Georgia Republicans aim to take the lead on the anti-gay front

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A few Arizona Republicans may be having second thoughts about their anti-gay bill, but Georgia Republicans aren't about to cave in to, you know, equal rights and common decency, nor to deny themselves the opportunity to erect their very own barricade of bigotry:

A bill moving swiftly through the Georgia House of Representatives would allow business owners who believe homosexuality is a sin to openly discriminate against gay Americans by denying them employment or banning them from restaurants and hotels.

The proposal, dubbed the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, would allow any individual or for-profit company to ignore Georgia laws -- including anti-discrimination and civil rights laws -- that "indirectly constrain" exercise of religion. Atlanta, for example, prohibits discrimination against LGBT residents seeking housing, employment, and public accommodations. But the state bill could trump Atlanta's protections.

The Georgia bill, which was introduced last week and was scheduled to be heard in subcommittee Monday afternoon, was sponsored by six state representatives (some of them Democrats). A similar bill has been introduced in the state Senate.

The Georgia House bill's text is largely identical to controversial legislation that passed in Arizona last week.

Yup, those weak-assed Arizona Republicans. In Georgia, they don't have such reservations, it would seem. And note that what these two states are proposing is broader than what has emerged elsewhere:

Unlike similar bills introduced in Kansas, Tennessee, and South Dakota, the Georgia and Arizona bills do not explicitly target same-sex couples. But that difference could make the impact of the Georgia and Arizona bills even broader. Legal experts, including Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, warn that Georgia and Arizona's religious-freedom bills are so sweeping that they open the door for discrimination against not only gay people, but other groups as well.

In other words, if this sort of legislation passes, basically your hatred is all good, legally speaking, as long as you hide behind the protection of "religious freedom." You hate gays? It's just your faith! You hate Muslims? Hey, it's just your religion. And it's not like "religion" has a long history of tolerance. So it's pretty easy to imagine anyone being able to justify discrimination of any kind simply by using the "religious freedom" excuse.

In other words, the very essence of America is under assault from within, by anti-Enlightenment conservatives, almost entirely Republican, who see the country not as a bastion of constitutional liberty but as an expression of religious bigotry. It is deeply and profoundly anti-American, this politico-religious movement, and it is on the march in state after state. It must not be allowed to succeed.

Quote of the Day: Anthony Romero of the ACLU on Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Romero's had it, and rightly so:

I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by. It's not a personal attack.

What specifically?

It's 18 months and, if not now, when?... Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There's no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. If there has been change in the civil liberties context, I frankly don't see it.

Many of us don't see it, and Romero of all people is in a good position to know what's going on, and what hasn't changed since Obama took office.

OLC torture memos revealed -- an overview

By Carol Gee

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder should be given a great deal of credit for releasing the latest memos produced by the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, to the American Civil Liberties Union. Glenn Greenwald makes this point strongly in his first post following the release of the mostly unredacted material. It contains a number of excerpts from the memos with interesting points about each. He and many others were unsure at the start of the day what the President would do, given the huge fight going on within the administration. Greenwald is sharply critical of the administration's decision not to prosecute however, pointing to an inability to reconcile certain basic principles of the rule of law, treaty obligations, etc.

President Obama's written statement upon the release of the memos, is included in Firedoglake blogger emptywheel's post, which adds to the discussion and reflections on the lack of accountability for the wrong-doing. She makes a couple of useful points about the release: "The ICRC report may have made a difference in this fight. . . No mention of who wrote these memos. . ." And Wheeler closes with this: "If we're a nation of laws, then we cannot let those who have broken the laws to go unpunished. That's not retribution. That's what 'nation of laws' means."

More from emptywheel -- A further point made by this outstanding investigative writer, who labels the OLC memos "erroneous and inflammatory assumptions, and John Rizzo's lies," is that the OLC memos should not be taken as authoritative regarding the events surrounding the interrogation program. For example, the section on the supposed mental health of Abu Zubaydah is patently wrong. Also the ICRC report contradicts the section on the frequency and harshness of the use of sleep deprivation. Another post links to the ACLU website that has the original memos (in pdf) posted, and reminds us that the ACLU lawsuit was what freed up the memos from the DOJ in the first place.

Here is the latest on the torture memos from the investigative journalism organization ProPublica:

1) Newly Released Memo Inadvertently Reveals CIA Held and Abused Missing Prisoner.
2) Obama Promises to Defend Interrogators, But No Promise on the Bush Lawyers Who Signed Off.
3) Resource: The Missing Memos

References: Following are several authoritative and complete articles on the story of the release of these OLC memos:

• "Interrogation memos detail harsh tactics by the C.I.A," by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane of the New York Times (4/16/09). An earlier NYT story: "Memos reveal scope of the power Bush sought in fighting terror," by Neil Lewis (4/3/09).
• "Obama Releasing Four Torture Memos," by Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker (4/16/09). Includes a good AP overview along with the official statements of the President and the Department of Justic
  
• "Obama says no prosecutions, no 'laying blame' for interrogation techniques," is by Keith Perine and Seth Stern of the Congressional Quarterly-Politics website (4/16/09).
• "Obama Releases Torture Memos, Vows Not to Prosecute," by David Kravets from Wired-Threat Level (4/16/09).

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

National Security Opinion Roundup

By Carol Gee

Retired General James Jones is President Obama's pick to head the National Security Agency. In my opinion it was a brilliant choice of a brilliant man for a crucial position. Policy making, coordination, advice will be the stuff of his days in the West Wing. With what issues has he been dealing in recent weeks?

Secrecy -- "How long will the secret Bush counterterrorism memos stay secret?," was written by Chisun Lee at ProPublica. At the (2/25/09) confirmation hearing for Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, the nominee evaded flatly saying that the memos would be released. Senator Diane Feinstein was not satisfied with her answer, echoing the opinion of many civil libertarians. Before being nominated Johnsen has called the Bush OLC's secrecy a "terrible abuse of power."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, told us, "I would have liked to hear a clearer commitment" to releasing the memos and to the public value of doing so. But, he said, "ultimately what matters is not what Ms. Johnsen says but what she does, and when she does it. We're hopeful that over the next few weeks we'll start to see some of these memos released."

Guantanamo Bay -- Anthony Romero, who heads the ACLU, urged President Obama to let human rights groups examine conditions at Guantanamo Bay. Romero recently said it is not enough that the Pentagon has just issued a report concluding that the prison complies with the humanitarian requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Here is the action link Romero recommends: Ask President Obama to let human rights groups independently examine conditions at Guantánamo Bay.

Detention policy -- "The Obama administration position on detention policy: what he said," according to Christopher Weaver's article at ProPublica (2/23/09), is essentially the same as the old policy. To quote:

But the orders didn't address the broader questions of detention policy that have left the four Bagram prisoners behind bars for years, without due process. The men are basically the same type of prisoners that stirred up fervor over Gitmo. Unlike most of the 600 inmates at Bagram, who were detained in combat on the battlefield, these four were captured outside of Afghanistan or any other war zone, and they've been in custody for years. One detainee, according to his lawyers, was captured on a business trip in Bangkok.

Observers weren't surprised that the Obama administration hasn't developed a sweeping new policy on combating terrorism in the brief period allotted by the court. Jack Balkin, a Yale law professor, told the New York Times, "It may take some time before we see exactly what is going on -- whether this is just a transitory policy or whether this is really their policy."

Central Intelligence Agency -- Old scandals and new beginnings:

1. "Disgraced senior CIA official heads to prison still claiming he is a patriot," by Marcus Stern, (2/27/09) at ProPublica. Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who held very senior positions at the agency, has been sentenced to over three years in federal prison for defrauding the government. It stemmed from the bribery scandal that involved Randy "Duke" Cunningham a few years ago. Foggo claimed he plead guilty in order to spare the government the cost of a trial where national security secrets might have been revealed.


2. "Biden says Bush gave Al Qaeda a recruiting tool," Scott Shane reports at the International Herald Tribune (2/20/09). Speaking to the employees of the CIA after swearing in its new director, Leon Panetta, Vice President Biden's words implied criticism of the organization's record under the previous administration. To quote:
   
   

   Biden said the new president's actions "reverse the policies that in my view and the view of many in this agency caused America to fall short of its founding principles and which gave Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool."
   
   Such remarks . . . did not appear to dampen the enthusiastic reception from CIA employees. Panetta, 70, a former California congressman and White House chief of staff who has never before worked for an intelligence agency, also made glancing references to the recent history of the CIA, which was blamed for mistaken assessments of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs in the months before the Iraq war.

The Democratic Left/Progressive/Civil liberties wing of our party is sometimes of the opinion that President Obama has given us several disappointments on the Constitutional vs. national security front. At this point I believe that he is feeling his way, trying to avoid making mistakes that he feels might jeopardize his presidential prerogatives or risk national security. It is my hope that some of these decisions will be softened or reversed as time passes and he gains confidence. In order for that to happen, however, he must be kept aware that we expect better things, better support for the place of the Bill of Rights in the decision mix.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Constitutional protections under fire in this election, or not?

By Carol Gee

Is the United States Constitution powerful enough to be a bulwark against the threats of its internal enemies? TPM Muckraker published (10/31/08) the Department of Justice's list of counties where DOJ election monitors will be deployed, adding that it "looks on the level." This sounds good. Five counties in Texas will be involved. Other TPM Muckraker related election stories do not sound so good:

• News that the state of Georgia may be trying to suppress voters by refusing to extend voting hours
• Colorado continued to purge voter lists, despite a settlement with voting rights groups
• Wisconsin will attempt to intimidate poll watchers with prosecutors and agents "looking for voter fraud."

"Even the least of these" -- Diverse Americans must come under the protection of of the eagle's wings. Racism does not die easily, as this election has unfortunately shown. This is a wonderful piece that illustrates my point: "Commentary: Republicans summon ugly old ghosts"# is by my favorite, Joey Galloway, a McClatchy columnist extraordinaire. He concludes with wise words:

Here's a prediction for you, for them: McCain and Palin will go down to defeat by 15 to 20 points, and they'll take a heap of Republicans down with them.

The financial collapse and the painful fallout that's stalking the nation won't be righted overnight, however. Putting Barack Obama in the White House and giving the Democrats a veto-proof majority in Congress won't mean that happy days are here again.

Hard work, sacrifice and suffering lie ahead. It could take a decade or more to repair all the damage that Bush, Dick Cheney and all their henchmen in prison, out of prison and on their way to prison have done to our economy, our military, our standing in the world, our Constitution and to civil discourse, common decency and competent governance.

In the meantime, we Americans would do well to try to remember all those things that our grandmothers told us about how to get by in hard times.

How to get by on a lot less.

How to grow a vegetable garden.

How to squeeze a nickel till the buffalo bellows.

How to appreciate the small joys of family and friends.

How to share what you have, no matter how little you have, with those who have nothing.

Someday we may be able to tell our grandchildren about the Election of '08 when we, the people, turned away from anger, hate and greed and once again embraced the better angels of our nature.

Defending their rights to say these awful things is tough but necessary. Sarah Palin made a head-spinning statement in a radio interview Friday that Glenn Greenwald brilliantly explored in a recent post. Palin's comment was to the effect that press freedom is a threat to the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this time the Constitution protection of free speech may be on the side House Minority Leader John Boehner's recent use of an expletive to describe Senator Barack Obama#. It may also be on the side of Elizabeth Dole's vile campaign ad.# Her opponent has every right to go to court protesting that she has been defamed, but candidates open themselves to being unfairly targeted when running for office.

Equality under the law -- Another right-winger, Dennis Prager's comment, that "Equality is a European value,"* is also allowed. But, thankfully, others, such as Ali Frick at Think Progress, can rebut the statement with sarcastic irony:

Or if they had looked to the United States Constitution, they may have erroneously thought “equality” was an important American value:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thankfully, Dennis Prager is here to protect and defend American inequality.

Help is on the way -- Thinking ahead and probably assuming that OBama wins (I cannot imagine MCCain would be interested), Anthony Romero of the ACLU announced that his organization has developed an action plan for helping the next administration to restore the Constitution. To quote his e-mail:

October 31 , 2008
ACLU Releases Presidential Transition Plan to Restore Civil Liberties

In anticipation of the presidential election, the ACLU released a set of recommendations detailing steps that the new president should take to “clean house,” renew freedom, and restore the nation’s reputation.

“This past administration has left us with a disastrous legacy of bad policy, abuse of power, and civil liberties violations,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington Legislative Office. “The next president, whoever he is, must immediately begin the process of undoing this far-reaching assault on our nation’s freedoms and core values, and the ACLU’s ‘to do’ list provides a detailed roadmap for achieving that.”

”Actions For Restoring America,” outlines actions to be taken by the next president on his first day in office, in his first 100 days, and in his first year.

The 83-page document proposes actions across a wide variety of topics, including national security, human rights, women’s rights, civil rights, drug policy, the rights of LGBT Americans, immigrants and prisoners, privacy and free speech.

Read the entire ACLU transition plan including suggested executive orders, mandates and directives from the president.

A few ideas on other questions posed in my post -- "When Judges Make Foreign Policy - United States Supreme Court," is a great analysis of how important constitutional checks and balances in foreign policy have become in recent years. Worth the read, it was written by Noah Feldman at The New York Times (10/28/08). Feldman begins,

Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.

. . . how the justices will address critical issues of American foreign policy in the future hangs very much in the balance. This may seem like an odd way of thinking about international affairs. In the coming presidential election, every voter understands that there is a choice to be made between the foreign-policy visions of John McCain and Barack Obama. What is less obvious, but no less important, is that Supreme Court appointments have become a de facto part of American foreign policy. The court, like the State Department and the Pentagon, now makes decisions in cases that directly change and shape our relationship with the world. And as the justices decide these cases, they are doing as much as anyone to shape America’s fortunes in an age of global terror and economic turmoil.

. . . Charged with interpreting the Constitution and therefore shaping its contemporary orientation, the Supreme Court needs to be extraordinarily sensitive to the demands of history. When the court gets it wrong, the consequences can be serious. The Constitution we get will still be the one we deserve, but our deserts need not be good ones. The Constitution, let us not forget, gave us slavery and segregation. It gave us dysfunctional limitations on progressive legislation that was desperately needed in the years before the Great Depression. We like to think the Constitution is always leading us toward a more perfect union. But this has not always been the case, and as with any experiment, there is no guarantee that it will be in the future.

My conclusion today is that the Consitution will be up to the current challenges, ALL of them. Bring on the election!

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

When does the rule of law not apply?

By Carol Gee

When our current president (OCP) first took the oath of office it was questionable whether it was a lawful election. But the Supreme Court of the United States had arbitrarily declared George W. Bush the winner of the 2000 election. Therefore his oath was taken under the rule of law, by our system of government. The application of the rule of law by OCP and his administration has been spotty ever since. It began with an emphasis on oil for the big corporations. Vice President Cheney saw to it that big oil had every advantage, and the deliberations regarding those plans have been unlawfully secret ever since. It plays out similarly to this story (hat-tip to betmo, who said, "this is perhaps the best analysis i've read yet of what's going on in africa..."), all over the world of oil: And, yes, I DO take it personally, May 13, 2008, headlined, "The REAL truth about the U.S. in Ethiopia and Somalia... Yes, it's about OIL and a 'narrow, extremely violent kleptocracy'..." And in the case of the United States, the word is Corporatocracy.

Congress, a co-equal branch of government to the executive, has been unable or unwilling to hold OCP and the members of his administration to account. Declaring early in her term as Speaker of the House that "impeachment is off the table," Representative Nancy Pelosi has given OCP "free reign/rein" to operate outside the rule of law. Even after it came out that the basis for going to war in Iraq was deliberately falsified, no high official has been held to account for operating outside the rule of law. The mechanisms for being able to get away with lawbreaking have included lack of Congressional oversight, asserting presidential powers under "unitary presidential theory" authority and the use of undue executive branch secrecy, as in this story. Think Progress headlined the story, "ACLU: Pentagon made unprecedented effort to hide human cost of war." To quote:

The ACLU today released documents regarding Navy investigations of civilians killed by coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report notes that the administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to control and suppress information about the human cost” of the wars.

This first workday after Independence Day 2008 means that Congress will soon get back to work making new laws. Are they also bound to operate under the rule of law? Or can Members and Senators make the law and have it come our any old way, willy nilly? It looks as if "willy nilly" is about to happen once again with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Here is the latest from Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, one of our most articulate FISA gurus:

• Saturday July 5, 2008 -- In "The political establishment and telecom immunity -- why it matters," he makes these points. To quote:
  
  

  . . . the political elite are using to justify this bill, accompanied by the standard invocations of "National Security" which our Foreign Policy elite condescendingly toss around to justify whatever policy they're claiming is necessary to protect us. . . political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. . . I would really like to know where people . . . get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law . . . That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law.



• The courts have intervened, but often to no avail. "Another ruling by a federal judge" was Greenwald's July 4 post, in which he pointed out Congress' complicity in sanctioning law-breaking. To quote:
  
  

  A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge -- out of three who have ruled on the issue -- to reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday's decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.
  
  Judge Walker's decision (.pdf) was issued in the case of Al-Haramain v. Bush.

It will take years to repair the damage, if ever. But OCP's tenure is almost over now, you say. Get over it! Well, NO, is what I say. There is still time to act to block the abominable FISA s0-called compromise. Another favorite guru, Firedoglake posted the phone numbers we can use to call members of congress to urge them to stand up for our civil liberties under FISA. To quote:

And repeating myself once more time: "It's pretty simple, no immunity for the telecoms. Call your Senators today and tomorrow and the next day. Call them until they get this simple message: No Immunity for the Telecoms! And put the pressure on Obama. Make him step forth and take leadership. He asks us to believe we have the ability to bring about real change in Washington. Let's get him to make real change in Washington -- this week, on this issue." Here are the toll-free katymine numbers to use to make those call to your Senators and Senator Barack Obama:

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

Dial like our Constitution depends on it, because it does.

These days in history: Constitutional Convention - July 6, 1787. Convention debated committee report on state representation in Congress. On July 7, 1787: Madison addressed convention on topic of representation in Congress.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

FISA READER to weep by, alas

By Carol Gee

Read 'em and weep . . . Final FISA deal reached, vote in House may come on Friday, according to Reuters. There is a chance that the FISA bill will be voted on at the same time as the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, which is even sneakier. What follows are the best posts to be found on the subject, along with a few more traditional references.

Blogasm -- Strange Bedfellows: Bloggers from the left and right team up with the ACLU to fight telecom immunity (6/19/08 - 12:37 AM)

ACLU -- Condemns FISA Deal, Declares Surveillance Bill Unconstitutional (6/19/2008)

Emptywheel -- The FISA bill (6/19/08 - 10:15 AM) FYI: Here are the first two comments after the post:

1) Bushie -- June 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am. I called the Obama campaign today and asked Obama to come out publicly against immunity. The person who I talked to said he’d had several calls on this and would pass it along. Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.

2) wavpeac -- June 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am. No answer and no way to leave a message on the above number. When you ask to transfer to an attendant by pressing zero you go back to the original message. IT’s a circle with no way to leave a message. My guess is that his machine is full?? I am going to the web at http://www.barackobama.com./ Just letting you know.

TPM Muckraker -- Lawmakers reach deal over government surveillance powers (6/19/08 - 11:37 AM)

Firedoglake -- FISA: Screwed, Blued and Tattooed (6/19/08 - 12:00 PM)

Glenn Greenwald @ Salon.com -- George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of Democratic Congress (6/19/08 - 12:26 PM) (See the Memeorandum listing for this and many related stories.)

ProPublica -- Surveillance bill compromise likely to deliver immunity for telecoms (6/19/08 - 12:55 PM)

Carpetbagger Report -- "Compromise" reached on surveillance powers, retroactive immunity gets green light (6/19/08 - 12:40 PM)

Obsidian Wings -- FISA "Compromise" (6/19/08 - 1:31 P.M)

Threat Level -- Dems agree to expand domestic spying, grant telecoms amnesty (6/19/08 - 3:09 PM)

Think Progress -- New wiretapping bill dubbed "repugnant" and "a capitulation" (6/19/08 - 3:39 PM)

For Reference Only:

1. Wall Street Journal -- Lawmakers reach deal to expand surveillance (subscription required)
2. Red State -- The Republican view - Ugh!
3. Copy of the bill, courtesy of The Politico -- 114 pages, pdf
4. New York Times -- Deal Reached in Congress to Rewrite Rules on Wiretapping (6/20/08)
   

I have no words left for this at this point. I am stunned.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

FISA revision revisited

By Carol Gee

Surveillance news alerts were most recently published here on May 21. It is time again for an update; and it may be time to say no to Congress again. The White House claims that something must be done to immunize the telecommunications companies who have been assisting with foreign and domestic surveillance using warrantless wiretaps. Revisions to FISA legislation were made in August of 2007 with the passage of the Protect America Act. Current authorities in use by the National Security Agency surveillance programs will expire in August of 2008. The House leadership is currently attempting to reach a deal on new legislation, having rejected the Senate version that is acceptable to the White House.

Leading the opposition, and holding their annual membership conference just this week and last, the "ACLU Says No Deal on an Unconstitutional FISA Compromise" (6/5/2008) from their website. In contrast, it appears that Senator John McCain is again willing to be a willing ally for our current president (OCP), who wants Congress to grant retroactive immunity for facilitating illegal spying on Americans.

"McCain's Ties To Telecoms Questioned After Wiretapping Flip-Flop" is the story by Ryan Singel, (6/9/08) at Wired - Threat Level. This is not the first instance of McCain switching positions in order to appeal to his traditional Republican base. (Glenn Greenwald, as usual, has the complete story on this matter. And one of his readers put together a very interesting FISA Wiki). To quote Wired:

If you've been wondering where all the telecom lobbyists went to lick their wounds after the House rejected retroactive immunity for wiretapping, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says it's found a bunch of them smack dab in the middle of John McCain's presidential campaign organization.

The group suggested Friday that the swell of current and former telecom lobbyists in the McCain camp might have something to do with the candidate's recent reversal on the legality of warrantless wiretapping. His most recent position "reads a lot like the talking points that a telecom lobbyist might employ," writes EFF senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl.

McCain has long supported amnesty for telecoms who cooperated with Bush's warrantless domestic spying, but until recently questioned the legality of the program. After zig-zagging on the issue over the last few weeks, he eventually settled on a position nearly identical to President Bush's -- that presidential war-making powers trump the law when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.

Earlier FISA legislation news written by Andrew Tilghman - June 4, 2008, at TPM Muckraker, intimates that there may be a Deal in the Works for FISA Law. Time after time, Congressional Democrats have caved in to pressure from OCP and members of his administration. Let us hope this is not the case in this instance. Activists may again be called upon to shore up wavering Democrats who fear being called unpatriotic. To quote:

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) may have agreed to a compromise on a deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws.

A report in Congress Daily says Reyes is "fine" with the Republican-brokered deal that would "leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity" to telecoms that helped the Bush administration's warrantless conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens.

An even earlier warrantless wiretapping post by Ryan Singel, from Wired - Threat Level (5/29/08) is titled, "Spy Bill 'Compromise' Still Gives Amnesty to Telcoms, But Adds Trappings of Justice." In this instance compromise does not require giving in to the administration's unremitting lies, fear mongering and pressure. Stay tuned. To quote:

House and Senate leaders are still bargaining over how far to expand the government's domestic spying powers and whether to grant retroactive legal amnesty to companies that violated federal privacy laws by helping the government spy on Americans.

But if a proposal from the top Republican from the Senate Intelligence committee is any indicator, telecom amnesty would be all but assured in any final bill.

Last Thursday, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Missouri) announced his version of a compromise (.pdf), which would move 40 or so lawsuits facing telecoms accused of helping the government warrantlessly spy on Americans to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Bond has been working with Rep. Steny Hoyer, from the House leadership, who has been a vocal opponent of telecom amnesty.

Meanwhile other countries made the news recently with their own spy stories. Dandelion Salad's Stephen Lendman wrote (6/9/08) that "Chavez [is] revising, not revoking Venezuela's new intelligence law." To quote:

Over the weekend, Chavez showed his mettle as a democratic leader. He acknowledged “errors” in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela’s Constitution.

He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It’s a “mistake,” said Chavez and “not a small (one).” The new intelligence services won’t oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is “overstepping,” and “I assume responsibility” for the error and will fix it.

Germany is worried that Russia is involved in widespread industrial espionage, according to The Middle East Times story which says: "The German government has accused foreign intelligence services -- blaming mainly Russian agents -- of having spied on German companies."

I will regularly focus on FISA issues raising civil liberties questions. The next post will come Saturday.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)