Immunity Provision Invites Phone Companies to Cooperate with Illegal Government Programs
Senator Feingold made an important argument in the Senate today. He explains how the FISA immunity provision invites telecoms to cooperate with illegal government programs.
For starters, current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government’s request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the government’s request, and subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate. This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that act at the request of the government while also protecting the privacy of Americans’ communications.
Some supporters of retroactively expanding this already existing immunity provision argue that the telephone companies should not be penalized if they relied on a high-level government assurance that the requested assistance was lawful. Mr. President, as superficially appealing as that argument may sound, it utterly ignores the history of FISA.
Telephone companies have a long history of receiving requests for assistance from the government. That’s because telephone companies have access to a wealth of private information about Americans – information that can be a very useful tool for law enforcement. But that very same access to private communications means that telephone companies are in a unique position of responsibility and public trust. And yet, before FISA, there were basically no rules to help the phone companies resolve the tension between the government’s requests for assistance in foreign intelligence investigations and the companies’ responsibilities to their customers.
This legal vacuum resulted in serious governmental abuse and overreaching. The abuses that took place are well documented and quite shocking. With the willing cooperation of the telephone companies, the FBI conducted surveillance of peaceful anti-war protesters, journalists, steel company executives – and even Martin Luther King Jr.
Congress decided to take action. Based on the history of, and potential for, government abuses, Congress decided that it was not appropriate for telephone companies to simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was legal. Let me repeat that: a primary purpose of FISA was to make clear, once and for all, that the telephone companies should not blindly cooperate with government requests for assistance.
At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the government’s request for assistance was a lawful one. That approach would leave the companies in a permanent state of legal uncertainty about their obligations.
So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which was in place in 2001, and is still in place today, the companies’ legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and will be immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the government’s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.
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.
That brings me to another issue, Mr. President. I’ve been discussing why retroactive immunity is unnecessary and unjustified, but it goes beyond that. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program this new form of automatic, retroactive immunity undermines the law that has been on the books for decades – a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of actions that allegedly occurred here.
Remember, telephone companies already have absolute immunity if they complied with the applicable law. And they have an affirmative defense if they believed in good faith that they were complying with that law. So the retroactive immunity provision we’re debating here is necessary only if we want to extend immunity to companies that did not comply with the applicable law and did not even have a good faith belief that they were complying with it. So much for the rule of law.
Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws that we pass regarding government surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to give them a "get out of jail free" card for allegedly ignoring the law in the past.
I find it particularly troubling when some of my colleagues argue that we should grant immunity in order to encourage the telephone companies to cooperate with the government in the future. They want Americans to think that not granting immunity will damage our national security. But if you take a close look at the argument, it doesn’t hold up. The telephone companies are already legally obligated to cooperate with a court order, and as I’ve mentioned, they already have absolute immunity for cooperating with requests that are properly certified. So the only thing we’d be encouraging by granting immunity here is cooperation with requests that violate the law. Mr. President, that’s exactly the kind of cooperation that FISA was supposed to prevent.
And let’s remember why. These companies have access to our most private conversations, and Americans depend on them to respect and defend the privacy of these communications unless there is clear legal authority for sharing them. They depend on us to make sure the companies are held accountable for betrayals of that public trust. Instead, this immunity provision would invite the telephone companies to betray that trust by encouraging cooperation with illegal government programs.
That pretty much sums it up: this immunity provision is an effort to incent telecoms to participate in illegal spying programs.
With all due regard to Russ Feingold, is this not what we have been saying all along? Some of the lines in that excerpt could have been lifted straight off this blog. I personally recognize a couple of them.
Well at least Senator Feingold or aides are following along. I find Feingold straight up and consistent. What spot could he fill on the OBama ticket
Woohoo, Leahy’s now making my point–that Jenna on a bender could have approved the wiretapping as legal, and the telecoms would get off.
Outstanding. Has he mentioned McCaffrey yet?
He seems to have found mention of my mutt inappropriate.
Whew, at first I though you said mention of your “muff,” and I was shocked!!
As I was reading the blog post above, I was thinking the exact same thing – “I’ve read all of this before…”
And you folks are probably spot on, you’ve read it before…
This is getting absolutely aggravating. I am completely beside myself with frustration, cannot understand what is so gawddamned complicated about protecting and defending the Constitution.
It’s one of those times when it is far too tempting to simply walk the fuck away and go to Canada and not look back.
not complicated. just not important.
Rayne, you know what would happen if you came to Canada? You would very quickly find yourself thinking, omg, you guys have all the same problems we do, but you are SO far behind in your research and organizing.
That happened in the late sixties / early seventies too. The war resisters who came here couldn’t believe how naive and loose we were, although we thought we were doing ok, y’know, given the circs.
I’d rather have a fighting chance starting with organizing from the ground up, than be where I am right now, knowing that we are effed.
At least I have friends in the great white north who’d welcome me and who think as I do, and already have been working on changing mindset for a while.
what, you don’t like having your work read by feingold and his staff? *g*
Oh heck no, I wasn’t complaining. I can see how it looked that way, but it was this line by Marcy that tweaked me (and not at Marcy, but at the Senate):
What got to me is that we have been pounding this exact material forever, but this about the first time this has really been argued in those terms at a significant point in the Senate; at least that I am aware of. You see even if one were to falsely buy into the rationale behind most of the Congressmembers voting for the new FISA bunk, and all of the Dem folks voting for it, that rationale falls completely on it’s face because of what I set forth in the indemnification post. It really does, and nobody has put a dent in the damn thing, still, to this date. But it is also almost the issue that must go unmentioned by those in power. Now Feingold is starting to delve into it. Why just now though?
Is it a capitulation to those of us fighting immunity?
The indemnification is also a ruse in that if you don’t cooperate we will do to you what we did to Quest.”In May 2006, USA Today reported that millions of telephone calling records had been handed over to the United States National Security Agency by AT&T Corp., Verizon, and BellSouth since September 11, 2001. This data has been used to create a database of all international and domestic calls. Qwest was allegedly the lone holdout, despite threats from the NSA that their refusal to cooperate may jeopardize future government contracts [5], a decision which has earned them praise from those who oppose the NSA program [6].
A federal judge on August 17, 2006 ruled that the government’s domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. The Bush Administration has filed an appeal in the case which has yet to be heard in court. [7]
Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of insider trading in April 2007, alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001. Nacchio recalls the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further claims that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of Qwest’s refusal to participate in the wiretapping program”
You have to believe Nacchio’s claim, and believe that it was the only factor in play there for that argument to maintain. I am familiar with his defense, and I am not sure it is sound to take everything Nacchio says at face value, nor to believe that was the only factor. Nacchio and Qwest are red herring outliers to the issue at hand; they are related, but not on point. Using them as any determination point in the current FISA battle is unwise.
We need to fax and snail mail copies of Dodd and Feingold’s speeches to our congress critters.
It would be nice to create that DeNiro-Stiller moment in Meet the Fockers of DeNiro’s “I’m watching you” gesture.
Ut oh, he just said, cover your asses on the Senate floor. He better watch out, or Dick Cheney will come onto the Senate floor and tell him to fuck himself.
George Carlin will tell you what Cheney and boys are doing. “I’m talking about the real owners”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI5EY5kqiBU
I think it is obvious that the reason the Telecoms want immunity is that they have done something illegal, and the people that support their request are either also duplicitous or stupid.
How do we get through to the Demos? Are they really so afraid of the Repub attack of “easy on terrorism” or are they in bed with the Telecoms, etc? I have called and emailed till I am blue in the face and yet life goes on. My feelings towards Obama are changing by the day as he looks more and more gutless.
About time…
CSPAN keeps cutting off for me…bummer…
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs…..8;Code=CS2
Kit Bond is not an honorable man.
Have you a link for that from the “Book of Duh”? Heh, by the way, will you be hosting the upcoming Book Salon with Fire Breathing Liberal Wexler?
JTMin IA – Wiki dude.
When is Wexler going to be on ?
bmaz, they’d better be reading this site if they want to know what BushCo won’t tell them.
I’m still trying to figure Hoyer out. Was he in the Gang of Eight? Who were the Gang of Eight? Is DiFi in it?
Would Murtha have gone along with this if he had not been knocked out by Hoyer and those who lobbied for him
OT/EW
Is your ice box still on the docket for Monday or did you work something else out?
Kit Bond up right now on CSPAN on FISA
Bob in HI
Call ALL of the Senators — don’t take for granted that they will vote a particular way. If you haven’t called your own senator, do so NOW.
I called both Levin and Stabenow, our Michigan Senators, and their staffs could not tell me which position they were taking on this bill.
Jeebus. I am furious.
The issue right now is a vote for cloture.
Bob in HI
I bet Senator Kennedy is tuned in. Why can’t he vote from home?
Have to vote from the floor
Kit Bond is such a scumbag! Listening to him, I almost lost my lunch.
Senator Feinstein should be investigated for her family’s war profiteering.
Is DiFi a Republican? She’s on floor calling for “compromise” (aka capitulation)
With FISA, America isn’t “bare”! What is Feinstein talking about?
Have you heard anyone say take “no action” as Feinstein has just stated?
Feingold on FISA
http://rawstory.com/news08/200…..s-privacy/
Just who is Feinstein trying to protect?
Dianne Feinstein – Bush’s Key Ally in The Senate – To Support Telecom Amnesty
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.commondreams.org/ar…..1/11/5154/
“This week, Feinstein used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to enable confirmation of Bush’s Attorney General nominee by ensuring that the frightened Chuck Schumer didn’t have to stand alone (Fox News: “Schumer’s and Feinstein’s support for Mukasey virtually guarantees that a majority of the committee will recommend his confirmation”).
And now, Feinstein is using her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee — simultaneously — to single-handedly ensure fulfillment of Bush’s telecom amnesty demands, as her hometown newspaper, The San Francisco Chronicle, reports:”
FYI – HCJ subcommittee oversight hearing now on, Jonathan Turley is a witness.
Where is Turley? Link?
It must be over? He was last on the list.
Investigate Feinsteins war profiteering
http://www.metroactive.com/met…..-0712.html
Feinstein: Bush broke the law before, we will not really let him break it again – I promise (this should be come one of 3 biggest lies)
Kit Bond is a lying, venal, piece of shit. He just dismissed Justice Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown out of hand.
DiFi is also very stupid. “Now that we have DOUBLE PINKY SWEARED exclusivity, no one can break the law again — there’s no way George W. Bush would break an exclusivity provision that he signs into law.” Uh, right, Dianne.
I don’t think Feinstein actually read the bill. The things she is saying are directly contrary to the language of the bill.
And this is the problem with this entire kabuki theater — people are debating different bills in their mind. The Republicans act in complete and total bad faith, and the capitulating Dems debate different bills that exist in their mind and not on the parchment.
Bah.
At least DiFi admits review is a scam – immunity is a slam dunk
Hey guys, go digg this. I started the ball rolling.
HCJ linky
http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=457
Feinstein voted for the war
voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment
voted for Mukasey
anyone see a pattern?
Turley up now.
We need the assistance of the private sector to keep the country secure? Uh, that is flying, leaping, flaming amounts of horseshit. DiFi, you clown, if the government gets a fucking warrant, the telecoms HAVE TO COMPLY.
We’re fucked. This is a fait accompli.
DiFi, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer are bigger enablers of Bush and Cheney et al than all the Joe Liebermans and Kit Bonds in the Senate combined.
Turley “Bush Adm has the worst record of prosecuting terrorism cases in hx”
Scumbad Saxby Chambliss is laying the blackmail on the table — the Dem leaders knew exactly what was going on in terms of the program, and there it is. Totally explains Nancy and Steny’s cooperation in this.
BTW, did anyone hear earlier during Kit Bond’s stream of lies that he said that he and Roy Blunt and Lamar Smith and Pete Hoekstra (!!!) gave their final and best offer to Steny Hoyer BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY. Steny’s been lying for a LOOOOOOOOONG time.
Saxby is also lying that every phone number illegally tapped was known to belong to al Qaeda. Right.
Hell wiretap Americans if they are seriously undermining National Security. (U.S. vs Rosen) but do it within the law
Shorter Saxby: If we don’t immunize the telecoms, they won’t continue breaking the law to illegally wiretap and datamine.
Dianne makes me sick to my stomach. She’s a Dem in name only. Damn!
Just a flyby, but i would very much like to thank Sen. Chambliss for keeping my internet and phone rates low. By killing the 4th Amendment. Asswipe.
Yes, that’s the best reason ever for this legislation.
Did he really say that ? That clip should be looped and used by his opponent during the next election campaign.
He did. I hope someone grabbed it.
What he kind of said was we don’t want our telecom bills to increase because the telecoms have to defend themselves against lawsuits.
I guess he forgot to mention that corporations are always protected from all lawsuits of all kinds so it’s not like they ever lose any money defending themselves. Corporations, however, appear to “defend” themselves by donating to congressmen, so what is he really saying here – he doesn’t want any lobbying money?
The bullshit density in his speech (amount of bullshit per word spoken) was so high, it’s amazing he could manage to keep a straight face and not crinkle his nose in disgust.
I meant: who was on the Gang on Eight back when the TSP was first revealed to them? That’s not in the Wiki entry.
I believe it was Tom Daschle and Trent Lott; Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi; Jane Harman and Pete Hoekstra; and probably Bob Graham and Richard Shelby.
No, if you’re talking about 2001 or 2002, Pelosi was not Speaker, and wouldn’t have been in the Gang of Eight. That would have been Dick Gephardt.
As far as I can tell, it was not revealed to the FULL Gang of Eight until March 10, 2004, when they tried to get Congress to insta-authorize it over Comey’s objections.
But the first briefing was on October 25, 2001. It was attended by Shelby, Graham, Goss, and Pelosi (in her role as Ranking member of HPSCI).
It’s really tough to decide which Republican Senator annoys me the most. John Cornyn is definitely the stupidest — until you hear Jeff Sessions speak. Saxby Chambliss and Mitch McConnell are certainly the most dishonest, lying sacks of shit. But Kit Bond made a big move up the rankings for me today.
Of course, after hearing DiFi’s blathering, it’s not like Democrats are exactly covering themselves in glory here lately.
Yep, I look at this sorry bunch and have developed some (an ounce) of empathy for what BO has to deal with as POTUS … we have to work hard to elect more and better Dems …
If DiFi dosen’t know exactly what she’s voting for, she’s in some other universe, or she has staff members who are uniformly either GOoPers or total losses – sorry, that’s redundant. I’m sure she’s been told. Hsll, I’ve e-mailed her office several times telling them what’s in this piece-o-crap bill and why she should vote against it. (Not that I expect her to: she is a DINO.)
All right Sanders
Bernie Sanders is talking about an amendment he is sponsoring with Feingold, Leahy and others to strip Title..(?) from Bond’s FISA bill.
Details please? is this just a sop to the progressives, or does it have a chance?
Bob in HI
Why is Bernie Sanders calling it “warrantless wiretapping”? Isn’t it “illegal wiretapping”?
Finally some incredibly good news:
Phoenix first city to get Negra Modelo on draft
Great beer – Phoenix is ahead of Tucson in a few things!!!!!
Very cool.
I once had an entire friendship come down to Negra Modelo. Well, that and La Cumbre burritos in San Francisco.
The friendship survived.
Sanders “All over the world people are saying what is going on in that great nation”? They know what is going on and it terrifies them
Sanders comparing Bush/Wiretapping to Nixon/Watergate. Nice.
Sanders “The point is the President is not the law, the law is the law”
“Very important issue that concerns millions of Americans, we have to do everything we can to protect Americans from terrorist acts, but we can do this by upholding the law at the same time”
Orrin Hatch: Stammering, stumbling, non sequiturs, whining, and, of course, lies.
Hatch is being quite bitchy.
Be nice to him. His (I suspect) designated replacement, Chris Cannon, had his Congressional career ended last night. I’m sure that Hatch is furious that an upstart new Mormon can take over Cannon’s seat.
Thanks, I didn’t know! But I won’t be any nicer to him.
Well, Orrin Hatch approves of this Bill and that’s good enough for me !
God, I’m going to throw up.
Hatch is verbally fluffing Bush now. The Bush administration has never operated in bad faith, according to Orrin!
What a hack.
Orrin Hatch “the President is a wonderful man, he has done everything to protect us”
With the exception of ignoring Richard Clarke’s and other warnings behind 9/11, invading Iraq unnecessarily, undermined National Security by outing Plame, planned the energy policy behind closed doors, etc etc”
Let’s not forget 9/11 took place not even a year after the Bush administration stole the election
Orrin Hatch is a fool and a hypocrite.
Ignored warnings from reliable professionals before 9/11
Hatch: I despise partisan attacks, unlike the traitorous Democrats in Congress ..,
Liberal senators get pasted with the adjective “self-righteous”. Does anyone else think Orrin Hatch deserves that description in spades?
“Delusional” and “Criminally insane” seem more apt
Orrin Hatch is complaining that we aren’t being fair to President Bush, and that we’re criticizing him too much. “Unjust criticisms” by people who “hate the President of the United States.” Orrin thinks he means well.
barf. I think he thinks we should be nice because he’s in over his head, and one should be nice to stumblebums.
So, the movie version of BushCo’s White House, Bush should be played by Tom Hanks?
Bob in HI
Wyden is HOT!
… settle down … *g*
Hatch: Yeah Bush meant well so let’s pass this piece of shit legislation.
I’ve been watching for an hour and I hear mostly smoke and mirrors. The preparation I received from reading this blog and links on this blog (No Comment, Balkinization, Greenwald) has helped me develop a good ear for the disingenuous arguments (ahem, Feinstein).
Sanders’ argument was good. We all want to defend against terrorists now let’s talk about this piece of shit bill.
Wyden Retroactive immunity “this is self certification”
Wyden is touching down on so many good points
Dodd up now!
Bob in HI
Oh boy, Dodd up.
Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 25, 2008
WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
U.S. Attorneys
The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06…..ref=slogin
Rockefeller time. Put on your Bullshit Detectors!
Like a slave in orbit they’re beaten till they’re tame
All for a moments glory and it’s a dirty rotten shame
Senator Rockefeller “FISA outdated”
Senator Rockefeller “final action that we will soon take”….That was rather cocky
Caught that too. It’s a done deal for Jay already.
Christy is upstairs with “attention please” Reports that Schumer may vote no on retroactive immunity
Leahy, Schumer, Wyden, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, Sanders, who else voting “no” for sure?
Jello Jay laying it all out for all to see, that he’s carrying the water for the DNI, AG Mukasey, Bond, Blunt, et al.
Jello Jay:
Steny Hoyer is a near saint., Bond and Blount deserve our praise, Peter Hoekstra, and Harry Reid. As if these people want credit for his piece of shit legislation.
rockefeller’s thank yous are longer than the house debate.
Ignore me; EW is I’m sure correct about this in 100.
Not really OT, but the WSJ gave Jane some prominence wrt to the FISA Fight:
And more Jane quotes over at Politico.com:
But at the same place, Markos is all about splitting the baby:
So I repeat, our wayward Democratic Congressional Leadership believes:
Power trumps principle!
So, the people who shape our choices give us limited choices. So sometimes we have to hold our noses as we make those choices.
Then it is up to us to change the people who shape our choices.
Someone correct me on this:
Steny Hoyer was not selected to his present position to push a progressive agenda. He was elected to find consensus about things that Democrats could support. So why should we feel surprised when he finds consensus for something that is not progressive?
Maybe the thing he needs to learn is that consensus on a bad idea is a bad idea.
Bob in HI
But, Bb, overall among Democrats, I do not believe that this bill, at least the immunity portion of it, had support. Unless you are talking only about the Congressmen and not the people.
bmaz,
I’m assuming that Hoyer got pushed by enough Bush Dogs to pursue his “compromise.” Exactly what their motives were, I have no idea. But to guess, I suppose a bunch of them wanted a way to look “strong” on national security.
Bob in HI
I think the Democrats who jumped over the FISA cliff with Steny, Nancy and Jello Jay were more afraid of the Repugs than any old terrorists.
My understanding is that Hoyer actually took the affirmative lead without necessarily being pushed by the Blue Dogs. Here is what I said over at FDL. It is the best I have got.
Let me put it as simply as I can. This FISA bill was not about security. It was not about terrorism. It was completely about self serving petty politicians, concerned only about their re-election and pathetic hold on power. If this bill was about security and terrorism, the measure could have very simply been issued by the House with all of the current provisions but immunity, and passed by the Senate in that form. It would be next to impossible in the Senate to strip immunity out after tonight’s vote; but Harry Reid could have refused to bring it to the floor until the House had done so. Neither happened. The Democratic Leadership wanted immunity. It is that simple.
Let’s assume that the Congress had passed the entire bill without immunity, what then? We know Bush threatened to veto. He might would have, but that would have meant that he was putting the country at risk to benefit phone companies that he claims did nothing wrong. Nobody but his little 20% would support that. McCain would have either supported the Democrats bill as passed or joined Bush on saying the whole bill was no good without the gold plated gift to BigPhone. He would look like an idiot either way. Obama could have benefitted from this tactical posturing and made McCain look like a rube. Protected the people and the Constitution in the process. Why didn’t he? Why didn’t the Democrats? Because they are too fucking lazy, and they just don’t give a damn about the Constitution or our privacy. They could get their precious little power play the easy way like they just have done, and not have to strain their brains and actually explain things to their constituents. Bottom line: It was all just too much hassle for the little dears.
For all those talking about the bribes and money; it is not about the money. The average amount of money that the dems voting for this received from telcos over the last two years is freaking paltry. It is not the money. It is the petty self serving DC insider power bullshit; they want to have and keep their power, and do so with as little effort possible.
There was horsetrading. There had to be.
Levin managed to hold off the Bush administration on 6th circuit appointments for the entire length of Bush’s two terms.
And then this week, as quick as a wink, 3 judges approved.
What a coincidence.
Well don’t forget there was horsetrading to get there. Levin got the Democrat (is it Helene White?) switched into the 6th C position and Murphy demoted to the District position. For one more Dem on our crappy Circuit, Ill take it.
So what’d Stabenow get out of her YEA vote?
Or did she simply roll over like she did on MCA?
I was mostly guessing and using Wikipedia, so I’m glad ew commented authoritatively. I had completely forgotten about Goss. There were a number of shifts in the leadership in that time frame, but I did remember that Harman only took over the House Intel Committee after Pelosi became Minority Leader. Lott stepped down as Majority Leader in December 2002, and Daschle was defeated in ’04.
I guess a timeline of the Gang of Eight would be useful!
While still reading the thread, I wanted to let McCaffrey know Senator Leahy indeed has appreciation for the canine species, and, in fact has placed images in his office from a constituent who built a chapel for dogs near a sales and artworks studio in VT where one might purchase wooden carvings of what looks like springer spaniels and other spp. akin to labs.
McCaf: scroll to the third picture to see the dog yoga carpets in this image with the chapel guide, who probably whispers while conducting the tour; and this other image for verisimlar likenesses of full size spaniels seated on the hardwood floor between the meditation mats.
I am still working on the issue of whether these intelligent breeds have developed capability of detecting if their radiocollar signals are intercepted and piped into metadata for communities of interest parsing algorithms. But the entire review has shown once again why Senator Leahy’s politics seem to align well with ew @fdl’s, given his appreciation of dogs as a species.
So we’re back to the step before the beginning, because now we have to find people to elect who can understand what they’re supposed to be protecting, and also have enough self-respect and stubbornness to not be bought by the DC powermongers, with the added complication that we’ve just shredded the written rules we used to use and can’t trust anyone already in office, never mind anyone appointed in the last seven years (I’m including even Fitz).
If the laws are now optional at the higher levels of politics, should we point out to these @#$%^&*(s that we-the-people will now have no reason to either trust them or to obey those laws ourselves? Would that get through to them why this piece-o-crap bill is a bad idea?
Republicans can now say that if even Democrats find so much to like in the Bush administration’s national security approach, voters should rely on the Republican candidates to deliver the full-strength product, not “Democrat Lite.”
14: At least EW is not stuck with him possibly even beyond 2010.
111: I could not have said it better than Markos on page 2. This will affect the enthusiasm for Obama. On Other Blogs Which Will Remain Nameless Obama supporters are now trying to argue that this is just one issue. This is not “just one issue” in the same way that the Iraq supplemental was one issue. This is a constellation of principles and the very people who were most passionately opposed to Bush will now doubt Obama’s integrity. It doesn’t matter that McCain changed his mind even more transparently than this.
Couple things and then off to the salt mines:
From ABC News:
And finally, don’t forget that today at the House Judiciary Committee, they will have a hearing at 10:00 AM on:
From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III
Witnesses will be David Addington, Christopher Schroeder and John Yoo.
O/T: Khadr update:
The Federal Court judge who is making the decisions about which docs the government has to hand over to Khadr’s defence team (following an SCC decision that his Charter rights had been violated) said yesterday that the treatment Khadr received at Guantanamo to “prepare” him for an interview with Canadian officials was a violation of international human rights.
This decision is all the more significant because Judge Richard Mosley, in a slightly earlier life, was the assistant deputy minister at Justice who drafted the Anti-Terrorism Act, which is sort of like your Patriot Act although maybe not quite so bad.
btw, The Addington–Yoo Hearing, Gavel-to-gavel with scott horton has begun on kfpa. (details cross posted at the mother ship)
Morning everyone.
here’s the elephant in the room, bigger then a gorilla, much bigger;
the immunity provision legalizes the sale of national security top secrets to our enemies
that’s what it does and I cannot believe this is not brought up, it should be the lead of every progressive blog whent they discuss this bill