"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Monday, June 30, 2008

Monday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 9:06 PM
Today's honoree: Keith Olbermann, for his special comment tonight on Barack Obama and FISA (video to come as soon as it's up).

Money quote:

The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator.

They're going to cry regardless, Senator.

And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about.




Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, June 20, 2008

No, Senator Obama, the Constitution is NOT Negotiable
Posted by Jill | 6:37 PM
Sorry, Senator, but you are 100% wrong:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."


Not good enough, Senator. As clammyc points out, there is no guarantee that you are going to be the next president. And even if you were, don't think that the support you have means that we want to give YOU carte blanche to eviscerate the Constitution just because you have a "D" after your name. This bill is no compromise. This bill is a rubber stamp for George W. Bush -- and yes, you, if you should prevail in November, to flagrantly violate the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- with no consequences.

We who decided to support you put our trust in the idea that you are not going to be just another sellout hack. I realize that you come from Chicago politics, but this is unacceptable.

If there is information about you, and about other Democrats who voted for this travesty in the House and who plan to vote for it in the Senate, that you have been told has been gathered as part of this operation, then you all should come clean now. Do not legislate based on blackmail.

On Monday, Steny Hoyer, who spearheaded this atrocity, came to New Jersey to appear with 5th District candidate Dennis Shulman -- and hand him a check for $2500. I want to know if Dr. Shulman supports amnesty for those who break the law and violate the very Constitution they swore to uphold. As you can see, there are those who think this is "no big deal" and shouldn't affect how we vote under the "Any Democrat is Better than a Republican" doctrine. And especially this year, when Justice John Paul Stevens is pushing 90 with a steamroller, this is true. To not vote, or to vote for John McCain, because of what the person with whom I'm arguing calls a "litmus test on one issue" is of course silly -- and not a viable option this year.

But is "We're not quite as bad as they are" the best we can do as Democrats? Has our party strayed so far from "We the people" that even those who talk about change are willing to sell out everything this nation stands for -- for a few pieces of silver?

You are supposed to be a different kind of politician, Mr. Obama. Act like one.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Friday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 3:29 PM
Today's honoree: Earth-Bound Misfit. With a DOUBLE What She Said.

Money quote:

Fucking Democratic surrender monkeys. They are a bunch of gutless weasels. Their idea of "compromise" was nothing of the sort, it was nothing more than the abject and total appeasement of a tyrant.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, March 01, 2008

Saturday Big Blue Smurf Blogging
Posted by Jill | 7:03 AM
Because every now and then (not every goddamn day, but every now and then) you encounter a blog post that requires no further comment. And so I bring you the first edition of What They Said.

Today's honoree: clammyc at My Three Cents.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, February 16, 2008

"Technical glitch" my ass
Posted by Jill | 10:29 PM
What kind of schmucks do they take us for?

A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network — perhaps hundreds of accounts or more — instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode.

F.B.I. officials blamed an “apparent miscommunication” with the unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain for which it served as host. The records were ultimately destroyed, officials said.

Bureau officials noticed a “surge” in the e-mail activity they were monitoring and realized that the provider had mistakenly set its filtering equipment to trap far more data than a judge had actually authorized.

The episode is an unusual example of what has become a regular if little-noticed occurrence, as American officials have expanded their technological tools: government officials, or the private companies they rely on for surveillance operations, sometimes foul up their instructions about what they can and cannot collect.

The problem has received no discussion as part of the fierce debate in Congress about whether to expand the government’s wiretapping authorities and give legal immunity to private telecommunications companies that have helped in those operations.

But an intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because surveillance operations are classified, said: “It’s inevitable that these things will happen. It’s not weekly, but it’s common.”

A report in 2006 by the Justice Department inspector general found more than 100 violations of federal wiretap law in the two prior years by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, many of them considered technical and inadvertent.

Bureau officials said they did not have updated public figures but were preparing them as part of a wider-ranging review by the inspector general into misuses of the bureau’s authority to use so-called national security letters in gathering phone records and financial documents in intelligence investigations.

In the warrantless wiretapping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, technical errors led officials at the National Security Agency on some occasions to monitor communications entirely within the United States — in apparent violation of the program’s protocols — because communications problems made it difficult to tell initially whether the targets were in the country or not.

Past violations by the government have also included continuing a wiretap for days or weeks beyond what was authorized by a court, or seeking records beyond what were authorized. The 2006 case appears to be a particularly egregious example of what intelligence officials refer to as “overproduction” — in which a telecommunications provider gives the government more data than it was ordered to provide.

The problem of overproduction is particularly common, F.B.I. officials said. In testimony before Congress in March 2007 regarding abuses of national security letters, Valerie E. Caproni, the bureau’s general counsel, said that in one small sample, 10 out of 20 violations were a result of “third-party error,” in which a private company “provided the F.B.I. information we did not seek.”


First class schmucks, apparently.

Doesn't this sound a little bit like, oh, say, something like Roger Clemens telling Brian McNamee not to tell him what he was injecting? Didn't they used to call this "plausible deniability"?

In the cyber era, the incident is the equivalent of law enforcement officials getting a subpoena to search a single apartment, but instead having the landlord give them the keys to every apartment in the building.


Or more accurately, it's sort of like law enforcement officials getting a subpoena to search a single apartment but instead busting down the doors of every apartment in the building and then shooting indiscriminately. Sort of like this, this, this, and these.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Note to Harry Reid: The world doesn't end when you stand up to George W. Bush
Posted by Jill | 8:56 AM
This doesn't make up for Pelosi taking impeachment off the table, but at least this shows the gutless Senate that you can stand up to George W. Bush and the world doesn't come to an end:

The House of Representatives defied the White House yesterday by refusing to make an expiring surveillance law permanent, prompting a harsh exchange between Republicans and Democrats as they prepared for an extended, election-year battle over national security.

The episode was a rare uprising by Democrats against the White House on a terrorism issue, and it inspired caterwauling on both sides about the dire ramifications of the standoff.

Republicans said Democrats were putting the nation at risk, while President Bush offered to delay his scheduled departure for Africa today to reach a deal. Democrats responded with charges of administration recklessness and fearmongering.

The conflict erupted on the same day that House Democrats approved contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

That vote -- resulting in the first citations ever issued against White House officials -- infuriated the Bush administration and helped torpedo a short-lived political truce with Democrats, who had celebrated the signing of a bipartisan economic stimulus package on Wednesday. Republicans staged a walkout before the vote.

The surveillance dispute centers on the Protect America Act, a temporary law approved over Democratic misgivings last August. It expanded the powers of the government to monitor the communications of foreign suspects without warrants, including international phone calls and e-mails passing through or into the United States. It is set to expire at the end of the day tomorrow.

The Bush administration wants to make the law permanent, while adding legal immunity for telecommunication companies that were sued for invasions of privacy after helping U.S. intelligence agencies conduct warrantless wiretapping. The Senate has approved a bill backed by the White House, but the House has balked at the immunity provision and raised other objections because of civil-liberties concerns.

Without the law, administration officials said yesterday in interviews and statements, the monitoring of terrorist groups overseas will be severely hampered. Telecom firms may also become reluctant to help the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies conduct surveillance, officials said.

"If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised," Bush said in a hastily arranged news appearance on the South Lawn of the White House. He said that intelligence officials were "waiting to see" if Congress would "tie their hands."

Democrats immediately said that the expiration of the temporary law would have little, if any, immediate impact on intelligence gathering. "He has nothing to offer but fear," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after Bush's address.


The thing is, the White House's hands are NOT tied under FISA when it comes to monitoring the communications of terrorists. IFSA explicitly allows obtaining warrants after the fact; the only restriction is that the government has to restrict its monitoring activities to legitimate terrorist suspects, not every communication of every person in America.

As for the immunity for the telecommunications industry, that's less about any deep-seated alliance between the Bush Administration and the telecom corporations than it is about thwarting any inquiry into the exact nature of the demands made on said companies -- especially when we now know that the Bush Administration's surveillance activities preceded the 9/11/01 attacks.

George W. Bush's fearmongering, which resemble a child saying he's going to hold his breath till his face turns blue, seems to indicate, with his remarks that terrorists are planning attacks that will make the 9/11 attacks "pale by comparison", that he is fully prepared to allow such attacks to take place if he doesn't get his way. We already know that this Administration is willing to ignore warnings of impending attacks because allowing them to play out provides the political cover they need for their most heinous acts, including the invasion of Iraq. They've done it once, there's no reason to believe they won't do it again -- especially when the potential for a changeover of power in executive branch to the Democratic party, and the expansion of Democratic gains in the House and Senate, seems likely.

Ultimately it matters not one whit whether the Bush Administration is allowed to scoop up all communications activities of all Americans in the name of "fighting terror." Because it's not about fighting terror, it's about keeping Republican power. And they can monitor all the communications they want -- if they see political advantage in allowing an attack to play out, they'll do exactly that.

But that doesn't mean Congress needs to be complicit.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Not that anyone in Congress gives a rat's ass about what we think, but what the hell...
Posted by Jill | 11:27 AM
Firedoglake has a petition to be sent to the House of Representatives asking them to please find their collective nutsack and vote to restore the Rule of Law in this country by passing its RESTORE Act instead of the sellout by the Senate.

You know what to do.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A temporary stay of execution for the Fourth Amendment
Posted by Jill | 5:54 AM
You have to go a long way to piss off Harry Reid, if you're a Republican. Reid is hardly a guy to go to the mat on anything for principle, as progressives know, since we've watched him and his counterparts in the House cave to the Bush Administration time and time again. But yesterday Reid finally did the right thing, pulling a squeaker of a majority against a member of his own party's attempt to do the contributors' bidding. Yesterday, prevailing against the Republicans' attempt to vote immediately on revising FISA to permit warrantless wiretapping by the government, using the telecommunications companies:

The 48 to 45 vote put Democrats in the odd position of opposing a vote on a bill supported by Democratic leaders and authored by fellow Democrat-Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Va., chairman of the intelligence panel.

Rockefeller and most Democrats said they opposed the Republican motion because it would have prevented a full airing of Democratic amendments to the controversial bill.

“The FISA legislation before the Senate has been taken hostage,” said Rockefeller in a floor speech urging Democrats to vote against ending debate and bringing his bill up for a vote. “In a transparent attempt to score political points off of national security issues, the White House has decided once again that scaring the American people with unfounded and manipulative claims is in order.”

A temporary measure providing expanded wiretapping authority approved last August is scheduled to expire on Friday. The Senate voted 48 to 45 to reject an effort to extend that measure.

The bill, co-authored by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., cleared the Senate panel last fall by a wide, 13-2 vote. It would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which forces law enforcement agencies to obtain a court warrant before eavesdropping on suspected terrorists and spies.

The next step is uncertain. Civil liberties groups, which lobbied hard to prevent the bill come to the floor, said one option is to do nothing and force the administration to revert back to the original 1978 law.

The proposed law is controversial because it essentially makes permanent President Bush’s program that secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists without a court warrant as required under the law.

The bill also contains a provision, sought by the White House, that would give telephone companies legal protection from dozens of lawsuits now pending against the telcom industry for participating in the president’s terrorist surveillance program without a court warrant.

Republicans, just hours before President Bush was to address the nation in his annual State of the Union speech, portrayed Democrats as being weak on terrorists for failing to end debate and vote on the Rockefeller-Bond measure.

Prior to congressional action in August, the nation’s intelligence agencies were unable to collect vital foreign intelligence without the prior approval of a court, said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, speaking on the floor.

“This will be the case again if we do not make permanent these changes,” Chambliss said. “Our intelligence community told us that without updating FISA, they were not just handicapped, but that they were hamstrung.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, urged Democrats to vote with Republicans to end debate and vote on the intelligence committee bill. It is time to support a bipartisan bill, Cornyn said, and give the intelligence community the tools they need to thwart future terrorist attacks.


The Republicans' claims are, of course, crap. The existing FISA legislation does allow a "tap first, get a warrant later" approach. It in no way hogties intelligence agencies from conducting wiretaps where there is a reason to do so. What it does do is prevent telecommunications companies from conducting the kind of mass data mining of all communications of all Americans that flagrantly violate the Constitution. And despite what Republicans claim, all this vote yesterday does is allow time for a thorough vetting of the proposed updates.

Glenn Greenwald has been all over this from the beginning, and wrote yesterday:

It now seems highly likely (though not certain) that the Democratic filibuster to prevent a vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee bill will succeed. This afternoon on the Senate floor, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter even indicated that he would support the filibuster, making it extremely unlikely that Senate Republicans will be able to get 60 votes to cut off further debate and proceed to a vote.

That means that the Senate will then proceed to debate and vote on all of the pending proposed amendments to the Senate Intelligence Committee bill (including one from Dodd and Feingold to strip telecom immunity out of it, one from Feinstein to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and let that court decide whether there should be immunity, one from Feinstein re-iterating that FISA is the "exclusive means" for legal eavesdropping, and one from Specter/Whitehouse to allow the telecom lawsuits to continue but to substitute the Government for the telecoms as defendants).

But the most interesting question at the moment is whether the Senate, once it blocks a final vote on the bill, will be able to pass a 30-day extension of the Protect America Act. The House is scheduled tomorrow to vote on the extension, but either way, the President has vowed to veto it.

If there is no 30-day extension, then it is difficult to see how this is going to play out. The deadline for expiration of the PAA is this Friday. If the House and Senate do not pass identical bills by that date -- and, provided the Senate sustains its filibuster this afternoon, it seems impossible that they will -- then that means (in light of Bush's refusal to accept a 30-day extension) that the PAA is almost certain to expire on Friday without any new bill being in place. Given Bush's endless insistence that the PAA is necessary to save us all from The Terrorists, it is -- as I explained this morning -- one of his most brazen acts ever that he will simply allow the PAA to expire. How can expiration of this "Critical Intelligence Tool" possibly be preferable to a 30-day extension?

The only conceivable way that this could all work out for the White House is for there to be a repeat of what occurred back in August, when the pro-warrantless-eavesdropping Protect America Act was foisted on our country: namely, the Senate hastily passes at the last minute a terrible bill demanded by the White House right before the deadline, and then forces the House to choose between (a) passing the terrible Senate bill or (b) allowing the deadline to pass with no bill at all. But given the rather strong opposition in the House to telecom immunity and vesting vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President, it's hard to imagine the House capitulating to the Senate again in that way.

This afternoon, I asked a well-placed and knowledgeable source in the House about what would likely happen if the Senate passed a bad bill tomorrow or Wednesday and left the House with very little time either to do the same or let the PAA expire. This is the reply:

As to how it plays out, I'm sure that you saw the editorial in the New York Times yesterday that suggested we pass a 30-day extension and leave town, much like Senate did to us in August with S. 1927 (the PAA).

We're not in session this week after tomorrow afternoon. House vote on HR 5104 [to extend the PAA by 30 days] is contemplated tomorrow.

If the bill fails over here [because] of Republican opposition, or in the Senate, or in the President's veto pen, then any "going dark" would be on their hands.


That's the right way to think about it and one hopes the House will do that. Moreover, since the House isn't in session until after tomorrow, it seems impossible that there will be a bill ready for the President's signature before Friday -- which means Bush will have to choose between retreating from his veto vow on the 30-day extension or leaving us all vulnerable to being Slaughtered by the Terrorists and unable to listen in when Osama Calls.


I've long suspected that the purpose of the wiretap program was as much to gather dirt on the Adminstration's supposed opponents as to prevent terrorism, and among those opponents are people like Harry Reid and other Democrats who would attempt to put the brakes on the Bushista march towards totalitarianism. But at least for one day, enough Democrats were able to break free of their fear of, or thrall to, the sniveling little man behind the curtain of Bush the Great and Powerful, and do the right thing for the country.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Monday, January 28, 2008

THIS is why John Edwards needs to stay in the campaign
Posted by Jill | 7:55 AM
Jane Hamsher reports that the Clinton and Obama campaigns has said that both candidates will return to Washington to vote "no" on cloture on the Intel version of the FISA bill.

Does anyone honestly believe that without the netroots, and without John Edwards tugging on the leftmost end of that ideological cord, either of them would have been willing to take a stand on this, and leave themselves open to Republican attacks on their "seriousness about fighting terrorists"?

I don't. And get used to it, folks. Because regardless of which of the two of them gets this nomination, we will have to keep the pressure on at all times, because we are dealing with two candiates who don't exactly have stellar histories of being willing to take a strong stand against the worst excesses of Republicans and their enablers.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, January 24, 2008

Remind me again why we're supposed to be "unified" behind Democrats
Posted by Jill | 5:41 AM
Kudos to Keith Olbermann, who seems to be the last journalist in America to remember that there are still three candidates in the Democratic presidential race, instead of just making sure that everyone is so disgusted with the Clinton/Obama nastiness that they just stay home on February 5th.

Meanwhile, back at the hackocracy in Washington, Harry Reid, who's supposed to be the Senate Majority Leader, said majority being Democrats, is once again being the Republicans' bitch. As Glenn Greenwald notes, Reid, who has never once forced a filibuster from the Republicans, is about to force one from Chris Dodd, should he dare to thwart the drive to give the telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from prosecution for its massive, warrantless, and yes, illegal, surveillance program:

Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.

To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster. This is what Reid said:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

That is what Democrats have been urging Reid to do to the filibustering Republicans all year -- in order to dramatize their obstructionism -- but he has refused to make them actually filibuster anything, generously agreeing instead that every bill requires 60 votes. Instead, he reserves such punishment only for the members of his own caucus trying to take a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution, those who are trying finally to bring some accountability to this administration.


That's right, folks -- Our Senate Majority Leader is in cahoots with Mitch McConnell to make sure that George W. Bush's evisceration of the Constitution is made legal and permanent, and that those who engaged in these activities before Harry Reid decided that whatever campaign cash is being funnelled into his pockets was more important than the Constitution, are never held accountable.

Greenwald cites this comment to show exactly what is going to become legal, thanks to Harry Reid...the leader of the so-called "opposition party".

The problem we have goes way beyond the fact that there is absolutely zero opposition to unfettered executive branch and corporate power in our government. The bigger problem is that Americans just plain don't care. Far too many have no idea what's in the Bill of Rights, and too many of those who do actually know what the Fourth Amendment says:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


...just don't care about it. "I have nothing to hide, and if that's what the government needs to keep us safe from terrorists, I'm all for it."

That's an actual quote from someone with whom I had a conversation recently. This person is a conservative Republican who is disgusted with George W. Bush and planning to vote for Barack Obama, but is still willing to cede his freedoms to an all-powerful executive branch in the name of "safety." That's "safety", not safety. It's a notion of safety instead of actual safety, and that's enough. When I asked this person why the ports are still unsecured, or why he's OK with having his phone calls to his mother recorded while nothing has been done to secure our ports and air security is a joke, he has no answer. Of course he has no answer -- because to open his eyes and look at how this Administration and this Congress, with the help of the very Democrats who are supposed to represent some kind of check on this madness, is to realize that We the People have allowed this to happen -- and now it's too late.

As for the two Democratic frontrunners and the ex-president who wants another crack at it, they're busy putting more energy into trying to mortally wound each other than either of them has ever put into trying to uphold the Constitution, hold George W. Bush accountable for the 935 lies about Iraq told by his Administration in the run-up to war, or any of the other tasks that a Senator from the opposition party ought to be doing in their legislative role of providing checks and balances to an Administration run amok. They're giving lip service to opposing immunity, but somehow I don't think this is going to translate to returning to Washington to help Chris Dodd (whose boots neither of them is fit to wipe) with the filibuster.

Both Clinton and Obama claim to be opposed to telecom immunity, but neither have committed to a filibuster. And don't hold your breath waiting for them to do so. They're too busy handing the November election to the Republicans.

Meanwhile, in other news of Democratic fecklessness, remember the subpoenas issued to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers over their refusal to testify about the firing of the U.S. attorneys? Oh, well, the Democrats were just kidding about that, too. Rule of law? Oh, sorry, sir...madam. we forgot back in July that we're supposed to just kiss your asses. Well, we'll do something about that right now:
House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides.

Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would “step on their message” of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks.

Bush, citing executive privilege, has refused to allow Bolten or Miers to testify before the House Judiciary panel about the prosecutor purge. And former deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove was barred by the administration from appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same issue.

“Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said “no decision has been made” as to when a criminal contempt vote would be held by the House.


I've got my money on "the twelfth of never" on that one.

What a relief it must be to Nancy and Steny and Harry, that they don't have to deal with the unpleasantness of having to, oh, say, UPHOLD THE FUCKING LAW. Instead, they can work in perfect harmony with Congressional Republicans to print money backed by nothing and hand it out to American voters just in time for election day, hoping that a few hundred bucks will shut them up until after the election -- when by the time they do their 2008 taxes next year and realize that they now owe money because of the "rebate" they got this year, it'll be too late for them to do anything about it. And then it'll be another year till they have to run for re-election anyway.

All this as the one candidate who recognizes that the system is broken is further and further marginalized by the media -- and by Americans who are now too worried about their dwindling 401(k) savings and their plummeting home values and their tenuous job security to even pay attention.

(h/t: Digby and Dday)

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Chris Dodd says Thank You
Posted by Jill | 9:51 AM




If you want to thank Chris Dodd, even if you're supporting another candidate (as I am), go send him some love (as I did).

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

This, Sen. Reid, is how it's done
Posted by Jill | 5:35 AM
And if you can't do it, then perhaps you ought to get out of the way and let someone who believes in upholding the Constitution of the United States be majority leader.


Amid deep and growing divisions among Senate Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) last night abruptly withdrew legislation that would have changed surveillance law and granted the nation's telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits charging they had violated privacy rights.

Democratic leaders had hoped to complete an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before recessing for the year, since the current law governing the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is set to expire in early February. But in the face of more than a dozen amendments to the bill and guerrilla tactics from its opponents, Reid surprised his colleagues when he announced there would not be enough time to finish the job.

"Everyone feels it would be in the best interest of the Senate if we take a look at this when we come back," Reid said, acknowledging the time crunch he faces in the "last hours" of this congressional session and the hefty number of agenda items remaining.

The disputed measure would have placed the warrantless surveillance program under secret court supervision, but the most heated controversy surrounded the White House's efforts to legally shield phone companies that had been helping the National Security Agency listen in on telephone and Internet conversations.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) -- a presidential candidate who returned from Iowa Sunday night to fight the measure -- quickly claimed victory after the bill's withdrawal, and he again vowed to "utilize all the tools available" to block passage once Reid calls it up in January.

"He blinked," Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said of Reid. "It's clear that this was not going to be easy. On the one hand he wanted to rush this process and think he could strong-arm everybody to giving up their rights as senators. They threw sand in the gears."


How sad is it when a Senator has to filibuster his own party's bill because his party leadership is so cowed by a president who on a good day has the support of only one in three Americans? Isn't it time that the Democrats stopped buying into the Republican meme that to ensure continued freedom for Americans is somehow "putting the rights of known terrorists ahead of the safety and security of Americans", as the NRSC said when House legislation did not contain immunity for Big Telecom?

After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush explained the motivation for the attacks as "They hate our freedom." Given his penchant for projection, you have to wonder at this point who the "they" was to which he was referring. Because if "They hate our freedom" is why this country was attacked, then this president and his party have been giving "the terrorists" exactly what they want ever since. Because NSA data centers in telecommunications company outposts that sweep up the telephone and internet activity of every person in this country is hardly conducting surveillance on "known terrorists" -- unless you believe that every American in this country is a potential terrorist.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The irony of a Democratic-controlled Congress enshrining Total Information Awareness into law
Posted by Jill | 5:16 AM


Remember this?

TIA was the massive surveillance program to be run by Iran-Contra figure John Poindexter at the Pentagon that was defunded by Congress in 2003 as part of the 2004 defense appropriations bill.

As Eliot Cohen notes, S2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 that would give Big Telecom retroactive immunity from prosecution for its role in the program (much of which went ahead anyway, at AT&T's San Francisco Hub) essentially makes TIA completely legal:

S. 2248 is now before the Senate Judiciary, and will be voted on in just a few days. Unless public opposition is once again vigilant and strong, this new TIA bill has a good chance of passing in committee and of reaching the full Senate floor. Unfortunately, the dire consequences of this legislation for the survival of democracy in America, including the potential to destroy fair elections, have been greatly muted, misrepresented, and downplayed by the mainstream media; and mounting pressure on Congress from both the Bush Administration and the giant telecommunication corporations have combined to increase the odds that S. 2248 will soon become law.

The bill would quash about 40 pending lawsuits against AT&T by granting it full retroactive legal immunity for its alleged role in helping the National Security Agency (NSA) acquire the contents of millions of domestic and international electronic messages sent by American citizens through the AT&T network. These messages were allegedly routed to secret rooms requiring NSA clearance hidden deep inside major AT&T hubs throughout the United States for purposes of building a massive data mine. This unprecedented surveillance offensive was first exposed in 2005 when an AT&T employee at the San Francisco hub blew the whistle.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a civil liberties organization based in San Francisco that has filed a class action suit against AT&T, the company had installed a fiber-optic splitter at its San Francisco office that copies all e-mails and other Internet traffic passing through the system and deposits these copies into a separate government computer network. The EFF alleges that the secret NSA rooms, to which the copies are sent, contain "powerful computer equipment connected to separate networks. This equipment is designed to analyze communications at high speed, and can be programmed to review and select out the contents and traffic patterns of communications according to user-defined rules" (emphasis added).

With this cooperation from the telecoms, the Bush Administration now appears to have realized a major component of its TIA project, a publicly denounced program that was presumed to have been abandoned by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this project was to "imagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components and prototype, closed-loop, information systems that will counter asymmetric threats by achieving total information awareness." In its present form, the integrated surveillance network has the capacity to maintain fully searchable copies of the contents of all electronic communications of American citizens. Since there is virtually no judicial oversight, the Bush Administration now has a blank check to define its search criteria any way it wishes, not only to look for terrorists but also for anyone else it may deem a threat -- including investigative reporters and political opponents.


It would be the most hideous of ironies if the one program whose very logo conjures up tinfoil hattery with its slogan of "Scientia est Potentia" -- Knowledge is Power -- and its eye-in-the-pyramid symbol -- were to be enshrined in law, not by Republicans who have marched in lockstep with this aspiring dictator of a president, but by the party that's been the only place to look to apply the brakes to this march towards fascism.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share