For the Fourth, Ochenski penned a brilliant column comparing Jefferson's complaints against the English King justifying American independence to contemporary infractions wrought by the Bush administration.
Something you may be used to hearing about a Democratic candidate in other states, but here in Utah, this is truly a first. We have but one Democrat in our federal delegation, and on FISA, Matheson has proven himself a true Bush Dog. Now it appears a new candidate is ready to step up and show true leadership on a key issue.
Morgan is the Democratic candidate for Utah's first congressional district, a seat currently held by school voucher supporting, "drill here, drill now" parroting, warrantless wiretap backing Rob Bishop. In addition to the 2/1 odds Morgan faces unseating the corporate funded incumbent, he also faces a battle with in-state leadership as a result of Rep. Jim Matheson, our only sitting Democrat, and faithful Blue Dog.
In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth.
Yet some of Bush's most defining decisions -- such as launching a war of choice against Iraq and his picking and choosing which laws actually apply to him -- suggest a highly subjective sense of right and wrong. Most notably, he defends the use of interrogation tactics that violate human dignity by arguing that the ends justify the means.
Think of all the sacrifices the Bush administration has asked us to make for the sake of national security - increased security screening and video surveillance in public places, the Patriot Act, Real ID, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, online surveillance, and torture, to name a few - without it actually planning to address the threat of the one terrorist group that did breach our security and harm Americans.
Reminds me of what Jon Tester said back in the last election about the administration's policies, that they punish Americans first. Now it's evident that we're the only ones punished by the administration's "national security" policies. You can't even argue that the curtailing of our liberties fit in a larger context to battle terrorism.
And how does that all show that President Bush - or any one of his simpering GOP yes-men - knows right from wrong?
If I were an advocate of Bush's "anti-terror" policies, I'd be pretty embarrassed right now.
Other than AT&T, Verizon, Fred Hiatt and Dick Cheney, there is not -- and there never was -- any constituency in the U.S. demanding new warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom amnesty....
This is the first time in a long time that right-wing fear-mongering on Terrorism hasn't succeeded. Given that virtually everyone (including me) assumed that the Congress would ultimately enact the new FISA bill demanded by Bush, it demonstrates that smart strategies combined with intense citizen activism can succeed, even when the Establishment -- its lobbyists, Congressional representatives and pundits -- lines up in bipartisan fashion behind their latest measure. And it removes the Democrats' principal excuse that they cannot resist Bush's Terrorism demands without suffering politically.
For weeks, telecomm-immunity backers have been screaming that, if telecomm amnesty isn't passed, our national security is in jeopardy. It hasn't passed and...nothing...has happened. Of course, the FISA court is still active, warrants for wiretaps are still being issued, and investigations of terrorist activity are proceeding. Just the way it should be.
So...what have we learned? GOP hysteria is nothing more than hyperbole. There's no political fallout for lawmakers who stand up for constitutional rights. People think big business - just like any of us - should be held accountable for the laws they've broken.
I just read the transcript for Bush's SOTU speech. And you wonder why people hate politics? This thing was about 99 percent unmitigated bullsh*t self-aggrandizement (the other 1 percent consisted of articles and conjunctions). Not that I was expecting anything else.
One of the most important tools we can give [law enforcement] is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning. Last year, the Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, the Congress set the legislation to expire on February 1. This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. The Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We have had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.
In short, if retroactive immunity for telecomm companies who helped the administration break the law and spy on Americans without warrants is denied in any FISA bill passed by Congress, Bush will endanger ongoing, legitimate terrorist investigations by vetoing it. Once again, Bush & co (yes, I mean you, Senator Rockefeller) demonstrate that they value the interests of their corporate cronies above everything else, including national security.
Good news: the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to remove telecomm immunity from the new domestic surveillance law.
Unfortunately some Senators are proposing an interesting "compromise" to complete immunity for telecomms:
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel, is pushing a plan that would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. That would mean that the government, not the companies, would pay damages in successful lawsuits.
Wait a minute. So that means I'm going to foot the bill for the telecommunications companies that willingly violated the law and their customers' right to privacy, in exchange for federal perks and money?
Yesterday, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) published an editorial in the Washington Post on why he thinks we should give telecomms immunity from its role in the administration's domestic spying program:
Here's why. Within weeks of the 2001 attacks, communications companies received written requests and directives for assistance with intelligence activities authorized by the president. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland.
Both the Bush administration and the telecoms jointly broke the law for years. Even as we moved further and further away from the 9/11 attacks, neither the administration nor the telecoms bothered to comply with the law. The administration was too interested in affirming the theory that the President could exercise power without limits, and the telecoms were too busy reaping the great profits from their increasingly close relationship with the Government.
I'll add to Greenwald's commentary that the spying program may have begun before 9/11, according to some reports.
Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).
In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.
But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.
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.
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.
Wow. Did you see that the Senate approved a bill that allows the President to wiretap without a warrant? I want to investigate the bill, its parameters, and our delegation's stance on the changes before I comment extensively, but my initial reaction is that we've all been betrayed.
Needless to say, there goes Congress' strongest argument for impeachment, that's he's violated the law by wiretapping without a warrant. So much for accountability and the rule of law.
Evan Bayh (IN)
Tom Carper (DE)
Bob Casey (PA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AK)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AK)
Ken Salazar (CO)
Jim Webb (VA)
I'm relieved to see Max' and Jon's names absent from that list. Thank you, Montana Senators. You did the right thing.
Why do people advocate warrantless wiretapping? That makes no sense. Take today's WSJ editorial:
The U.S. homeland hasn't been struck by terrorists since September 11, and one reason may be more aggressive intelligence policies. So Americans should be alarmed that one of the best intelligence tools--warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda suspects--has recently become far less effective and is in danger of being neutered by Congressional Democrats.
The editorial then makes these claims (which are demonstrably false):
Democratic leaders were briefed on the on the program from the first...
False. This is the administration's claim, but Senators of both parties strongly deny they'd ever been briefed. Call me crazy, but based on the administration's track record, we've got to go with the Senators on this one.
...there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps.
Note that this claim cannot be substantiated because the FISA decisions are secret. In contrast, here are the substantiated, undisputed facts: FISA allows the administration to get a warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretap has been established; and, since the implementation of FISA in 1978, not one request for a warrant has been rejected.
[The judges' demand for pre-approval] shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn't be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.
The Constitution's a b*tch, ain't it?
When the program began, certain U.S. telecom companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency. But they were sued once the program was exposed, and so some have ceased cooperating for fear of damaging liability claims.
The lawsuits were over handover of all cell phone customer records to the federal government< for their data mining project, not over warrantless wiretapping. Also, it would appear that telecom companies know they're violating the law, if they've stopped participating over fears of customer lawsuits.
But no Administration has ever conceded that FISA trumps a President's Constitutional power to place wiretaps in the name of national security.
Yes, that's because every administration since FISA knew that it was constrained by the law. No administration - until this one - has claimed its power trumps the law. It's also important to note that FISA contains explicit provisions on how the law applies during wartime. That is, even under the administration's claim that during a time of war - which hasn't been declared, BTW - it can do what it wants, it can't, according to the law.
The courts have also explicitly upheld this Presidential power. Mr. Bush was making a needless concession that Democrats have used against him as they refuse to compromise.
I know of no court case that gave the president the power to wiretap without a warrant. The only court case I can think of pertaining to warrantless wiretapping was the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and others against the federal government, onthe grounds that the plaintiffs couldn't show damage. Legality of the program was not at issue.
The fact is that FISA has all the power the president needs to track suspected al Qaeda operatives. Federal agents can begin wiretapping and apply for a warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretap has been set. FISA also allows for roving wiretaps - wiretaps on any phone or connection that the suspect uses. Again, the FISA court since 1978 has yet to reject a single request for a wiretap.
So...why? Why the fight over wiretapping without a warrant? Obviously if the administration wanted a wiretap for an al Qaeda agent, they would get one - after wiretapping has already begun. That's the law, and FISA is broad enough to account for any legitimate need for a wiretap.
That's the rub. Legitimate need. The only reason for NSA to need to circumvent a judge on a wiretap is if the judge will likely reject the application for that wiretap. And the only reason that a judge would do that, is if the wiretap has nothing to do with national security, or if the wiretapping is so broad and arbitrary that it infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. And given the administration's track record on data mining and politicization of apolitical government agencies - especially the Department of Justice -- both are reasonable to suspect.
In any case, the defense of powers assumed to the president presented in this editorial - and by the administration - is such a radical step away from our system of government as defined in the Constitution that, if successful, would turn our Republican head of government from an equal in rights and privileges to the people he represents, into an omnipotent and authoritarian head of state, above the law and far more privileged than the citizens from which he derives his right to rule.
In fact, the president would own power and privileges that would far surpass the tyrant we revolted against two hundred and thirty years ago.
Congress needs to recognize the danger posed by the president. He should be impeached.
Look at that, the Cheney story has gotten very interesting.
Let's start with Bush's rejection of Congressional subpoenas for documents of former White House staff, Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, as part of the investigation into the prosecutor purge, claiming "executive privilege." This came close on the heels of yesterday's announcement that VP Cheney, while acknowledging he was part of the executive branch, would still reject oversight on how his office handled classified information, because it's not an "agency." Next up: subpoenas to the White House and Cheney's office from the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Expect more of the same stonewalling from Bush and Cheney.
The news of the rejection of Congressional subpoenas and the impending constitutional crisis comes at the time of newfound (and long overdue) scrutiny into Cheney's dealings embodied in the recent Washington Post four-part series revealing details of the Vice President's powerful and unprecedented position in the government.
The chattering classes have turned against Cheney.
