If the Divine Comedy has any merit, John Yoo will find himself someday encased in flame, the fate reserved for fraudulent advisors in the Eighth Circle of Hell. In short, this guy has used his legal background and education to willfully misrepresent the Constitution and framers' intent all in the name of serving ideology that fighting to overturn "secular-based government touting individual liberties and a weak executive."
Recently, some of Yoo's handiwork was declassified.
(Pay to report news on federal land? Seems pretty crazy... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
A High Country News blog recently highlighted the fact that the Department of the Interior is planning to require permits to report the news on public lands. In 2000, Congress allowed the National Park Service to require commercial filming permits with the aim of controlling major motion pictures that were a drain on park resources. But now, according to the blog:
...the Department wants to extend its permit and fee requirements to all commercial filming and recording - except for what it defines as "breaking" or "spot" news. This change will seriously limit a reporter's ability to, say, take photographs to illustrate a news story, or record an interview with a park official.
Even some still photography and much audio taping would require permits. The Society for Environmental Journalists and other journalism organizations sent a letter in October taking issue with many aspects of the proposed rule:
"We are aware of a case in the last two weeks, where a reporter working for a news service that feeds public radio stations was told that she needed a permit to interview a Yellowstone wolf biologist."
The letter also highlighted the fact that Yellowstone National Park's current rules are very restrictive and, some might say, flagrantly violate the First Amendment:
"Documentaries filmed specifically for sale to a news station or educational channel are considered a commercial venture and require a permit. News media crews not covering newsworthy/news making events, but shooting human interest, staged events, or other topics are required to obtain a permit before proceeding with filming."
Spot news is exempted, but the definition of spot news is at the discretion of the park's Chief of Public Affairs. In terms of permits, the Park doesn't distinguish between profit and non-profit documentary projects. It costs $200 just to file a permit. If any NPS staff time is required to, say, check up on a documentary film crew or provide an interview, it will be billed to the news organization at $65 an hour per person (with a daily minimum of $200). A permit will be denied if, for instance, "the project depicts activities that are not permitted within the park."
This is frickin' crazy. So, if a crime is committed in a National Park, a documentary crew can't film the evidence? A freelancer radio reporter needs to pay to record the sound of snowmobiles or howling wolves? If Yellowstone is being mismanaged, the Chief of Public Affairs gets to decide if it's spot news or needs a permit?
A hearing in the House National Resources Committee is scheduled for Dec. 12.
Matt already mentioned the dismissal of CERA's lawsuit (pdf) challenging voting practices on the Big Horn reservation, but I've put a lot of sweat into this issue, and I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
First, the background. CERA's challenge of the legality of voting on the Big Horn reservation took place when Montana's Native American population has enjoyed a recent political surge, with record turnout among the Nations in 2006, and a record number of Native Americans serving in the 2007 state legislature. In fact, Native American voters were one (of many) crucial voting blocs to Jon Tester's successful Senate run. In short, Native Americans are positioning themselves to be a driving force in state politics.
IMHO, that's a good thing. The Nations have always been underrepresented in politics and society. It's time they had some say in what happens to them, and to us. But not everybody sees it that way. Enter the Citizens' Equal Rights Alliance (CERA) - birthed in part out of the racist anti-Indian movement in the 1970s Flathead Valley and aligned with the pro-resource-extraction forces of the "wise use" movement. Their goal is to end tribal sovereignty.
Kudos to Senator Dodd for putting a hold on the Telecom Immunity Bill. The bill would give retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that gave customer data to the Bush administration in its illegal domestic spying program.
As Shane notes, this is the right kind of "obstructionism." It's done out of principle, not politics, and was done so to help safeguard our individual civil liberties. Compare that to Bush's reason for using his veto recently:
Bush said his veto pen was "one way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."
"Veto ergo sum"?
The issue is clear. Because Congress is unwilling to prosecute the president for breaking the law, we need to leave other channels open to punish those that helped the administration with its illegal activities. Not only did some telecommunications companies turn over your personal records without a court order, they did it in order to receive juicy government contracts. They should be duly punished, and a message should be sent that there is a cost to abetting a government that curtails American liberties.
So what it comes down to is that the "hold" is simply a matter of "professional courtesy." I want a bill held, so I notify my party leader of my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to bring the bill to the floor. Implied in that is the hint that I will make everyone sorry they brought it up if they don't just give me what I want, and they know by now that any Senator can do that, so they might as well just go ahead and hold it, for the sake of everyone's sanity.
The whole post is definitely worth a read - but this passage is relevant in light of the latest news - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning to put the bill up for debate in mid-November.
This gives us about a month, folks. You know what to do. Drop Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus a line letting them know that you oppose the Senate giving any telecommunications company retroactive immunity for handing over customer records to the government.
Diarist Steve W recently urged Senator Tester to keep his campaign promise and repeal the Patriot Act. Enter Senator Russ Feingold's S. 2088, the National Security Reform Act of 2007, which fixes the National Security Letter statute of the Patriot act.
As the law is written, the government has the right to use NSLs to get data from Internet service providers, financial record holders, and telecommunications companies of everyday Americans without a warrant. Those presented with an NSL were bound to secrecy by the law's "gag rule," opening up the Patriot Act for abuse.
Since the revelations that the FBI was abusing the use of NSLs, a federal judge struck down the NSL portions of the Patriot Act as "unconstitutional," violating Americans' First Amendment rights, as well as the Constitution's separation of powers provisions:
The secrecy provisions are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values," Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on the same topic.
Feingold's bill would fix the problems in the Patriot Act. It would require that NSLs are closely monitored and subject to Congressional oversight and limit the gag order associated with NSLs. In short, Feingold's bill puts the Constitution back into the process, ensuring that the powers vested by the law to the administration are not abused.
Thanks to Jon for his support of Senator Feingold's bill. It's one step more to help ensure Americans' individual rights under the Constitution.
Imagine that: a provision of the Patriot Act was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge:
A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday, ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the letters.
Now you and I might think that the government accessing our private information without any judicial oversight, or any chance to even petition the invasion, is a flagrant violation of our civil rights. And we'd be right. But that won't stop conservatives from crying that this decision hurts our national security. (It's sort of amusing how the wingnut assumes the Clinton-appointed judge is acting out of political motivation rather than principle. I guess you always see in your enemies what exists in yourself.)
...Senator Burns accused the Big Sandy farmer of wanting to revise the Patriot Act. "I don't want to revise the Patriot Act," responded Tester, "I want to repeal it." Later in the same debate, Tester answered sharply to a question on gun control with a statement that was considered quintessential Western Democrat: "With things like the Patriot Act, we'd damn well better keep our guns."
Jonathan Weisman in today's Washington Post profiled the battle within the Democratic party over restoring the civil rights we've lost under the Bush administration. (Warning: it's nauseating.) Naturally, civil liberties groups, rank-and-file Democrats, and...well...most Americans want Congress to restore habeas corpus, require warrants for searches, stop torture, etc & co. You know, basic constitutional stuff. However, some Democrats are nervous:
"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise"...
"People say to me, 'Well, what about the 30-second spots?' " said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referring to attack ads. He is pushing a bill to restore habeas corpus.
Repeat after me: this isn't about politics. This is about principle. All Congressional representatives - Republican, Democratic, and independent - should be concerned with preserving our civil liberties. The administration is perfectly capable of stopping terror attacks using the legal tools at its disposal, they do not need to violate civil liberties to guard our security. We cannot have separate laws for separate people. We cannot relax our vigilance against the executive branch's encroachments on our rights, no matter who populates the office.
Protect our country from enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your job.
As for the political fallout? As said at the Sideshow, "Tell, them it's their job to defend their position against all that spin." Not only that, but Democrats can make their own 30-second ads. To paraphrase...Grant?...Democrats need to stop worrying about what those people will do, and start making them worry about what we're going to do.
Here's a good example:
"We can do this, but you have to keep in mind Republicans care more about catching Democrats than catching terrorists," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "They have spent years taking Roosevelt's notion that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and given us nothing but fear."
Some have been criticizing the Netroots for attacking members of the Democratic party who stray from the fold. But it ain't about politics! You can vote with the GOP on farm subsidies, or taxation, or whatever. But civil liberties are not an option. It's your job to preserve our democracy.
The normal procedures of American justice were finally allowed to work. There was never a reason to subject Citizen Padilla to anything less, all the prior excuses notwithstanding.
Of note, the more serious accusations against Padilla didn't make their way into the charges, including the claims of a plot to set off a "dirty bomb" in the US:
The charges brought in civilian court in Miami, however, were a pale shadow of those initial claims in part because Padilla was interrogated about the plot when he was held as an enemy combatant for 3 1/2 years in military custody with no lawyer present and was not read his Miranda rights.
Get it? Torture and improper detention make it harder for the government to bring charges against the accused in court. (Although the "dirty bomb" plot turned out to be false.)
In short, the Padilla case was an example of what not to do in fighting terrorism. Dahlia Lithwick:
Of all the terrifically bad ideas implemented by the Bush administration since 9/11, probably the worst have involved torture. The decision to sideline criminal prosecutions and instead focus on "alternative interrogation" methods was wrongheaded from the get-go. It was wrongheaded as a tactical matter, wrongheaded as a legal matter, wrongheaded as an ethical matter, and wrongheaded as a matter of undermining world opinion. In fact the only thing the Bush administration has actually gotten right about torture is this one tiny truth: If you want to destroy someone-if that is your sole objective-torture works.
Cheney's office, according to a story first reported by the Chicago Tribune, has resisted attempts by a tiny federal agency to compile information -- in accordance with an executive order signed by George Bush himself -- on the classified documents being held by the Vice President's operation. Cheney's office argued that the Vice President's office, because it has both executive and legislative branch duties, is exempt from the order.
This would be funny if it weren't so serious. If he claims he's not in the executive branch, then he's obviously not considering himself suspect to the rules governing that service.
