« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
After everyone had a chance to sift through yesterday's breakthrough "compromise" on a new federal surveillance law, the biggest winer of the day was not Republicans or Democrats but the telecom companies.
Today's Washington Post summarizes the legal impact succicntly in it's front-page story :
The agreement extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while effectively providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom firms. They face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The final compromise on the immunity issue was this: Many Democrats had wanted the federal courts to review whether the surveillance program was legal before granting immunity. The White House wanted the courts to have no involvement whatsoever. The "compromise" calls on the courts to consider the surveillance legal if the companies can prove that the Administration told them it was legal. (Which we know they did).
The Chicago Tribune reports:
The new bill would require federal courts to cast those lawsuits aside if the companies can show that they received written requests from the government stating that their cooperation was deemed lawful and had been authorized by the president.The House is expected to vote on the measure today. Though billed as a compromise, the final version was viewed as a victory for the White House, according to the Post.
But overall, the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law.
As for the future of the spying program, this new law allows it to grow.
The Wall Street Journal this morning wrote:
The lasting impact of the agreement would be a broader scope for the government's domestic surveillance.Before 9/11, the NSA had to acquire a specific warrant if it wanted to listen to any conversation involving a U.S. citizen. Now, the secret court would be able to approve broad patterns of surveillance, focused on groups of people believed to be overseas, even if they are communicating with people in the U.S. So without a warrant, the NSA could listen to the conversation of a U.S. citizen if he or she was talking to a suspicious person overseas.
Several Democrats spoke out against the bill, but enough of them agreed to assure this version will pass into law.
Again, from the Journal:
The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn't afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn't overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats -- some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.Behind the political positioning, however, was the pressure from the telecom firms -- particuarly AT&T and Verizon, which both stepped up their lobbying efforts this spring.
We await the vote list. New Democrats to remove in the next cycle of primaries.
June 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why wait until "the next primaries"?
Vote Green THIS YEAR in the general election, if it's available. Or Socialist or Social Democratic.
Stop "enabling" the two-party system.
June 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Nancy Pelosi's CA-8 district.
If Cindy Sheehan had been running against Pelosi in the Dem primary, I would have voted for her. Probably even would have made a donation or two. That might have gotten SF-Nancy's attention.
But Sheehan is running on a third-party ticket. No leverage there at all.
June 20, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this non sequitur.
In my many years of meeting and dealing with third party candidates, some of whom I used to vote for, my chief impression is that they have very little idea what government is or does.
June 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.html
Here is the vote list. I am so pissed in the house democrats. It is disgraceful that they jumped all over this bill and we are truly losing our civil rights. Hoyer needs to be removed as a leader and every last representative who recieved any telecom donations needs to be voted out! EVERYONE of these pieces of shit who so easily give our rights needs a new occupation!
June 20, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suggested (and most likely) new occupation for any Dems who lose their seats over this: lobbyist for the telecoms.
June 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the PATRIOT Act got passed, everything else was icing on the cake for the White House.
I must assume that the Democrats who voted for it are either compromised or complicit.
June 20, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This should be the last dammed straw we dont have anyone in washington speaking up for the constitution or us...there are to many worthless dims that are more worried about there jobs to stand up for us... there are to many dims that may have something to hide because the bush admin knows something and they dont want it to come out...there are to many dims that have probably been promised something and are willing to sell us and the constitution down the sewer..I dont know what the answer is but there is one solution..STOP giveing to the DNC,the DLC,the DCCC stop giveing these ppl money boot out pelosi,hoyer,rockafeller emanuel,reid and the rest of these traitors to our contitution we cant be fooled again we know their scheme to make belive the represent us when the represent only themselves and the bush administration
June 20, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
cwazilla, I agree that we must stop funding the DCCC and the DSCC (and the DNC and the DLC). I suggest, as an alternative, sending money to Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot's Fund:
http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/
We can also directly fund progressive candidates through Act Blue.
Over time, if money shifts from the "establishment" Democrats to the true progressive wing of the party, then the balance of power -- and eventually the policies -- will shift, as well. That is my hope, at least (if it's not too late already).
-- ARG
June 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter if they are compromised or complicit - we're all f***ed now.
Passage of The Bush Enabling Acts foretell of the imminent demise of our democratic republic and the Constitution.
Await Israel's bombing of Iran, our immediate joining in on the war, declaration of military law, suspension of the Constitution, nomination of JEB as new President,...
Sure. I've got my tinfoil hat on. I honestly can't see a reason not to.
oh... By the way...
LOOK!!!!! A SHINY OBJECT!!!
It's little Scotty McClellan saying absolutely nothing in front of Congress!
Wow!
IT'S SO SHINY!!!
we are all indeed f***ed
June 20, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must be politically stupid -- because I simply don't understand why House Dems would endorse such a "compromise" instead of correctly reading the mood of their electorate to just say, emphatically: "No FISA, period end. Not a watered down version, not a new compromise, not just for a little while longer...just NO, as of today." Surely they realize that this vote will haunt, and quite possibly defeat them in the next election cycle? What will it take for them to get the message?
Are we looking at it backwards? What would it take for the Telecomms to get the message? Do we have it in us to cancel our accounts with AT&T, Verizon et al until they agree to stop?
June 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
June 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I simply don't understand why House Dems would endorse such a "compromise"
Because, bluntly, they don't see a downside for them. They see this as taking FISA off the table as something that could be used to accuse them of being "soft on terrorism" while expecting that the people who are now objecting and complaining will, when it comes right down to it in November, will vote for them anyway because "god forbid the GOPpers should win."
It is cynical in the extreme, but it has worked for them so far: How many of us are still intending to not vote for Dems because of their failure to stop the war?
June 20, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. The President claims he cannot be bound by any statute, including FISA, as he convinces telcos to wiretap American people.
2. Congress snaps to attention, "fixes" FISA and pardons telcos.
3. The Presidency now has wiretap infrastructure in place as well as Executive precedent unchallenged by Congress and arguably reinforced as telcos receive get-out-of-jail cards.
June 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And where is our leader Obama? I hear nothing on this vital subject coming out of his camp. This is disgusting, but it makes very clear for all to see just how committed he is to changing the Democratic strategy of serving the wealthy and powerful first and to hell with the Constitution and the rights of the people. It's digusting all around.
The hypocritical cowards who lead the Democratic Party and who allow this law to go through while claiming to oppose it need to be called out, punished and otherwise gotten rid of. Obama could put this to a stop quickly if he cared enough to do so. It appears instead he will choose the familiar path of cowardice the DC Democrats seem to love so much. He will vote against it, but do nothing to stop it's passage. In effect, as the leader of the Democratic Party and the nominee for President, he is allowing it to proceed through the Congress and become law. His word could easily stop this travesty from occuring. I am very sorry and sad to see Obama's true colors here. It is simply not enough to dodge responsibility. This is every bit as fundamental and important to the rule of law as was the vote to authorize the illegal invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and Obama fails the test if he claims to oppose the bill but doesn't use his now very substantial power to block this horrendous and thoroughly unAmerican bill to pass.
People should not forget the cowards and moral weaklings who have allowed this bill to go to the floors of both chambers.
Those chiefly responsible for this trampling of the Constitution?
Nancy Pelosi---coward
Harry Reid---coward
Either of them could easily prevent this bill from being debated let alone passing. It is a shameful episode in our nation's history that is occuring. These people are a disgrace!
June 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
anyone know how to track lobbyist money to rockefeller and the rest of these cowards? i bet selling our rights was fruitful.
June 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
So much for "change in Washington". The corporatists from both parties are clearly in charge, and they are clearly against the rest of us. I guess it was foolish of me to think that maybe Obama was going to change any of that.
Fuck all these assholes. I wish they'd just spy on themselves.
Oh, and AT&T?
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
June 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A we can see...
The pigs really ARE more equal... and apparently much smarter than those who keep voting them and their friends into office...
The Dems and the Reps are MOBS! It doesn't matter if we vote in new Dems and/or Reps. The two MOBS will still be fully functional, just with different members.
We have had both parties in office for a couple hundred years and after a couple hundred years we STILL do not have a standardized accounting system and a standardized auditing system for our government. Thousands of Dems and Reps have come and gone and NONE of them has cared enough about us common folk to help protect our interests.
Vote them ALL out!!
June 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
MESSAGE TO PELOSIWHORE, JON "Uncle Tom" CONYERS, HARRY "the Nev Faggot" REID:
GO GROW A 33 INCH DICK CHENEY, AND GO BUSH YOURSELF.
June 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Thomas - pay attention. John Conyers is not the problem - he's the one arguing against this civil liberties atrocity.
And spare us the homophobic insults - just because you have doubts about your own sexuality doesn't mean you get to use terms like 'faggot' as an epithet.
June 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas, you sound hot. Maybe I can buy you a drink sometime.
June 20, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fuck all these assholes."
Above is a quote from psyclone.
Psychlone has also asserted, "....And spare us the homophobic insults - just because you have doubts about your own sexuality doesn't mean you get to use terms like 'faggot' as an epithet"
DO YOU SEE THE PROJECTION AND DISPLACEMENT of your own "homoerotic fantasy world"?
If a guy talks about anal sex....and then feels arrogant and narcissistic enough to "impune my manhood" by foisting his own homoerotic anal sex fantasy world on to my use of the word "FAGGOT" (used as a slur to denote 'a weak man') then......................I'm being chastised by a guy whose more guilty of "thought crimes" than I am?
June 20, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I'm just asking you not to be a hateful homophobe. By all means, be as angry as I am about this horrible legislative fiasco, but why be a jerk about it?
And as far as Conyers goes, I don't care what you think you have on the guy (although my guess is you have squat), he's doing the right thing here. One battle at a time.
June 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
DO YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW BADLY THE DEMS HAVE SCREWED THIS COUNTRY?
Do you know what crim investigative leads....CONYERS, PELOSI, REID, LEAHY HAD and what they did with the info?
1) THE 3 PATRIOT ACT MURDERS IN SOUTH DAKOTA...all came from Rumsfield/Cheney using DOD CIFA UNIT...working with SIOUX FALLS FBI COUNTER INTEL SPECIAL AGENT STEVEN PLUTA....a guy a know all too well.
2) Those murders were facilitated with illegal TORTURE of anybody "declared and slandered as a terrorist" within Cheney's WAR COMMISSION'S ACT DESCRETION that also offered RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR MURDERS?
3) SD HWP CAPTIAN JEFF TALBOT was one of the guys I contacted about the YPD SGT MARK DEFENBAUGH MURDER IN SOUTH DAKOTA. Talbot talked to Defenbaugh two hours before the murder.
Talbot resigned 60 days after my phone call (wiretapped...listened to by SF FBI agent PLUTA/DOD CIFA UNIT.
TALBOT resigned in disgust because PLUTA AND SD AG LARRY LONG (a guy up to his neck in CONSPIRACIES TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE when he threatened SD US ATTY MICHELLE TAPKEN'S SON with a bogus crim investigation looking at the Dan Nelson Auto Loan business).
This harassment of TAPKEN at SD US ATTY...was done to shut down her FED GRAND JURY FOCUSING ON THE DASCHLE CAMPAIGN WIRETAPPING IN OCT/NOV 2004 AS PROVEN BY THE CALEA COMPUTERIZED WIRETAPPING INTERFACE installed at every telecomm provider?
4) THIS BILL...is now rewriting the laws of "intent" and "good faith" when "citizens work with the police state" to get around the EXCLUSIONARY RULE'S PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT when law enforcement asserts THE CITIZEN RULE EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE...TO AVOID SUPPRESSION under the EXCLUSIONARY RULE?
DID YOU NOTICE THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE DEM CONG STAFFERS.........who never once...ever, ever...talked to me about "how to argue" and "use facts from the real world" to write a law that prevents CIVIL AND CRIM IMMUNITY FOR TELECOMMS WHO WORK WITH THE FBI/DOD CIFA UNIT to coordinate SIGINT facilitating CHENEY'S MURDER OF A PREGNANT CHRISTIAN HOUSEWIFE NAMED CHRISTINA MOORE (9/23/03 in Round Rock, Texas, by the same NSA TSP mercs...who were sent after me when I lived in Austin, Texas??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).
June 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hey Thomas - pay attention. John Conyers is not the problem - he's the one arguing against this civil liberties atrocity."
Quote from Psyclone above?
NO...YOU COULD NOT BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
YOU DON'T KNOW...WHAT I OFFERED TO CONYERS...and what he has refused to use or investigate?
I know more about CONYERS then you.
CONYERS has rolled over...and has trumpeted OVERSITE FROM AN INSPECTOR GENERALS OFFICE that has not EVER PUT A CRIM REFERRAL ON A US ATTY'S DESK for violations of:
----TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 241, 242;
----TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 1512, 1513 (Tampering with a Sen Jud Comm witness named THOMAS S. BEAN WHO SIGNED A 47 PAGE US DOJ OIG/FBI OPR COMPLAINT...signed under penalty of prosecution for making a false statement to an FBI agent?
June 20, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this surprising anyone? In a country that has historically thrown up a facade of civil liberties all the while passing laws like the Espionage Act (1917), the Sedition Act (1918), the Smith Act (1940) and instituting wonderful domestic surveillance programs like COINTELPRO of the 1960s and 70s, none of this should be of any shock value. This is what governments do, no matter what party is in power.
Our problem is not the government. Our problem is the people who let the government do what it wants. If we want significant change, the people need to act. That's how all progressive change has occurred in this country, with the people in the lead and the government getting dragged along, kicking and screaming. No reason to believe that this historical fact somehow applies not to the present.
June 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been sending my congressman Steny Hoyer (I'm so proud) an email everyday since I heard about the secret "compromise" bill earlier this week. Here's my latest:
Dear Mr. Hoyer:
The one time the Democrats in the House stood up to Mr. Bush, and now you are flushing it down the toilet.
The Republicans are laughing at you. I guess they are laughing at we Democratic voters too, for thinking that electing a Democratic majority would actually make a difference. But they are definitely laughing at you and your cravenly, spineless colleagues. They expected you to cave in, but even they didn't expect you to capitulate so completely.
"I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get," said Senator Christopher Bond. That says it all.
Words can't express how furious and betrayed I feel. The fact that you struck this deal secretly and lied about it shows that you know what you are doing is wrong. This bill betrays everything you said when voting against the previous FISA bill.
I can only assume that besides having your face nestled in Mr. Bush's posterior, you have your hands in the telecom companies' pockets. While this would make an interesting picture, it's no position for a Democratic Congressman to be in. You are disgracing yourself and your office.
Sincerely,
John H. Gillette
June 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC just broke in to state that the 'compromise' bill was passed.
What are our options now?
June 20, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. I can't even fathom what the rush was to do this. I shudder to think just how horrifying the civil rights violations must have been to justify so much effort on the part of these bad actors.
So this is what a police state feels like!
June 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for a third party ... or a genuine second party.
Clearly, the GOP has blackmailed about half of the Dems, and most of the rest are bought and paid for.
Some of them have to know they were lying through their polished teeth, but they'll only admit it on their deathbeds, if then.
I plan to support any non-R who runs against any of these turkeys. Maybe Rs, too, if they abjure Bush and Cheney and all their works.
June 20, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have said this before long ago that it doesn't even matter who the President is, but the important thing is who and how many are in the House and Senate to get anything done.
June 20, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
My letter to Congressman James Langevin of Rhode Island:
Regarding your vote of FISA. Let me just say this: I'm very proud of representative Patrick Kennedy. That should tell you that I am not proud of your vote. I hope to read that both Senators vote against this nefarious bill so I can say I'm proud of three/fourths of the legislators from a State with a proud history of defense of liberty and the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Ben Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would exchange liberty for safety are deserving of neither. I concur. And I imagine few of our founding fathers would have colluded in exonerating the telephone companies from their complicity in warrantless wiretapping.
June 20, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just called my rep Betty Sutton to thank her for at least voting against this bill...alas to no avail. The only thing I've seen that compares to the overt corruption and lawlessness of this administration is the utter spineless cowardice of this democratically controlled Congress.
To Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the craven Democratic cowards...Fuck you very much.
Super J
thesuperjesus.wordpress.com
June 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink