The future of health care reform

By Carol Gee

Who knows what will happen to the biggest item on the Obama agenda for change, health care? No one can tell for certain but a few are willing to hazard guesses. This is the last week Congress will be in session before the summer recess. CQ Quarterly predicts that the Senate Finance Committee will not report out a health care reform package Due to the inability to reach a bipartisan agreement, as well as the press of much other business, work will resume in September. Prediction: A decent bill will be ready for the President to sign before the end of the year. And President Obama will weigh in with his final requirements only late in the game.

Republicans remain uncooperative -- Taegan Goddard points out that we are still waiting for the Republicans' Health Care Plan. It is a safe bet, in my opinion, that there will be none forthcoming. Prediction: What will be forthcoming from Republicans is fear mongering about raising your taxes, plus everything else they can think of to "throw against the wall."

Progressive Dems vs. Blue Dogs is a continual pull and tug between special interests and voter constituents. Prediction: Progressives will not get a pure public option, but a public plan that is nonprofit "co-op" based. The following piece illustrates that the key swing Blue Dog Democrats could play the largest role in how reform legislation emerges from Congress. To quote Politico.com:

President Barack Obama’s signature proposal, a public plan option to introduce more competition in private markets, would be significantly weakened, reflecting pressure from Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans that dominate many rural states and that were a source of millions of dollars in campaign contributions last year. The small-business lobby, itself a political powerhouse, carved out a larger exemption for operations earning up to $500,000 annually. At the same time, families are asked to dig deeper to afford the promised coverage to be bought through public exchanges.

House Democrats have proposed a sliding scale of subsidies so that new health insurance mandates don’t impose a disproportionate — and ultimately unaffordable — burden on working- and middle-class families. Without that feature, Democrats would risk a serious backlash if costs become too great and households rebel against the health care mandate. And the House maneuvering is important as a preview of the larger battle ahead in the Senate, where the Finance Committee is proposing far less generous subsidies.

The other chamber's conservative Democrats, such as Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are being heavily lobbied via huge donations from health insurance companies and stand to cast votes this year that will reelect them to the Senate in 2010. Progressive Democrats are already using targeted ads to try to force the adoption of a public option by wavering Democrats from conservative districts. To be sure the debate will get noisier as Congress heads home to hear what the folks in their districts have to say. Prediction: The major ad campaign, featuring things of which you should be afraid will encourage timid constituents to seriously pressure lawmakers to either stop entirely or compromise severely.

Senators will speak from experience -- Senator Chris Dodd, who spearheaded the H.E.L.P. Committee's health care reform bill has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He sat in for Senator Ted Kennedy, himself ill with brain cancer. Lobbyists have paid tribute to Senator Kennedy's heroic fight by donating generously to causes that he supports. Prediction: Using their own health care challenges as either spoken or unspoken backdrops to their reform leadership, several key senators, including Senator Specter, will be articulate and passionate spokesmen for significant reform.

Reference: CQ Politics launched the CQ Election Map for 2010 House races.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Congress is back and what are they doing?

By Carol Gee

Elections, ethics and hearings are the stuff of the day as Congress tackles a short session before leaving again for the fall elections. Politico takes an in-depth look at 10 [races] . . . worth watching closely in "2008's hot House, Senate races," by Tim Grieve, 9/9/08. To quote: "Eight weeks from Tuesday, voters will elect 435 House members and 35 senators." Democrats have a real chance to increase the size of their majorities. But all those races will inevitably be influenced by the news of the day, both domestic and foreign.

In the past politics "stopped at the water's edge," when it came to foreign relations, but no more. The foreign relations problem of Russia vs. Georgia is something with Congress wrestles. The presidential candidates, however, are not terribly far apart on their positions, according to Politico.com:

The fallout from Russia’s conflict with Georgia is producing an unusual split in American politics — not between the parties so much as between the presidential candidates and their colleagues in Congress.

Congressional Committee Chairmen are staying busy. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Vermont Democratic Senator Pat Leahy, will be meeting to hear what the FBI Director has to say about his new surveillance guidelines. And Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) will continue his attempt to get off the hotseat. This all according to Matt Berman, who writes "The Daily Muck" (9/15/08) at TPM Muckraker. To quote:

The Justice Department proposed new FBI guidelines on Friday that would apply to national security and foreign intelligence threats. The guidelines, which would expand physical surveillance, have come under heavy criticism by the ACLU and some Democrats for possibly allowing for racial, ethnic, and religious targeting. FBI Director Robert Muller is set to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the guidelines on Wednesday. (AP)

. . . Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has decided to hire a forensic accounting expert to assist him in his growing problems stemming from unreported income and unpaid taxes on his Dominican Republic beach house. The accountant, who is yet to be hired, will go through Rangel's finances and later deliver a report to the House ethics committee. (AP)

Legislation and more Bush administration scandal is looming -- There will not be enough time to pass much legislation, except perhaps something dealing with energy. A good story about this is in ProPublica, 9/11/08, by Paul Keil and is headlined, "Will Scandal Shake Up Offshore Drilling Bill?" To quote:

A series of inspector general reports alleging cocaine use and government regulators literally jumping into bed with Big Oil would make a splash regardless of when it came. But whether it was PR panache on the inspector general's part or a happy coincidence, yesterday's reports came just as Congress is set to debate expanding offshore drilling.

There will be hearings. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has argued that "the allegations of illicit and unethical behavior...are directly related to the energy debate taking place in the Congress this week."

While it would seem that all is quiet in congress on the domestic surveillance front, civil libertarians, constitution lovers, nay-sayers, and disgruntled progressives are far from quiescent. In daily checking, my aggregator's "Investigative Faves" folder continues to bring important stories. Examples follow:

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the Constitution, according to the ACLU blog's great little overview of the occasion. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com writes at greater length, "What illegal "things" was the government doing in 2001-2004?" (Sept. 15, 2008). To quote:

. . . Barton Gellman's new book on the Cheney Vice Presidency, . . provides still more details . . . DOJ's refusal to certify the legality of the NSA's domestic spying activities. As has been known ever since Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate in May, 2007, all of the top-level DOJ officials -- including Attorney General John Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- told President Bush they would resign immediately because Bush ordered the NSA surveillance program to continue even after his own Justice Department told him it was patently illegal.
. . . we almost certainly would have learned the answers . . . or, at the very least, obtained a judicial ruling that the Government broke the law -- had the telecom lawsuits been allowed to proceed. But thanks to the Congressional leadership of both parties, with the support of both major presidential candidates (though over the opposition of the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee), those lawsuits were killed, stopped in their tracks, when the telecom industry was retroactively immunized for their lawbreaking. At this point, it is extremely easy to understand why not only the White House and Congressional Republicans, but also the Democratic leadership, was so eager to ensure that this law-breaking remain concealed from the public and that there are never any consequences for it. It's because, as is true for so much of the Bush radicalism and lawbreaking over the years, top Democrats were fully aware of what was taking place and either explicitly endorsed the lawbreaking or, with full complicity, allowed it to continue. In his book, Gellman details a March 10, 2004 meeting convened by Dick Cheney regarding the DOJ's objections to the NSA surveillance programs -- in which various Bush national security officials were present along with "the four ranking members of the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the intelligence committees"
. . . Though there is dispute about whether these members of Congress expressly endorsed the continuation of the illegal program, there is no dispute that the meeting took place and that these members were repeatedly briefed on the spying program -- not only after 2004, but before 2004. This specific meeting described by Gellman, and the briefings generally, included Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Steney Hoyer, and Jay Rockefeller -- all of whom voted to put an end to the telecom lawsuits (and thereby ensure that these crimes remain concealed), and the latter two of whom were, far and away, the key forces behind the new law that killed the lawsuits looking into these spying activities (and then joined Bush and Cheney at a festive, bipartisan White House signing ceremony to celebrate their joint victory).

And finally, some follow-up on telecom immunity, just so you know: "Justice Department Moving to Immunize Snooping Telcos," is from David Kravets at Wired - Threat Level, (9/12/08). To quote:

Two months ago, President Bush won congressional approval to immunize the nation's telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of helping Bush funnel Americans' electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants -- all in the name of national security following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

But the telecoms, facing 36 lawsuits commingled as one in a San Francisco federal court, still haven't been granted immunity in the lawsuits alleging they breached their customers' Fourth Amendment right to privacy. On Friday, however, Justice Department special counsel Anthony Coppolino said the government would comply with the immunity bill's procedural hurdles by Sept. 19 to seek blanket immunity on behalf of the companies.

. . . Among other things -- if the legislation stands -- the telecoms are off the hook if the Justice Department can prove, in sealed documents to the court, that the telecoms' assistance was, among other things, the result of a court order; or authorized under the Protect America Act of 2007 or was approved by the president and designed "to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or in activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States, and the subject of a written request or directive."

Today in the history of the Constitution, on September 16 in 1787, Thomas Jefferson was traveling in Italy. And on the following day, September 17, 1787, the signing of the Constitution took place. So get ready to celebrate Constitution Day tomorrow with me as I write another post on the subject.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Consumerism is killing us

By Libby Spencer

If you read nothing else today, read Bill Moyers' interview with retired US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich. Bacevich defines what's broken in our government, and our society, with a truly non-partisan slant that spares no one from blame. He notes that we're living on borrowed time, borrowed money and the debt is about to come due. When it does, it won't be pretty.

It's almost impossible to excerpt without doing injustice to that which is left out, but here's a couple of key grafs.

I am expressing in the book, in a sense, what many of us sense, even if many of us don't really want to confront the implications. The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress.

He goes to explain how this dynamic created a National Security State, which to my mind is a polite way to describe our current police state and also how consumerism has shaped and distorted our foreign policy. But his description of the failure of the Democratic Party to fulfil its mandate of 06, really hits home.

Well, I may be a conservative, but I can assure you that, in November of 2006, I voted for every Democrat I could possibly come close to. And I did because the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice, at that time, said that, "Elect us. Give us power in the Congress, and we will end the Iraq War."

And the American people, at that point, adamantly tired of this war, gave power to the Democrats in Congress. And they absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been - one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war.

I would also add that they managed to ensure that the mechanisms of the National Security State and its related surveillance society would survive into the next administration, when they expect to take control of it. (If you prefer to watch the interview, rather than read the transcript, you can get the video here).

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Why were they surprised?

By Carol Gee

Today's big Intelligence Story -- on the revision of Executive Order 1233 -- gets even bigger. It turns out that Congress got by-passed with the revisions and they were hurt and surprised. We are not a bit surprised. And the "Two Mikes," may have a bit of negotiating to do as Mike McConnell-DNI takes over a bit more power from Mike Hayden-CIA. As follow-up to an earlier post, "Bush Orders Intelligence Overhaul" (NYT -- updated the afternoon of 7/31/08). To quote:

The [House Intelligence] Committee believes it has not been consulted or informed about critical intelligence matters. These include the executive order; Israel's bombing of an alleged Syrian nuclear facility last summer; changes in U.S. intelligence on Iran; the administration's warrantless wiretapping program; and the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes.

''This president is making it impossible for Congress to do oversight of the intelligence community,'' the committee's top Republican, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, told The Associated Press. ''The only effective oversight that can be done is out of the executive branch. And this is the fox guarding the chicken coop.''

. . . Even before the executive order was released Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union condemned it.

''We have secret laws governing secret agencies that are engaging in secret spying against Americans, and they're using our own tax dollars to do it. This isn't keeping us safer it's only making all Americans suspects in the eyes of the government,'' said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's legislative office in Washington.

. . . the latest version of Executive Order 12333 gives the national intelligence director new power to oversee those relationships, including how much information and the type of information to be shared with a foreign government; the CIA still will carry out day-to-day contacts. The intelligence director is also gaining oversight of covert operations, an area where the CIA has been the traditional authority.

Exactly how disagreements will be worked out between the two is to be determined. CIA Director Michael Hayden told agency employees in an e-mail message Thursday that CIA officers on ''the front lines'' will have ''a strong voice'' in working out the new procedures.

Here are a few more Intel Committee walk-out details from "The Crypt" at Politico.com. (7/31/08) "House Republicans walk out of meeting with DNI McConnell." To quote:

A group of House Republicans, led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, walked out of a meeting with DNI Mike McConnell on Thursday, to protest what they see as a lack of consultation from the administration on intelligence matters.

. . . Earlier in the day, President Bush approved revisions to Executive Order 12333, the order that governs the activities of America’s intelligence agencies. Many members of Congress felt they were note properly consulted throughout the revision process.

. . . Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes agreed with Hoekstra, saying he was "deeply disappointed" that the president did not seek congressional input.

"We were only shown the document after it was complete and on its way to the President for his signature," said Reyes.

“After seven years of a go-it-alone presidency, perhaps I should expect nothing more from this White House. But this order will be binding on future administrations as well. For that reason, we must conduct effective oversight, so that we can advise the next President of whether this order should remain in effect or should be repealed.”

Mike McConnell must really be feeling his oats these days. I have a hunch that the next thrust will be to coopt their adversaries. That is my dark view of this story. I may just be looking for trouble. The headline reads, "DNI McConnell to Intelligence Analysts: Go Talk to Juan Cole." It was written by emptywheel (7/30/08) at Firedoglake. To quote:

In a post on AJ Rossmiller's Still Broken, I pointed out that bloggers probably knew more than Condi Rice leading up to the 2005 Iraqi elections because 1) we were reading Juan Cole, 2) we didn't censor out news we didn't like:

When AJ was asked how he got the 2005 election right, one of the things he pointed to, half-seriously, was the open source work of Juan Cole.

Well, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell just conceded that AJ was right for reading Juan Cole.

In conclusion, I know you all will be so excited to learn that as of June 5, 2008, DNI McConnell is willing to stay on for six months to assist with the presidential transition. Why are we not surprised? To quote from an earlier story.

CNN has learned that the Director of National Intelligence Admiral (retired) Michael McConnell is letting it be known he is willing to stay for up to six months in the next Administration to help facilitate any transition, if a new president wishes him to.

Reference: Executive Order 12333 Amended (pdf 40 pgs).

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

What kind of government do you want

By Carol Gee

. . . in Iraq differs, depending on with whom you are having the discussion. The original goal of the neocons was quite clear. They were intent on establishing a democracy as a foothold somewhere in the Middle East. Iraq seemed militarily and strategically easier than Afghanistan. It is now five years later, 4000 American military deaths later, and $541 billion later. And the United States UN mandate to be in Iraq runs out at the end of this year. The deadline set by our current president (OCP) for getting a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the government of Iraq is today, July 31, 2008. With the Iraqi parliament's failure to reach an agreement on holding provincial elections in the fall, Democracy In Iraq looks a bit in peril. But the SOFA persists. The New York Times story is headlined, "Deal on a Security Agreement Is Close, Iraqis Say." Alissa Rubin and Steven Myers' story elaborates on many of the key elements of the SOFA. To quote:

Iraq and the United States are close to a deal on a sensitive security agreement that Iraqi officials said on Wednesday satisfies the nation’s desire to be treated as sovereign and independent.

. . . The emerging agreement, officials said, gives Iraqis much of what they want — most notably the guarantee that there would no longer be foreign troops visible on their land — and leaves room for them to discreetly ask for an extended American presence should security deteriorate.

. . . The Bush administration’s unofficial deadline for the deal has long been July 31. Although the United Nations mandate allowing American troops to operate in Iraq will not expire until the end of the year, politicians in both countries have been concerned that with elections approaching in the United States and Iraq, it might not be possible to reach an agreement once the fall campaign is in full swing and it would be better to finish negotiations during the summer.

. . The authorization for the presence of American troops would be renewable annually so that if conditions worsened or improved, Iraqis could respond to that, according to Ayaed al-Sammaraie, a Sunni leader, and several other Iraqis knowledgeable about the agreement.

"American hubris, " is how my friend, betmo, characterizes this from the link (at Take it Personally) to Tom Friedman's column in the New York Times. Friedman's stance fits in quite nicely with (the above) neocon ambitions for the Middle East, unfortunately. One of my gurus, Dr. Marc Sageman, reminded us that Afghanis historically will be more nationalistic than anything else. Friedman obviously is not familiar with "leaderless jihad." I quote the offending paragraph at the end of these three:

. . . For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq. I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly: “Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”

The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide, often against other Muslims.

. . . The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want.

The kind of government we civil libertarian activists want is one that balances the need for intelligence with the need for Fourth Amendment Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Just claiming that those protections are included in this so-called overhaul in no way makes it so. In fact the recent work by Congress on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a foolproof recipe for the loss of those protections. "Bush Orders Intelligence Overhaul," is today's NYT (7/31/08) headline. I paid close attention to this story for hints about how it will affect the kind of government civil libertarians want. To quote what seems to pertain from the article:

. . . an executive order that revises the rules for intelligence agencies and strengthens the authority of the national intelligence director . . . according to a power point briefing given to Congress that was reviewed by The Associated Press.

. . . The new order gives the national intelligence director, a position created in 2005, new authority over any intelligence information collected that pertains to more than one agency -- an attempt to force greater information exchange among agencies traditionally reluctant to share their most prized intelligence. The order directs the attorney general to develop guidelines to allow agencies access to information held by other agencies. That could potentially include the sharing of sensitive information about Americans.

. . . The order has been under revision for more than a year, an attempt to update a nearly 30-year-old presidential order to reflect organizational changes made in the intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was carried on in secret in the midst of pitched national debate about the appropriate balance between civil liberties and security, spurred by the president's warrantless wiretapping program. The briefing charts assert that the new order maintains or improves civil liberties protections for Americans.

The order also gives the national intelligence director's office the power of the purse: . . . It did not explain the FBI's domestic intelligence mission, which has gotten increasing attention since 9/11.

''The executive order maintains and strengthens existing protections for Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights,'' Perino said Thursday.

Is this, too, hubris? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a recently headlined statement, was not addressing the questions raised by her mass abandonment of civil liberties in the eventual FISA bill revision. Pelosi's statement about the energy crisis leaves a bitter and ironic taste in the mouths of many of us including this articulate minister. "Save the planet? How about saving the Republic?," by Chuck Baldwin at News With Views.com, July 30, 2008. To quote more extensively than normal from his essay (hoping the author will not mind too much):

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet." She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a "democracy." That's odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a "democracy" in favor of creating a constitutional republic.

. . . The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America's founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life. Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same blessings are currently being lost.

. . . What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. End of story.

. . . Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old look like a mere amateur.

No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is "We the people."

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional government. It is our duty to "throw off" any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not done.

. . . Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin's answer: "A republic--if you can keep it."

Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers.

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3) Today's post takes a look at recent news with an eye to the hypocrisy of U.S. leaders who ignore the loss of democracy in the last 8 years, while persisting in imposing "democratic" occupation in Iraq, while neglecting the more crucial terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda's bases on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The kind of government we want is one that cares more about its own people than the neocon adventurist agenda, one that does not spy on its own people, and one that rewards politicians for statesmanship rather than the acquision and maintenance of political power. Dare I dream?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

"I pledge allegiance...

By Carol Gee

. . . to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stood,"

said Daniel Ellsberg, July 25, 2008, on Glenn Greenwald's Salon Radio program debut. Ellsberg stated that this is the way he would have to say the Pledge of Allegiance today, given the recent passage by Congress and signing by the President, of the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Congress fails to uphold the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution -- Greenwald and Ellsberg both feel that the Senators and Representatives who voted for this legislation failed to uphold their basic oaths of congressional office. Though Ellsberg said he will vote for Senator Barack Obama, he does not feel that any president, including Obama, will willingly cede presidential powers once they have been conferred. Salon's debut podcast yesterday did not disappoint. I recommend this a fascinating half hour plus conversation on history joined with the current sorry state of Constitutional protections in the USA.Ellsberg believes that the republic is no more; Greenwald's term for the current definition of our form of government is "empire." To quote from Greenwald's post:

Knowing that he was risking life imprisonment, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in an attempt to alert the public to what the Government was doing . . .

For his efforts, Ellsberg was subjected to extensive warrantless eavesdropping by the Nixon White House, had his psychoanalyst's office invaded and searched at Nixon's behest in an attempt to obtain incriminating information about him, and was arrested and then brought to trial where he faced life imprisonment for having leaked the report (though the charges were ultimately dropped as a result of the Nixon administration's misconduct towards him).

In countless ways, Ellsberg embodies exactly what our political system has been so conspicuously and tragically lacking, and he has become one of the most insightful analysts of our current political crisis. My discussion with Ellsberg can be heard here by clicking PLAY below [Glenn has the link]:

Congressional leaders fail to uphold ethical standards -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Boehner will jointly appoint former House Member and head of the CIA, Porter Goss, to the new House ethics board. (H/T to "emptywheel") To quote from The Hill's story:

The appointment of Goss, a prickly personality who left the CIA after a short, turbulent tenure, surprised even some Republican members of Congress. Several shook their heads in disbelief when told he was named to the board.

While he was chairman of the House intelligence committee, Goss opposed launching an investigation into the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.

Goss is close to Boehner and served with Pelosi on the intelligence and ethics panels. . .

Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) said he supported Goss’s appointment, although he didn’t know why the former senior GOP member would want to come out of retirement to take it.

“[Goss] is a man of impeccable character, integrity and conviction and I can’t imagine why he wanted to take this job,” Putnam said.

Congress fails in its oversight responsibilities -- The House Judiciary Committee has been holding hearings on Presidential power, and on the Bush administration's use of torture against its enemies. It has not yet taken up the remedy of impeachment, and in all likelihood will not do so during its current term. Dandelion Salad posted about last night's pertinent episode of "Bill Moyer’s Journal: Torture Hearings + Jane Mayer + Fritz Hollings." It offers video links to the committee's torture hearings, and to Moyers' interview with Jane Mayer, author of a recent book, THE DARK SIDE: THE INSIDE STORY OF HOW THE WAR ON TERROR TURNED INTO A WAR ON AMERICAN IDEALS. The third video link is to Moyers' program-concluding interview with former Senator Fritz Hollings on the place of money raising in the lives of people in Congress. His book is MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK.

Additional references from Dandelion Salad:

• ACLU Obtains Key Memos Authorizing CIA Torture Methods


• Tell Congress: Reject Endless War and a Torture Cover-Up + video


• Terror, Torture, and the Dark Side + Bush officials could be charged with war crimes


• Bill Moyers Journal: Philippe Sands

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Ode To the Fourth Amendment

By Carol Gee









"A Sad Day for the Fourth Amendment" was the title of my (8/5/07) S/SW post about the passage of the Protect America Act. This week was an even sadder day for Amendment IV. I have been unable to write much this week about the sorry state of affairs of civil liberties in this nation. Therefore, I turn to poetry as I often do when struck with such paralyzing writer's block. This post is --

A writing on right's might. . .

The Might of Right -- The Rule of Law as opposed to Injustice.
Right as opposed to Wrong.
Wronged as opposed to Righteous.
Righteous as opposed to Immoral.
Moral as opposed to Political.
Political as opposed to Right.
Right as opposed to Left.
Left wing as opposed to Right wing.
Rights upheld as opposed to Injustice.

The Might of Write -- Freedom of Speech as opposed to No Rule of Law.
Write as opposed to Speak.
Speak as opposed to Right.
Write as opposed to Phone.
Phone as opposed to Letter.
Write as opposed to Print.
Print as opposed to Digital.
Write as opposed to Talk.
Talk as opposed to Shout.

The Might of Rite -- The Rule of Law as opposed to Lawlessness.
Rite as opposed to Consent.
Consent as opposed to Rebellious.
Rite as opposed to Chaos.
Chaos as opposed to Organized.
Rite as opposed to Informal.
Informal as opposed to Formal.
Rite as opposed to Secular.
Secular as opposed to Righteous.

Reference: The Late Fourth Amendment

• Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
  
  

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

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Coming Showdown -- 2: The latest on FISA intel

By Carol Gee

FISA today -- The United States Senate will take up the "modernization" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act again in a few minutes. A cloture vote on further debate and action is scheduled for 4:30 PM, ET. I posted about the first FISA showdown last week and often about civil liberties and intelligence in the past. And there is some very good news:

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton To Vote “No” On Cloture Tomorrow UPDATE: Barack Obama Will Be There Too, this from Firedoglake (1/27). From the same source you can see a "Thank You Senator Dodd video," a NY Roots project effort here.

This entire controversy is extremely complicated. Today's post is my attempt to consolidate some of the best references on line. Excellent reads helped fill in the latest for me on the news and issues: Glenn Greenwald's well-written column, Saturday 1/26 is called "More disruptions to the Cheney/Rockefeller plan." EmptyWheel at Firedoglake's column on "Bush's Secret Cyber Initiative" came out on 1/26. And from 1/25 you should also read: "How to Lead: Chris Dodd Edition" and "Reid on FISA, It's up to the President."

Friday I took some action via Jane Hamshire's "Take Action Today" post, below. Using the 800-numbers provided, I talked to the offices of Senators Milulski, Johnson, Landrieu, Nelson (Neb.), Salazar, McCaskill, Specter, and my own senators, Hutchison and Cornyn. Today I talked to the offices of Senators Inouye, Baye and Carper. I asked each staff member to urge their senator to vote against the cloture motion this afternoon. There is still time for you to make some calls, too.

Action Central Resources:

• Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake -- "Take Action Today." This includes a wonderful list of Capitol "1-800" phone numbers where you can reach your senator with a free phone call.


• Stop the Spying! -- Speak out against telecom immunity with your photos, videos and phone calls!


• Electronic Frontier Foundation -- NSA Spying Overview, excellent! This organization has gone to court on our behalf.


• American Civil Liberties Union "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" Safe and Free, restore our constitutional rights.


• Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com -- Just the best; check him our regularly if you can only read one!


• empty wheel at Firedoglake -- Among the most knowledgeable on the subject!


• 
  
• Know Your Enemy: Senator Christopher Bond's arguments against civil liberties -- "The Facts Strike Back on FISA" (13 p. pdf)

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

One word: "waterboarding"

By Carol Gee

. . . was the subject of 29,300 posts carried by my news aggregator Bloglines this morning. The word simply will not go away. In fact, someone I know dreamed about George Bush and waterboarding. It is very serious business when something in the news disturbs the sleep of perfectly normal people.

What is so disturbing about the practice of waterboarding being carried out by people in the name of the U.S. government? It is hard to put into words, but here are a few that come quickly to mind: It is flat wrong. It is un-American. It is stupid. It is illegal. It is uncivilized. It is counterproductive. And it is terribly destructive to the fabric of of our nation's illustrious history of freedom and justice.

I found even better words, however, in my Sunday paper, written by one of my favorite columnists, Joe Galloway, described by his newspaper this way:

ABOUT JOE

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf has called Joseph L. Galloway, a military columnist for McClatchy Newspapers, "The finest combat correspondent of our generation — a soldier's reporter and a soldier's friend."

Galloway is the co-author, with Lt. Gen. Hal Moore, of "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young," a story of the first large-scale ground battle of the Vietnam War. The book was made into a movie of the same name. Galloway was portrayed in the movie by actor Barry Pepper.

He knows from whence he speaks -- McClatchy's Newspapers Joe Galloway, a Texan, seems very disturbed as evidenced by his most recent column. Dated (11/7/07), the author titled it simply, "Commentary: Is waterboarding torture -- Yes." To quote:

All of Judge Michael Mukasey’s artful dodging and word play to avoid acknowledging the obvious to the august members of Senate Judiciary Committee does nothing to change the fact.

When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto the rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs fill with water and he's suffocating and drowning, that is torture.

Four decades ago in the field in Vietnam, I saw a suspected Viet Cong waterboarded by South Vietnamese Army troops. The American Army advisers who were attached to the Vietnamese unit turned their backs and walked away before the torture began. It was then a Vietnamese affair and something they couldn't be associated with.

Galloway goes on to write the most rational, succinct and passionate piece I have ever seen on the subject of waterboarding. I now realize what former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith (who rescinded the Justice Department's original torture memo) was talking about. In one of my previous posts, "Following the Rule of Law - - Part II," Goldsmith talked about what everyone involved was afraid of, actual prosecution. To quote further from Galloway,

Waterboarding is torture in the eyes of all civilized peoples, no matter how desperately President George W. Bush tries to rewrite the English language, with which he has only a passing familiarity, anyway. No matter how desperately his entire administration tries to redefine the word "torture" to cover the fact that not only have they acquiesced in its use, but they also have ordered its use.

The president, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their cronies and legal mouthpieces such as David Addington, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales are doing all they can to avoid one day facing the bar of justice, at home or in The Hague, and being called to account for crimes against humanity.

They want a blank check pardon, and they'll continue searching for attorneys general and judges and justices and senators and members of Congress who'll hand them their stay-out-of-jail-free cards.

As they squirm and wriggle and lie and quibble and cut deals with senators, they claim that "harsh interrogation methods" are necessary to prevent another 9/11. But as terrified as they are by terrorists, they also fear that one day they may be treated no better than some fallen South American dictator or Cambodian despot or hapless Texas sheriff; that they might not be able to leave a guarded, gated compound in Dallas or Crawford, a ranch in New Mexico or the shores of Chesapeake Bay for fear of arrest and extradition.

Galloway's conclusion lays it out more clearly than I have seen written to date on the subject of waterboarding. Quote:

Now the Democrats, or some of them, are conspiring with them to seat an attorney general who will help facilitate the ever more frantic search for ex post facto immunity for their crimes. Shame on them! There’s such a thing as too loyal an opposition; too cowardly an opposition; too craven an opposition.

Waterboarding is torture. Decent people have acknowledged that for centuries. We sent Japanese war criminals to the gallows for using it. We sent a Texas sheriff to prison for using it. One day, an ex-president and those who helped him and those he ordered to torture fellow human beings may have to plea bargain for their lives and their freedom.

The one word for voters to ask presidential candidates should be, "How do you feel about waterboarding?" It is not a complicated or convoluted question. It is simple. And the answer should be simple. "Never again."

References:

1. "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment inside the Bush Administration," by Jack Goldsmith
2. Lapopessa's "A History of Waterboarding"
3. "We were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," by Joe Galloway and Lt. Gen Hal Moore (USA-Ret.)
   

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Intel: checks and balances -- Rep. Reyes hearings, Part 2

By Carol Gee

The U.S. constitution sets up a system of checks and balances within the entire national government. During the "reign" of our current president (OCP), however, the executive branch has gained at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. The loss of citizen civil liberties protections under the Fourth Amendment has been particularly serious. And it will be much more difficult to now regain these protections, than it would have been to assure protections along the way.

Increased surveillance of suspected terrorists began shortly after 9/11/01. United States citizens did not know what was going on for years because the spying on Americans was done in secret. It was not revealed until the New York Times broke the story at the end of 2005, after sitting on the story for months. To quote,

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

In a previous post I included important information about what is happening with House of Representatives oversight of the collection of domestic intelligence by the executive branch. Today's post focuses on views of the Committee Chairman versus the testimony of the man accountable in the administration, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell. (Hearing information is black font, my own thoughts are in blue font).

After the opening salvos of the House Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing regarding the Protect America Act (PAA), Thursday - 9/20/07, Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX) got to the real business of the hearing, the question of what does need to do its job of constitutional oversight of civil liberties. Reyes began, "We still do not have the documents that will allow us to understanding the administration's thinking about their surveillance programs. The threats are real, but we must maintain the balance of protecting the nation and our citizens' civil liberties. "

OCP Bush has taken the position that he has inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief, as well as actual permission from within the Authorization for the Use of Force after 9/11, to spy on us without involving the courts. The programs would never have been revealed voluntarily, because they were probably operating illegally. And now that Congress and the courts are part of the process, the administration's earlier justifications would probably wither under any kind of scrutiny. Chairman Reyes holds a good hand, because the administration wants the PAA program to be changed even more and to become permanent before February of next year. And it needs Congress' help to make this happen.

Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) testifying, explained that the PAA rests on "three pillars: No FISA warrants are needed for surveillance of targets in a foreign land, telecommunications company cooperation is compelled, and we are required to get a warrant to target a person in the United States. Only one end of a communication can be targeted. All foreign intelligence will be included. But we still need more; the definition of Electronic Surveillance needs to exclude foreigners in a foreign country. As for the White House documents request, they are still negotiating between the various Congressional committees and the various departments in the White House about furnishing the documentation."

The "Protect America Act" title of the new temporary law is an ironic misnomer. Civil liberties protections seem always to get second billing as administration officials attempt to keep the nature and extent of their programs secret from the people's legislative representatives under the guise of "National Security," or executive privilege. Every Member of the House and every Senator has built in security clearance. And they must know what is going on in order to write and pass the laws needed by the current administration.

DNI McConnell responded to the civil liberties protection question by reiterating what went on in the drafting negotiations leading to passage of the law in early August. "We 20 expert lawyers looking over everything in the 6 or 7 drafts going back and forth. My biggest worry was that we must not be required to have warrants to gather foreign intelligence. The new law does not address reverse targeting because it would have added ambiguity and uncertainty. It was not required because it is covered elsewhere. Minimization (of privacy invasions) is already in place. Such 'incidental' information is purged from the data base if we discover it, or reported with name protection if it is pertinent to intelligence consumers."

The Protect America Act does not spell out what kind of U.S. citizen information can be collected, from whom, how is it safeguarded or who can see it. The law as it is currently written is ambiguous and vague on these key matters. And Admiral McConnell has given apparently conflicting information on the extent of domestic surveillance.

Chairman Reyes asked whether, "no Americans or 100 Americans had been under surveillance without a warrant?" McConnell answered, "How many Americans targeted without a warrant - none under me. There are thousands of foreign targets. We get a warrant if an American is the matter of intelligence. We process out the collected info on billions of transactions. The minimization process that is used means that after a time, the data goes off the database. If we happen to gather incidental American information - we destroy it. If it is of security interest, it must be published, with limits on publication of identity details. Thousands of analysts are trained in this: no spying on Americans. The number 100 was a summary level to help people understand how many warrants issued to do surveillance with Americans as the target." Chairman Reyes requested that McConnell tell the committee how many warrants on Americans there had been issued since 9/11.

Ambassador McConnell was unable to provide the Committee with the number of Americans that have been incidentally heard or read (not targeted) since 9/11/01. As a result of having their end of a communication with a targeted foreign surveillance subject gathered without a warrant, the DNI was not sure whether such information is even available.

The questions must be asked again and again until we get our answers.

To be continued.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

NYT on FISA - Part II: Administration's position

By Carol Gee

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - In the Sunday (8/18/07) news, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, thank goodness, are still looking at the law under FISA. In Part I of this series, I explored the genesis of the domestic spying law being amended and the sorry history of what may have been done to it by both the administration and Congress. This post explores the administration's intentions about implementing their new bonus powers.

One of the most significant new revelations of the New York Times article, concerns what the administration spokespersons asserted regarding the new law. The amended FISA law gives the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales the power to set up the new procedures and approve the way surveillance is conducted. To further quote the reporters on this crucial aspect of the issue - the position of the administration about what they will do or not do under the new FISA law,

. . . Vanee Vines, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence, said the concerns raised by Congressional officials about the wide scope of the new legislation were “speculative.” But she declined to discuss specific aspects of how the legislation would be enacted.

. . . The legislation “restores FISA to its original and appropriate focus — protecting the privacy of Americans,” said Brian Roehrkasse, Justice Department spokesman. “The act makes clear that we do not need a court order to target for foreign intelligence collection persons located outside the United States, but it also retains FISA’s fundamental requirement of court orders when the target is in the United States.”

. . . At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”

. . . Asked whether the administration considered the new legislation legally binding, Ms. Vines, the national intelligence office spokeswoman, said: “We’re going to follow the law and carry it out as it’s been passed.”. . . Bush issued a so-called signing statement about the legislation when he signed it into law, but the statement did not assert his presidential authority to override the legislative limits.

The authors do not name the Democrats meeting with the White House about the amended FISA law. We would not be surprised if none of the misguided Senators or House Members who voted to approve the bill came to complain about it to the administration. They would leave that fight to those losing Democrats whose votes did not prevail that late Saturday night. It is now too late for the "yes"voters to read and understand the legislation they passed. My general understanding is that one reads and understands before casting a vote.

Yes, I am still so mad at those on THE YES LIST, (corrected) I can hardly resist continuing to complain. My planned forgiveness remains incomplete, not that it matters in the least, of course.

Cross-posted at South by Southwest.

NYT on FISA -- Part I: After the vote

By Carol Gee

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Today James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times, thank goodness, are still looking at the law under FISA as recently pushed through and amended by Congress. Democratic leaders opposed the legislation, but did not successfully block it, out of fear that they would be criticized as being soft on terrorism. Many of the members may not have realized what they were doing, said Congressional aides to the authors.

The NYT reports that Congressional Democrats have been meeting with the administration to raise their concerns that the legislation is "overly broad and troubling," and "and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought." The very vocal complaints also spoke to "the diminished role of the FISA court, which is limited to determining whether the procedures set up by the executive administration for intercepting foreign intelligence are 'clearly erroneous' or not." To quote further from their very informative (8/19/07) article,

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

. . . Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States. These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns.

. . . Some civil rights advocates said they suspected that the administration made the language of the bill intentionally vague to allow it even broader discretion over wiretapping decisions. Whether intentional or not, the end result — according to top Democratic aides and other experts on national security law — is that the legislation may grant the government the right to collect a range of information on American citizens inside the United States without warrants, as long as the administration asserts that the spying concerns the monitoring of a person believed to be overseas.

Whatever explanations and mixed messages are given by the administration, we can only hope that Democrats coming back into session will not feel they must sit idly by for month after month, knowing they made a serious constitutional mistake, or several mistakes. They are not required to remain impotent. Are there no remedies? No ideas? Is there no chagrin? No outrage?

Part II of this series will explore the administration's stated views on implementing the new bill.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Secrets and activism

By Carol Gee

Secrets in the world of politics and government are a mixed bag. Voters want their ballots to be secret and verifiable to them. Our current president (OCP) wants domestic spying to be secret, as well as most everything else about his adminstration's record. Candidates sometimes expose their opponents' secrets in order to hurt them. Though I am an Internet activist, I keep my real name a secret from the blogosphere, unlike the courageous bloggers who take a more open journalistic approach.

But one cannot be secretive and be an activist/ protestor/ community worker/ etc. And it takes courage. They are "out there" for everyone to see and to admire, or to punish like Josh Wolf. Some organize or join marches, some write letters and sign their names, some circulate petitions, and some come to Washington or other seats of government to try to change that to which they have strong objection. My current "strong objection" is to the current FISA law as recently amended by Congress. I write about it often.*

Secret government domestic spying programs with no oversight began early in this century. Today the history of the Bush administration's assault on the constitution's Fourth Amendment is a disgraceful one. Congress has abandoned its responsibility for providing a "check" on the administration's efforts to spy on its own citizens without any warrants. And so we are left again and again to the mercy of the Judicial branch to provide the balance and protections of our constitution.

Shhh! It's a secret - Today a three-judge panel will hear a big domestic spying case (8/15/07) in San Francisco, according to David Kravets at Threat Level- Wired Blogs. (Hat Tip to Citizens for Legitimate Government for the link). OCP and his lawyers are telling the court that they cannot hear the case because it is a secret. To quote Kravets,

The Bush administration is facing serious judicial headwinds Wednesday when it urges a three-judge federal appeals court panel to dismiss lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the president's warrantless, domestic eavesdropping program.

In December, 2005, Bush . . . confirmed a warrantless, domestic surveillance program by which the National Security Agency eavesdropped on electronic communications in the United States if one person connected to the communication was outside of the United States and thought to be associated with terrorism. Among other allegations, the lawsuits charge that AT&T unlawfully gave the NSA virtually carte blanche access to the telecom's network, allowing the government to siphon communications from millions of Americans without a warrant.

The administration will urge the appeals court on Wednesday to dismiss the cases. The administration's key claim is that the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets, and therefore Supreme Court precedent dictates the lawsuits must be thrown out -- an assertion that often prevails in court. Two lower court judges, however, balked. The administration appealed to the 9th Circuit.

This is no secret. Many people in the United States are upset about the latest turns of events regarding FISA. We were upset to learn about the program when it first became public. ANd we have gotten increasingly incensed as each new chapter unfolds. Stay tuned.

Out in the open - Each Wednesday South by Southwest highlights activism.

• United for Peace and Justice -a very big movement that is pointing currently towards Oct. 27, 2007: National Mobilization to End the War in Iraq. 10 Massive Demonstrations for Peace Across the U.S. Also has listings of protests, etc. happening in your state or area


• General Strike 9/11 - Michael Collins of The Smirking Chimp headlined (8/13/07), "GENERAL STRIKE IN USA on Sept. 11, 2007 – 9/11." Here is the simple recipe. To quote, “No School * No Work * No Shopping. Hit the Streets”


• Democrats.com/Activism - Protests - "The Aggressive Progressives," rich with all kinds of references to opportunities for action

*Previous S/SW Posts on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:

Saturday, December 31, 2005: Civil liberties have staying power in the long run

Friday, January 20, 2006: Executive vs. Judiciary vs. Legislative
Saturday, August 19, 2006: Journalists, Scholars & Lawyers vs. OCP
Friday, September 22, 2006: Domestic Intelligence or Domestic Spying?

Saturday, August 04, 2007: Senate "caves" - what else is there to say?
Sunday, August 05, 2007: A Sad Day for the Fourth Amendment
Tuesday, August 07, 2007: A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Primer
Wednesday, August 08, 2007: Dems get mixed reviews
Thursday, August 09, 2007: FISA Vote - Correction
Friday, August 10, 2007: A bit of credit is due
Sunday, August 12, 2007: What is important about freedom?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A F.I.S.A. Primer

By Carol Gee

The new FISA - The current FISA bill's Orwellian title is "Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007." The text of the new FISA legislation itself is available from the Talking Points Memo Document Collection.

The "caving senators" - "Julie" writes a community blog at The Democratic Party. Here is (my abbreviated) list of the 16 Democratic senators voting for the new FISA bill, according to Julie. She included some rather inflammatory Wikipedia biographical information, so take that part with a grain of salt.
Julie's "Roll of Shame:"

Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Evan Bayh (D-IN); Thomas Carper (D-DE); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Mary Landrieu (D-LA); Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Bill Nelson (D-FL); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Mark Pryor (D-AR); Ken Salazar (D-CO); Jim Web (D-VA).

The trembling Representatives - Speeple News has the list of 41 House Democrats who "trembled before the mighty Bush." This post is also an excellent analysis of the bill that is now the law of the land. To quote the intro:

Of the 41 House Democrats who voted today to roll over on the eavesdropping amendment that the White House demanded be added to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 26 30 were Blue Dogs. The bill, Orwellianly named the Protect America Act, passed 227-183, with 181 Democrats and two Republicans opposed.

These are the Dems who ... failed us. Who failed our country.

The References:

1. Reference links page: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
2. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 - Wikipedia
3. Thanks to Dan Fejes for leads on this story.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today at Good Second Mondays is a new poem about broken boundaries called "Fence Mending."

The Night of the Jackal ... And A New Garlic Song - The Congress Sleeps Tonight

By J. Thomas Duffy

"The President wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him."

There's a scene in the taut, classic thriller 'Day of the Jackal' (and please, don't even think of bringing up the piece of crap with Bruce Willis and Richard Gere), where Inspector Lebel (played superbly by Michael Lonsdale) addresses the secret task force in charge of stopping the Jackal (Edward Fox) from assassinating Charles De Gaulle, and roots out a leaker.

After the astonished members settle down a minister asks "How did you know whose telephone to tap?" and Lebel responds, dryly and succinctly "I didn't, so I tapped them all."

So we now have the Bush Grindhouse, free to do as they please - once again, browbeating the Democrats into another losing vote - and, let's not forget, they have the extra billy club of that nifty Executive Order The Commander Guy gave himself last week.

So aside from some free passes to Wally World, as they jump in their station wagons for a month's vacation (and with the Iraqi Parliament cooling their heels in August, did Congress, or the President give our soldiers the time off over in Iraq?), what more can we do for our shrinking, emasculated Congress?

Why, a Garlic Song certainly would be welcomed, to serenade those they chose not to fight, not to serve, not assist the American people against this egregious attack from this person that occupies the great office of the President of the United States.

You know the tune, so sing along.

The Congress Sleeps Tonight

A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps,
A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps,

In the Capitol, the mighty Capitol
The Congress sleeps tonight
In the Senate the quivering Senate
Bush Gets His Way, Alright

Near the White House, the Unitarian White House
The Congress sleeps tonight
Near the White House, the law-breaking White House
They gave away our rights

Blush my darling and fear my darling
The Congress sleeps tonight
Don't rush my darling your acquiescing my darling
The Congress sleeps, with no oversight, tonight

A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps,
A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps, A-We-Some-Wimps,

Bonus Links

Glenn Greenwald: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism

Edward Copeland: Even the rulings against it are done in secret

Robert Parry: Bush's Secret Spying on Americans

Daily Kos: Senate Gives in on Wiretapping. 16 Dems Go Along


Sleep well, my darlings ...














(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)