« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
That was a short honeymoon for Admiral Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence. His nomination to the top intelligence job was viewed as a rare instance of Bush-administration maturity, as his tenure at the helm of the National Security Agency earned him a great deal of bipartisan respect. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), greeted his confirmation the next month by beaming, "It is hard for me to imagine a better choice than Admiral McConnell."
But after last week's rapid, controversial revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in which McConnell played chief Congressional negotiator, lawmakers are wondering: Was McConnell set up by the Bush administration? Or is he a willing flunky?
At issue is Thursday's FISA deal. As TPMmuckraker reported, Democrats left a marathon negotiation session with McConnell believing he had agreed to a deal. The proposed revision to FISA would allow the NSA to obtain foreign communications without a warrant. But soon they learned that the White House had rejected the bargain and were left perplexed by McConnell's acquiescence -- a confusion compounded by Friday's Senate passage of a far broader bill.
Despite Democratic recollections of McConnell citing "pressure" from above, both he and the White House now deny that there was ever any "deal" for the administration to scrap. But the acrimony that followed among Democrats, fueled by widespread criticism of the act from civil libertarians and of the Democrats from the press, was intense. After all, the administration used McConnell to negotiate its bill in order to exploit his credibility: its other principal architect, Alberto Gonzales, is politically radioactive. Chairman of the House intelligence committee Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) tells The Los Angeles Times that while he thinks McConnell negotiated in good faith, "I think he got caught up there at the end in the politics of it."
Others aren't so sure. McConnell had sought certain specific changes in FISA for months, out of frustration that a FISA Court ruling in the spring had suddenly required the NSA to obtain warrants for foreign communications, something that FISA had never previously protected. But at last week's negotiations, McConnell expanded his desired revisions and occasionally vacillated on what he found acceptable in Democratic proposals. From The L.A. Times:
...McConnell maneuvered himself into the position of passing judgment on each proposal that surfaced during the week, angering Democrats by declaring their bills inadequate.He also engaged in extensive negotiations with Democrats, during which his apparent changes of position left some members suggesting on the House floor that the intelligence director had become a puppet for the White House.
At one point, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) expressed bewilderment that McConnell had issued a statement rejecting the Democrats' approach one day after he had told members that their measure "significantly enhances America's security."
Referring to McConnell's subsequent criticism of the Democrats' bill, Hoyer said, "I will tell you, it doesn't sound like the Adm. McConnell with whom I have talked over the past few weeks."
In order to combat Democratic charges that he's gone into the pocket of the Bush administration -- the spy chief is supposed to remain blissfully apolitical, a position rarely achieved since the creation of modern U.S. intelligence -- McConnell granted an interview to the New York Times's Mark Mazzetti, in which he said his job is to "speak truth to power."
“I am not a policy maker, and I’m not a political figure,” he said. “My job is to seek ground truth with as much clarity and understanding as possible.”
Democrats could easily be looking for their own scapegoat after proving unable to stop the administration's version of FISA reform from becoming law. The L.A. Times notes that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) cited McConnell's assurances to defend her vote for the Protect America Act. But with the act's provisions set to expire in six months -- and Democrats already talking about revisiting the issue after the August recess -- McConnell isn't going to receive the benefit of the doubt during his next round of negotiations.
Comments (68)
Anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 10:09 AM:The writing was on the wall when GWB called McConnell "Mr. DNI." No respect for the old Admiral, that's for sure. They were clearly looking for an empty suit.
In Karl Rove's words, "Get me a Goddam*d faith-based thing."
TheraP wrote on August 8, 2007 10:19 AM:Are you that "one person?"
"Some do Care."
Click my name.
Cranky Observer wrote on August 8, 2007 10:24 AM:> McConnell isn't going to receive the
> benefit of the doubt during his next
> round of negotiations.
Analysis of this sort assumes that the majority of Democratic Congressmen have any problem with spying on US citizens and/or violating laws intended to preserve civil rights. To me the evidence is strongly trending toward this not being the case and the majority of Democrats being essentially in line with Cheney's thinking in this area.
Cranky
johnW1141 wrote on August 8, 2007 10:29 AM:In my opinion, the heads of the two Congressional Intelligence Committees, Rockefeller and Reyes are lightweights. I'm still waiting for Rockefeller to start Phase 2 of the investigation into the Iraq war and how the Bush gang used Intel. Phase 2, promised by Repug ex Chairman Pat Robertson was stonewalled by Robertson.
eyeball wrote on August 8, 2007 10:30 AM:
KWM wrote on August 8, 2007 10:33 AM:I wonder if people are aware of the magnitude of the congress' collapse on the fisa matter. they have in essence ex post facto legalized a half-decade of lawbreaking by the bushies -- law-breaking of such magnitude that rightists like ascroft and comey were opposed. this is the bleakest moment we have faced since this gang of felons took over. we will never dig out of this hole. never. the dems were played for patsies and the blame lies mostly with Reid. he should be relegated to a back bench and some sort of maritime subcommitee. not that it would matter.
Notwithstanding McConnell's apparent duplicity, it's hard not to see this as yet another act of political cowardice on the part of the Dems...
johnW1141 wrote on August 8, 2007 10:35 AM:By the way, I forgot to mention: McConnell is a Bush appointee, you can bet he was vetted. Nothing more needs to be said.
Bamboozled wrote on August 8, 2007 10:36 AM:Poor McConnell. He worked so hard to hammer out a deal, only to have the White House pull the rug out from under him, leaving him in complete control of everything he wanted.
If and when the smoke clears, it might be time to take a clear-eyed look at what we need from intelligence as opposed to what we're getting. Regardless of the "truth" in this matter, intelligence and bamboozlement have always been nearly synonymous. We have an illegitimate, corrupt government that baldfacedly insists (successfully!) on aiming the state's weapons of international intelligence and defense at its own citizens. And our representatives acquiesce.
McConnell is a bamboozler, and so are Rockefeller, Reyes, and Feinstein, who "know" more than we do about what actually went on and are complicit in keeping it secret.
TheraP wrote on August 8, 2007 10:37 AM:eyeball: what you said.
I feel like we all need go into mourning. What's scariest here is the silence. They did this. And they all just went of... on vacation.
How can they live with themselves?
Jake D. wrote on August 8, 2007 10:37 AM:Exactly, KWM -- sux to be you, huh?
dee illuminati wrote on August 8, 2007 10:39 AM:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118653676253891266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The WSJ creates an editorial in an absence of surrounding facts, as an example POTUS not agreeing to testimony under oath of former employees, Bush Executive Order "Blocking Property of US Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, The president uses signing statements to decree which laws apply to him, Ignores security procedures outlined by executive order, and essentially puts his 'decision making' as a fiat law complete.
But now lets look at the decisions.
Invade Iraq under the guise of weapons of mass destruction (when ample credible evidence suggested this was a bad idea,) Summed up the failure to act on 'actionable intel' pre-911 as a 'bad call' and a tradeoff to 'shutting down the airlines industry.' A decision to endorse interogation methods and tactics that have been counter productive to a war against an 'idea.' His endorsement of Rumsfeld and his tactics which between his abbrasive comments to 'OLD EUROPE' and 'Gitmoizing' Abhu Graib, along with a failure of unknown magnitude in reconstruction under Bremmer. While Katrina seems to be petty and anecdotal, again: strong leadership and sound decisions in a crisis seemed to be absent.
And now, after obvious perjury from an Attorney General there is a 'revisionist history' as to the quality of the decisions made.
And at the end of the day, all that a society has is institutions, seeing the lack of them in failed nation states, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanastan, and areas of Africa drive this home.
So McConnell indeed needs to be a 'truth teller', he might do better than offering an apologia after the fact as Tenet and Powell did, better than Bremmer, and not wait until after the day of the election like Rumsfeld.
To suggest that credibility is not an issue, to suggest that accountability for managing expectations; set aside managing a war, and then the rhetoric with which these acts are conducted does not matter, even galls card carrying, contributing, REPUBLICANS!
I wish the editrorial had mentioned in a non-partisan fashion that non-koolaid-drinking Republicans question the decisions and the facts presented by this administration.
security code 'right' as in members of the 'right' question this 'judgement' of an administration as well.
The United States image has been tarnished and if all we really export is dollars and 'perception' then I question if we can continue the course and for how long? maybe 9-15 and bond data will drive that question home, along with a report on progress in Iraq.
improper wrote on August 8, 2007 10:40 AM:Please do not think is is going to be taken seriously by anyone. The democrats feign disgust after they joined in with the most corrupt executive since at least Nixon and swallowed the FISA bag full of crap. Hell the dems as a party should receive a best supporting actor/actress Oscar for their portrayal of the good cop in this sickening Kabuki.
With that said, the dems need to shut their pie holes and get back to the make-up room to get ready for their next pathetic performance. While getting powdered, if their conscience and/or the screams of their betrayed constituents raise questions in their minds, then these questions need to be addressed to the person in the mirror. Not to worry, flights if vanity when they see their own face will relieve the guilt and answers (assuming these dandies even have the ability to see and/or admit the truth) will not folow.
This site's and other rah-rah dem sites' attempts to distinguish the dems and the repubs allows for a lot of discussion but fails to highlight that no real differences exists between the two parties. They are all paid whores without a real care for the constitution. Only a blind dreaming fool could really think otherwise. We have one party with two faces.
By the way, where were the probing questions about FISA, warrantless wiretaps, unanswered subpoenas, a corrupt DOJ and Gonzo at last night's debate? Although perhaps passionate, in the final analysis Olberman is a vain well-coiffed self-impressed boot licking eunuch of a yes man for his master MSNBC/GE.
Back to the Ken and Barbie games kiddos, except the demands of GI Joe are taking away from their face time.
kentuck wrote on August 8, 2007 10:43 AM:McConnell is a stooge. The politics of the White House over-rid the person that is supposed to be the expert on intelligence. He should be brought forth to explain himself...as soon as the Congress gets off vacation. Does he still consider himself an independent voice in intelligence matters? Or is he a White House stooge?
Punchy wrote on August 8, 2007 10:46 AM:If I were a diplomat, Democrat, or lawyer for any Gitmo prisoners, I wouldn't use a cell phone, email, or fax machine for the next 6 months....
yellowdogfox wrote on August 8, 2007 10:55 AM:I for one have stopped caring what Diane Feinstein thinks of anything. She makes a great show of being careful and judicious, and then more often than not abandons the principles she has nattered about. Even so I was surprised and disappointed that she caved on this one. And is there any explanation for Mikulski? She's usually on the side of the angels.
I'm still depressed by this gutlessness...
improper wrote on August 8, 2007 11:02 AM:(Security code = shoe = what I'd like to plant in numerous backsides.)
Posted by: yellowdogfox
Date: August 8, 2007 10:55 AM
The NSA probaly has some e-mails of the dainty and delicate Barbara Mikulski e-mailing rather revealing pictures of herself to some Mormon girl scout in Utah.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on August 8, 2007 11:05 AM:Punchy
It might be time for all of us to turn off and tune out.
johnnydoughey wrote on August 8, 2007 11:06 AM:It's ALL McConnell's fault. He tied all the congressmen up and gagged them, and when the votes were being tallied, he used his ventriloquist abilities and said yea...
Those poor congressmen... I just feel soo sorry for them. The Republicans won't do anything because they're just stupid and/or corrupt, and the Democrats can't do anything because... well... because the Republicans are just so stupid and/or currupt.
jeffgee wrote on August 8, 2007 11:14 AM:Actually, the 2001 Rove quote was "get me a f*cking faith-based thing"
owenz wrote on August 8, 2007 11:19 AM:Onward Christian soldiers.
This bill means that no Democrat can ever point to the illegal wiretapping of the Bush Administration from 2001-2006 again. Because the Democrats just legalized it.
Of course McConnell was in on the scam. Only the Democrats would invent a scenario where McConnell "might have gotten tricked by his own boss." Please. He is a fully vetted Bush appointee. He knew exactly what was going on the whole time.
Chris wrote on August 8, 2007 11:31 AM:People keep complaining about those spineless "Democrats:, but the fact is that the majority of the Democrats in the Senate and the House voted against this capitualation on FISA. While it is appalling that 16 Democratic Senators voted for this awful violation of our right to privacy; the fact is that part of the accusation against the Democrats is due to the fact that they are not goose-stepping Nazis like the Republicans. The Republicans would have never allowed a faction like that to break away from the majority. That's one of the things that is so detestable about the Republicans. Clearly a lot of blame falls on Reid and Pelosi, but it is really foolish to blame "the Democrats" as though they are a monolithic group the way the Republicans are. We can't lose sight that the majority of the Democrats voted against this awful violation of civil rights.
jawbone wrote on August 8, 2007 11:43 AM:Actually, any Dem not voting for the FISA augmentation can indeed point to the illegal wiretapping--and promise to not do it, to not legalize, and to remove BushCo's cover.
And there ought to be investigations up the kazoo or whazoo or wherever's appropriate, followed by impeachments after these law breakers leave office if they can't be impeached before.
And the public must be allowed to know what was being done to them and their government.
Includes any colluding Dems.
"goat"--security word--as in "This really gets my goat."
cjop wrote on August 8, 2007 11:49 AM:A little late in the game don't you think? The FISA issue, in my opinion, has rendered sites such as this and Kos rather neutered. The Dems have proven that they are not capable of taking on this White House. Forget the slim majority claim. There comes a time when you stand up for what is right. Bending over on torture and FISA has left me disillusioned. I still read the posts but they are tempered by the fact that the Dems are not the ones to stop Bush and Cheney.
here come the brown shirts wrote on August 8, 2007 11:52 AM:> McConnell isn't going to receive the
> benefit of the doubt during his next
> round of negotiations.
I keep hearing this "next time we'll do better" thing from the Dems and each time they keep disappointing me. We've become Charlie Brown to their Lucy with the football, falling for the same shite again and again. This whole affair just sickens me more than I can explain.
Yossarian wrote on August 8, 2007 11:57 AM:Oh my Lord! Is this what the DADs (Dumb Ass Democrats) have come down to? Now they just want to point their fingers at a guy who was nominated by this dumb ass prez as the person who bamboozled them. Cmon DADs get real. You weren't suckered into anything. You are just a bunch of lily livered cowards. Bunch of punks. Democratic leadership is full of punks and nothing else. If they hadn't gotten the opportunity to be congress men and women they would have been coward gang members in the hood. Let's kick out democrats and elect repukelicans. After all, repukelicans might have been chicken hawks but at least they kick DAD's asses thoroughly.
Rich wrote on August 8, 2007 11:59 AM:McConnell is getting the Colin Powell treatment.
We've seen this tactic before. The bush Whitehouse, lacking any credibility of their own, depends on outside sources of credibility. They bring in someone like McConnell or Powell with loads of credibility and a team player to go out and push a specific agenda. By the time he or she realizes they have been used and resign, they have been sucked dry of credibility.
justin case wrote on August 8, 2007 12:17 PM:Democrats could easily be looking for their own scapegoat after proving unable to stop the administration's version of FISA reform from becoming law.
Shouldn't"unable" here be changed to "unwilling"? Democrats are the frickin' majority, for Chrissake! How could they be UNABLE? I couldn't be more disappointed in this Congress right now.
Verification word: please. It's like this thing is psychic.
moondancer wrote on August 8, 2007 12:17 PM:It's become increasingly apparent that bush&co are going to do exactly what they want when they want. They have little regard for congress, whether its GOP lead or by Dems. Every person in bushco is a loyal lackey, talent not necessary.
mbbsdphil wrote on August 8, 2007 12:22 PM:Until someone with the moral bearing to say: "This stops here.", this swarm of locusts will continue to strip our country to the bone.
If McConnell was "played" by cheney/rove, then he should resign immediately. If not then we know he is just another amoral stooge for the monarchy.
Mr. Reyes, the issue isn't whether Adm. McConnell negotiated in good faith - he's the agent - it is whether his principal - George Bush - negotiated in good faith. It seems clear he didn't.
The Dems do need a scapegoat for their credulous handling of this whole affair - "My, what big teeth you have, Grandma!". But I don't think Mike McConnell is the one. I think the one they want is staring right back at them from the mirror.
SocraticGadfly wrote on August 8, 2007 12:23 PM:The act's provisions expire in 18 MONTHS NOT 6!
From Wired: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html
Makes any program or orders launched in the next six months last for a year after being authorized
Anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 12:23 PM:re: fisa new legislation.....are the weak-kneed
rick wrote on August 8, 2007 12:24 PM:dems blaming McConnel for misleading them? Do they read legislation before voting on it?
re: fisa new legislation.....are the weak-kneed
OCPatriot wrote on August 8, 2007 12:24 PM:dems blaming McConnel for misleading them? Do they read legislation before voting on it?
Here's what I wrote to the following, two of whom are my Senators: Dear Sirs and Madames:
rick wrote on August 8, 2007 12:24 PM:If you voted for the FISA bill, no matter what the reason, you won't have my vote in California.
I will vote for someone else. You have lost my vote. Period. On a national level, if you run for a national office, you also have lost my vote. Period. The caving in of the Democrats is disgusting, and makes you as bad as the
Republicans. You have just legalized Bush's lawlessness. Disgusting is the word for it.
Your truly,
a confirmed Democrat,
re: fisa new legislation.....are the weak-kneed
rick wrote on August 8, 2007 12:25 PM:dems blaming McConnel for misleading them? Do they read legislation before voting on it?
re: fisa new legislation.....are the weak-kneed
Anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 12:25 PM:dems blaming McConnel for misleading them? Do they read legislation before voting on it?
re: fisa new legislation.....are the weak-kneed
mbbsdphil wrote on August 8, 2007 12:28 PM:dems blaming McConnel for misleading them? Do they read legislation before voting on it?
Please remember that while the FISA amendments - enacted as the Protect America [sic] Act of 2007 - supposedly have a six month lifespan, intelligence programs they authorize can continue for up to twelve months after the expiration of the amendments. All that requires is a letter from mom, er, Alberto Gonzales. Do the math; that language extends the intelligence gathering until a few days after Shrub leaves office.
kentuck wrote on August 8, 2007 12:34 PM:Shaw Communications in Clagary Canada?
If you have McAfee Virus Protection, go into your Security Center, View Recent Events, View Log, and Trace the Address on Inbound Events on the Internet & Network file. See how many times Shaw Communications ping your computer? Or Google Shaw Communications and CIA??
(SC is "front" as in front group for eavesdropping on the Internet)
Yossarian wrote on August 8, 2007 12:36 PM:Look my fellow Libs. This game isn't such that only the repukelicans can play it. The dems, if they had balls, they had just as much power, if not more, to play this retarded game back at repukelicans. I mean where the heck were Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, and yes even Murtha before these changes were even proposed? I didn't see any of them on the television circuit doing the rounds before making these changes to the bill and denouncing it like the way repukelicans have been doing with dem bills for the past 15 years!!! Not only should they have been on every tv station in the country but also every radio station. But instead we saw none of them around until we saw Sen. McConnell speak for the changes and rebuke the dems for not following WH orders. So repukes have more power even after losing both the houses of congress. Wow. Well, it isn't just how much power one has it is what one does with what power they have that matters. You could give the dems the house, senate, supreme court, and the wh and they will still act like shit heads without power. Time to either create a new progressive party through this site/kos or just hold your nose and vote repuke in the next election. Choice is yours and clear.
John wrote on August 8, 2007 12:38 PM:"People keep complaining about those spineless "Democrats:, but the fact is that the majority of the Democrats in the Senate and the House voted against this capitualation on FISA. While it is appalling that 16 Democratic Senators voted for this awful violation of our right to privacy; the fact is that part of the accusation against the Democrats is due to the fact that they are not goose-stepping Nazis like the Republicans."
Yes the Dems are not goose-stepping Repugs, but you know what, if they are soo against the FISA bill they should have twisted everyone one of the Dems that agreed to it to make them change their votes. They didn't because they wanted this bill to pass! The Dems are so much worse than the Repugs because they know and do nothing!
c4logic wrote on August 8, 2007 12:41 PM:"Your mission, should you choose to accept it, will be to provide political cover for the POTUS at all times. As head of the intelligence agency, you must recognize that the American Public has no intelligence whatsoever, and must be fed a continuous stream of misinformation to support a false consensus reality. That will provide cover for our oligarchy to rob them blind."
v nagarajan wrote on August 8, 2007 12:48 PM:As Cranky says, it's not as if Democrats are angels - from acquescing on Iraq to Supreme Court appointments and the War of Terror, the dems are in bed with the repubs while feebly protesting what Grover Norquist so elegantly described as bipartisan date rape. They like it, they are fine with it and they want more. They just don't want the public to find out about it.
Anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 12:51 PM:Simply put, Admiral McConnell is in the chain-of-command and President Bush gives him his marching orders. That is fundamental to all else in this matter.
PC in TO wrote on August 8, 2007 12:53 PM:I have to say that the Bush team played this beautifully. They waited to the last minute. Disclosed (leaked) the the FISA ruling about the illegality of their information gathering practices. Then wipped up a mode of hysteria about a possible terrorist attack in DC. Hit the MSM with a fevered pitch for how important this new bill is for the war on terror. If the Bush bill passes, he gets what he wants and the Democrats look weak. The bill fails, those Democrats are soft on terror and they can be portrayed as weak. They stay in session and pass something the president won't sign and they are tied up with Republican obstructionist antics while Bush Team is defining/driving a simple message that the Democrats are weak on terrorists.
horatius wrote on August 8, 2007 1:02 PM:It seems that the only democrats who seem to get elected are gullible fools. It plays out the same way over and over and over and over again.
bakho wrote on August 8, 2007 1:02 PM:Bush is a JR Ewing snake when it comes to politics. Bush double crossed Congress on this and won, but only for 6 months. Once bitten Dems can come back 6 months from now to undo the damage. We should hold their feet to the fire.
Congress should demand a seat at the table on wiretap approvals to make sure they are not spying on political opponents.
horatius wrote on August 8, 2007 1:02 PM:It seems that the only democrats who seem to get elected are gullible fools. It plays out the same way over and over and over and over again.
Yossarian wrote on August 8, 2007 1:16 PM:bakho, my friend, dems aren't coming back from this one. They are through being the majority party in the congress in 15 months. They will be lucky if they win the WH. I can bet you that the next prez and congress will be both repukelicans. Count on it. I guess we will have to just live under the "comintern" (repukelicans) for some time longer. Also, get ready to goose step for these guys cause they will only reward the people who kick their legs high enough for their pleasure. Ah the democratic leadership. They just need to be packed up and sent to live on Alba island.
Legalize wrote on August 8, 2007 1:18 PM:I love these ex post facto inquiries into whether or not the administration is bullshitting the Congress. Of course is is, you bumbling babies! That's what they DO! They've BEEN doing it for 6 years. For the love of god, someone please give me a reason to be a Democrat.
The GOPers are right; the Democrat party is a party of weaklings. They are scared of their own shadows and concerned more about securing power than the constitution.
paulo wrote on August 8, 2007 1:30 PM:If McConnell was bamboozled himself one would think he would be honor bound to resign in protest at such an insult to his own honor.
I think that he hasn't resigned should be taken as a de facto admission of his own involvement in bamboozling.
HipHopLawyer wrote on August 8, 2007 1:41 PM:TPM Muckraker: PLEASE stop mindlessly repeating the "six months" thing. As commenters above point out, this has been thoroughly discredited. A small amount of research (Lederman, from yesterday, for example) will bear this out beyond any dispute.
I appreciate your keeping the FISA thing top of mind, and applaud your otherwise sterling reportage, but please get your facts straight on this particular aspect. (and it wouldn't hurt to have an entire article about how WH and Dems alike keep disingenuously repeating this canard.)
Ex Elephant wrote on August 8, 2007 1:50 PM:Dear Nancy and Harry;
I wanted to thank you for not using your leadership position to prevent the FISA amendments from coming to a floor vote, and suggest some ‘enhancements’ for when the issue gets revisited within 6 months.
I have carefully parsed the text of the bill (that’s what they taught us to do at G’twn law)
and was delighted to see the broad exemption in Section 105(a) which states that
“Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.”
While to most that language is clear, there is an open question as what does ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States’ mean in the eyes of those charged with administering this Act?
For example, those pulling Gonzo’s strings believe that the San Francisco Bay Area, indeed most of Blue America, is not the real United States and thus communications to persons located there would be exempt from scrutiny. But then surely Mr. Rove (code name Turdblossom), or The Dick (Angler) would have no interest in such communications …. like yours …I’m sure we can trust them to limit the intercepts to things like when you are talking to those nasty Syrians, as well as new Prime Minister Brown.
I realize the Act has a limited sunset provision -that nasty text says that:
(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).
I’m glad to see that the sunset has been eclipsed and the Administration can take this 6 month window, and has carte blanche to conduct surveillance to dates well in the future, like 1/20/09, so long as it is pursuant to a directive issued by The Great Gonzo.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. What’s in those directives? How will anybody know? Oh section 4 allows reporting to Congress… that’s nice … what does it say:
(2) the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.
Of course- what’s actually in those directives is limited to the Executive and the 4th Branch – for now. We need to fix this.
In fact, I say we go further, and that we cease objecting to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.
I propose we call this the I.M.P.E.A.C.H. Act – the Interception, Modification, and Prevention of Executive Acts of Cowardice and Hubris Act. The title is drawn from Rovian playbook- accuse the other side of what they accuse you of, such as cowering in the face of terror threats- like those emanating from the 4th Branch.
So here is my legislative language for the next debate – this is a full service blog –
Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, any Committee of Competent Jurisdiction may authorize the acquisition of intelligence information concerning actions by persons reasonably believed to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors acting pursuant to the express or implied authorization of any person of actual or apparent authority within the Executive Branch of the United States, including the office of the Vice President, if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General the Chairs of such Committees determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
`(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for promptly trying such high crimes and misdemeanors determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act ;
` (2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance; involves e mail accounts that may aid or abet violation of the Presidential Records Act, including but not limited to gwb43.com,
` (3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information that may reasonably be believed to constitute evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors, including but limited to the following:
(a) the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq;
(b) the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy conference; and other efforts at limiting environmental protections
©phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys;
(d) ascertaining who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support;
(e) interference with the findings of government scientists on the basis that such findings interfered or conflicted with Administration policies or otherwise lacked foundation in Biblical literacy and
-the advocacy of concepts of unitary executives and Executive privilege.
As you know, Republicans are fond of saying that government should be forced to live up to the standards imposed on business – you can find quotes to that effect from both the Donald and The Dick ….. so who could object?
rockkyroad wrote on August 8, 2007 2:13 PM:"Democrats could easily be looking for their own scapegoat after proving unable to stop the administration's version of FISA reform from becoming law."
Unable or totally incompetent.
We expect dems to deliver. Any congress person so anxious to go on vacation is a goat - a goat who has no business representing the public or defending the Constitution.
Perfidius wrote on August 8, 2007 2:37 PM:nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven
Cranky Observer wrote on August 8, 2007 2:47 PM:> People keep complaining about those
> spineless "Democrats:, but the fact is
> that the majority of the Democrats in the
> Senate and the House voted against this
> capitualation on FISA.
I guess I missed the cloture vote. Who filibustered? Feingold?
Oh, that's right. Only Republicans can filibuster (23 times this session IIRC).
Cranky
Henk wrote on August 8, 2007 3:00 PM:"McConnell isn't going to receive the benefit of the doubt during his next round of negotiations."
Unless of course he's negotiating with Democrats. Their still giving Bush the benifit or the doubt for Christ's sake.
scorpio13 wrote on August 8, 2007 7:12 PM:I too am totally disgusted with the passage of this legislation. We are getting deeper and deeper into Big Brother everyday. The depth of this betrayal of American citizens by this administration makes the Watergate caper guys look like pikers. I am pleased to learn, however, upon checking the roll call that our new Senator Brown voted nay. Of course I didn't expect as much courage from Mr.Voinovich. I was not impressed with him when he was our Governor either. He talks a good game but can't seem to put his vote where his mouth is. I noted also that several were not voting. Including Mr Kerry. Between the Dems not voting and the Dems voting yea it just might have been enough to sink the boat. They need to work together.....the Repukes do!!
spinozista wrote on August 8, 2007 7:14 PM:I used to quote Casey Stengel whenever one of these Democratic collapses came along: "Can't anybody here play this game?"
Then I realized, they are.
It's St. Petersburg, 1916, all over again. But there are no more revolutions left in stock.
bjobotts wrote on August 8, 2007 7:48 PM:Most of the House Dems and most of the Senate Dems are posting here under assumed names aren't they? It's their way of saying WTF. Pelosi and Reid are constantly reminded that the only two members of the legislature who could have prevented the Patriot Act from being voted on in the House and the Senate were the only 2 who received anthrax in the mail when they attempted to block it.
Most of the Dems in the legislature are just as pissed off as we are at their leaders and at their co-Dems who turned to being cowardly traitors voting for this FISA LAW. Unlike the republicans who all have the same philosophy (greed)and no minorities or dissenting opinions to deal with so always vote as they are told, in unison, Democrats come from too many differing factions and can't be counted on to vote even according to the majority of their own party. In this case the primary burden of irresponsibility rests squarely on Pelosi and Reid for allowing this measure to even come up for a vote.
The greatest republican victory here wasn't the passage of this FISA amendment but was the destruction of the esteem and integrity of congressional Democrats. No one is supporting them now except republicans but only the way one would support a traitor from the opposing side. They have lost all respect. The Dems should have just worked through their recess because their vacations are ruined now. They have Pelosi and Reid to thank for that as well as Bush who is laughing at them.
And btw...the only reason McConnell was brought in on this was because he could influence Democrats and no one wants anything to do with Gonzales so it had to be Gonzales AND McConnell to oversee the program.
I feel sorry for those congressional Dems who voted against this FISA amendment who are obviously saying to themselves that they thought the big test would be that they would have to battle against Republicans not other Democrats to legislate for the country's best interests. This should have been a no brainer. Here we are wanting to impeach Bush/Cheney/and Gonzales for abusing their powers and they want us to legalize their power abuses plus give them the only oversight to determine if they are abusing their powers. DUH!
16 senators...41congressmen (and women) plus Pelosi and Reid. Traitors? Cowards? Uninformed? ...What? Is it that you were bullied, blackmailed, threatened, too busy "policy making" with Pelosi, afraid of a terrorist attack? What? Millions want to hear you tell us why...we're waiting.
bjobotts wrote on August 8, 2007 7:57 PM:Ex Elephant**** great post:
"I propose we call this the I.M.P.E.A.C.H. Act – the Interception, Modification, and Prevention of Executive Acts of Cowardice and Hubris Act. The title is drawn from Rovian playbook- accuse the other side of what they accuse you of, such as cowering in the face of terror threats- like those emanating from the 4th Branch.
So here is my legislative language for the next debate – this is a full service blog –..."
But the list is far too short. In fact the abuses would fill the blog page., especially when you pull in co-conspirators and protective legislation like the Patriot Act and the MCA. But our present congress and candidates pretend this never happened.
Brigid wrote on August 8, 2007 8:31 PM:I am a relative newcomer to blogging but have embraced it as the only way to really get to the truth about what has happened to our great country. I really felt disconnected the end of last week when so many of the progressive bloggers converged in Chicago and shared stories and ideas and got to put faces to names. I found myself a little jealous but after reading the general ages of active bloggers I realized I am a little too old to keep up the pace many of you manage. While I was jealously wishing I was in Chicago and you were rejuvenating yourselves sharing with people who realize the power of netroots, we were dealt a low blow. I literally had to catch my breath when I read that the FISA bill passed and was signed.
Like many of you I had been actively involved in contacting US Senators and Reps making my views known. Some even sent me replies! I told myself that I was no longer just sitting and complaining; I was starting to take some action. So where did this FISA thing come from? Was it that the right-wing neocons knew that progressive bloggers and whistle blowers were “unavailable” to monitor the news and make a stink about this? Was it that certain people were whispering they didn’t feel safe staying in Washington for the break? Was it the subtle fear-mongering by the people in the administration keeping even the most trivial pieces of information under the cloak of secrecy and privilege? Secrets can arouse many primal instincts in people – especially fear when they are not allowed to really confront a substantial enemy or bit of information.
I listen to progressive radio and even they could not come up with a reasonable reason why the Dems caved in so quickly and passed this dangerous bill. They joked around about who had what on whom to try to make sense of it all. Many people were left in the cold by this action because they too thought they had the ears of the people they elected to represent them. What did we do wrong? What can we do to make this better? Many of us felt lost.
There is only one response to this and that is to impeach – Bush, Cheney and Gonzo. The only hope we have of beginning the daunting task of taking back America lies with impeachment. Anyone who has not read “Dangers of a Cornered Bush” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/dangers-of-a-cornered-geo_b_58429.html) from the Huffington Post needs to read and, if necessary, reread this article. You will begin to realize that Bush might not be the sharpest tool in the toolbox but he is not all that stupid either. He is not a stable man. Everything that comes from him he believes chapter and verse. He believes in everything he says and does and won’t be swayed. He feels that the end (whatever that might be) justifies the means and he means to get everything he wants!
I watch a lot of hearings on CSPAN3 and when Monica stated that she swore an oath to the president, my blood ran cold. These are the types of young people that are in the background running many of the operations of the current administration. Many of these people, though, will remember that they swore an oath to the Constitution (people) of the United States if impeachment goes forward. Impeachment is the only way to stop this snowball from rolling downhill and gaining momentum. I hold my rights and freedoms very close and feel that this is the only step we can now take to start getting them back. First, it finally puts enough of a cloud over the admins heads to get people to think a bit more for swallowing the kool-aid right away. Second, it negates much of the political clout enjoyed by the White House. Third, if something really bad does happen it will be much easier for citizens to be reminded that they have been lied to.
Netroots needs to get together with grassroots organizations and make their number 1 priority IMPEACHMENT! That’s what happened in 2006 and look at the results. Everyone has their own pet method of reaching the same goal- getting Bush and Cheney out of office and begin restoring the Constitution to its original state. We need to get going and do it!
tr wrote on August 8, 2007 9:17 PM:i am beginning to think that rockefeller has a hard time imagining anything.
tr wrote on August 8, 2007 9:25 PM:i am beginning to think that rockefeller has a hard time imagining anything.
kentuck wrote on August 8, 2007 9:40 PM:I wonder how long before they catch their first terrorists because of this brave action by our Senators and Congressmen? There was chatter and an imminent threat,they told the Congressmen. I'm waiting to see who and what we catch with this new authorization. Surely they will catch a bunch?
And the Administration will pass the press release to the corporate media to spread around for 3 or 4 days, don't you think? If this is a dry hole, these Democrats are going to feel like they were hoodwinked, used and abused, for real? Sure they have one in their sights right now?
Yeah, that's the ticket. They are in Iraq. They are in Sadr's rank. Yeah, we heard them talking on their cellphones - English as good as yours and mine. Yeah. That's the ticket...
TJ wrote on August 8, 2007 10:25 PM:So in 6 months what are the Democrats going to say? They voted for it before they voted against it, or is it the reverse? Lame.
Anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 11:51 PM:Either the Democrats are spineless cowards or closet Fascists.
Either way, it is clear we cannot look to the Democratic party as it is now constituted to restore the rule of law and the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution.
At least one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President, Sen. Chris Dodd, of Connecticut, has said that he views the restoration of Constitutional principles THE most pressing issue. I concur.
The Democratic Party is in need of a thorough house cleanng. Pelosi, Hoyer, Emmanuel, Reid, etc. -- all of them -- should be challenged in the primaries and called to account for their disgraceful lack of leadership.
ehr wrote on August 9, 2007 8:57 AM:Why wait until the next election? Dump Reid and Pelosi from congressional leadership now!
wigwam wrote on August 9, 2007 2:16 PM:Whose idea was it to put the House's version of the FISA fix onto the suspense calender? Have they apologized.
Note: For the next six months, Gonzales can approve year-long year-long surveillance programs targeting communications that he"reasonably suspects" might go outside the U.S., thus placing the NSA at his disposal (and de facto that of Karl Rove and the RNC) through the 2008 election cycle.