Jay Rockefeller On Hardball About Illegal Wiretaps

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Skip to 12:30 and tell me what that was about. Back when the final FISA fight was going on, there was TONS of speculation that Rockefeller was "compromised" somehow, that his stand on the bill was just not kosher. Check out the links you get on a google of Jay Rockefeller + FISA.

VIDEO-- Feingold Questions Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder on FISA

By GottaLaff

This is the video I've been looking for. Think Progress, thank you. However-- and this is a big "however":

The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is expected to issue a major ruling validating “the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order,”even when U.S. residents’ personal communications are involved:

In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping.

Huh? Wha? No. Nonononono. No.

Quickie: FISA, Feingold, and Attorney General Nominee Holder

By GottaLaff

Indications of good news to come: Russ Feingold is very happy with future A.G. Holder's response to his questions on the FISA issue. "Restoring the credibility of the Department of Justice" were the words Russ Feingold just used in regard to the nominee.

I was otherwise engaged during the interchange, so I didn't liveblog. I'm sure we'll dig up the video soon.

Rachel Maddow- Warrantless Wiretapping Whistleblower Thomas Tamm Interview

The man is an absolute hero. Background here and here and here.

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.

Harold Ford heckled over Fox, FISA, Obama discussion

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: I updated in my original post, too, that Phil Gramm has been officially kicked off the McSurrogate campaign.... per CNN and Rachel Maddow.

Harold Ford got heckled at Netroots Nation (where Cliff is right now):

Former congressman Harold Ford was billed as a sheep amidst the wolves when he was booked for an appearance at the Netroots Nation conference here in Austin. And while for the most part the DLC head and self-described 'centrist' Democrat received a cordial welcome among the progressive audience, there were a scattering of hisses, boos, and the occasionally unruly heckle during his discussion of FISA, Obama and Democratic politics more broadly.

Appearing alongside DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas - in what has become a series of appearances for the two since they butted heads during a Meet the Press appearance last year - Ford pushed back against the notion that Obama had abandoned the netroots on the FISA fight.

If you have a hard time hearing the video, go here for the transcript.

The case against the Bush Administration: The FISA lawsuit

By GottaLaff

"FISA is concealing a crime that will hide in plain view... Bush has committed 30 felonies" -- Jonathan Turley.

Thom Hartmann talks to Jon B. Eisenberg. Topic: FISA - Jon's current case against the Bush Administration for the illegal warrantless wiretapping of Al - Haramain.

Jon: We have to show evidence that our clients were victims of the Surveillance Program. We have to show "standing". The judge said the program is illegal, violated FISA, but you can't recover damages unless you can make a showing that there were victims of the program. In 2004, my client was being investigated and the government gave his lawyers a copy of a top secret document that we contend revealed their unlawful surveillance. The government asserted State Secrets Privilege. The judge just said that you can't use the document to establish surveillance unless you can show evidence in non-classified information.

Thom: This is Alice in Wonderland.

Jon: Yes it is. ... The FISA bill: It doesn't affect our lawsuit. There are 40 lawsuits against the telecoms, so for right now, they're out... The new bill gives them immunity, but doesn't affect cases directly against the government. What's next for us: We have to restructure our complaint to allege that our client was surveilled based on unclassified evidence.

Thom: Judge Walker asserted the Alice in Wonderland thing, that it's criminal, but you can only prosecute its criminality outside of its secrecy, but it's secret. Is he a Bush political appointee, is it a problem?

Jon: No, I've been impressed with him as a judge. But he put up a roadblock because that's how he read the FISA provision that applies to us. But, he recognizes that it's "not user friendly". The possible outcome? I want at least 5 judges in the Supreme Court to say the program is unlawful, etc.

Thom: It'll be too late to use in an impeachment hearing.

Jon: I'm afraid so.

FISA law would cripple free press

By GottaLaff

Thom Hartmann has often explained that one reason why Bush pushed the new FISA law was to spy on Democrats. Chris Hedges agrees, but also focuses on how it would silence the press:

If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday -- giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans -- is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society.

The new FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance. It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The court will not be told specifics about who will be wiretapped, which means the law provides woefully inadequate safeguards to protect innocent people whose communications are caught up in the government's dragnet surveillance program.

Here's the crux of his argument:

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. [...] It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

Hedges has joined the ACLU's lawsuit. He gets specific about how this affects the press, and as a result, all of us:

I covered the conflict in the Middle East for seven years. I have friends and colleagues in Jerusalem, Gaza, Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad and Beirut. I could easily be one of those innocent Americans who are spied on under the government's new surveillance authority.

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

Bingo.

I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man's story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it away and a free press withers and dies. [...]

But this law is not about keeping us safe, which can -- and should -- be done in a constitutional manner and with judicial oversight. It is about using terrorism as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Why didn't Obama, among others, see this as the priority?

Chris Hedges was part of the team of New York Times reporters who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for reporting on global terrorism.

Russ Feingold still optimistic about FISA and Obama

By GottaLaff



Russ Feingold -- one of the most outspoken voices for denying immunity to the telecoms and keeping the FISA law within the bounds of the Constitution-- is still optimistic about the Democratic nominee, despite Obama's vote in favor of the bill. He feels that as president, Obama would correct and "change this mistake", and once in office, would "take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions." Feingold is clearly not happy about the way things went, but still hopes for change.

If Russ Feingold can get past his disappointment over the FISA vote, and start looking ahead to 2009, then so can the rest of us.

David Gregory is losing his glow, not Obama

By GottaLaff

Yesterday I watched as Campbell Brown rabidly frothed over how (according to her) Obama's FISA vote has his supporters screaming, "this disqualifies him for president in my book!" She gyrated into knots bellowing, "He's taking a lot of heat!!!!" (And yes, she had four exclamation points... I saw them come out of her Senor mouth.) Today, David Gregory was huffing and puffing about how "Obama is losing his glow!!"

First: Obama had a glow?

Next: Apparently, they don't read the L.A. Times.

Reaction has been swift and -- aside from the blogosphere and some newspaper columnists -- notably mild.

"We're willing to work through this period," said Richard Parker, president of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, one of the party's most enduring advocacy groups. In the long run, he said, the organization's "serious concerns" about Obama are far outweighed by its disagreements with Republican John McCain.

Gerald Austin, a veteran Democratic strategist, put it more succinctly: "When I hear people complaining . . . I tell them I have one thing to say: 'President John McCain. Three Supreme Court appointments.' That's all I need to say."

There. And they didn't even feel the need to use exclamation points.

ACLU suing the NSA over FISA law

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: Want to take action? Go here to do this:

Add Your Name to the ACLU's Newspaper Ad.
We want Congress to stand up for our freedom, but they keep caving in to fear mongering! Help the ACLU spell it out for them.
he ACLU is preparing to challenge the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act in court and protect your right to privacy.

In addition, the ACLU will be taking out a full-page ad in a major national newspaper announcing the lawsuit and expressing outrage at this abandonment of our Constitutional principles. Their goal is to run an ad containing the names of tens of thousands of Americans who believe in the Constitution and want Congress to hear our message loud and clear: next time, stand up for our rights.

There has never been a more important moment to demonstrate to our leaders that we believe in freedom – not fear.

Liveblogging: Thom Hartmann interviewing Director of the Washington Legislative office of the ACLU Caroline Fredrickson:

Caroline: The ACLU is suing the government. The bill is the same bill, with cosmetic adjustments. We're filing a lawsuit this afternoon.

We're suing the NSA, the agency that implements. The NSA and CIA weren't supposed to be into domestic surveillance, but it's become more muddled over the past few years, and now they're involved... including the Defense Department... infiltrating peace groups, etc. It's hard to separate the agencies now.

Thom: The harms, the assaults to the Constitution (so many, Thom listed them, like the repeal of habeas corpus)... ?

Caroline: It will be hard to re-mediate these things. No matter who is president, it will take a lot to turn these things around. Unless we raise our voices very, very loud, we won't be able to fix this mess.

Thom: I am voting for Obama, no question, but we should never blindly follow the Democratic party, we need to speak out. At least Obama put his position on his website and allows for discussion of it, vs. John McCain.

Headline Of The Day

By Paddy

Yeah, you done good there Dems. Sure gave Chimpy a thrill. No wonder your approval is at 9%.

Bush readies pen; Relishes signing wiretap bill


Just as a reference for next time guys, check out a real Patriot and Democrat, my first pick for President, Senator Christopher Dodd.

FISA amendments fail

By GottaLaff

Via Thom Hartmann: The votes: 32-66 against the Dodd amendment. The other two amendments failed, too.

Capitulating Democrats, pat yourselves on the back. Time to call the Senate.

UPDATE: More here, including the roll call. As Commenter Adrienne noted, Obama and Clinton are on the good guy list. Guess who isn't...

What Glenn Said

A very sad day.

But today, the Democratic-led Congress -- with the support of both John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of whom will even bother to show up and vote -- will cover-up those crimes. Law Professor and Fourth Amendment expert Jonathan Turley was on MSNBC's Countdown with Rachel Maddow last night and gave as succinct an explanation for what Democrats -- not the Bush administration, but Democrats -- will do today. Anyone with any lingering doubts about what is taking place today in our country should watch this:

Go read the rest of Glenn's piece.

CSpan Washington Journal Call In Tomorrow Morning On FISA

Tomorrow morning the first call in session on CSpan's Washington Journal (7a EST) is on the FISA fiasco. If you can't be by a teevee, you can watch streaming here (CSpan 1). If you're hanging out and have an opinion you'd like to share (already working on mine) the contact info is-

Democrats:
(202) 737-0002
Republicans:
(202) 737-0001
Independents:
(202) 628-0205
Outside U.S.:
(202) 628-0184
Email address:
journal@c-span.org

This is an opportunity to get the word out. I've been pleasantly (and sometimes scarily) surprised by the swath of people who call in, and it only seems to be getting bigger.

Maybe we can't change what's going to happen, but we can let people know what did happen.

Lock 'n Load.

UPDATE- The numbers get shuffled according to a great Kossack, so just keep them handy until they tell you which is who.

xposted over at the Great Orange Satan

Why we support Obama despite our misgivings

By GottaLaff

I start to realize how badly I wish I could articulate my own version of Bob Cesca's words after I read his:

He can't really be in favor of this crapwitted FISA Amendments Bill, can he? Did he really just praise the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? Greenwald and Olbermann are feuding? Seriously? [...] Really, though, who ever agrees with a politician on everything all the time anyway?

I've said similar things on this very blog, but as you'll see, instead of snark, he has pitch-perfect eloquence. But first, he refers to a Kos diarist:

[A] diarist for Daily Kos reminds us:

Russ Feingold may have been the lone voice standing up to the first Patriot Act, but he voted for the confirmations of John Ashcroft and John Roberts.

Paul Wellstone was a strong liberal voice in the Senate, yet he voted for DOMA and the Patriot Act.

Dennis Kucinich, aside from being on the political fringe, was a lifelong pro-lifer until he decided he wanted to run for president.

Chris Dodd may do quite well on constitutional matters, but he voted for the Iraqi war, the Patriot Act, and is too beholden to the big banks and the hedge funds which he oversees from the Senate Banking Committee.

Bob-Who-Says-Things-Well continues:

You and I could wait a lifetime for a skeleton key presidential nominee to come along who flawlessly interfaces with each of our pet issues, and, consequently, we'd probably die a politically disappointed and overly cynical death. [...] He's [Obama] the liberal who this week, while simultaneously reaching out to evangelical voters, issued an unequivocal statement of opposition against any constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. That's textbook Obama.

Obama's the "we" guy, as in "inclusive".

In the simplest terms possible, choosing to support Senator Obama has never been about issues, but rather, it's always been about, 1) electing a thoughtful, smart president we can reference with pride -- a president who won't flatly embarrass us every damn day, and 2) electing a president who can inspire and negotiate the necessary support he'll need to roll back the darkness of the Bush years. [...]

Despite how we feel about individual issues like FISA or NAFTA, I think most of us with liberal or progressive tendencies can agree that we have a candidate here who is going to succeed on these challenges, while potentially forming a long-range coalition of support that could one day result in a purely progressive netroots candidate. [...]

Senator Obama will help to vindicate our long-suffering, dark ride generation and, thusly, our time in American history [...] If we can keep our attention focused on the big ideas that attracted us to the senator in the first place, he will make us proud.

Bob Cesca's regular daily really awesome blog can be found here. Now, back to the snark.

Grassroots power: Obama responds to FISA protest

By GottaLaff

Here 'tis:

Though Mr. Obama did not change his position in response to supporters’ objections, the mere fact of his response, as well as the choice to put it on his own site, is a remarkable illustration of the power of online organizing.

“This was not an easy call for me,” Mr. Obama said in a statement posted to the diary of Joe Rospars, a top Internet adviser to the campaign. “I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect.”

But he made his case for the bill:

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

Yeah, but about that Constitution...

A major point of the article was to question whether organized efforts can actually affect federal bureaucracy. The response to Obama's response:

Ari Melber a correspondent for The Nation who has been following both the FISA bill and Web organization throughout the campaign. “While the campaign was surprisingly late to address people organizing through his own tools, via his own Web site, it’s a respectful honest and direct response.”

Mr. Melber, who is a member of the “Senator Obama­ Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity –­ Get FISA Right” group on my.barackobama.com, also noted that Mr. Obama’s explanation is “more specific” than some of Mr. Obama’s previous statements to the press on the matter, asserting that hyper-informed, focused activists might be better at pulling the nitty-gritty from the candidates than reporters.

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?

Shaken faith

By GottaLaff

McCain campaign pulls ads from some anti-Obama web sites

Obama lays out plan for faith-based groups

A new and unpleasant sensation just came over me. I like one of these headlines more than the other, and it's not the one with Obama's name at the beginning.

I've heard commentators say that Obama's take on FISA, and now on faith-based groups, and even NAFTA, have elicited strong reactions from many of us on the left, and that this is what Obama wants. They say that the more liberals protest, the better Obama likes it, because the ultimate result is more support from Independents and some Republicans.

No candidate will share my views on everything, and maybe he will sway some voters, and maybe this is what he feels he has to do to get elected, and but I don't have to like it.

Chris Dodd On FISA Re-Write

By Paddy



Still proudly wear my "Dodd For President" t-shirt (Did you know he dated Princess Leia?). Get in touch with your Senators while they're home eating barbecue and kissing babies. Let them know we're watching. Final vote on Joly 8. Numbers here.