Reid: The President and the Republicans Want Failure
One of the things we’re fighting for now on FISA is to make sure the Republicans get pinned as the obstructionists here. Here was Reid’s first shot at doing so (a rough transcript of his speech, via email):
We want, if necessary, within the confines of the law, to do wiretapping of these bad people. But, Mr. President, Having said that we want to do it within the confines of our Law and our constitution. We want to make sure that this wire tapping does not include innocent Americans who just happen to be part of what they’re collecting. That’s what the American People expect us to do.
So I again say Mr. President, no one can question our patriotism, our willingness to keep our homeland safe. We have tried to move forward on this legislation. We have tried in many different ways. What we have been doing today and yesterday is moving forward on this legislation just as the distinguished Senator from California said. There are amendments that will make this legislation better. Now that’s in the eye of the beholder. We all understand that. But shouldn’t the Senate have the ability to vote on those amendments?
No matter what we do as a Senate it has to have a conference with the house. They have already passed their legislation. But we have been stalled every step of the way. Every step of the way, the Feingold Amendment, for example, was offered certainly it is germane. But he is being told, we’re being told he can’t get a vote on this amendment because it concerns the FISA court orders well, his amendment was discussed at length previously half of it was accepted on a bipartisan basis much the other half wasn’t. But certainly he is entitled to a vote Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feingold and I don’t want to embarrass him – he is really a legal scholar. He went to one of our highest Law Schools in the world, he is a Rhodes Scholar.
Senator Whitehouse has been Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island and is certainly, Mr. President, known all over the country as someone who understands the law. He has been a tremendously good person as a member of the United States Senate. He served on both committees – the intelligence committee on the Judiciary Committee. He is a thoughtful person. The legislation that came out of the intelligence committee should be improved and as a pen of the judiciary committee he worked to have that improved. He offered an amendment a short time ago, sough to offer an amendment, a major main amendment concerning – a germane amendment concerning minimization which means if you pick up by mistake an American you drop that you push that out of the way that isn’t going to be made public in any manner we want to vote on that. It seems everyone would vote for it. I would certainly hope it is but there is an objection to even having a vote on that amendment. Senator Cardin, a long time member of the congress relatively new member of the senate but a long time experience member of the congress of the United States sought to offer an amendment, a germane amendment shortening the sunset provision. The Bill that is before us that came out of the intelligence committee is for six years.
Now, Mr. President, things are changing rapidly in our country and in the world as it relates to things electronic. We don’t know what is going to take place in regard to terrorism, violence or what’s going to take place with our ability to do better jobs electronically to uncover some of the stuff we believe can be uncovered. He wants this legislation not to be for six years, for yours. That is – for six years but four years. He has been unable to offer that simple amendment. Senator Feinstein has just given a very fine statement seeking consent to offer a major main amendment on, excuse — A germane amendment on FISA. There have been editorials virtually in every state of the union in the newspapers saying that it should be the law, but she has not been able to offer that amendment. Senator Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, Mr. President, I wanted it would offer an amendment. That is so rational, so important, he says, let’s have the inspector general do an investigation about the whole wiretapping program to find out what has taken place who has been involved in it and report back to congress. He sets a reasonable time. Guess what? We can’t even vote on that. He can’t even offer the Amendment.
I say to my friends that it doesn’t matter what we try to do, we can’t do it. It appears that the majority [sic?], the president, and the republicans want failure. They don’t want a bill. So that’s why they’re jamming this forward. I am going to vote against cloture on this Mr. President. It is not fair that we have a major piece of legislation like this and were not even allowed to offer whether the bill should be four years or six years? Or an amendment on millions of Americans picked up by mistake are brought out in the public eye. Or senator Feingold’s amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment, if there were ever a catch 22, this is it. What were being asked to do is irrational, irresponsible and wrong. Where does this catch 22 come from.
[…]
I’ve said we will take a 30-day extension. We’ll take a two-week extension, we’ll take a 12-Month extension, we will take an 18-Month extension.
I tell all my friends I have been told and I appreciate very much my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell who has told me he has a cloture petition all signed. He will file it as soon as I yield the floor to him. I would say to all my friends that under regular order we will later that 1:00 Monday so the 30 hours runs out at its original time on Tuesday. If cloture is not invoked and I am not going to vote for cloture, unless the president agrees to some extension time, the program will fail.
I don’t know any way out of this. But I in good conscience cannot support this legislation and at least unless we have a vote on retroactivity of immunity, I can’t vote on it for cloture unless some of the very basic Amendments that people want to offer are allowed they would all agree on very short time lines.
No one is questioning spending a lot of time. We, the Democrats, are not in any way trying to stall this bill. We’ve been trying to expedite it for a long time now.
He needs to tighten those talking points and get onto every Sunday show. This is about the Republicans wanting failure–not about keeping our country safe.
Meanwhile, call these people and tell them to vote against cloture:
Bayh (202) 224-5623
Carper (202) 224-2441
Inouye (202) 224-3934
Johnson (202) 224-5842
Landrieu (202)224-5824
McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
Pryor (202) 224-2353
Salazar (202) 224-5852
Specter (202) 224-4254 (What the hell–he had an amendment ignored today, too)
Agree wholeheartedly.
As I said on the last thread, the Dems (and every pundit, comic, and interested citizen) need to pass around that bit of Inhofe interupting the FISA proceedings to yammer on about completely different topic.
The no! no! no! votes from the Republicans are simply unreasonable.
I hope they’re exposed as absolute frauds.
Sorry — my ‘no! no! no!’ was meant to reference the Republican refusal to allow to any Democratic Senator, even one as gifted as Whitehouse, to offer an amendment for discussion. The Republicans look absolutely unreasonable. Think they overplayed their hand on this one.
If you want to make those calls for free, Dodd’s widget is still working:
http://chrisdodd.com/filibuster/call
Thanks Jim.
The push is on to give Bush a feather in his cap, or is that another jewel in his crown, in time for the SOTU on Monday night.
No Immunity for Spying on the Citizens’ Community!
I don’t trust Harry Reid as far as I could spit him. After everything he did to engineer a Republican friendly vote on the FISA bill, the Republicans still, still don’t hesitate to do him dirt and play this “essential tool in the War on Terror” (yeah, right) like a cheap banjo for all the political points they can make off it. And what is really pathetic the next time Harry will line up and try to help the Republicans all over again.
Let’s face it. Harry is a masochist.
Cboldt reported over at the FDL thread that Reid offered a recent S. Amendment 3918 which might be a one month extension. I haven’t been able to find a place that lists the current amendments up to the minute.
I can’t find it at the Thomas Daily Digest nor at Govtrack.us
Is there a better place to track all the activity for the day besides taking a chance on the print media or random blogs?
In all the panic facade by the Administration, what is often forgotten is
Democrats Try to Delay Eavesdropping Vote:
I understand first paragraph of that quote from Wainstein. The second paragraph seems to be smoke and mirrors. I don’t see them “reverting to pre-August standards” within the emergency year’s extension at all.
Wrt to Admendment 3918, that is the Kennedy Amendment and you can find info on it here.
Disregard my 14 since that refers to another Kennedy Amendment 3918 (back in 2002…sheesh).
cboldt what is you blog called?
Senate by Cboldt. It’s mostly my personal notepad, or one of two. The other one is also at blogspot, “No Easy Answers” or something like that.
Wrt to Admendment 3918, that is the Kennedy Amendment and you can find info on it here.
That’s from the 107th Congress. There is probably an amendment #3918 is the 108th and 109th as well. S.Amdt.3918 – 108th Congress — S.Amdt.3918 – 109th Congress
Govtrack grabs the material from Thomas and repackages it. The material appears first on Thomas, and later on GovTrack. I have found, for some things, the Senate’s Legislative calendar a useful resource. It is ALWAYS out before the Congressional Record. You’ll see the UC agreements relating to two cloture motions and votes in the legislative calendar, well before today’s Congressional Record makes it online.
Most Current Legislative Calendar
History of Legislative Calendars
Greetings Cboldt. Long time no see.
Hello back! I have to contribute her via a GUI browser, so won’t comment as often as I did at TNH’s typepad digs. I mostly use a text-based browser, and can read here with that, but can’t contribute here with that.
I haven’t been able to find a place that lists the current amendments up to the minute.
Neither have I. Sometimes (not always), I publish action in near realtime at Senate by Cboldt (link is to the current thread, which is currently at the top of the blog).
Thanks much for the link to your blog. I’ll continue to look for something like this and post it if I find it. I’ll bet that Senate staffers/congressional staffers have their own blogs. or someone who covers the hill closely possibly for a research group if not for media.
Maybe some of the subscription newsletters that lobbyists get do this, but I don’t know how fast they update.
Greetings Cboldt. Long time no see.
Darclay @13 – see #8 above. Senate By Cboldt
Duh, thanks,still upset at Clinton and Obama
cboldt
Do you know which amendment will be considered with the SSCI FISA bill? I’m not sure whether it’s the Bond/Rockefeller amendment (and if so, what that precisely says) or if it’s the Feingold bill.
I’m confused over reports Republicans are blocking all amendments at places like TPM Muck
GOPers Block Amendments
Can you help me square this (amendments that would be considered) with all the reports that McConnell/Republicans are blocking all amendments? Doesn’t any amendment require a 60 vote majority to pass, and what exactly is the means by which they are blocking amendments other than that from an up/down vote if they are?
Doesn’t any amendment require a 60 vote majority to pass, and what exactly is the means by which they are blocking amendments other than that from an up/down vote if they are?
The amendments are being blocked by GOP objection to “setting aside the pending amendment so amendment XYZ can be brought to the floor for consideration.” The general mode of operation in the Senate is to take up an amendment, debate it, vote on it, repeat as required. The rules limit the number of concurrently pending amendments, but the rules are routinely waived by unanimous consent. The UC request of a given senator is that utterance, “I ask consent that the pending amendment be set aside ….” If ONE other senator objects, the action is stalled at voting on whatever amendment is at the top of the heap (i.e., is “pending”)
And voting to pass or reject an amendment can also be objected to by a single Senator – although a motion to table cannot be delayed by objection.
As to needing 60 votes to pass, that’s the case only with contentious amendments, where a single senator or group of senators objects. Then the tool for getting around objection is cloture, which takes 60 votes. Sometime, the Senate compresses cloture directly into the voting process, and just sets up a “this amendment needs 60 votes to pass,” usually with back-to-back competing amendments, so as to create the illusion of fairness or even-handedness.
Thanks. I’m trying to back extrapolate your links to make sure I can use them in the future to update. Appreciate them.
Do you know which amendment will be considered with the SSCI FISA bill?
Right now there are two Bond amendments (3911 and 3916) and one Finegold amendment (3916) pending on top of the Bond/Rockefeller substitute (not numbered, as far as I can tell), with the text of all three being pent up for release (tomorrow morning) in today’s edition of the Congressional Record.
The Bond/Rockefeller substitute, the object of McConnell’s cloture motion, was printed in today’s edition of the Congressional Record, starting at Page S179. Careful as you scan through that, as the SJC version starts at the end of page S184; and the separation between what amounts to two competing bills is easy to overlook.
Also pending is Reid’s S.Amdt.3918.
As for which will “be considered,” there’s no way to tell. Usually, all pending amendments are considered at some point, but the disposition varies depending on factors a bit out of sight.
My hunch is that the bill will be set aside again, and brought back “fresh” in a future attempt to pass something that suits the administration. The administration is holding a my way or the highway position; and that overreach may be an undoing.
Thank you. At this point,I’ll have to wade back in tomorrow.
Reid’s Freudian slip about “the majority” is extremely telling. In one sense, it reveals the delusional syndrome rife among establishment Democrats: even when they win, they assume they’re the losers, the supplicants.
And in another sense, it’s just a statement of fact. Because real Democrats really are in the minority. Rethugs + DINOs (including, on the whole Reid himself) equals the same fascist-enabling majority that Bush has enjoyed from the get-go, regardless of any shifting balance of D’s, R’s, I’s, and CFLs.
I have to go check the alcohol situation in the cupboard.
I’ll bet that Senate staffers/congressional staffers have their own blogs.
The insiders know what’s cooking anyway, without blogs. My site gets very few hits a day (usually less than ten), but a substantial fraction of those are senate.gov
My coverage is spotty – and apt to be extremely spotty in the near term because I am very busy with a daytime job. But the notes are a good quick historical reference for me, because I pull links from various sources and put them conveniently close together.
I’ll ck. it regularly and appreciate your time and effort.
cboldt what is you blog called?
Hey lookee here. Another judge seems to think those torture tapes were material evidence. Who could have ever predicted this? (The Rice-a- Roni quote that just keeps on giving).
Isn’t Hellerstein’s deadline about due? Sure be nice to have a whole passel of different judges pounding away at this to offset the soft sell the DOJ would otherwise try.
If Bush complies with these Judicial Orders, I’ll take it that the Menace of the UE has finally passed, and that we’ve returned to the Rule of Law.
And, if so, how lucky We will have been that the Institutions of Freedom built-up over 230 years withstood the claws of Tyranny.
I thought Cheney’s speech this morning at the Heritage Foundation was utterly ‘normal’ VP blather – he was still a dickhead, just not a mushroom cloud dickhead.
Maybe, just maybe we’re back to three co-equal Branches of Government.
Naw. They will states secret it; or, if they produce something, it will be fraudulent and/or incomplete. Nothing has changed.
I started the day with low expectations. However, the biggest disappointment was that my senator – Claire McCaskill – voted to table/kill the Judiciary version of the bill. I don’t know if it had to do with AT&T and Sprint presence here in Missouri, or with deference to that dinosaur Kit Bond. Any thoughts from other Missourians?
We really need to put the full court press on McCaskill tomorrow and Monday. I’m hoping it’s not too late to convince her to come down on the right side of this issue.
I become more and more unhappy with Claire and her voting record. She seems to be siding more and more with the dark side and I feel that she doesn’t have a grasp of the issues. What to do about it? CAll Call Call! Let her people know – and then at least I feel like I’ve tried.
Clarence Prevost, who is this fuck. Awarded 5,000,000 in closed door ceremony for disclosing Mousoui.
I put this up at FDL also:
Tim Tagaris at OpenLeft says that Reid has put in a bill for a 30 day extension of FISA, and that a cloture vote comes on that on Monday, before the cloture vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee bill.
Tim Tagaris has the cloture vote on an extension (if that’s in fact what S.Amdt.3918 really is … I just hunched a guess, and I hope he didn’t find my guess and take it as fact) happening AFTER the cloture vote on McConnell’s cloture motion.
Maybe two cloture votes, the first, at 4:30 Monday, to limit debate per McConnell’s request. If (and ONLY if) that cloture motion is rejected, would there be a cloture vote to limit debate on Reid’s S.Amdt.3918. That is what I heard said on the floor of the Senate, shortly before the Senate was adjourned for the night.
That’s my substantive understanding. We get House if we defeat the SSCI cloture.
Hey cboldt – I am extremely opposed to any “short extension”. It sounds all innocent like, but i think it has all kinds of potential dangers. When the August pile of junk was slammed through, the Congress did not know about the “secret memos”, there was all kinds of subterfuge that has now been exposed, and they were lied to about there being an imminent threat. They had an excuse (at least for argument’s sake anyway; I think we agree they really didn’t). However, now, all of that has been expose. I think any vote that sanctions that pile of junk, even as a brief extension, serves to ratify and approve of it in the face of all the above reasonable excuses. In short, I think even affirmatively voting in a “brief extension” is a grave mistake and gives cover and regularity to something that does not deserve it. What is your thought on this?
I think even affirmatively voting in a “brief extension” is a grave mistake and gives cover and regularity to something that does not deserve it. What is your thought on this?
I don’t think an extension gives any more cover or legitimacy than has already been given. I do think that “giving up,” and leaving the PAA without a sunset would be a grave mistake. But I’d rather have a knock-down drag out fight over the meaning of the fourth amendment, rather than a quick and perfunctory show fight followed by passage of the SSCI or even the SJC version of a more durable bill.
And the longer the consolidated cases work through the courts out in your neck of the woods, the more likely an action is taken that moots the need for legislative immunity. I’d rather the court cases be lost with a bogus invocation of state secret, than by Congress revoking its own law. I liked the example given in another thread … would Congress give me retroactive immunity for possession of a bong?
I’ll think about it some more, but I am pretty firmly of the mind that from a tactical point of view, maybe not legally, but equitably, such a move wipes away all of the types of defenses (secret memos, McConnell/Hayden lying, bogus threats etc) described above and, additionally gives at least minor credence to the position that the contents of the PAA are capable of being acceptable. Not saying it is the whole ball of wax or anything, but i think it is a strategic negative if the adversary was to argue it in a cagy manner. Maybe I am fighting too thin of a line here, but I’ll be damned if I want to lend any credence whatsoever, even arguably, to this crap. Sure agree about the full and intelligent discussion on the merits and 4th Amendment; not quite sure what odds there are, if any, of that with this group though. Hey, I think the 9th may do ok; of course we are pretty much considered kooks out here….
If you want to compare the “original” SSCI bill with the Bond/Rockefeller substitute, all that text is available now.
SSCI version – Pick “(Reported in Senate)[S.2248.RS]”
vs.
Bond/Rockefeller substitute amendment (pages S179 – S185)
One of the Bond amendments, and the Feingold amendment are on the subject of Congressional access to the legal rationales advocated to the FISA Court, and adopted by the FISA Court. Congress wants a peek at how the administration justified the TSP and other surveillance. Bond’s amendment tends to limit or eliminate disclosure.
The other Bond amendment is on the subject of privacy rights for Americans overseas. This is something that Bond appears to have negotiated with the NSA. My guess is it’s some sort of fake-out, where rights appear to be protected, but in fact aren’t. Sort of like the torture law, where it’s illegal, but not punishable.
One more question (and thanks for your help). If cloture passes on Monday on the SSCI, does that mean the overseas wiretap language is included?
And I agree, it’s a headfake. I almost guarantee you, they’ve done a very clear vote count, and judged that with this amendment they’ll get the Wyden people on board, and win the vote.
Damn I wish Democrats were this effective.
If cloture passes on Monday on the SSCI, does that mean the overseas wiretap language is included?
I think so, in Sec. 702(c). One thing I haven’t checked closely is whether or not that Alice-in-Wonderland redefinition of “electronic surveillance” created by the PAA is rescinded by the SSCI language. If the Alice-in-Wonderland redefinition persists, an acquisition is NOT electronic surveillance, if it’s directed at a person reasonably believed to be outside the US.
The SSCI bill as reported out of the SSCI had this at Sec.701 …
That was struck out, and replaced with this language at Sec.702(a) …
That earlier version also has the 702(c) limitations recited in the pending bill. The 702(c) limitations start thusly …
I haven’t seen a careful study of the language, and haven’t undertaken my own independent study, but I am quick to say that I absolutely DON’T trust the Senate or the administration to accurately represent the effect of the legislation. They are all proven liars as far as I am concerned. Maybe the statutory effect is what it appears to be on its face, maybe not. I’m apt to look it over after the legislative maneuvering (amending process) settles down.
cboldt
Here’s my quick guess on what it means, before coffee:
First, why the descriipton of “electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device”? Does a computer count as a surveillance device?
Second, note the specification, both of contents, and that it’s limited to wire or radio communication. As you’ve said, if they’ve kept the wacky definitions of before, this leaves open non-wire communication or other documents.
I’m also struck by the “reasonable expectation of privacy.” That’s already the standard for the law. So by including it here, with a bunch of exceptions, aren’t you changing the law?
Please people, I beg you, have mercy and give the telcos immunity because they just cannot afford to stay in business if they have to defend these oppressive lawsuits by citizens. Oops; wait, maybe not so much Maybe that is a total cock of manure:
Yep. Allowing United States citizens to actually have their day in court in an attempt to protect fundamental Constitutional rights is just driving ‘ole AT&T right down the crapper eh? Profit only rose 63%, a paltry increase of 15 billion dollars for the quarter. My oh my; what will they ever do?
OK. The Legislative calendar is out …
So, with that, I think S.Amdt.3911 is partially represented by the text starting at page S179. I say partially, because the text starting at page S179 does not continue on to recite the Title II “immunity” provisions, and those provisions are essential.
I note the absence of a time agreement on taking the cloture vote pertaining to Reid’s S.Amdt.3918, but note the cloture rule provides a time, and Reid’s statement when the motion was filed that the vote would happen IF and AFTER cloture is rejected on the Bond/Rockefeller substitute amendment.
I’m a slightly more informed now about US Senate rules of procedure, but am still stumbling over terms of art. Nevertheless,
re: cbolt @ 41
How long does a quorum call normally take? Why rush the vote for cloture on Monday? Why NOT make a quorum call or more than one? Run out the clock. Monday is 1/28/08 and 02/01/08 is a mere 4 days away!
Am I reading the legislative calendar correctly? Why call a vote that takes place at 4:30pm a vote that “took place at noon” the same day? Don’t use up hours after any cloture vote passes unnecessarily. (Reid suggested this arrangement, no?)
Once a cloture is successful (if ayes have it), then the 30 hours of ‘debate’ starts ticking down until the vote has to occur over whether the bill becomes law.
And why is Reid so happy to extend the current PAA? Remember this summer when everyone was stupified? The response was ‘Well it is only temporary. It has a 6 months sunset provision.’
Let the bad law expire. No apologies.
Agreed; see also #36 and #42 above.
Crikey EW, why didn’t you say you were having a party over at the mothership? Some of us (read: me) are a little slow on the uptake. I’ve got another talking point for you: “YOU DON’T NEED IMMUNITY FOR LEGAL BEHAVIOR”.
thx bmaz.
regarding your suggestion: ‘You don’t need immunity for legal behavior’
I believe the WH has been cagey, calling it now ‘alleged illegal behavior’.
We are going to need a supermax prison for this crowd, but it will of necessity require a political affiliation screen for the hiring of the guards.
How long does a quorum call normally take? Why rush the vote for cloture on Monday? Why NOT make a quorum call or more than one?
Quorum calls are usually taken as time fillers. They last as long as the Senate wants, sometimes 6-7 or more hours straight, usually some amount of time between 5 minutes and an hour. It’s just a time filler for when all the talk is happening out of sight, and the script isn’t yet available for floor action.
A live quorum call, the real thing, takes about half an hour.
The cloture vote on Monday isn’t a rush job. The time between filing a cloture motion and voting on it is set out in Senate Rule XXII, and that duration is “one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one.” So, one hour after the Senate meets on Monday is when the rules say the cloture vote is to be held. By unanimous consent, the time for that vote was pushed out to 4:30 p.m.
And in that same rule, we also see “why” the Senate is pretending that the cloture vote was taken at noon … the 30 hours of post-cloture debate (if cloture passes) will be counted starting from noon, instead of starting from 4:30 p.m. IOW, the eventual vote on the underlying bill is held at the same time the rules provide, even though the cloture vote is delayed by 4 and half hours, and the time for post-cloture debate is reduced by the same amount of time.
FWIW, I’ve seen cloture votes happen within seconds of the cloture motion being filed, and post-cloture debate reduced to virtually zero; so the time in Rule XXII amounts to a suggestions. I’ve also seen the time between filing a cloture motion and taking the cloture vote extended indefinitely, sometimes to the point that the cloture vote is not even held, and the cloture motion is withdrawn, or in the alternative, “vitated” by some overriding action like passage of a bill or amendment.
why is Reid so happy to extend the current PAA?
The alternative that he sees as inevitable, unless some heat and public opposition can be ginned up, is passing a bill with amnesty for the telecoms. And letting the PAA expire will renew the same rhetoric that was flying around, unrebutted, in August — that the government couldn’t surveil foreign-foreign communications because of the law.
Except for that cute little pill they included that programs initiated during the active life extend for one year even if the PAA sunsets. So that argument may well work for them, but is disingenuous.
It’s disigenuous and obscene, because Wainstein, Assistant AG for National Security has been quoted all over the media acknoledging this, although with his own spin designed to confuse, and Republican Senators got up on the floor and acted as if this extension doesn’t exist. Bond, Hatch, and several others also distorted and misquoted parts of the SSIC bill because he thinks the public is too stupid to understand or care, From
Democrats Try to Delay Eavesdropping Vote NYT:
I don’t understand the risk Waintein raises in the second paragraph as to reverting to pre-August standards given the year extension provision.
I don’t understand the risk Waintein raises in the second paragraph as to reverting to pre-August standards given the year extension provision.
Existing snoop regimes, which I picture as orders to the telecoms to provide specific information (and which might be VERY broad and “looking for trouble” like), continue as ordered.
But new ideas for snooping, maybe a new name pops up, or all communications emanating from a new telephone exchange or town becomes “of interest,” those new ideas can’t be implemented under the generous provisions of the PAA. The snooper would have to prepare more elaborate paperwork to explain the snoop regime, and would also subjected to more strict “throw away” (minimization) rules, as contained in pre-PAA statute.
Thanks much–after my 5th time reading the quote I realized the “new target” implications.
Thanks. Is there a strategic reason to push the vote out to 4:30pm?
I’m heading to sleep so if you have a chance to answer I’ll check in the morning. Goodnight.
Is there a strategic reason to push the vote out to 4:30pm?
Not that I can think of. The Senate usually schedules light Friday afternoons and Monday mornings (as in “adjourned”), and especially avoids scheduling roll call votes on Fridays and Mondays (although sometimes circumstances dictate a vote on one of those days) simply to make for long weekends and accommodate senator travel schedules.
Having the vote at 4:30 also permits extended time for debate — I think of it generally as “entertaining the watchers with the circus” — before they get to the vote.
I’m off to scrounge through some primary references …
Daily Digest for January 24, 2008
Full Record for January 24, 2008
Text of Amendments – Jan 24, 2008
And in the Text of Amendments, I see that SA 3911 includes a slightly modified “Alice in Wonderland” definition of electronic surveillance:
Also in that amendment, the presence of Title II, Protections for Electronic Service Providers, and get this, a new Title VIII, “Protection of Persons Assisting the Government,” which stands separately and in parallel with the provisions that grant retroactive amnesty.
The full text of Senator Reid’s SA 3918:
Lucky guess on my part, that his proposed amendment was an extension.
Yes, one much more mundane than cboldt’s great legislative sleuthing.
The State of the Union is Monday. By holding a vote at 4:30, you are pretty much guaranteed that the presidential candidates are in town.
finally a coninkydince or whatever you call it that works for us not IOKIYAR.
That said, can we encourage the dems to yell out IC if he calls us the Democrat party? BTW, someone said that’s a McCarthyism. It’s older than that. Here is a Wiki excerpt that says it won’t be if but when:
Not surprisingly, it’s considered ungrammatical. The great literacy pres. does it again.
Sooner or later a bad event will occur and just like 911, there will be minute scrutiny of anything that might have allowed it.
We should appear even more conscious of security than the Republicans. I think there is too much political maneuvering around trying to cast the Republicans as overzealous. We should be the ones trying to keep the country safe just as we are trying to protect the poor and those without healthcare.
As a warning to the chthonic darkness to which we may some day descend if this administration has its way, here is a youtube video “Lotion” sung by Greenskeeper.
(One person commented that it could be Cheney’s theme song for any public appearances).
(warning: slightly graphic. Video contains clips from the movie ‘Silence of the Lambs’ although sung to an upbeat pop tune. And damn, if Buffalo Bill’s poodle doesn’t resemble W! It’s not only in the eyes, but in the chipper way it flits about the basement oblivious to the suffering and evil environment)
oblivious to the suffering and evil in its environment
The EFF folks are staying right on top of the proposed FISA changes.
Hey folks, we have a new shit stain on our hands here. Do NOT feed it. Just like the old one (could very well be the old one), this one methodically trolls the bottom of threads after folks are asleep. I don’t know about all of you, but the old troll has been getting on my nerves; I am certainly in no mood for another clone. This is getting ridiculous. Freepatriot. Paging Freepatriot.
Just keep celebrating when one hits…It means WE are doing GREAT work to honor, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States!!!!!!
bmaz, you don’t need that kind of stress…
Heh heh, thanks KLynn. Trust me, on the stress-o-meter of things in my life, the trolls basically hardly register a blip, if at all. Now that Constitution thingy, that stresses me a little currently.
O/T sort of…
Funny thing, that Constitution thingy…
In talking with family our conversation centered on “this is not the country I envisioned and worked so hard for, for my children.”
My parents said, “This is not the country we envisioned for our children and grandchildren. We did not think we would have to witness all of this craziness towards basic constitutional rights.”
There is a campaign message within this conversation because I know my family is NOT the only one having such an exchange which is consistent across the generations.
IRT your RFI tagging comment, I found this interesting…
http://www.gcn.com/print/25_01/37884-1.html
That is kind of an interesting article. I think you are aware, but if not. the RFI discussed in the article you linked describes a Request For Information. The RFI I was referring to is Radio Frequency Identification. Completely different, but a very interesting article; kind of fits in with the archiving discussion we have been having.
Yes. I meant to post this one:
http://www.visionid.ie/rfid.php
And happened to catch the above article in a search and was hit by some of the content wrt the archiving of email issue.
For RFID info try this.
http://www.rfidjournal.com/
For privacy issues:
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/topics/7/
Read a few of these articles and try to imagine the potential for misuse. It’s mind boggling. Some of it is premium content (you have to pay) but there is also free stuff.
Reid: “I don’t know any way out of this. But I in good conscience cannot support this legislation and at least unless we have a vote on retroactivity of immunity, I can’t vote on it for cloture unless some of the very basic Amendments that people want to offer are allowed they would all agree on very short time lines.
P.S. I wouldn’t read too awful much into it, but the following Senators are included in the list of signatures on the cloture motion to advance Reid’s SA 3918: Rockefeller, Salazar, Inouye, both Nelsons, and Carper. All of these had voted AYE to table the SJC substitute amendment, and are popularly viewed as needing to “flip” in order to avoid invoking cloture on the SSCI substitute amendment on Monday afternoon.
So, I’m all for tagging the GOP on this one. But (a) it’s fruitless and (b) it shouldn’t matter.
(a) There is going to be a vote on Monday in which (putting on a positive face) 41 Democrats will vote to “filibuster” the bill over the objections of 59 other Senators. Forget the fine points–the MSM isn’t going to be relating them. If the GOP can’t paint that as obstructionism, then they’re not the GOP I’ve been watching the last seven years.
Even if it weren’t a matter of sustaining a filibuster, the GOP always has the ultimate line, “Dems control the Congress, so if a FISA bill isn’t getting through, it’s their fault.” Again, to the low-information voter this is a compelling argument.
(b) Democrats need to learn how to say, “Yes, I am obstructing this” followed by something like “We wrote a good bill the Republicans voted down. This current bill is unconscionable because (insert favorite reason here).”
This latter only works, of course, if every Democrat says only this–otherwise the MSM will find someone “off the reservation”, use them, and edit the main line of Dem reasoning out (I can’t count how many times I’ve seen this done on pretty much every issue.) If they all say it, the MSM in “fairness” has to run something, and they will have to run that quote and the message gets out.
The MSM is what it is. Dems can’t whine and moan and hope for another one; they need to be working on the slow and painful change to get another one. And they need to learn how to live with the current one in the meantime.
Democrats need to learn how to say, “Yes, I am obstructing this” followed by something like “We wrote a good bill the Republicans voted down. This current bill is unconscionable because (insert favorite reason here).”
It seems that both parties avoid substantive confrontation, and use sound-bite misleading statements instead. The current debate uses the general soundbite “protect the American people,” and has so far avoided debate on the amnesty/immunity issue.
I read into that that the Democrats will eventually pass a bill with retroactive amnesty, but they need time to advance the objections in a more substantive way, even as far as sending a bill up for presidential veto.
OT, but since it’s Friday, not so OT:
http://www.boston.com/sports/f…..red_ankle/
money quote for EW:
Smiling, and promising a complete and truthful injury report. What has gotten under the hoodie? Most uncharacteristic
This light moment (not Matt) was brought to you by the BlueBayState
First, why the descriipton of “electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device”? Does a computer count as a surveillance device?
Without studying cases or technology, I think it’s a legal term of art meant to include things like “bugs”, microphones, space satellites, and other lesser-known devices.
The point of reciting “contents” is to distinguish what is communicated, from when and how it’s communicated. Examples: you have no expectation of privacy regarding the address you put on an envelope. In telephone calls, there is a distinction between phone bill records, and hearing the contents of the calls.
The point of reciting “reasonable expectation of privacy” is meant to import court decisions, without attempting to recapitulate the complex, convoluted and IMO illogical contours of when, where and under which circumstances a person is entitled to a REP, and when, where and under what circumstances a warrant is required for further snooping. It’s the language meant to convey “the fourth amendment applies.”
Pretty much agreed on all counts. Another one of the new up and comers is RFI tagging.
bmaz wrote:
‘Another one of the new up and comers is RFI tagging’
I’ve done a couple of these projects over the last couple years and I’m appalled at the potential for misuse of this technology. It’s downright scary.
What’s the deal with Reid? If he’s against the bill why did he let it get to the floor? I thought you tried to win elections so you could control what did/didn’t come up for a vote.
Right. But my point about the “reasonable expectation” is that by writing a law that uses that to describe one subset of communication, it creates an exception for everything else. They’re using it to poison the term, not to invoke all that legal history.
And the reason “content” is so interesting is because it suggests that they’re still doing their datamining of metadata as well as probably their 6-degrees-of-separation games.
by writing a law that uses that to describe one subset of communication, it creates an exception for everything else.
Whatever it’s use in the statute, it’s not a new practice. It’s an old practice, using language that appeared with the 1978 creation of FISA and maybe even before that.
I don’t disagree that the administration miscontrues statutory language. That’s not new either — see actions that preceded the Church Committee hearings and attempts to oversee government invasion of privacy. The snoopers THEN used the same arguments that are being advanced NOW. I.e., snooping is vital to national security, and the extent of secret should not be disclosed to the public that is being watched.
I think you’re missing my point (and my awareness of how well established use of teh term is). It’s not its use that is new, it’s the way its use flips its meaning on its head (very similar, in fact, to the way the PAA flips the meaning of “electronic surveillance” on its head).
Just learned that Jello Jay WILL NOT support cloture on Monday.
Which suggests we’ll probably win the cloture vote (if Rockefeller is voting against cloture, then I assume all the SSCI Dems will come along).
I’m working on getting his statement.
Which suggests we’ll probably win the cloture vote (if Rockefeller is voting against cloture, then I assume all the SSCI Dems will come along)
I think you’ll find that the rationale I predicted yesterday will be borne out. Denying the right to debate and opportunity to amend is unfair. The objection is more for abuse of procedure than for substantive agreement with, e.g., Dodd and Feingold.
Plus, the House being out most of next week makes a Feb 1 deadline pretty much impossible. This just kicks the can down the road 30 days.
A problem tomorrow is better than a problem today. Gives us 30 days to work to move a few Senators over. May we use these 30 days wisely!
Bayh Carper Inouye Johnson Landrieu McCaskill Mikulski Nelson(FL) Nelson(NE) Salazar Specter all got an email from me – vote no cloture on FISA, give these senators amendments – Specter, Feingold, Whitehouse, Cardin – an “up or down” vote in the senate.
Kit Bond crying on CSPAN 2 now.
I think you’re missing my point
I don’t find the statutory use significantly different or meaningful as you do. We just have a simple disagreement. I don’t think the use of “contents” in this framework flips anything on its head.
Contra example, I found the redefinition of “electronic surveillance” contained in the PAA to be exceptionally significant, and flipping many aspects of communications privacy.
I think I understand your point of view, that Congress is facilitating administrative misconstruction (or maybe is complicit) by careless (maybe deliberate) statutory drafting that encourages data-mining and use of private parties instead of government actors to undertake detailed privacy invasion.
I agree that this administration (and we may differ, because I think ALL the others ahead of it were doing similar things) is invading privacy in unchecked and unknown ways. And I find this administration to be particularly disingenuous in its rationales, defense/justification, and demands for statutory authority.
I didn’t say “contents” flips anything on its head. It just reveals the reason why BushCo refuses to simply rule out tapping of Americans overseas. My “flip it on its head” comment was about the “expectation of privacy.”
The whole point (and the real underlying drama between the SJC and SSCI bills) is that the Administration is doing a number of things that it won’t admit it’s doing–many of which revolve around the scale and methods of targeting. The reason why the Republicans don’t want amendments, aside from just the immunity provision, is that a lot of the amendments (including the clean prohibition of Americans overseas) are deal-killers for Bush, because tehy don’t let him do what he wants to do. I think the Bond amendment on tapping overseas attempts to get enough votes to pass teh SSCI bill, while still carving out their larger program.
My “flip it on its head” comment was about the “expectation of privacy.”
FWIW, I don’t think the use of this term of art flips anything on its head either.
I agree with your conclusion that the administration is trying to hide the extent of its snooping on the public, from the public. It’s lying its ass off.
I haven’t studied the narrow issue of privacy rights supposedly accorded to Americans abroad by the Bond amendment, but my prejudiced predisposition is that it’s smoke and mirrors.
This is probably not new or startling, but this is Tim Tagaris’ take on the setup of events for Monday Jan. 28. Tagris used to work for the Lamont and most recently for the Dodd Presidential campaign. It gives a fairly clear layout of what’s up–I think/maybe/I hope *g*.
Thanks a lot C-boldt for help clarifying S. 2248’s State of the Bill and your very helpful links:
Senate Showdown Monday Jan. 28, 2008
I wasn’t able to find Rockerfeller’s statement about voting against cloture on his site yet.