Not Just Immunity

/14 Comments/in , /by

Home now! More details on my trip over the day. And thanks to bmaz for holding down the fort yesterday (though I will pester him to do his part two).

This is the video Matt Stoller took of Russ Feingold speaking to a bunch of us DFH bloggers yesterday, mostly about FISA. Feingold argued that immunity was just one part of the SSCI version of the FISA bill that sucks: just as importantly, the SSCI has inadequate protection for the privacy of Americans, particularly when they communicate with people in other countries.

Now, Feingold suggested no one had been blogging about these other topics–to which I complained that I had (and McJoan from DailyKos pretty much agreed I won’t shut up about them). Here are some highlights:

Minimization (the process by which the government segregates out US person data and eventually destroys it):

Overseas Spying (addressing the fact that through the use of Pixie Dust, Bush appears to have made it legal to spy on Americans overseas)

Mass Collection (the FISA program aims to allow basket warrants, which will provide the legal justification to do data mining)

Read more →

For Fear Of Fear – Part One

/56 Comments/in , , , , , /by

It has been an exciting and fascinating two days, yesterday and today. It has been the best, and worst, of American democracy in action. The thrill of victory; the agony of a weak defeat, snatched from the strong jaws of victory. Yesterday we were giddy with the knowledge that the Democratic Senate Leadership had actually stood up, not just to the Bush/Cheney/Republican cabal of maximum everything in wiretapping and privacy invasion, but in the name or the Constitution and righteousness. Today, reality came crashing back down to earth for those of us in the reality based community.

Yesterday, the Senate led by Harry Reid and the Democrats fought off cloture and a vote on the contemptible Jello Jay Rockefeller crafted SSCI FISA Update Bill that, in addition to other ills, provided immunity to Dick Cheney, George Bush, other Administration malefactors and, as somewhat of an afterthought, participating telcos. That was a good thing. There were already whispers and scuttlebutt of a "brief extension" of the truly contemptible Protect America Act. As I have argued for some time now, there are inherent problems with such a "routine brief extension".

I repeat what I said yesterday on this “brief extension” nonsense. It is nothing but sheer political posturing that brings us down to the level of the Repuglicans AND weakens our case at the same time. Take a stand for the proper principles, and stand behind them as opposed to injecting harmful BS for the sole sake of cornering your opponent; which is a fine and appropriate tactic, if it doesn’t undercut your core principle in the process. Here, it will weaken the core principle and argument in it’s favor and should NOT be considered; especially since it is not necessary “to protect us” in the least, and blindly saying that it is so necessary is ridiculous.

NO EXTENSION! There is no need whatsoever for an extension, because A) The Administration can order any comprehensive program, or programs, they want prior to the lapse of the PAA and that program(s) will stay in effect for one full year “to protect us”; and B) the original FISA law is reinstated. Furthermore, passage of any extension is a wolf in sheep’s clothing because is equitably removes and/or weakens many arguments and defenses that opponents, like us, to the PAA had from it’s original passage in August 2007. At the Read more →

Was It Her Colleagues, or Her Constituents?

/50 Comments/in , /by

As Jane reported last night, our presidential candidates have decided to return to DC to exercise their vote, if not to lead.

I’m glad to have them, though I agree with Tim Tagaris that we could sure use their help on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, as well as today.

I’m curious, though, about one thing. On Friday, here’s what Hillary told Matt Stoller about this vote:

Then I spoke with Hillary, and she said she has assured her colleagues she will go back to the Senate if they need her vote.

As was perfectly clear at that point, you don’t need votes to defeat a cloture vote–you just need to make sure your opponent doesn’t get the requisite 60 votes.

So what convinced Hillary to return and cast a vote that, I’m sure, her Republican opponents will find some way to attack (speaking of which, McCain is blowing off the SOTU, presumably to avoid committing one way or another to this vote)? Was it a slew of faxes sent to her campaign office, finally persuading her that missing this vote will be like flip-flopping on an $87 billion Iraq appropriation? Did someone decide that we might have a shot at reaching cloture on the House version of FISA, RESTORE, which should have a cloture vote immediately following the Rockefeller-Bond bill (I doubt that highly–I suspect this cloture vote is Reid’s attempt to prove that RESTORE is no likelier to pass than the Rockefeller-Bond bill [oops, I confused what the cloture vote is on–it’s on the extension of PAA])? Are we at risk of failing to defeat cloture, and Hillary wanted to make sure her vote was registered? Or did Hillary just remember she had a day job?

[Speaking of which, I’m actually in DC hanging around the Senate today, though I doubt they’ll let me vote in the cloture vote, or even see it any more closely than you can on CSPAN. Posting may be either light or heavy–who knows?]

Bush Would Forgo New FISA Programs to Make Sure Dick Gets Immunity

/92 Comments/in , /by

Bush says he wants a new FISA bill, and he wants it now. 

The White House told Democratic congressional leaders Saturday that President Bush opposes a 30-day extension of an expiring eavesdropping law and instead wants an expanded version to be passed by Friday.

“The president would veto a 30-day extension,” a senior administration official said. “They’re just kicking the can down the road. They need the heat of the current law lapsing to get this done.” 

To which Reid appropriately pinned any blame on Bush.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the veto threat "shamefully irresponsible" and "simply posturing in advance of Monday’s State of the Union address."

"There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap," Reid said. "But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress."

Reid’s response is useful. But he needs to say one more thing. If Bush vetos a 30-day extension, he will be doing so for one reason and one reason only: because the existing legislationg, PAA, doesn’t offer immunity to telecoms–and with it, to Dick Cheney and everyone else in this Administration who pushed the telecoms to continue their spying even after the acting AG, Jim Comey, refused to certify the program for a period in 2004.

Bush is willing to forgo implementing new FISA programs (all the existing ones will continue for at least six months) all because he wants Dick to get his immunity … now. This is about Bush putting Dick’s interests–and his own–above the security of the country.

Bush’s Secret Cyber Initiative

/22 Comments/in /by

I’m actually fairly sympathetic to the notion that we need to get much better at defending our network infrastructure against attacks. I’m fairly supportive of the notion that one agency within the government should take the lead on the project.

But the news that Bush has assigned that role secretly…

President Bush signed a directive this month that expands the intelligence community’s role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies’ computer systems.

The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies — including ones they have not previously monitored.

Until now, the government’s efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks — which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data — have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders.

And the news that cyber-defense still focuses exclusively on government networks…

Supporters of cyber-security measures say the initiative falls short because it doesn’t include the private sector — power plants, refineries, banks — where analysts say 90 percent of the threat exists.

"If you don’t include industry in the mix, you’re keeping one of your eyes closed because the hacking techniques are likely the same across government and commercial organizations," said Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute, a Bethesda-based cyber-security group that assists companies that face attacks. "If you’re looking for needles in the haystack, you need as much data as you can get because these are really tiny needles, and bad guys are trying to hide the needles."

…Doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence that this is being done right.

Though I will say this. The news that Michael Chertoff’s badly managed and contractor dominated Department of Homeland Security is no longer slotted to take the lead on this is one bit of good news. Read more →

How to Lead: Chris Dodd Edition

/37 Comments/in , /by

While Hillary and Obama were leaving the work of legislating to others, Chris Dodd stepped up to lay out the stakes for the FISA debate.

Senators are not entitled to see their amendments pass. But they are entitled to this: a good-faith debate, honest criticism, and, ultimately, a vote.

Last night, they didn’t get it. Our Republican colleagues, assuming that they would lose those votes, effectively shut down the work of the Senate. They’ve taken their ball and run home.

They won’t debate us on the merits. On the merits, they conceded, Republicans have lost.

And I don’t think I’m far off base, Mr. President, in seeing in this egregious shutdown a parallel to retroactive immunity itself. Both attitudes privilege power over deliberation, over consensus, over honest argument.

Like immunity, pulling these amendments shows a contempt for honest debate and a willingness to settle issues in the dark, in back rooms—rather than in the open, where the law lives, where the American people can see it.

President Bush wants to shut down courts whose rulings he doesn’t like; last night, Senate Republicans showed that when they don’t like the outcome of a debate, they’ll shut that down, too.

It’s one thing for a president to express that kind of contempt for the process of legislation. It’s another for the members legislative branch to express it themselves.

Mr. President, I’ve spoken repeatedly about the rule of law. The rule of law isn’t some abstract idea. It’s here with us—it’s what makes this body run.

It means we hear each other out, we do it in the open, and while the minority gets its voice, gets its right to strenuously object, the majority ultimately rules.

And standing for the rule of law anywhere means standing for it everywhere: in our courts, and in our Senate. The circumstances are different, of course; but the heart of the matter is the same. Last night, I believe, the Republican party forfeited its claim to good faith on this issue. They’re left to stake their case on fear. Whether that will be enough, the next few days will tell. [my emphasis]

Well, thank god someone’s in DC standing up for the rule of law.

Dick Wants His Immunity, and He Wants It Now

/89 Comments/in , /by

What wizard of political strategy decided that Dick Cheney was the appropriate person to harangue Congress about approving immunity for himself and all the other Admin folks who pushed illegal wiretapping the telecoms?

The unfortunate aspect of the Protect America Act is a sunset provision, which makes the law expire on the first of February –- just 10 days from now. That leaves Congress only nine days in which to act to keep the intelligence gap closed. And with the day of reckoning so close at hand, we’re reminding Congress that they must act now to modernize FISA.

First, our administration feels strongly that an updated FISA law should be made permanent, not merely extended again with another sunset provision. We can always revisit a law that’s on the books –- that’s part of the job of the elected branches of government. But there is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect American Act and slap an expiration date on it. Fighting the war on terror is a long-term enterprise that requires long-term, institutional changes. The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months. It won’t expire any time soon –- and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise.

Second, the law should uphold an important principle: that those who assist the government in tracking terrorists should not be punished with lawsuits. We’re asking Congress to update FISA and especially to extend this protection to communications providers alleged to have given such assistance any time after September 11th, 2001. This is an important consideration, because some providers are facing dozens of lawsuits right now. Why? Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.

We’re dealing here with matters of the utmost sensitivity. It’s not even proper to confirm whether any given company provided assistance. But we can speak in general terms. The fact is, the intelligence community doesn’t have the facilities to carry out the kind of international surveillance needed to defend this country since 9/11. In some situations there is no alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector. This is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the Protect America Act and other laws allow directives to be issued to private parties for intelligence-gathering purposes.

[snip]

Actions by Congress sometimes have unexpected consequences. But a failure to enact a permanent FISA update with liability protectionswould Read more →

Judge Hellerstein Calls the CIA on its BS

/53 Comments/in , , /by

Wow. Judge Hellerstein is not amused with the CIA’s assertion that the torture tapes–which IG staffers flew to Thailand to view as part of their investigation into CIA interrogation methods–were not part of their investigation. Nor does he buy the assertion that the "special review" is not an investigation. He basically called Bull on the CIA’s assertions in about six different ways.

The judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said from the bench that he was stunned that the C.I.A. investigators had not kept records about the tapes, which were destroyed in 2005, even though the tapes were an important part of an internal C.I.A. review into interrogation methods.

“I’m asked to believe that actual motion pictures, videotapes, of the relationship between interrogators and prisoners were of so little value” that was no record of them was kept in C.I.A. investigative files, Judge Hellerstein said during a hearing over a freedom of information request involving the tapes.

“I just can’t accept it. If it came up in an ordinary case, it would not be credible,” the judge said, adding, “It boggles the mind.”

In fact, Judge Hellerstein even suggested what I did: that the CIA intentionally did not put any mention of the torture tapes in their IG report as a way to shield them from FOIA.

Judge Hellerstein raised the possibility that C.I.A. officials had intentionally not placed the tapes in the investigative files so as to avoid a freedom of information request.

“It seems to me that you were gulled,” he told Mr. Skinner, “and that the court was gulled.”

Gotta love a good skeptical judge. Read more →

“It Smells Like a Cover-Up”

/67 Comments/in , /by

So sayeth one of Pincus and Warrick’s two sources describing the content of John Rizzo’s testimony. Mind you, that source remains anonymous, because "those in attendance were pledged to secrecy about the session." Of course, that didn’t prevent Crazy Pete Hoekstra from blabbing to the NYT and others about it, but he’s never believed that laws on secrecy should apply to him as well as staffers. Though, since I beat up Pincus yesterday for helping Bennett tamper with this investigation, let me just say that he offers, by far, the most interesting tidbit about Rizzo’s testimony.

Two of those at the hearing said that Rizzo said that after the tapes were made in 2002, lawyers at the CIA discussed the possibility that the FBI and the 9/11 Commission might want to see them.

If Rizzo has testified that lawyers at the CIA knew the 9/11 Commission might want to see the terror tapes, it strongly reinforces Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton’s claim that,

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

In fact, lawyers at the CIA knew that the 9/11 Commission would want to see these specific tapes. Which I guess is why George Tenet has lawyered up.

Meanwhile, the battle between Rodriguez, Rizzo, and Goss seems to be heating up. Bob Bennett specifically named Rizzo and Goss to the NYT as those who should have told Rodriguez to retain the tapes.

Read more →

Shorter Rizzo to Rodriguez: Well, If You’re Not Going to Testify, I Will Screw You

/57 Comments/in , /by

Remember how I suggested that this passage from Pincus’ love letter to Bob Bennett and his client Jose Rodriguez might be targeted to (among others) Porter Goss and John Rizzo?

"In 2003 the leadership of intelligence committees were told about the CIA’s intent to destroy the tapes. In 2005, CIA lawyers again advised the National Clandestine Service that they had the authority to destroy the tapes and it was legal to do so. It is unfortunate," Bennett continued, "that under the pressure of a Congressional and criminal investigation, history is now being revised, and some people are running for cover."

Well, here’s what Rizzo had to say to that.

 "I told the truth," Rizzo said in a brief appearance before reporters.

Which doesn’t sound like it was all too helpful for Rodriguez’ little story. Read more →