Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

[Swamp Gas]

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERRORIST_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=MTMIS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=national-2008.php&CTIME=2008-07-09-13-37-22


Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

By PAMELA HESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Opponents assailed the eavesdropping program, asserting that it imperiled citizens' rights of privacy from government intrusion. But Bush said the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans' security.

"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning," he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to protect from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. against wiretapping lawsuits.

Forty-six lawsuits now stand to be dismissed because of the new law, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. All are pending before a single U.S. District Court in California. But the fight has not ended. Civil rights groups are already preparing lawsuits challenging the bill's constitutionality, and four suits, filed against government officials, will not be dismissed.

Numerous lawmakers had spoken out strongly against the no-warrants eavesdropping on Americans, but the Senate voted its approval after rejecting amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision.

The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

"This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court's authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a "pig in a poke."

But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill's most vocal champions, said, "This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters."

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The bill tries to address concerns about the legality of warrantless wiretapping by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The ACLU, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."

[Swamp Gas]

Roll Call. We are finished with Obama, and will be voting third party. So much for fucking "change". I heard that Ass wipe Ron Kuby on Air America actually mocking people who would base their vote on a "silly single issue". He said that would you throw the election to McCain becasue of this. Well, what about the Constitution?

www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168


Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---69
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)


NAYs ---28
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)


Not Voting - 3
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)

[Swamp Gas]

www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=B09&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U

Top 20 Presidential Candidates

Telecom Services & Equipment: Top Recipients



Rank Candidate Amount
1 Obama, Barack (D) $361,024
2 McCain, John (R) $205,291
3 Romney, Mitt (R) $77,840
4 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $71,100
5 Richardson, Bill (D) $66,200
6 Edwards, John (D) $37,150
7 Thompson, Fred (R) $24,700
8 Huckabee, Mike (R) $14,750
9 Clark, Wesley (D) $3,800
10 Thompson, Tommy (R) $2,500
11 Hunter, Duncan (R) $1,550
12 Barr, Bob (L) $1,500
13 McKinney, Cynthia (3) $1,322
14 Tancredo, Tom (R) $1,000
15 Vilsack, Thomas J (D) $400
16 Nader, Ralph (I) $250
17 Gephardt, Richard A (D) $-1,000

[Swamp Gas]

Lots of pissed off people, especially Progressives

thinkprogress.org/2008/07/09/senate-rejects-amendments-blocking-telecomm-immunity/#comments

[Swamp Gas]

www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html


Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill And Grants Sweeping Immunity To Phone Companies

(7/9/2008)

ACLU Announces Legal Challenge To Follow President’s Signature

CONTACT: [phone], [e-mail] or
[phone]; [e-mail]

WASHINGTON – Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69 to 28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

“Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.

The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.

“With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”

In advance of the president’s signature, the ACLU announced its plan to challenge the new law in court.

“This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.”

For more information, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa

[Swamp Gas]

More pissed off people:

www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/09/countdown-russ-feingold-talks-about-fisa-a-sad-moment-for-our-country/

thinkprogress.org/2008/07/10/feingold-fisa-law-a-blackmark-on-country-terrible-piece-of-legislation/#comments

[Swamp Gas]

Give them all a call and thank them for defending the Constitution, at least this time:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI) 202-224-6361
Joe Biden (D-DE) 202-224-5042
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 202-224-5521
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 202-224-3553
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 202-224-2315
Robert Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 202-224-3441
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) 202-224-4524
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) 202-224-4451
Chris Dodd (D-CT) 202-224-2823
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-2551
Dick Durbin (D-IL) 202-224-2152
Russ Feingold (D-WI) 202-224-5323
Tom Harkin (D-IA) 202-224-3254
John Kerry (D-MA) 202-224-2742
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) 202-224-3244
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 202-224-3224
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 202-224-4242
Carl Levin (D-MI) 202-224-6221
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) 202-224-4744
Patty Murray (D-WA) 202-224-2621
Jack Reed (D-RI) 202-224-4642
Harry Reid (D-NV) 202-224-3542
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 202-224-5141
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) 202-224-6542
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 202-224-4822
Jon Tester (D-MT) 202-224-2644
Ron Wyden (D-OR) 202-224-5244

[Swamp Gas]

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/pl_nm/usa_surveillance_dc

Bush signs spy bill and draws lawsuit

By Randall Mikkelsen Thu Jul 10, 5:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy.

"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections.

"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power, and that's exactly what this law allows," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in announcing the suit.

The action was filed on behalf of human-rights groups, journalists, labor organizations and others who say they fear the law will allow the U.S. government to monitor their activities, including compiling of critical reports on the United States.

Bush quickly signed the bill a day after Congress gave it final approval, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama dropping earlier opposition to vote for passage. Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, has supported the bill but was absent for Wednesday's vote.

The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

The administration says the measure will allow it to swiftly track terrorists. But the suit charges the law permits warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens who may have legal and legitimate reasons for contacting people targeted by government spying.

The bill seeks to minimize such eavesdropping on Americans, but the suit says the safeguards are inadequate.

The law lets government "conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it's conducting the surveillance," said ACLU national security director Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney in the suit.

The most contentious issue in negotiations over the bill was a provision that grants liability protection to telecommunication companies that took part in a warrantless domestic spying program Bush began after the September 11 attacks.

The law shields those firms from billions of dollars in potential damages from privacy lawsuits.

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency, and ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson called it "very disappointing."

The Democrat's campaign had earlier said he would support efforts to block legislation with a telecommunications immunity provision, but Obama voted for the overall bill Bush signed after casting a losing vote to strip the immunity provision.

"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise," Obama said on his campaign Web site.

[Swamp Gas]

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html?eref=rss_politics


Obama's surveillance vote spurs blogging backlash


By Scott J. Anderson


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama's vote for a federal surveillance law that he had previously opposed has sparked a backlash from his online advocates, who had energized his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Sen. Barack Obama said he voted for the surveillance bill because it will help protect the nation.

Sen. Barack Obama said he voted for the surveillance bill because it will help protect the nation.

In October, Obama had vowed to help filibuster an update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that gave telecommunication companies that had cooperated with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program immunity from lawsuits.

After 9/11, Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop, without the mandated warrant from a federal court, on electronic communication involving terrorist suspects.

Critics said Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program was a violation of civil liberties.

The Senate voted Wednesday on the bill updating FISA -- which had a provision to shield telecommunications companies that had cooperated in the surveillance. Obama joined the 68 other senators who voted to send the bill to the president's desk.

Obama did vote for an amendment offered before the final vote by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, that would have stripped the immunity provisions from the bill, but the amendment failed.

Bush signed the bill into law on Thursday, saying the bill "will help us meet our most solemn responsibility: to stop another attack."

The bill does not grant the telecommunication companies direct immunity, but it does contain a provision that allows a federal judge to dismiss the suits if the companies can present a letter from the government stating that the program was legal.

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, testified before Congress that all the companies received such letters.
Don't Miss

The bill also allows any warrantless wiretapping program to be reviewed by a secret federal intelligence court; requires a spy agency to purge any intelligence involving an American unless it gets a court warrant; and, for the first time, requires intelligence officials to get a court warrant if they wish to target an American living abroad. Read what's in the FISA bill

When pressed to explain his change in position by an angry questioner Thursday, Obama defended his vote, saying he opposed the immunity for the companies but ultimately voted for the bill because he felt that the revisions to the intelligence law were necessary to protect the nation's security. Video Watch analysts debate whether Obama is a flip-flopper »

"The surveillance program is actually one that I believe is necessary for our national security," Obama told the questioner. "So I had to balance or weigh voting against a program that I think that we need -- and that had been created so that your privacies were protected -- or create a situation in which we didn't have the program in place."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former Democratic presidential candidate and an Obama supporter, said Friday that the improvements to the bill allowed Obama to change his position.

"What changed is that the bill got better and more acceptable to Sen. Obama -- the judicial oversight, the fact that the president can't unilaterally say he's going to eavesdrop on citizens," Richardson said. "There are a lot of safeguards in the bill that weren't there before. Video Watch Richardson defend Obama's vote »

"Now, again, the telecoms -- I personally think they shouldn't have immunity. But, you know, Sen. Obama had to make that decision," Richardson said. "We do have to protect ourselves against terrorists, but I understand there's some in the base that are concerned."

Many of the liberal blogs who touted the Illinois Democrat early on have blasted Obama for changing his position.

One post on the blog DailyKos.com called Obama's decision to vote for the bill a "sellout" and a "tactical blunder." iReport.com: Was Obama's vote a "sellout"?

And on "getfisaright.com," a self-described group of 23,000 Obama supporters has posted an open letter to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, saying,"It is disheartening that you decided to support this bill, which does immense damage to the rule of law and our most fundamental democratic institutions.

"Even though we are disappointed, most of us continue to support you as a candidate," the group wrote. "But as a candidate you have work to do repairing our trust in you and in government."

But Richardson said the choice Obama made is just one of difficult decisions a senator -- and a president -- must make.
advertisement

"There are enough safeguards in the bill and Sen. Obama said he'll review the bill again, see how it's working when he's president," Richardson said.

"So these are some of the political realities you face when you're running for president, when you're also in the Senate and you have to make a judgment on a bill."

[Swamp Gas]

blog.thehill.com/2008/07/11/eff-vows-the-repeal-immunity-movement-begins-today/

EFF Vows: The ‘Repeal Immunity’ Movement Begins Today

July 11th, 2008

This Wednesday, the Senate followed the House in caving to White House fear-mongering by passing an unconstitutional overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FISA Amendments Act (FAA) dangerously expands the president’s warrantless wiretapping powers far beyond what the Constitution allows. Perhaps even more controversially, the FAA also contains provisions intended by the Administration to grant retroactive immunity from civil suits to the telecommunications companies that colluded in the president’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

Despite the steadfast opposition to an immediate grant of telecom immunity by more than 40 Senators including the Majority Leader—and the passion and eloquence in opposition of Senators Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy and Leahy in particular—EFF’s mission to hold the phone companies accountable for violating the privacy of millions of Americans received an admittedly serious set-back with the FAA’s passage.

The Administration certainly hopes that the immunity provisions in the FAA will aid in the cover-up of its illegal behavior, by definitively putting an end to lawsuits such as EFF’s case against AT&T and avoiding a clear legal ruling that the president’s warrantless surveillance program—and the telecoms’ participation in it—violated FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

The president thinks he has won. But he has another thing coming.

Our long war against warrantless wiretapping has only just begun, and we will not stop until we get that legal ruling we’ve been fighting for. Wednesday we only lost a battle, not the war, and EFF’s struggle to hold the White House and the telecoms accountable for their lawbreaking will continue on multiple fronts—starting with a constitutional challenge to the immunity provisions.

As Senator Whitehouse put it on the Senate floor this Tuesday when discussing the immunity provisions:

If you wish to see a case of legislative interference with private judgment of the courts, look no further than what we are doing today….. Congress stepping in to pick winners and losers in ongoing litigation on constitutional rights not only raises separation of powers concerns but it veers near running afoul of the due process and takings clauses [as well]…. If I were a litigant, I would challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provisions of this statute, and I would expect a good chance of winning.

Senator Whitehouse is absolutely correct: the FAA’s immunity provisions represent an unprecedented violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers, and we are confidant that the courts will agree when we challenge the Attorney General’s attempt to dismiss our case using the statute. Based on initial discussions with the government’s lawyers, we believe that a hearing in the District Court on the statute’s constitutionality is unlikely to occur until late this year; then the court must take time to issue an opinion; then, there will be appeals by the losing party. Put simply, the telecom cases are far from over, and will likely continue well into the next congressional session.

While duking it out over immunity in the courts, EFF will also continue its fight in Washington, working in the next session of Congress—a Congress likely to be much different in its composition than today’s, and working with a different president—to wipe the stain of the FAA’s immunity provisions off the books. And that’s not just talk: careful review of the evolving votes on Senate amendments to the FAA related to immunity, and many statements by both House and Senate leaders about their dim view of immunity, set the stage for a very different debate and outcome when – not if – the 111th Congress takes up the issue of balancing American’s security and privacy in connection with renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act next year. In particular:

* Majority Leader Reid said earlier this week on the floor of the Senate that he intends to revisit the FAA as part of the PATRIOT renewal debate;

* The FAA’s immunity provisions were and are opposed by Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Pelosi, Judiciary Committee Chairmen Leahy and Conyers and by many other members of the Democratic leadership in both Chambers;

* Based on Wednesday’s and last February’s Senate votes on amendments to strip or alter the immunity title of the FAA, at least 44 Senators share a deep discomfort with the FAA”s immunity provisions, and that number is likely to grow after the fall election;

* That group of 44 Senators who supported at least one anti FAA immunity-related amendment ultimately included fully ¾ of the Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Put another way, only two other Democrats on that panel opposed elimination or modification of the FAA’s immunity provisions; and, finally,

* Despite voting for the FAA, Senator Obama supported every amendment to the FAA’s immunity provisions in Wednesday’s’s votes – including the one by Senators Dodd and Feingold to completely strip Title II from the bill. It may well be that, next year, Congress will no longer face the incessant veto threats of an imperial president who considers immunity for his telecom buddies to be more important than protecting the national security.

Put simply, there is still strong opposition to immunity on the Hill, opposition that reflects widespread popular disgust with Congress’ cave-in and that is likely to grow stronger in the next session of Congress. And EFF will be here, on the Hill, working with those who oppose immunity to strike this unconstitutional law from the books as soon as possible.

Now, some might recall that EFF left Washington over a decade ago, tired of compromise and ready to focus on its litigation. But then the president sought Congress’ aid in usurping the court’s role in judging our case against AT&T, and we had no choice but to return. We did return, in full force, and came closer than anyone ever expected to stopping immunity dead in its tracks.

We lost that battle this week. But every member of Congress responsible for this shameful capitulation to the White House should know: EFF is back. And we’re not going anywhere until Congress fixes the mess it has made.

(EFF is representing the plaintiffs in Hepting v. AT&T, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of millions of AT&T customers whose private domestic communications and communications records were illegally handed over to the National Security Agency. EFF has been appointed co-coordinating counsel for all 47 of the outstanding lawsuits concerning the government’s warrantless surveillance program.)

[Swamp Gas]

The backlash against Obama is growing

www.nobamanetwork.com/

[Swamp Gas]

www.boingboing.net/2008/06/27/att-billing-site-mak.html

AT&T billing site makes jokes about company's participation in warrantless wiretapping?

Posted by Cory Doctorow, June 27, 2008 6:15 PM | permalink

Reid sez, "I, unfortunately, have an AT&T cell phone. I check my bill every few weeks. Today, I went to log in, and was greeted by a terrific new advertisement for their online billing system. It's as if their marketing department thinks that warrantless wiretapping is funny or something.

[Swamp Gas]

www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/336123


Nation Magazine joins repeal lawsuit


This afternoon, President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a piece of legislation that will needlessly expand the government's ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of Bush's unlawful wiretapping. There were many good Senators who showed courage in standing up to the White House and for the Constitution, but not enough.

A few hours after Bush's signing, The Nation joined with the ACLU in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court (Southern District) of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The Nation is suing on behalf of itself, our staff and two of our contributing writers--Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The defendants are the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey; John M. "Mike" McConnell, Director of National Intelligence; and Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Security Service. We filed suit along with a coalition of other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN American Center, Washington Office on Latin America, Service Employees International Union and several private attorneys.

Why are we joining this lawsuit?

For 143 years, The Nation has believed that an essential element of patriotism is the unyielding defense of civil liberties. Immediately after 9/11, as a fog of national security enveloped official Washington and the mainstream media enlisted in the Administration's war, it was clear to us that the need for an independent and critical press seemed never more urgent. The speedy passage of the repressive Patriot Act, with scarcely a murmur of dissent in Congress, and the establishment of military tribunals were troubling signs that a wartime crackdown on civil liberties was under way and called for vigorous opposition. Criticizing government policy in wartime is a not a path to popularity. Our patriotism was questioned, we were called "anti-American." Yet, as it has at different times in our country's turbulent history, The Nation marched to a different drummer and stood firm in defense of our core constitutional values--believing then, as we do now, that it is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation.

Today, we are proud to join with the ACLU and other plaintiffs in this lawsuit in the belief that the government 's surveillance activities should respect, not trample, the Constitution. Our history as America's oldest weekly journal of opinion has taught us that surveillance powers can easily become a threat to a free and open society.

In the brief filed today in the US District Court, we provide reasons for participating in this defense of our republic. Here are a few:

* Because of the nature of our work, The Nation's editors, columnists and contributors routinely engage in telephone and e-mail communications with individuals outside the US. These communications are vital to providing up-to-date, accurate information about emerging news stories and informing longer-range analytical articles on international topics. Some of the information exchanged by the Nation's editors, columnists and contributors through these communications constitutes "foreign intelligence information" as defined by the challenged law. For example, the Nation's staff members and contributing journalists routinely communicate by telephone or e-mail with political dissidents in other countries, foreign journalists in conflict zones, representatives of foreign government and individuals with connections to dissident political and social groups. Some of these communications relate to the involvement or alleged involvement of the US government or its allies abroad, or of the US military and its contractors, in repression and human rights abuses. Some of these communications relate to the subjects of terrorism, counterterrorism, or the foreign affairs of the US.

* We believe the challenged law undermines the ability of The Nation's editors, writers, contributors and staff to gather information that is critical to their work. The ability to communicate confidentially with sources is essential to journalists' work. Many of the people with whom the Nation's staff and contributors communicate will not share information if they believe that their identities cannot be kept confidential. Some of them fear retribution by their own governments; others fear retribution by the US government; still others fear persecution at the hands of terrorist groups. The risk that their identities will be revealed will lead some sources who otherwise would have shared information to decline to do so.

Specifically, we cite the work of our regular contributors Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein in our filing. Hedges, in his reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the so-called war on terror regularly communicates with sources in countries like Palestine, Iran, Syria and Sudan. Klein, in her essential critique of the extension of radical free-market capitalism and the resurgence of imperial militarism, routinely communicates with journalists, political activists, human rights campaigners in the Middle East, South America, and around the world. Sadly, we believe that the communications critical to their reporting could and would be monitored under the FISA Amendments Act. Certainly scores of other journalists would shoulder the same risk.

We are proud, then, to join with other patriots who understand the government's legitimate interest in protecting the nation against terrorism can be fulfilled without sacrificing the constitutional liberties that make the US worth defending.

[Swamp Gas]

Ano ther pissed off individual

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2656977713611723823&hl=en

[Thetaloops]

Any one for more Political pancakes? How disappointing that Obama is turning into another tool of the money and power mongers.

If it wasn't the fact this goes directly against the constitution I might try to understand his logic, but the only logic is what is convenient at the time. Say one thing do another.

TL


Obama's flip-flop flap
As a politician, he resembles the forty-three Presidents he hopes to succeed

updated 9:35 a.m. ET, Mon., July. 14, 2008
One of the World Wide Web’s most distinguished organs of fake news, the Borowitz Report, leads its current issue with this flash: The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.

Except that sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from real. These sentiments, for example, are from actual blogs: If Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

He is turning on every major issue and I am not going to vote for him. From here on out, the netroots should refuse to donate to any Democratic nominee, including Barack Obama.

Obama, it turns out, is a politician. In this respect, he resembles the forty-three Presidents he hopes to succeed, from the Father of His Country to the wayward son, Alpha George to Omega George. Winning a Presidential election doesn’t require being all things to all of the people all of the time, but it does require being some things to most of the people some of the time. It doesn’t require saying one thing and also saying its opposite, but it does require saying more or less the same thing in ways that are understood in different ways. They’re all politicians, yes—very much including Obama, as Ryan Lizza shows elsewhere in this issue. But that doesn’t mean they’re all the same.

It was inevitable that the boggier reaches of the blogosphere would eventually smell betrayal. In contrast, what bloggers call the MSM—the mainstream media—seldom trades in the currency of moral indignation. Although the better newspapers have regular features devoted to evaluating the candidates’ proposals for workability, the MSM generally eschews value judgments about the merits. The MSM—especially the cable-news intravenous drip—prefers flip-flops.

Obama has been providing plenty of plastic for the flip-flop factories with the adjustments he’s been making as he retools his campaign for the general election. Under headlines like “IN CAMPAIGN, ONE MAN’S PRAGMATISM IS ANOTHER’S FLIP-FLOPPING,” the big papers have been assembling quite a list of matters on which the candidate has “changed his position,” including Iraq, abortion rights, federal aid to faith-based social services, capital punishment, gun control, public financing of campaigns, and wiretapping. Most of them are mere shifts of emphasis, some are marginal tweaks, and a few are either substantive or nonexistent. Let’s do a quick tour d’horizon.

On July 3rd, Obama remarked to reporters, vis-à-vis his projected visit to Iraq, that he will “continue to refine” his policies in light of what he learns there. The flip-flop frenzy exploded so quickly that Obama called a second press conference that same day in an effort to tamp it down, saying that while he “would be a poor commander-in-chief” if he “didn’t take facts on the ground into account,” his intention to withdraw American combat troops from Iraq within sixteen months of his Inauguration—which is to say less than two years from now—remains unchanged. Flip-flop category: marginal tweak.

The same week, Obama said he didn’t think that “mental distress” alone was sufficient justification for a late-term abortion, prompting the president of the National Organization for Women to rebuke him for feeding the perception that women seek abortions because they’re “having a bad-hair day.” In “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama had written that

the willingness of even the most ardent prochoice advocates to accept some restrictions on late-term abortion marks a recognition that a fetus is more than a body part and that society has some interest in its development.

The leading reproductive-rights group, NARal Pro-Choice America, defended him, pointing out that his views are fully consistent with Roe v. Wade. Flip-flop category: nonexistent.

Obama also wrote that “certain faith-based programs” could offer “a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and hence merit carefully tailored support.” Yet his recent call for an expansion of President Bush’s program came as a shock to some, including the Times, which called the program a violation of the separation of church and state. If it is, it’s a minor one, like grants to religiously affiliated colleges; in any event, this isn’t a new position for Obama. Flip-flop category: shift of emphasis.

For twenty years, nominal support for the death penalty and its partner in crime, “gun rights,” has apparently been mandatory for any Democrat wishing to have a serious chance to be elected President. Without enthusiasm, Obama has endorsed capital punishment throughout his political career. In his book, he wrote that “the rape and murder of a child” is “so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.” But in demurring from last month’s Supreme Court decision banning executions for child rape alone, he went further: “and” is not “or.” As for the Court’s radical decision conferring upon an individual the right to possess guns separate from service in a “well regulated militia,” he did not, as reported, “embrace” it. But he did commend it for providing “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions”—a distinctly Panglossian spin. Still, if Obama becomes President the practical effect of these panders will be minimal. It’s hard to imagine an Obama appointee to the Supreme Court voting with Justices Scalia and Thomas on issues like these. Flip-flop category: substantive tweak.

As for the last two items on the flip-flop list—well, it’s a fair cop, as the Brits say. Obama’s decision to refuse public funds for the general-election campaign was political hardball, a spikes-high slide at third base. He still favors public financing in principle, and he says he’ll work to modernize it in practice. In a sense, his utterly unexpected success in raising tens of millions from small, no-strings contributors has created a kind of unofficial public-finance system. But that success is a one-off, and the big contributors are still contributing big, with all that entails. He didn’t change his “position,” but he did break a promise.

Obama’s U-turn on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last week was not so trivial. He had promised to filibuster it if it retained the provision immunizing telecom companies from lawsuits arising from the companies’ compliance with Administration requests—orders, really—to coöperate in patently illegal activity. The bill did retain that provision, and Obama voted not only for the bill but against the filibuster. Opinion is divided on the seriousness of the bill’s threat to civil liberties. In the Times last week, the Open Society Institute’s Morton H. Halperin, whose devotion to civil liberties is rivalled only by his knowledge of national-security matters, called the bill “our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties.” Other civil libertarians see it as the death knell for the Fourth Amendment. But there can be little doubt that Obama’s vote—which could not have affected the outcome—was influenced by worry about being branded as soft on terrorism. Unlike FISA, the Iraq war can’t be repealed. But perhaps Obama will now take a more compassionate view of Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize it.

Meanwhile, McCain has been busily reversing his views in highly consequential ways. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they favored the rich; now he supports their eternal extension. He was against offshore oil drilling as not being worth the environmental damage it brings; now he’s for it, and damn the costs. He was against torture, period; now he’s against it unless the C.I.A. does it. He keeps flipping to the wrong flops. But he and Obama can both take comfort in what they’re avoiding. If they were clinging to every past position, the flip-flop police would be busting them for stubbornness and rigidity in the face of changing circumstances. Bush all over again! Flip-flops are preferable to cement shoes, especially in summertime. ?