddenly changed because of the capitulation by Hoyer. She was very receptive, and said that she would take what I was saying further immediately.
he’s supposed to the con lawyer. let’s ask him to read the fracking bill himself and explain to us what it means and why it’s ok to let this one slide through.
Isn’t it clear they’re not immunizing anything that Bush and the telcoms did before 9/11? They’re still on the hook for that stuff.
And, after 9/11 there have to be letters of authorization from the president and some kind of (uncertain) statement from somebody saying it’s all legal and related to a (potential) terrorist attack.
That’s a pretty narrow range and doesn’t let the telcoms off the hook for very much.
Since we want them to presume that when we’re in danger they should feel comfortable assisting the government I see no problem with this except the question of who determines the legality of the president’s program.
The biggest problem is in gathering information about that time period and what Bush was doing. If these cases are simply dismissed, then that all goes away (I suppose).
But, there is 1/20/01 – 9/10/01 where Bush is as nekkid as the emperor.
Doesn’t strike me as all that narrow when you consider the “was determined to be legal” language… determined by whom, Ralph the Wonder Llama? I suggested bringing amendments to change that to “was determined by a court of law” (which the R’s couldn’t accept but would uncomfortably highlight the issue) or “was determined by the President of the United States” (which the R’s -could- accept but makes the whole thing laughable on its face)… but alas, no amendments are to be entertained.
I pin some small hope for a Senate amendment, or for a court challenge, on issues including but not limited to the unspecified agent in the passive term “was determined to be legal”.
How? Both the civil (two year) and criminal (five year) statute of limitations expired long ago. There is no liability exposure whatsoever, at least of the type being dismissed in the 40 some odd consolidated cases at issue in the FISA Amendments Act, for any acts occurring in that time periodyou argue.
The existence and possession of those documents, and ability of the Attorney General to certify them for presentation to the court at issue here (District Court for the Northern District of California) has already been established conclusively. The Act provides that they may be deemed classified and presented in secret to the court and never made part of the record. The standard of review on appeal will be abuse of discretion/manifest error. This under the terms of the law prescribed by the Act, will be an impossible standard for the plaintiffs to meet. The only particularly viable basis of challenge will be the Constitutionality argument propounded by Marcy here. The problem is that these are civil damage actions, not fundamental Constitutional Habeas Corpus writs against illegal detention. I find it rather hard, near impossible, to believe that Justice Kennedy will side with the liberal four on this issue; ergo it would appear to be a loser. There are other ancillary attacks that could be made on appeal that are not even that strong; they will fail also. When Bush signs the FISA Amendment Act, these cases are done. There are lots of lofty arguments that very knowledgeable people will advance, and morally they will be compelling, but they will wilt and die in the face of the realities of procedural and legal hurdles on appeal. I am not trying to be defeatist in saying the foregoing, simply trying to be honest.
Ah, there’s the analysis I knew you’d provide. Thanks. I think.
bmaz, wouldn’t the statute of limitations be tolled by concealment?
bmaz, I have to hand it to you for screaming and howling about this disaster.
I have enough technical background to assume the government is already spying, but the degree of Dem political corruption this reveals is breathtaking. The absolute, complete, and utter lack of principle or fidelity to the Constitution is eye-opening.
Near term, they ‘win’.
Long term, since they won’t be respected, trusted, or supported.
Turley nailed it; this is tailor-made for criminals.
I think the FBI should be able to get wiretaps, etc on mortgage fraudsters, and other criminals. But to have absolutely no categories remaining between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ is asking for reckless abuse.
Dems opened Pandora’s Box.
This is a classic instance where cboldt and the Libertarians make a whole lot of sense.
The most charitable read I can give this execrable law is that Democrats think they are pulling a President Ford. They are ”pardoning” Bush and partners for the good of the country, to ”put all this behind us”.
I believe that’s a crudely mistaken belief. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was not better for anyone except Nixon, his cronies, and the GOP. It will not be better for anyone now except George Bush and his cronies and the GOP.
Bush has attempted to dress up his rabid expansion of executive power as a ”good faith” attempt to expand surveillance powers ”commensurate with the heightened threats posed by a 9/11 world.” Crap. Cheney wanted to build the strongest executive authority this country has ever seen, which it’s founding laws were explicitly designed to prevent. And Bush said, ”Sure. Can I finish my bike ride first, Uncle Dick?”
This legislation will not allow President Obama, this Congress or the Democrats to start off with a clean slate. It creates its own mess, an awful legacy, and makes it harder to clean out that sofa-sized lump already under the carpet.
It that’s so, this “greater good” or good of the country model is a terrible facade and the type of thing that only someone who isn’t plugged into any of this would swallow.
Yeah, the Constitution works. It’s just our Legislative, Executive and Judical systems that don’t.
Nice canned response. I’ll deal when I’m Prez.. Do something now Dude!
Invisible Leadership.
Do.Not.Want.
The site is very slow today. I hope that’s a good sign.
Re my comment #50, it seems there is a requirement to submit a request to the FISA court for an authorization within (7) days of commencing a surveillance under the exigent circumstances exception, but it’s in a separate section that purportedly deals with ”minimization”.
So far, I’m not impressed with the drafting or organization of this statute.
I like the idea of groups standing outside the Obama offices around the country staging requests for his leadership on this issue.
I would also like to have our great minds come up with alternative language in this bill.
EOH,
Thank you for your assessment on the language of this bill.
Call Obama’s Senate office!
A human picked up the phone and took my message
202 224-2854
The whole thing makes you start wondering what a Bivens action against members of Congress acting in the capacity of agents of the Executive Branch might read like …
I’ve been on the phone with the office of one of those “freshman” members and wasn’t nearly as nice or calm as I should be. But I agree with EarlOH from below that, with creative lawyering, this legislation INVITES more litigation rather than resolving anything and also doesn’t even make a pretense at stopping Bivens actions (which will have a boatload of damage issues though) and I passed that on to both that office and Hoyer’s office. Couldn’t even get through to Pelosi’s office. Told Hoyer’s guy that what they were trying to slide through was atrocious and that freshman would bear a cost for it.
Oddly, the Freshman’s office confirmed to me that they had JUST JUST JUST this minute received a copy of the bill, so I asked them if it wouldn’t be their position, then, that it was way too fast to try to have it voted on tomorrow. Uh, hmmm,uh, well, we kinda knew things that might be in it, uh, kinda, but, well, we can’t answers questions bc we haven’t seen it, but, um, no, we can’t say it’s too soon to vote on it either.
Whatever.
8 – ‘What happenned to the “co-equal branches”?’
What happened is that the Democrats in Congress decided to become a part of the criminal wing of the Executive Branch. So we have two co-conspiratorial branches of govt trying to force the third branch to rubber stamp and become a co-equal criminal with them.
I think this is a much larger immunity bill than it appears. In the definitions of ‘intelligence community’ the bill points one to the National Security Act of 1947 (noted on page 5 of the bill). which refers to:
(A) the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, which shall include the Office of the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, the National Intelligence Council (as provided for in section 105(b)(3)), and such other offices as the Director may designate;
(B) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(C) the National Security Agency;
(D) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(F) the National Reconnaissance Office;
(G) other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs;
(H) the intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Energy, and the Coast Guard;
(I) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State;
(J) the elements of the Department of Homeland Security concerned with the analyses of foreign intelligence information; and
(K) such other elements of any other department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community.
Is torture an ‘intelligence gathering technique’? Which the President said was ‘legal’?
Bulls-eye.
It’s not even about law enforcement; it’s about The New Surveillance State, courtesy of national security bureaucracies overseen by a Unitary Executive.
Collassal Democratic stupidity.
This is a new low in political venalty, and it’s going to cost them far more credibility than they foresaw.
Phoned my Congressman’s office and learned they received A LOT of calls today. FWIW, my district includes Redmond, WA.
All that bull from Obama’s offices about how, when he’s President he’ll be a better boy, is just nothing. Not even pablum.
Is he the party leader or not? Is he ANY KIND of leader or not? If he could find time to go cut ads for Barrows, can he find time to have call his pal Durbin and tell him this IS a caucus isssue and he WILL Whip it and Reid WILL NOT bring it to the floor if passed and they can register any complaints they have with Obama, but it will be done his way and the bill will be killed with immunity.
Or not.
70 – I think you are dead on sailmaker. I think there has been a lot of other crap going and, esp with DIA (D in your post) under the Yoopinions that the military has no rules.
This is to cover a LOT MORE than just the TSP.
And Congress is willing to codify, as law, the proposition that ‘if the President does it, it’s legal.’
Screw the Democrats. I’d rather have Republicans in and have honest fights with them than be stabbed in the back by invertebrate pond scum.
I agree.
If the House does pass this… measure, then what happens next at the Senate? Are the differences from the Senate bill such that it now goes to the Senate floor, or to committee first? Or would it be straight to conference committee?
Maybe we should take over the Republican party… ;>
Not impressed with Obama’s statement. It was all about how he will do better but nothing about holding this president accountable now!! And nothing about HOW he plans to defend the constitution NOW.
I told her that I want him to hold this president accountable and that this issue is so important that it deserves full sunshine and discussion. I told her that this is the ONLY way to fully defend our constitution and to prevent future breaches.
She said “thanks”. I think she was suprised that his statement was not good enough for me.
I was impressed with the unambiguousness of it: He won’t do anything now.
Nevertheless, I tried to make the point on the phone the that he’s not President yet, while it’s not enough to act like just another Senator on this — he has to act and speak as his party’s leader on this one.
I got through to Obama but his statement is crap. I told him i wanted him to hold this president accountable now and that if he wants to defend the constitution and provide accountability this is the only way to do it.
It really does make a person tired…seeing the constitution fall away in bits and peices.
I told my colleague what was going on…she’s a republican and I just laid out the “problem”…she said “Call McCain he would not want this bill to go through”. I just looked at her. okay, I’ll call McCain. (but not because I have any reason to believe he would lift a finger to stop it.)
People have no clue.
Not surprisingly, while this bill frequently mentions the mantra, ”in compliance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment”, it redefines those requirements away.
Like at p. 14, line 4, where the USG ”is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be
directed or conducted.”
Just for laughs, keep your insides in, the Fourth Amendment reads in its entirety as follows:
”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath. or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Sophistry. Bi-partisan sophistry.
I did like the snark on p. 15, lines 1-5, that require the communications services provider to maintain the secrecy of its cooperation with the government and the services provided to the target. Any concern about limiting interference with services to others caused by such cooperation? Nada.
Oh, and like the Social Security drugs provision that prohibited the USG from bargaining with drugs companies over price, the USG here is to pay communications services providers the ”prevailing rate”. I wonder where the rate for assisting the government in secretly spying on Americans is listed in their product brochures? I’d just like to check that’s it’s not more than I pay for a few bars on my mobile phone.
Joke of the day. From Cboldt:
This is amazing. An affiliate of Blackwater arguing to be judged under Sharia law, for a negligence case flowing from a charter flight that it operated, that killed three US servicemen. This is brass balls!
McMahon v. Presidential – (second) Motion to Dismiss – Doc 145.
“U.S. company: crash lawsuit governed by Islamic law” – newsobserver.com
To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Sharia.
The same defendant, Presidential Airlines, lost its “we’re the government, and are immune” argument before the 11th Circuit.
“U.S. company: crash lawsuit governed by Islamic law”
McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331, 1359 (11th Cir. 2007)
I just got through to Obama’s campaign line and spoke with a nice young man named Sam who assured me that I did not sound like a raving lunatic and that he agreed with me. I told him that Obama has to take a leadership position on this, otherwise he’s losing support.
I did! I feel as if they know that I will call, and I am not eloquent enough. If Glenn can really get a unified organization that would be some help. But the important thing is to have more average citizens aware of this. The people who have written this bill are aware of the pressure which will come from DFH bloggers.
(Leen at 22)
Also, I tried to point out that the kind of immunity which will come from such a scanty review is like agreeing to have immunity in advance. This was weak as I type it.
I have had no success on phone but redial is my friend.
I did send pointed e-mails to Obama and Pelosi.
When do these offices close for the night.
I lurk daily here, and I thank all of you most profoundly
Will calling the DNC help, finding their # now? (anyone)
the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful
What does this imply “determined to be lawful”? Determined By whom? Has to be constitutional to be lawful – Right?
OT — Is it just me, or is there a clear and definite correlation pattern between ew.fdl.com server issues and crucial Congressional activities, Unitary Exec-wise?
I have been trying to log in for ever and went through a web page of EW’s I had bookmarked and it took me here with no problem so I say there must be something.
I had a reply at triangle free forum and they said they had been trying to log on with no success.
Called Reid , Pelosi, DNC (Dean) had to leave messages.
Just posted a call to help on Triangle Free Forum maybe we’ll get some help form there.
I hope I’m replying to eoh at 83 (I think — no formatting here).
I wasn’t going to say anything because I can’t help although I wish I could, but you brought tears to my eyes when you quoted the Fourth Amendment. I may be an alien, but I’m also a student of the C17-C18, and your Bill of Rights is to me so much the document that all my guys were working towards for so long. It is so noble. And so is your fight here today. Give ’em hell.
(Does anyone know whether some of us should be clearing cookies or just sitting tight until whatever clears up?)
Probbly just sit tight because there is usually little you can do to optimize things on your end, and the web guy usually gets diligently onto it. You can always try clearing TIFs (temporary internet files). I doubt this is a cookie influenced issue.
It’s good to lean on Obama for leadership here. I worry that he now has enough support that the prospect of losing those of us who have been paying attention will not give his team much pause.
Anyone who thinks that SCOTUS will save the Constitution’s ass on this bear this in mind: four of the five justices in the majority on the Boumediene decision are over 70, starting with Stevens at 88 and Ginsburg (a cancer survivor, so far) at 75. The youngest, Souter, is coming up on 69. If anyone of them croaks it will almost certainly be a 4/4 split on a lower court ruling in favor of the law as written, in which case it is upheld.
If I’m wrong on this, I’m sure one of the lawyers here will not hesitate to correct me.
Pelosi statement quoted at Glenn’s place:
——————————–
Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. But I have to say this about it: it’s an improvement over the Senate bill and I say that as a strong statement. The Senate bill is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This bill improves upon the Senate bill.
But you probably know that. What you may not know is that it’s improvement over the original FISA bill as well. So it makes progress in the right direction. But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department. So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.
But I’m pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that’s the word I’d looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon. It makes an improvement over current law and the Senate bill in terms of how you can collect on Americans overseas.
It’s an improvement over the Senate bill in terms of – the Senate wanted to say, “Okay, we will agree to exclusivity,” which is, in my view, the biggest issue in the bill, that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the President of the United States. They said, “We will agree to exclusivity, but only a narrow collection of things will fall that that category. Under the rest, the President has inherent authority under the Constitution.” That’s out. That’s out, thank heavens.
And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.
So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I’m sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support.
I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way. On the supplemental, Mr. Obey, as usual his virtuoso self, and Chairman Rangel was masterful in his piece of the legislation. As much as I admire Mr. Murtha, I’m not as enthusiastic about the war part of the bill and will not be supporting it.
Pelosi can argue it either way, isn’t a lawyer, and made sure the draft came out the evening before it is supposed to be voted on.
What a charlatan. How embarassing that the first woman Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.
From Pat Leahy’s email:
Ummm, Nancy, I know you’re “not a lawyer” but there’s one you could “consult.”
What a shill Nancy is!
46 “What happened on January 17, 2007″
That’s when DOJ found a way to bring the program “within” the FISA court. Then they started getting denials from the FISA court, so they now are asking Congress to make the FISA court give them things they couldn’t get before and keep quiet about it.
Thanks, Mary!
I have been away from the computer all day.. Did the House vote already occur?
thanks
yeah .. well try to send Steny Hoyer and email .. lol
Hmmm, during the House floor debate, can some friendly member introduce an amendment changing ’determined to be lawful’ to ’determined by a court of law to be lawful’? Because when that goes down in flames, it will highlight one of the cruxes for all the sleepy reporters.
Then the next friendly can introduce an amendment changing ’determined to be lawful’ to ’determined by the President of the United States to be lawful’ which will both doubly highlight the issue and (it is to be hoped) embarrass some members into voting against the amendment and/or against the bill. But the amendment and then the bill will pass.
Then we have a huge absurdity in the text of the passed bill, which could help trip it up at the Senate, or, in the alternative, help provide grounds for a court challenge after enactment.
Dancin’ as fast as I can, folks.
You know Kennedy was pretty clear in Boumediene that the Courts determine what the law is. This language is in such striking contradiction to that notion its hard to imagine there is no intended subtext here. But at the very least the telecoms and Bush are betting that litigation might could be extended beyond the 18 years Exxon has kept the Valdez matter tied up in the Courts.
Don’t know whether it’ll take as long as all that, but I’m now worrying we’ll see a Supreme replacement before the inauguration. All it will take is 1 more vote, and bang goes the next Boumediene.
Bomediene has actually accomplished a modest amount and what it might have accomplished is going to be far in the future although the defense bar will be using it as a springboard to raise more issues ala this officer and gentleman:
An Unlikely Antagonist in the Detainees’ Corner
While Kennedy did sign it officially today to release it, the DOJsters will insist that no habeas proceedings can take place until all appeals are exhausted just as in the regular bullshit federal system. And since these people are held indefinitely right now, there’s the matter of their trials and their appeals first so we be talkin’ years and years. I wouldn’t expect the District courts or the cowed appellate panels to do anything favorable if and when they finally see these habeas petitions/appeallate briefs.
However, there is a rumor that there could be a Democratic administration hopefully without the scum Hoyer and Pelosi. An Obama administration (interesting to see what they will try to do legislatively with the FISA clusterfuck) could impact the future course of detainee rights and Gitmo or the sequel to Gitmo when it’s closed.
If you ever had a doubt that the Dems were put on earth to screw you on a par with the Repugs, I think it’s now been erased by them taking a victory lap on top of your 4th Amendment rights and giving Bush more than Cheney’s wet dream every envisioned.
I caught the Nadler show on torture and a republican(no name) started spewing some retoric about section 2 of article 3 that gives congress the right to rebuke any decision the courts hand down and suggested getting rid of everybody in scotus except Roberts.What the hell was he talking about?
Treason. That would be treason he was talking about.
Article III Sectin 2 authorizes the S. Ct. Article III Section 3 defines treason.
Aaaaaaiiiiiiieeeeee!!!!!
We’re back, and all in favor in getting blind, steenking drunk on the FISA “The Day The Constitution Died” news, raise your hand.
Hmmmm…I think that is unanimous.
You’re here in the Twin Cities, as I recall. Where’s the wake gonna be?
*whew* … great to be with y’all again.
I called BO’s office, told them I’m Canadian and given his background in Constitutional Law, he might want to have a chat with Feingold/Dodd and stand up for the Constitution.
They’re scurrying around looking for A) answers or B) a way around this.
I was very polite, saying BO is not solely to blame for this but as future POTUS, he ought to make a speech laying out his stand by Friday.
I will call again Friday morning.
When does Scotty McC testify? Is the FISA scheduling part smokescreen?
There is always a chance that it a smokescreen…see the shiny ball? there is nothing behind the curtain, why are you so paranoid?
Scottie McLel brings his Bullshit/Obfuscated/Selective Righteous Redaction Review to Conyers’ Crib tomorry at 9:30AM (yawn). You can get a good luck at some of the people who screwed you too.
Scotty Mac and the HJC Bullshit Boogie Be There or Be Square!
Just called Obama!
Time to crank up the impeachment process.
Target Mukasey.
Start building the case or he’ll be claiming everything the government wants to spy on is legal.
Especially after the Taguba statement, “A Smokescreen for Scotty” would be occasion enough for this biggest-yet R push; “War crimes? What are these so-called war crimes of which you speak? I know of no war crimes!!!”
I am also wondering (along with klynn on the previous thread) what Independence Day threat might have been shown to the House Dems behind closed doors to cause this biggest-yet rolling over. It would, after all, be the perfect date for a LIHOP or false-flag attack, and fresh in the public mind for the conventions and the election.
As I said over at Glenn’s place:
Is this a history of The Roman Empire of did i stumble in on the wrong page?
Yes, and yes. *g*
How about starting a silent gathering with No to FISA compromise signs outside her office this AM? (Both her SF office and her DC office)
I bet a large group could pull that off with little notice.
I live near San Francisco. Once folks realize what Pelosi’s trying to do here, if she succeeds, she’ll be toast electorally speaking.
No, not even: the scattered constituent atoms that used to be the dessicated crumbs that used to be toast.
You mean it will be Senator Cindy Sheehan?
I mean Congresswoman Sheehan.
No, not Cindy. Maybe a Gavin Newsome, etc.
There you have it.
Toast not only for FISA but for torture – she was amongst those briefed who did nothing.
Night all, Yoga and bedtime. Hope we prevail!
Brezinski once called Bush’s ‘War on Terra’: “Fear in Search of An Election Cycle.” And now the Dems are out-fear-mongering Bush and Cheney.
Corrupt, craven, and contemptible.
Volumes will be written in weeks to come on this incomprehensible FISA capitulation, and we always knew it was in the wings, but this bill is simply beyond the pale and worse than anyone expected. It sure confirms the worst that’s been written about the leaders in the House and the Senate though in spades.
I know this is way too late, and it’s a compromise, but what about capitulating on immunity for the telecoms up to a specific date in return for proper process from that date forward? “Approved by the president and deemed to be legal” is such bullshit that any Democrat voting in favour is admitting that they want a new president just like the old president.
Compromise?
With the very people who have 5,000,000 missing emails?
With the people who fired USAGs because they weren’t supporting the GOP’s Permanent Majority objectives?
With the Preznit who pardoned the Former Hill Staffer who ‘outed a CIA agent’?
Can you say c-o-m-p-l-i-c-i-t?
Good luck in finding spines for all those jellofish.
OT – Via Atrios:
I’m searching for an analogy here.
What the Republicans got on FISA is to what the Democrats got for us
As
Pig is to lip something or other.
No, this is an invitation for Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Israelis, Saudis, Dutch, Germans, and anyone else to find their way inside the system and exploit it.
And no court will ever know.
This is scifi with a dark, dark twist, no ethics, no morality, and no loyalty to Americans.
Pretty pigs always get the bacon.
More OT via the NYT:
Wrote Boxer, wrote DiFi, wrote Henry the W (and told him nice work on the subpoenas, and will they actually be enforced?). I was not nice to them – not for the first paragraph, anyway.
Also hit Obama’s site and wrote a slightly nicer letter. Closed with
‘No. We. Can’t. Do Immunity.’
Missed this place all day, too.
What Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Rockefeller, and Reyes did today is a by now familiar tactic of Congressional Democrats. Given the choice for standing up for their base or attacking it. They attacked it.
They cut and ran.
I think it is more than that. One of the great questions of the last 7 years is how could the Democrats sit by in silence and do nothing to oppose all the crimes, excesses, and failures of the Bush Administration. The answer is not that they were weak, scared, or paralyzed. Neither is it that they were enablers and facilitators although they certainly were. The truth is they were and still are partners and believers in the Bush Presidential enterprise. There was no reason, zero, nada for Hoyer to resurrect FISA as an issue. The Blue Dogs could have run perfectly well without it. Nor was this some make or break issue for Obama that needed to be cleared out of the way before the convention.
The country has survived with no new wiretaps since the PAA ran out in February. Wiretaps set to expire in August could have been continued under FISA’s current form if they were in fact legitimate. The one issue of foreign to foreign communications passing through US switches could have been the subject of a targeted stand alone bill or attached to a larger bill like the Iraq supplemental. But Hoyer, Rockefeller, and the rest went much further. No force or threat was needed on them. No concern about their constituents weighed upon them. They did this because they wanted to. They believe. Unfortunately for us, they do not believe in us or what we believe.
Thank you EW.
You are the only blogger I’ve read yet today who has taken the time to summarize for us what is in that bill OTHER than telcom immunity. I appreciate it.
I’m extremely fortunate to live in Barbara Lee land, and I still wrote her, just to do what I can. How desperate is that? Last night I wrote Pelosi, maybe I will again tonight.
I also gave $100 to Strange Bedfellows, it felt good and I recommend the experience.
You are indeed fortunate to live in Barbara Lee Land. I called Waxman’s office & talked to a friend there for 20 mins. Anger all ’round on the immunity “compromise”. Called & faxed from the lists I could finally pull up from cached pages of FDL mothership. DiFi, Boxer, Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller’s offices called AND faxed. Some exasperated (in Hoyer’s case downright rude) people got the spiel I had written on granting telco immunity. Didn’t trust myself language-wise if I winged it w/out some lines.
Followed yr. lead, Hmmm, & donated $100 to SB.
Damn, I’m up even earlier than usual this a.m. Frustration & anger don’t make for restful nights.
Who/what is Strange Bedfellows? The Google hasn’t provided much clarity.
Morning, MNChuck — here’s probably the best link to get you started.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..t-on-fisa/
Hit that payPal ;-))
Keith Olbermann had Jonathan Turley on talking about how horrible this was.
I wonder, what are the odds the House D rank-and-file will break with the compromised Pelosi-Hoyer-Rockefeller-Harmon leadership camp and vote against the bill? Especially if Obama and HDean come out in force? I would love to see this thing force a changing of the guard, power-wise.
I think over the longer term — six years or more — that people are going to look back at this as a watershed.
It’s quite likely that the Dems are trying to make nice with AIPAC, telsatcos, and some other entrenched donor interests. And they don’t want the Republicans to hammer them on ‘national security’. Classic instance of being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Hoyer, Pelosi, Jello Jay are losing the wrong battle, in addition to fighting the wrong war.
Unbelievable stupidity.
The fix as they say is in. The votes when they come will be frauds. It will work like this. The Republicans will vote in lockstep and Blue Dog and other conservative Democrats will vote with them sufficient for the bill to pass. The “rank and file” Democrats will cast a meaningless vote that they will try to sell to us as showing “their real opposition” to the changes in FISA and that they stood with us, blah, blah, blah.
Marcy’s post is linked at Think Progress right after Russ Feingold.
We live in a Groundhog Day universe where each morning we wake up and find that all the gains we made the day before are gone and we must begin again. The problem is that existential challenges like global warming and peak energy inhabit a space of linear not recurrent time. So while we fight the same battles over and over, they continue their relentless course. These are forces that can and will destroy us if we do not face them and we are not facing them.
Cowardly that no amendments will be possible.
We never got much informational detail about the operational extent of domestic intelligence and information programs. So much of the iceberg we never got even a glimpse of, and Congress seems ready to make it so we’ll never get a glimpse. There will always be a need for some secrecy, but not for secrecy on the smothering scale Congress is on the verge of laying on us. Not much has been discovered, and not much is likely to change. What about the activities of all the [.gov] Members of the Intelligence Community (IC) and their many contractors? Who will actually put reins on them? What about Fusion Centers (here’s an [.gov] overview of one) and N-DEx, the National Data Exchange (written about here )? I’m pessimistic.
I imagine defensive Members of Congress saying in essence, “We did the best we could. What did you expect us to do? We were told that nearly all this stuff was too secret even for us to know about, and the country is in great danger.”
Trying the second and third links (retitled) again:
[.gov] Commonwealth Fusion Center
National Dragnet Is a Click Away
If those don’t connect I’m giving up for now.
Probably linked several times, but the bill being voted on today is:
“FISA Amendments Act of 2008″
IANAL. Could someone please explain the following. The Constitution forbids ex post facto laws. Normally this means that it is forbidden to retrospectively criminalize something that wasn’t a crime at the time the act was carried out. But why doesn’t this also forbid the possibility of an amnesty for acts that were illegal at the time they were committed? Are there previous historical examples of retropective decriminalization of the type proposed under the Hoyer Cave-in Act?
OT, reporting from Xi’an, China.
For some reason, my Mac won’t connect to the internets at my hotel. What on earth is that?
This city was an early capital of China, under the Zhou, Qin, Han, and Tang dynasties. It is being torn down and rebuilt as part of the new China, and it is the most polluted place I have ever seen, including Gary, IN, in the mid-60s. Between the humidity, the dust from destruction of buildings and the coal power plants, it is hard to enjoy the place. This internet bar is filled with smoke, and the future of China. I am at least twice as old as anyone else here, the average age seems to be about 20, most of them gaming. I have seen the terra cotta warriors, and they are even more amazing in situ than in any picture I have ever seen.
There are few remnants of the old China left. Most of the buildings here were made of wood, and burned down, or were destroyed, according to our guide. Yes, I have guides here. The signs are all in Chinese, and without help, I would waste vast amounts of time just getting around. The place is overrun with KFC and McDonalds, and if I cared, I could go to a Sephora, my personal guide to whether a city has succumbed totally to the Age of Consumption. I almost feel sorry for the Chinese, who haven’t been inured by the din of advertising, and who are going to waste a ton of money on stuff.
The price of gasoline here is over $4 per gallon, our guide says the price went up last night, to be consistent with world pricing. Unfortunately, her salary isn’t going up as prices rise, and she pointed that out. We agreed that no one’s salary is going up as prices rise.
The range of people here is amazing. The young seem hip and connected, and the older people are Western, the older Chinese are just not seen in the streets.
There are some signs that the people are re-connecting with their roots. The temples and churches are working, and our guide says she thinks that some of the old crafts are coming back. I saw an exhibition of pottery-making, recreating an absolutely beautiful teapot, and it gives me some hope. A number of the temples are recreations, and they require a great deal of craft. At the Wild Goose Pagoda, a Tang dynasty creation, there were a number of recently made Jade Panels, Wood Panels, and Copper Panels, showing historical events, like the life of the Buddha and the travels of the Monk Tang Sanzang.
The kids all use texting, so I assume that pinyin will quickly replace the lovely Chinese characters I can’t read. When that happens, I will be able to get around, and I might even come back.
Sounds like you’re having an interesting trip. Thanks for the update.
Posting pix link @ some point, perhaps?
Wow. When I was in China, gas was even more heavily subsidized than it was here. $4 a gallon is astounding for China.
I think you can kiss GM goodbye with gas prices like that. They’ve been relying on their China sales for some time to keep afloat.
On topic, I wish I hadn’t gone to the trouble of reading this thread. This is really infuriating, and I was looking forward to a dumpling banquet, the local specialty. I did send a blistering e-mail to Hoyer, promising to send money to any republican who ran against him. I am ashamed of my government. Our guide is proud of her government at every level. Shame.
So, back at the hotel, and come to find out that the internets are now working just fine. Odd.
On the day of Scotty’s testimony, this attitude does not bode well.
Prove me wrong, HJC
http://thehill.com/leading-the…..06-19.html
Irony?
I believe what Obama did with financing was correct. We “gots” the money
so fuck the Repubs. I don’t care if we steal the election.
Having said that, let me pose a question:
What would KO have said if Hillary had done this?
I’ll leave it to your imagination
I hate to cast more gloom, but if McC’s testimony is anything more than a let down, I will be extremely surprised. Guessing the hearing will turn out to be fairly short, or possibly interrupted by PTB/Repubs if it either gets into too much detailed questioning or begins probing into dangerous areas for BushCo.
No sunny optimism here on Scottie spilling anything worthwhile, or organized questioning from HJC, sorry to have to state.
Do you recommend hoisting a Corona to drown out our sorrow.
Much too early, no?
A little early, agreed, but by the end of today quite a few here may be clamoring to join you.
Today’s going to be a long one. Sapphire & tonic when I get home tonight from work, for certain…
I agree with you. It will almost certainly be a disappointment.
I agree that McClelland’s testimony will be just above “garden slug” on the worthless scale. He was kept in the dark, so most of what he has is speculation.
Oh, you made me read Rivkin. Again. Is there any place that guy does not turn up?
Sounds like KO and Turley are suggesting it is pitchfork and torches time. I think they are correct.
BSL
Much too early. But going and protesting outside of a local Obama office or Pelosi office might be better.
I plan on calling Kennedy, Kerry and Olver (rep) but it’s up to
the SENATE today… can’t they pull a fast one, citing some
arcane law or procedure to filly-buster this to death?
I’ve always advocated Barney Frank to replace Nancy…
Marcy, Glenn, Christy, Jane,
You have tremendous power in your hands with your faithful readership. Have you ever thought to suggest organizing your readership outside of the tubes for something peaceful and other than a conference?
Seems like now is the time.
I can hear your voices loudly carrying over a listening crowd at the Mall…
Couple of random thoughts.
On Obama, while it’s true that as a Senator, his vote and influence is the same as any other Senator’s, his influence on the bully pulpit is different from that of, say, Dodd, Feingold, or Leahy. Obama has considerably more power to rile the public on any issue. If Obama riled the public against this bill (encourage the public to speak out, call Congress, etc.), some Democratic Reps and Senators would back away from it under the public push back.
Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard ANY candidate call for the public to contact Congress? Hmmm. Maybe they don’t want to HEAR.
The other random thought is on the possibility of amendments. The GOP has been bitching about Reid’s “filling the amendment tree,” cutting off the right of senators to file amendments to bills. But on FISA, the proponents would PREFER that the right to amendment be curtailed, if not cut off. A determined opponent (Dodd, Feingold) can offer and amendment, and can also delay movement in the context of that amendment. Object to voting on the amendment, object to 60 vote margin on the amendment without cloture, insist on 30 hours of post cloture debate before voting on the amendment, etc.
In an opposing alternative, Reid might well fill the amendment tree, cutting off the right of amendment. If he does so, he is acquiescing (different from agreeing) to the proponents of passing what the House did, without amendment.
Thanks for the hope that lingers.
I just remembered that I have a poker game tonight
which will temporarily free me from my Post-Bush Syndrome (PBS)
Other events that have gotten me through the day:
FDL
Emptywheel
Trash Talking
Scratching Lottery Tickets (now they have the $20 variety)
Fantasy Baseball
Red Sox
Red Sox
Red Sox
Grandson’s baseball games
Birth of new grandson (Max)
Drinking
Drinking
Wine Nights
Running
Writing
Drinking Corona
– Thanks for the hope that lingers. –
I’m not hopeful. I think the country is very deep into surveillance state, protestations by the implementers to the contrary. Passage of broadened FISA authority, including pulling the issue out of court with a legislated “get out of court” card (that is intellectually bankrupt, because Congress is still leaving in the statutory right to sue on future infractions), is a foregone conclusion.
Congress works for itself – not “for the people,” but “for the government.”
And face it, a substantial fraction of the public WANTS a surveillance state. See Singapore, London, etc.
I told the Obama campaign that any more money from me would depend on how he responded to FISA(speaking out against it in public and from the floor of the Senate)
Keep on calling folks:
He claims he backs Dodd. The most effective and powerful way for Obama to back Dodd is to make a very public statement about this bill, now!
Senator Barack Obama
Campaign: 866-675-2008 option 6 keep trying
His office Fax: 202-228-4260
Bo-Snox? Zappa, Guinness and Yankees.
Yes, and whatta about dropping the “F” bomb and mowing the lawn.
I’ve turned into a chronic swearer, but it induces endorphins.
It’s my favorite mantra … good for clearing the throat too … *g*
History teaches pretty well that there is no legislative solution to a surveillance state. Court-imposed solutions work mostly on a case-by-case basis.
It’s prudent to assume that there is no privacy (as against the government) in communications. Certainly, we have privacy rights as against private actors – but there is very little, if anything, standing between a government who wants to snoop (in secret, away from court), and the snooping activity.
So, your point is we might as well just lay back and let this bill happen? I’m not following your point.
My point about legislative solutions not being effective is a reflection back to the Church Commission and the resulting legislative “solution.” See how well it worked? Well, it DIDN’T work. Hoover’s FBI barely felt a bump.
These laws that appear to limit the government have one role, and one role only. To FOOL the public into thinking the government’s hands are tied. The tools of surveillance can be used by anybody with their hands on them. Anybody in the switch room can grab the traffic – the only thing that stops them is an internal restraint. Hint – the government has no internal restraint. In the realm of privacy, the government is at war with it’s own people.
I get all of that. What is your point in regards to this legislation and what “we the people” should do?
It basically sounds like oh well, here we go. Forget even trying to fight it.
Okay, looks like you answered at 199.
– Forget even trying to fight it. –
I’m saying that it’s a mistake to view legislation as victory. I still think it’s worth fighting. Hell, I’m probably inciting a few minds with the stuff I “publish.” I advocate for and against various pieces of legislation. But in the realm of privacy of communications as against the government, I don’t believe one word from Congress, the administration, etc. As far as I’m concerned, if it can be intercepted, they feel free to do so.
All the rhetoric to the contrary is to prevent the public from getting uppity. They might fool you, but they aren’t fooling me.
I agree with you cboldt and I appreciate everything you write. However, the danger created in the “power of words” is apathy, to confirm NOT to act because it won’t make a difference, that it doesn’t matter.
This kind of tact lacks pushing people to be responsible…
The government is not fooling me either (formerly worked at the UN).
This is beyond fooling…
I would rather see more strategy dialogue right now.
Is anyone suggesting that the immunity provision is a poison pill that Dems won’t stomach?
Oh, and the intrusion works, like the old “tree in the forest” saw. If the government is snooping on you, and never tells you and never acts on it, has your privacy really been invaded?
That is a great “opener” for an essay on “Are we on the path from
a democracy to a fascist state?”
Now that I think about, the first green light that we were heading
down the wrong path, was the Supreme Court “playing partisan politics” with
the sanctity of the vote in Bush v Gore…”
It’s been a horrendous downhill crash, ever since …
My message to Congress is simple. Pass whatever you want. I don’t believe your claimed “limits” on the administration are worth spit.
Congress – 1978: We have these limits on the government, and if the government snoops past “here” (draws a line in the sand), well, by golly, there are criminal penalties and a right to sue for damages.
Government gets caught in 2005. Congress erases the line in the sand
Congress – 2007: We have these limits on the government, and if the government snoops past “here” (draws a new line in the sand), well, by golly, there are criminal penalties and a right to sue for damages.
Fool me once, shame on me.
Thanks, I always appreciate your insights, as do many others here.
– This kind of tact lacks pushing people to be responsible… –
Sort of like Congress, claiming to be a check on the executive and pushing the administration to be responsible.
The public treats these clowns like celebrities. Politics is our bread and circuses, as well as our master. I see no strategy that would cause the public to reduce the influence of government – most of the public is focused on getting “their guy” in there, ‘cuase he’ll make it all better.
Responsible people take care of their own privacy, and operate as though the government IS snooping on them. Maybe the government isn’t snooping – but that’s just because of self-restraint. Legislative and other forms of legal restraint are a chimera.
I think there is great value to public outcry, BTW. The government OUGHT to fear the public. Public outcry was very effective in getting the government to pull in its horns on the subject of immigration.
I agree Cboldt. The problem is that the public is semi-comatose. They aren’t plugged into FISA or nearly all the issues discussed here.
“semi”? Republicans and Democrats are banking on that. We have to make sure these Democrats suffer for rolling over so often.
I just called my Congressman, Tom Udall (NM 3rd), an aide (Laura) told me he was undecided on the FISA amendment and that he was on the floor for the debate. I had emailed earlier this morning but realized that this would be too late. I expressed my frustration that procedure deployed gave his constituents no real opportunity to comment and that I was very weary of a bill that allowed the President to ultimately determine whether his actions were legal or not. I received no response only silence. I asked that my message be passed on if the Congressman stuck his head in his office before the vote. She said “sure.”
I was not particularly encouraged.
You are right about cboldt. But that is the thing, this is not about Democrats, Republicans and/or Libertarians. It is about the Constitution, the law, and the rule of law. Period. cboldt and I are probably diametrically opposed in our general political beliefs; yet, if there is an ounce of daylight between us on this issue, it would be no more than that, at best. Marcy, Mary, you name em, we are all over the map on where we stand on a lot of things, but this is really pretty easy and crystal clear cut if you want to honor the Constitution and law as it existed. Congress clearly does not.