The Democratic-led Senate Will Gut the 4th Amendment Tomorrow!

Tomorrow, the Democratic led Senate will pass a law demanded by Dick Cheney and George Bush that will "cover up and retroactively legalize their surveillance crimes and protect the lawbreakers, there will be a clear record -- delivered to their front doors -- of what they're really doing, along with an accounting of the deceitful propaganda they are disseminating to mask and justify it."

These fact sheets make very good points especially the point that we live in a country with a prison population of 2.3 million people, mostly black and Hispanic. Yet, when the elites of our country blatantly attack the Constitution, gut the fourth amendment what is our Congress to do? Give them fucking immunity! And this is being led by the Democrats. Have I made this clear? I have tried to listen to my friends on why Obama would cave in and vote for this...not being labeled a terrorist in the general election, being the first black candidate (we don't know what it is like to be a black candidate and what he has to go through), all true statements, I might add.

But...as I have said, at some point policy matters, the Constitution matters. What is the point of becoming the President, the leader of the free world and letting those that have screwed this nation and several other nations at this point off Scot free, with what they want, an executive that is akin to a King. Do we think we should trust a Democrat with these powers? Are we that assured Obama will be elected? Do we trust him with this power? Do we trust anyone with the power to subvert the bill of rights?

We are in dangerous territory senselessly eroding what we hold dear, our American Democracy.

Obama Responds to FISA Criticism

Obama responded to the criticism waged against him for supporting the FISA legislation. Now, I don't agree with him. I think he and his colleagues should push strongly for the provision that holds the telecommunications companies responsible. What I do appreciate is his response, his honesty and his ability to take every day Americans ideas and give them credibility. We have a long way to go and the current wind tunnell to the center is disconcerting and horrifying on some level, but I am still with him - for now.

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

The Democratic House Passes a Good FISA Bill

The House has just passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, by a vote of 213-197-1. The revised House legislation to amend FISA grants new authorities for conducting electronic surveillance against foreign targets while preserving the requirement that the government obtain an individualized FISA court order, based on probable cause, when targeting Americans at home or abroad. The House bill also strongly enhances oversight of the Administration’s surveillance activities. Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.

The House reached what Democrats say is a compromise on the immunity provision. The bill passed Friday allows companies to defend themselves in court with using classified justifications for the warrantless wiretapping program, and it precludes the administration from invoking "state secrets" privileges. The House bill also creates an independent commission to investigate Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

If Bush vetoes this bill, he is a cheat, sneaking liar. But, I suspect he is getting the pen out of his pocket right now.

Speaker Pelosi:“Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:

“First, the President knows that it was the Administration’s incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed – that’s one possibility. They simply didn’t do it right. Second, the Administration’s legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

“None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration’s insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.” - Speaker Nancy Pelosi-

Speaker Pelosi on the Bush Fearmongering

First the Bush fearmongering.

Bush said:

This week House leaders are finally bringing legislation to the floor. Unfortunately, instead of holding a vote on the good bipartisan bill that passed the United States Senate, they introduced a partisan bill that would undermine America's security. This bill is unwise. The House leaders know that the Senate will not pass it. And even if the Senate did pass it, they know I will veto it.

Yesterday the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence sent a leader [sic] to the Speaker explaining why the bill is dangerous to our national security.... The American people understand the stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror.

Pelosi's response:

I do not always agree completely with the Speaker, but I think she is a strong leader and stands up to this dastardly administration when she feels she absolutely has to...bravo Speaker Pelosi

House Intelligence Committee Chair Representative Silvestre Reyes (TX- D) Strongly Worded Letter to the President

This is well worth the read:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to “provide for the common defence.” As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans’ communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration’s warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA’s collection occurs under this authority.
Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not “expire” on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not “go dark.”

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.
The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Selling Out for Security?

Daily Kos has a great line on this. "We Need Better Democrats."

Here are the democrats who voted for the dreadful new FISA bill and are willing to sell our constitutional rights down the river so to speak.

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and of course the sellout Lieberman. Maybe Jim Webb isn't the gem we all think him to be. Our rights sacrificed and the phone companies pocket books protected.

For the record Clinton did not vote and Obama did against immunity.

"Those who wish to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin.

Olbermann: Telecom Immunity is Fascism

Russ Feingold Explains FISA in 30 Seconds

Both Clinton and Obama Will Vote For Cloture on the FISA Bill

This is great news. If we are pushing the candidates with our overwhelming success at the polls and beyond - to the left and to make corporate America accountable and responsible to us, then we are doing our job as citizens. Read more at Daily Kos.

Three more Senators Need to flip so they can vote down this horrible FISA bill. Here is an analysis from again, Daily Kos and Glenn Greenwald.

Even just a two-week or one-month extension will allow more time to marshall the opposition to telecom immunity and a new FISA bill and to do what's possible to encourage the House to stand firm behind their bill -- in exactly the way that the Dodd Delay in December prevented quick and easy resolution. The longer this drags on without resolution, the more possible it is to push the opposition to a tipping point, and sometimes unexpected developments or even some luck (such as McConnell's overplaying his hand on Thursday) can prevent it all from happening.

As the events of the last two months demonstrate, if citizen opposition is channeled the right way, it can make a genuine difference in affecting the course of events in Washington. Defeating telecom immunity will keep alive the lawsuits that will almost certainly reveal to some extent what the Government did in illegally spying on Americans over the last six years or, at the very least, produce a judicial adjudication as to its illegality. And, in turn, the effects from that could be extremely significant. Because victories are so rare, it's easy to get lulled into believing that none of these campaigns are ever effective and that citizens can never affect any of it, which is precisely why it's so important to remind ourselves periodically of how untrue that proposition is.

Chris Dodd Offers Thanks over FISA

Dodd specifically thanked the Senators who helped manage his time on the floor yesterday. By standing with him on the floor, engaging him in the issue, and providing strong and passionate speeches against amnesty, they demonstrated to Dodd, to us, and most importantly to leadership that he's not alone in the fight. Here they are so you can add your thanks.

Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823
Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553
Sherrod Brown: (202) 224-2315
Russ Feingold: (202) 224-5323
Ted Kennedy: (202) 224-4543
Bill Nelson: (202) 224-5274
Ron Wyden: (202) 224-5274

Hillary's Silence on the FISA Bill Speaks Volumes

There seems to be no end in sight for Hillary and the Democratic party. She is our new savior just as Al Gore (the old Al Gore) and John Kerry were in the last election cycles, though all of them are virtually the same vanilla taste we have had that gives us nothing in return. Yet, we cling to it.

A piece at the Huffington Post lends a clear eye to what is happening with our democratic party, our leader and our front runner. I say OUR because the democratic party should stand for the people. It used to in the days of Roosevelt and even Johnson (domestically). But, Bill Clinton changed that with the on-set of the centrist organization the Democratic Leadership Council and the swing to the middle by Democrats along with ties to multinational corporations that was unheard of before Clinton.

While I digress, let me make my point here. The new eavesdropping Bill (FISA) is already a compromise for civil libertarians (or what we used to call Americans), but the repugnant piece of the bill is the retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that spied on us. They do not want to be sued for violating the constitution. So, what happened? Bush said I won't sign any bill that does not include such a measure. Jay Rockefeller (who so conveniently is funded by these companies by the bundle) said ok. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, said ahh what the heck. We been caving forever, this is nothing new.

But, Senator Chris Dodd (fast becoming popular among the left) put a hold on the bill. Any Senator is allowed to do such a thing and it is usually allowed to stand. But, Reid said: "We need to get things done on this bill." Evidently, as Jane Hamscher points out in her piece one of those things Reid does not feel he needs to get done is pass the Emmet Till cold case bill, which called for more money for unsolved civil rights crimes. Tom Coburn put a hold on the bill -- and Reid just let that one go. The bill died.

At least he is consistent right? Civil rights in any case is not that important to the democrats. So, Reid will ignore Dodd's hold and is planning to put the bill up for a vote. Dodd now says he will filibuster and already has promises from Kennedy, Feingold and Cardin to join. Obama says he is "concerned" about the bill, and said he will vote against it but has not yet joined the filibuster. If he is smart he will join. Hamscher indicates he will, but as of yet I have not heard a confirmation.

The strange silence, however comes from the Clinton camp. She put out a statement that said she is prepared to study the bill "very hard." And as Hamscher notes: But one question few are asking -- is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed. and Hamscher continues:

Mike McCurry and Jamie Gorelick, who both served in the previous Clinton administration, have been raking in money as telecom lobbyists (Gorelick has been providing "strategic advice" to Verizon about obtaining immunity). And Howard Wolfson -- currently a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign -- is a partner in Glover Park, who represent Verizon. No doubt they'll all have some s'plainin to do if Hillary joins Dodd in his filibuster -- as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have already said they would do.

Hillary Clinton has been hit hard by Edwards and Obama about the influence of special interests, but she has said "oh it doesn't affect my vote." As we all chuckle this is nothing to chuckle about. This administration broke the law and violated the constitution, the rule of law, what America is so proud to have ironed out over a 200+ year span. Yet, the Bush administration wants to give immunity to their buddies. Apparently, their buddies are Hillary Clinton's buddies too.

If her Iran vote doesn't scare you, then nothing will, but this is a "fuck you" to progressives everywhere. And if she is nominated we will get more of the same from her as we have gotten for several election cycles by democrats. They will talk a good game, but in the end are no better than their Republican counterparts. Sure, they may not want to blow up the world and start a WW III, but is that really what you want to vote for? Maybe that is her slogan for 2008 - I promise not to start WWW III.

My God how far have our standards gone? Read a great article on the Slept on website entitled "Where have all the liberals gone?" It explains what happened to the democratic party succinctly and accurately.

Democrats Cave Again

Update: Chris Dodd has placed a hold on the controversial FISA bill that grants the telecommunications companies immunity. Go sign the Petition. This is great. Senator Dodd really stands for what he believes. We need more of this. This is what he said:

The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.

No more. I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have. It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today.

This is getting to be old hat. Why did we struggle to elect these people?

Senate Democrats cave into the telecommunications companies:

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources. . . .

The draft Senate bill has the support of the intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), and Bush's director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.

Such a demonstration, which the bill says could be made in secret, would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants. Bush had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision.

Glenn Greenwald has a great piece on this and discusses why Democrats would ever do this. He says this cave is lead by Senators Jay Rockefeller who has received huge payments by the telecom industry and Mitch McConnell who has been demanding telecom amnesty.

This move basically declares that the telecommunications industry did nothing wrong though they allowed the government to spy on us without a warrant. As recently as yesterday Democrats have been saying they would never give amnesty to the telecommunications industry because they don't know what they did because the program has been so secretive.

I think these two quotes below sum it up better than I can:

"If they didn’t do anything wrong, why should they get retroactive immunity?" asks Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake. "And, worse, if it is likely that they broke laws, why on earth would the Senate just hand lawbreakers retroactive immunity before fact-finding on potential criminal conduct was even completed?!? That makes no logical or ethical sense."

Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald severely criticized all those supporting this bill including the media.

"If one actually thinks about, from scratch, what is being considered with this FISA law, it really is extraordinary. The very idea that we ought to allow the government new powers to eavesdrop on our calls and emails without warrants -- particularly since we know that they have been breaking the law for years to do just that -- is unfathomable," Greenwald writes.