InSpecter Gadget v. the telecoms

By GottaLaff

InSpecter Gadget wants to keep looking into all that wacky warrantless wiretapping:

In an extensive article for the May 14th issue of the New York Review of Books, Specter writes that he intends to introduce legislation requiring the Supreme Court to review lower court decisions on challenges to Bush's warrantless wiretapping program; keeping the courts open to suits against telecommunciations companies who participated in the program; and prohibiting courts from relying on presidential signing statements.

H/t: Eve

Joshua is angry

By GottaLaff

I love the Joshua Blog. Joshua is a cool guy who is responsive to my Tweets on The Twitter Machine. I went over to his place, and I found a very angry Joshua. He has graciously invited me to copy and paste his entire post:

Now I'm really starting to get pissed off. What the hell is he thinking?! He refused to go after Bush officials for torture, he embraces Bush's executive power grab and protects the domestic spying program and it's telecom conspirators, blackmailed by the Senate GOPers with filibusters his appointees & threatened by the CIA with God only know what, he decides not to release the torture memos as planned and now this bullshit?!

From the NY Times:

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

read more

NOT OK.

Joshua has a point. I really don't want to get this upset with President Obama, he's really terrific in so many ways... but regarding these topics, I'm starting to simmer. I'm still in wait-and-see mode before I get to the same boiling point as Joshua, but right now, I don't like what I'm seeing while I wait.

Let's hope there's more to this than meets the eye, and that we will feel some sense of relief, not dread or vindication for our outrage.

And now the bad news...

By GottaLaff

The ObamAdministration is defending telecom immunity. On three, everyone express their pissed-offitude: One... Two... Three:

The Obama Justice Department continues to stand behind a Bush era law meant to prevent lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of illegally sharing private customer information with intelligence agencies.

In a brief filed late Wednesday obtained by Raw Story, the Department of Justice provided its views to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, after the San Francisco federal judge questioned the constitutionality of the wide-sweeping law and whether it gives the U.S. Attorney General too much power in deciding whether a company is immune from lawsuits after it has shared information with federal agents.

Somebody talk me down. Please?

According to the Justice Department, the law requires a judge to dismiss a wiretapping lawsuit against a telecommunications company if the attorney general explains the firm's role to the judge in a confidential statement. [...]

The Department asserts that the "presumption of constitutionality becomes even stronger" when Congress delegates authority to the executive branch in matters of national security or foreign affairs.

Let's concentrate on the good news. There's so little of it these days.

True or False: Holder assures GOP on interrogation prosecution and telecom immunity

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse dismiss this as bunk.

Original post:

How can one make a decision to prosecute or not prosecute before one investigates and has seen the evidence? Granted, this piece is from the Washington Times, but.... If accurate, this would be politicizing the legal system, which was BushCo's M.O. It better not be Holder's:

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. [...]

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward." [...]

Mr. Holder made a similar point to senators last week in a little-noticed written response to questions from Republican senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas. Mr. Holder indicated that he would not prosecute any intelligence officers who participated in the interrogation program and who had followed Justice Department guidance.

Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts and no one is above the law, Mr. Holder wrote. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in 'reasonable and good faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions' authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.

The legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, said Wednesday that she was alarmed by Mr. Bond's statements and was hoping, Kit Bond is not stating this in the way that Mr. Holder stated it to him. She added, We are hoping there will be a clarification. It would be extraordinary if our top prosecutor, before taking office, would have predetermined whether or not to pursue certain cases because of political pressure.[...]

Mr. Specter called "satisfactory" Mr. Holder's statements that interrogation techniques authorized by legal opinions would provide a strong cover from prosecutions. According to Mr. Specter, Mr. Holder could not make any more explicit statements without knowing the facts of specific cases.

According to Ellen Ratner (of Talk Radio News Service) on Thom Hartmann just now, Holder is also caving on the question of Karl Rove's claims of "executive privilege".

Thom Hartmann's reaction to the Rove matter: We have to put the pressure on these guys. Yes, and the pressure better be enormous. This is not acceptable.

H/t: Fernando

Telco immunity faces first court challenge

By GottaLaff

I'm likin' this:

Plaintiffs suing AT&T and other telecommunications companies filed a lengthy motion in court this week arguing the government could not retroactively invalidate their lawsuit because its immunity authority is unconstitutional and destroys the notion of coequal branches of government. [...]

A 61-page filing argues that Congress doesn't have the authority to issue a retroactive immunity statute, that immunity violates separation of powers by improperly inflating executive branch authority, that immunity violates individuals rights to due process, that the secrecy provisions of immunity violate the First Amendment by creating a "chilling effect" on free speech, and that the government has not justified dismissing the telecom lawsuits even if its ability to do so was constitutional. [...]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union are representing plaintiffs in the various telecom lawsuits the government is attempting to dismiss. [...]

Plaintiffs hope the courts will reach a similar decision to strike down the FISA Amendments Act.

Stay tuned.

Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch

By GottaLaff

Cindy McMealTicket is so used to getting what she wants, when she wants it, that she managed to acquire a portable Verizon cell site, usually reserved for emergencies (like, you know, hurricanes), so she and Gramm-pa could get cell phone service at one of their 719051 homes:

Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain decided to resolve an old problem -- the lack of cellular telephone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.

By the time Sen. John McCain's presidential bid was in full swing this summer, the ranch had wireless coverage from the two cellular companies most often used by campaign staff -- Verizon Wireless and AT&T.

Verizon delivered a portable tower know as a "cell site on wheels" -- free of charge -- to Cindy McCain's property in June in response to an online request from Cindy McCain's staff early last year. Such devices are usually reserved for restoring service when cell coverage is knocked out during emergencies, such as hurricanes.

I can't even get Verizon to give me good reception.

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because Sen. John McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunications services.

McCain and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including campaign manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staffer Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain's presidential campaign and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain's political career, giving more than $155,000 to his campaigns.

McCain's Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr., and several other campaign staffers have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to McCain campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Of course, they have no lobbyists associated with their campaign.

Verizon navigated a lengthy county regulatory process that hit a snag on environmental concerns. The request ultimately prevailed when Verizon invoked the Secret Service after John McCain secured the Republican nomination.

Toast.

African-American Network to Cover Democratic Convention -- But Not Republican

By Paddy



If you were here, you'd hear me cackling over the last bit of this article.

TCA -- Given Barack Obama's historic run for the Oval Office, African American-themed cable network TV One plans to break from its usual entertainment programming to provide extensive coverage of the Democratic National Convention in August.

"Sen. Barack Obama running for president is a huge deal for TV One as it is for the African American community," said Johnathan Rodgers, president and CEO of TV One, a channel in about 40 million homes. "African Americans have fallen in love with his candidacy, his family … we will be covering the democratic convention all the time."

But John McCain shouldn’t expect the same treatment. The network doesn’t plan any coverage of the Republican Convention.

"We are not a news organization," said Rodgers, speaking at the opening session of the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills. "We are a television network designed to celebrate African American achievement. If Hillary was the nominee, we would not be covering this year's Democratic Convention."

(snip)

TV One does have a Republican pundit as part of its convention coverage, comedian Sheryl Underwood. But she’s also voting for Obama.

When critics pressed a panel of TV One’s convention pundits about whether African American republicans will feel slighted, Underwood said, “I speak for all eight of us -- we are not slighted ... McCain is not going to win it, that's why I'm over here, because I want to be with the winners -- and I'm a Bush Republican."

Just in case: Lawyers prepping case that telecom immunity 'unconstitutional'

By GottaLaff

Litigation is a-brewin':

Fear not, foes of oversight-free domestic surveillance. Even if Senate Democrats follow their House counterparts and endorse immunity for telecom companies, the battle to hold those companies accountable will not end there.

While the prospects of reining in President Bush's expanded spy powers seem to be dwindling in Congress, lawyers and activists are already gearing up for court challenges if lawmakers pass an unacceptable bill. Critics say pending civil lawsuits that the administration and Congress are trying to get rid of are the only way to shed any light on the likely illegal spying authorized by President Bush and facilitated by the nation's telecommunications firms. [...]

EFF [Electronic Frontier Foundation] would argue that the immunity provision in the FISA update is itself an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine...

Anyone else up for a good fight?