Under the new FISA bill... the court's role would be "superficial"...ACLU

[madfloridian]

It is not just the ACLU objecting. The courts have been ruling against Bush lately, just as the Democrats are bringing this bill to a vote. Bloggers who are constitutional lawyers..writers at conservative sites...agree this is in no way a compromise.

Here is what the ACLU has to say.

House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation

This bill is not a check on the powers of the the administration. It actually raises the length of time they can spy before going to the court.

Here is some of what they say.

"It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.

"No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

"More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House."

Here is more on the the bill:

H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed."

Fisa vote will expand powers

Nancy Pelosi said that the lawsuits were not that important because we probably could not find out from them what we wanted.

Steny Hoyer said he brought it up to the House to keep the Blue Dogs for voting for something worse.

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

And yet, from Daily Kos, a recent court ruling repudiates all the reasons the party is giving for bringing it to vote.

[Catherina]

1. I have it on very strong authority that the ACLU is wrong

I have it on the impeccable authority of some disembodied voices on the internet that the ACLU is talking out of its ass

Mark Klein, the initial whisteblower on ATT's secret eavesdropping room in San Francisco is as outraged as the ACLU and conscientious public servants like Feingold.

I'm getting pretty discouraged by how meekly people are willing to sacrifice important rights for an exaggerated terror threat that's cover for all sorts of criminality.

. The next time you hear Steny Hoyer, Obama surrogates and their various apologists tell you how important the new FISA bill is because it contains an "exclusivity" provision and thus ensures that the FISA court is brought back into Government eavesdropping, just go read what Judge Walker said about the current FISA framework to realize how misleading that claim is. They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_ha... /

[dailykoff]

10. Warrantless wiretapping is GOOD for you!

It's GOOD that the NSA wants to monitor our e-mail and phone calls, so just in case we say something "inartful" they can send us to Gitmo!

[Catherina]

33. Gitmo is such a stain on our country.

We're facilitating the police state. We’ve just seen a bipartisan Congress with a Democratic majority justify lawbreaking and illegality on a level that even the previous Republican majority couldn’t pull off.

div class="excerpt"]"We’ve just sanctioned the single largest invasion of privacy in American history."
Chris Dodd

[dailykoff]

60. Pure, naked sadism.

Maybe it has a carefully thought-out function in the neocon calculus of world domination, but I doubt it. The fact is that Bush knows those guys are innocent, Cheney knows, Rummy knew, and the Bush buys in the CIA knew. Gates knows. The twenty-year old grunts doing the torture don't know and that makes it all the more depraved and sickening. The future is not going look kindly on this chapter of US history.

[Catherina]

61. Gitmo Lawyers File Constitutional Challenge Of Recently-Passed FISA Bill

Gitmo Lawyers File Constitutional Challenge Of Recently-Passed FISA Bill»

Yesterday, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees asked a federal judge in San Francisco to invalidate the recently-passed FISA law that lets the Bush administration conduct warrantless surveillance on suspected terrorists without first getting court-approved warrants.

“We are asking your honor, as swiftly as possible, to declare this statute unconstitutional,” said Michael Avery, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. … “Neither Congress nor the president has the power to repeal the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements,” Avery said.

...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/10/fisa-bill-unconstit... /

Weep for our country. Echelon was ok because Bill Clinton said so. Now this is ok.



I'm extremely ashamed.

[madfloridian]

97. Yes, many here say the ACLU is now wrong.

And the AT&T whistle blower Mark Klein is wrong as well, they say.

[dailykoff]

99. They even say Obama is wrong to admit the bill gives telecoms immunity.

Now that's nutty!

[slipslidingaway]

2. Kick n/t

[ShaneGR]

3. "writers at conservative sites"

So you have it on very strong authority from writers at conservative sites that the bill isn't a compromise?

Well thanks so much madallthetimeabouteverything! I'm really glad you bothered to throw that in there.

The fact is, this FISA bill contains no criminal immunity and no retroactive immunity to criminal prosecution. Doesn't exist in the bill. In fact, the bill ends the Bush program of ignoring FISA.

Have you read it? Didn't think so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. So is the ACLU wrong too> How bout Feingold?

Oh wait, they are

Silly me

[ShaneGR]

5. Ok, lets make this simple... I will bet you ONE BILLION DOLLARS you cannot find a line in the bill..

regarding criminal immunity past or present.

That enough for ya?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. THey are not talking of criminal but civil

and feingold has called this a capitulation

SO what is it

They're wrong and your are right

Or they have a point

Me.... personally they have a point

Oh and as you argue bout them ugly conservatives who are also a tad outraged... some folks have been against these assaults on your rights for years now

They don't care who controls what...

They just blow the whistle

So once again, is Feingold and the ACLU wrong on this?

By the way, I see the point Obama made about this vote... and what exactly he will try to amend...

But as adults we can disagree... and I do

he also said he didn't mind the criticism either

[ShaneGR]

7. Give me a break, you've never even read the bill, I have... i asked you to quote ONE single thing..

Originally the masses were in arms because the bill contained retroactive immunity. Then oops, it doesn't contain retroative immunity. Then they complained it contained future immunity. Oops, doesn't contain that anymore either. Now, the big complaint is civil immunity. Guess what, that doesn't exist either in the bill. What the bill says is that if the government forces US corporation "X" to do something, that company cannot be held civilly liable for it. BUT, the government is still liable for the action. So instead of suing AT&T for doing something the government forced them to do, you sue the government. There really isn't any immunity to anything.

All the bill does is restore the original intent of FISA, that was used before Bush fucked it all up.

But who is really paying attention to the facts? Clearly not you people. You're reduced to screaming, "but Feingold says its a capitulation!!!" So what, read the bill and tell me whats what.

READ THE F'ING BILL. PLEASE, TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY READ IT. If you're going to comment

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I have and thank you for assuming

have a good day.

[ShaneGR]

12. You clearly have not, you haven't been able to link one single thing....

Thanks for trying though, epic fail.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. What? The fact that is does mention CIVIL immunity and NOT CRIMINAL

Insane



Ignore

[ShaneGR]

18. Ignore all you want, facts are facts....

I leave my challenge open, please post a link of the bill giving full immunity for any illegal actions.

[merh]

27. Other than this phrase

‘(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

please quote me where you can find the word "immunity" in this bill. Please tell me where there is a provision that grants civil immunity.

While you are searching, please pay heed that the bill specifically says that no application of this bill can violate the 1st or 4th amendments. And note further that the defenses are only afforded those that did not break the law, they are not blanket defenses. Anyone who knows anything about civil litigation knows that you can plead a defense all day long, pleading it does not equal proving it and being allowed to rely on it to be absolved of liability.

[dailykoff]

28. When it gives the AG power to dismiss civil suits against telcos,

it's giving them de facto immunity, whether or not that particular word is used.

[merh]

30. It does not give the AG the power to dismiss shit.

God help us, have you ever been involved in civil litigation?

[dailykoff]

38. OBAMA TODAY: "It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies

that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping." Get the picture?

[merh]

46. And guess what, Obama doesn't think for me any more than the

ACLU thinks for me. The bill does not grant immunity in any form, it provides defenses and even those are not absolute and are subject to review.

I'll ask again, find me the language from the bill that provides that immunity. Other than the phrase I quoted above, find me where immunity is mentioned and/or discussed.

[dailykoff]

48. Right, you know better than Obama and the ACLU.

And Dodd, and Feingold, and everybody else who's read it. You are gold baby!

[merh]

56. LOL, not gold - I can just read and understand the legislation.

Apparently you can't, you have yet to cite from the legislation to support your position.

[Catherina]

37. Give it up. IWR didn't authorize war against Iraq either according to many partisans

The ACLU and best legal minds are wrong because Obama capitulated along with the others. Have a glass of koolaid, it'll calm you down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Can you make my glass sugar free and grape flavored?

Why I gave it up.

It was in Obama's statement today, as Daykoff just pointed out....

SIlly me, I could have pointed to link

But not even form the horse's mouth will be enough

[Catherina]

51. Check out my new sig line

It was among the many angry comments condemning Obama's FISA stand that I found on another Democratic website. I wish I'd known about this before I blindly forked over my money.

It was in Obama's statement but very few people paid any attention to it.

Grape-flavored, sugar-free coming up. Just don't drink it ok?



Edit to remove that sigline since I have no guarantee about their integrity or dedication to FISA as one of their "important issues".

[Political Heretic]

55. Good news! Obama already IS against telecom immunity

He said so right in his statement about the FISA bill.

[Catherina]

58. PH, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

Even though I backed the man, I'm perfectly aware that he was anointed for this run in 2004 when he gave the keynote address at the last convention. As we speak, Obama staffers are probably pointing to the growing list of 18,476 grassroot dissenters on his own website and negotiating with Telecom lobbyists for heftier donations. The Chicago machine may look purty but it's as vicious as hell.

Obama says many things. I don't believe all of them but I was foolish enough to believe he'd be a little more beholden to the little people who financed him. Today's statement that he's going to go ahead and do what he wants to on that FISA vote, regardless of what so many supporters think and what he'd promised before puts his say so in a bad light.

"government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people"

"The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool"

"it is necessary to keep the American people safe particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer"

Wow. So he's concerned that some illegal surveillance orders will expire this summer and they won't have free reign to legally spy on us in an era where if the President says it's legal, it must be true.

No sir (or ma'am), I'm very sorry but Obama's word is simply not good enough anymore. No politician's is but Obama was given the possibility of the doubt. He blew it. Several times. And sadly, the misguided cheerleading is enabling it.

While my current intention is to vote for him, over my dead body is he going to the White House with a mandate to rubberstamp the corporate agenda. We've gone from hope and change to spin and deceit. Not everyone's buying it anymore.

On a personal note, I really, really wish people would stop insulting the intelligence of conscientious supporters with this spin because all it does is piss us off and make us respond more forcefully than is good for unity. I don't want McCain in the White House but I can't rubberstamp positions I would have excorciated Hillary Clinton for. To be very honest, I'm beginning to ask myself some questions I don't like the answers too. I sincerely ask you, who were honest enough to tell people consistently for months that Obama was no progressive, to accept my vote for him and not push me away from it. There's a very strong move afoot in the progressive community to turn our backs on Democrats for this type of capitulation as Feingold succinctly put it. Many of us are compromising core principles to keep McCain out but trust me, we're near the end of our rope.

I hope you'll forgive me for being so direct but it's an earnest plea.

By the way, thank you for giving me the opportunity to unload on you.

[chimpymustgo]

64. Catherina, I wish you'd post this as a separate OP. Your clear=eyed analysis might

force the scales off some eyes around here. Make them THINK.

[Catherina]

69. I don't have the heart right now

but I will write an OP this week trying to make it as constructive as possible. Thanks

[chimpymustgo]

90. Please post, with our new loyalty oath (compliments of Seabiscuit):

"In order not to have this post deleted automatically, I am now inclined to believe I must include at least a perfunctory loyalty oath: I will vote for Obama in November."

[Political Heretic]

65. Bah, I'm just telling you the truth, whether you like it or not.

Your reasoning is wrong for why Obama is voting for FISA. You can look at his sunshine reports yourself to see that he's not getting money from telecoms.

The political motivation for supporting this compromise FISA bill while working to remove telecom immunity, its so that he won't lose the election in November. Getting beat over the head from now until November was weak on security, ignorant on foreign policy and the like is precisely what Obama can't afford. Vote against national security legislation = a republican president. It's that simple. I'm sorry that this disappoints you, but welcome to the NFL. Sometimes we don't get all the things we want in order to get some of the things we want.

[Catherina]

68. No you're not telling me the truth. You're spinning for a clay hero

If the last eight years haven't shaken you out of your complacency about the Congressional rush to destroy our basic civil liberties with doublespeak and outright lies, you're not just in the Matrix, you've made a conscious decision to embrace it.

You'll be sitting here in a year wailing and moaning "what happened to Barack? How could the steal it?" I'm telling you right now what's happening to Barack in time to fix it but you don't care because you've bought into the terror line and think it's ok to spy on people all over the world, go snatch them wherever they are and dump them in a shameful place like Guantanamo.

If this is the sort of political spinelessness and double-speak you support for a win, do so with open eyes that many people won't be interested in what you're trying to "win" here.

People want the war to end. They want affordable healthcare for all. The want to be able to feed their children. Nobody, not a single voter asked Obama or any other Democrat to reward the criminals in the White House and lawbreakers like ATT and their secret room in San Francisco with MORE than the Republicans had been able to deliver when they were a majority. The capitulation exceeded the neocon's wildest dreams but you're ok with continuing this terror charade that's fleeced the public out of BILLIONS of dollars and destroyed our basic civil liberties?

I'd like to congratulate all the apologists for FISA in advance. You're contributing to the erosion of our civil liberties and the dangerous expansion of executive powers. Good luck with the legal precedent you're allowing them to set. If McCain is sworn in he'll have them as will future Presidents.



Additionally, Obama is getting plenty of money from Telecoms. Here's the breakdown:


1 McCain, John (R) Senate $356,145

2 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $233,647

3 Obama, Barack (D) Senate $205,795


AT&T:

Senate McCain, John $154,305

Senate Obama, Barack $96,741

Senate Clinton, Hillary $90,297


Verizon:

Senate Clinton, Hillary $69,425

Senate Obama, Barack $60,830

Senate McCain, John $32,900

http://opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000079


I'm sure the numbers will be much better next quarter since the FEC figures (June 02, 2008) don't reflect post-capitulation figures. Maybe ATT and Verizon can program some of their machines to make calls for him to replace the activist base that worked its butt off. Obama is killing his golden goose. I can't believe you don't see it.

[Political Heretic]

83. That's chump change, which was my point.

He's not voting for FISA to do telecom any favors. He's voting for FISA to win in November.

[Mojorabbit]

87. Show me where

there is a groundswell of people clamoring for the FISA legislation and immunity for the telecoms.

[Political Heretic]

89. Hey, wasn't I supposed to be on your ignore list?

I guess its a good thing that Obama does not support immunity for telecoms isn't it?

FISA legislation isn't about a "groundswell," and I know you know this because you're a smart person. It is about taking the area where Obama and democrats in general are perceived to be weakest (national security and foreign policy as related to national security) - one of the only areas Obama is vulnerable since he blows McCain out of the water in compare/contrasts on most other issues with the general non-partisan voter - and handing the GOP something that they can bash our nominee over the head with from now until election day. It hands neo-cons (they are still the actual enemy, right?) the ability to shift the focus of this general election away from the economy, away from energy, away from health care or a domestic focus in general, and back to the one area where they consistently win, exploiting the one tactic that has consistently worked for them. Fear.

Obama is weak, inexperienced, naieve, ignorant, etc. on national security - he's only spend one term in Washington and this is a prime example of how he will continue to fail to keep America safe - they will say. I do not give a good gods damn how much you or I hate and reject those arguments. It's not about pitching to us hard-core partisans. It's about pitching to the average non-partisan general election voter, which we most certainly aren't.

So read Obama's response to supporters on FISA. Really read it. He's using language that is understandable to all but the most hard-headed absolutist leftists, and prevents the GOP for successfully defining him as an out-of-touch, out-of-sync-with-most-americans politician for the first time in decades. For the first time, they're not going to be able to do that. And we'll have a democratic white house and a democratic congress that still has the power to peruse criminal prosecution of telecoms even if this FISA compromise passes with civil telecom immunity.

We have had numerous revisions to security laws over the last eight years. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - ZERO - NADA - NOT ONE THING - STOPPING A DEMOCRATIC WHITE HOUSE AND A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FROM RE-MAKING AMERICA BACK INTO A VISION THAT PROTECTS CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVOCATES FOR THE POOR AND PURSUES PEACE OVER WAR. Why in God's name to you people want to FUCK THAT UP during a general election and destroy any possibility of that happening?

GENERAL
ELECTIONS
ARE
NOT
THE
TIME
FOR
POLICY
BITCHING!!!!

You WIN FIRST then you MAKE POLICY *AND* FIX POLICY THAT IS BROKEN!!!!

...

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

[Mojorabbit]

92. You must be mistaking

me for someone else. I don't have an ignore list. I have been working hard calling and emailing all the senators just as I did the memebers of the house re FISA. And I will continue to do so. I am saying again, there is no guarantee he will win or if he does that someone worse than Bush will win after Obama's terms are up. The whole bill is a bad one,not just the immunity provision. I will do every thing I can to pressure legislators to scrap it and rewrite it.

[madfloridian]

77. BS on the NFL crap. That sounds like the same old do it the safe way stuff

we have heard for years.

[Political Heretic]

84. And?

I hate to inform you of this life lesson, but in the real world we don't get all the things we want. And we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because of it, either.

[madfloridian]

98. I told you I don't live in the real world.

I taught over 30 years, raised a bunch of kids, did other activities...but never in the real world.



Please don't pull that real world stuff.

[dailykoff]

40. Discourging, ain't it?

Funny how the IWR became a millstone around the Dem candidate's neck just like this sack of shit is going to.

[Catherina]

59. It bothers me greatly that we rightfully excorciated Hillary for IWR

and other capitulations but Obama is getting a pass. Had I known this was how it was all going to end up, I don't think I would have fought Hillary so hard or even gotten involved.

The apologetics are just adding insult to injury because now, instead of just questioning Obama, I find myself questioning the movement I had such high hopes for. I guess the good news is that 18,501 supporters on his own site are conscientiously objecting so we shouldn't give up on the movement. I won't and am studiously beginning to put any koolaid dispensers on ignore.

FISA is no laughing or spinning matter.

[dsc]

32. the government can't be sued unless it lets itself be sued

if that isn't in the bill, it is civil immunity.

[merh]

57. LOL, the FISA bill did not provide that

that has been the law for some time, it has been "common law" - thus the name of the legal premise "sovereign immunity" to protect the sovereign.

If the actions of the telecom were under the direction of the president and, now mind you this is a very big AND, if IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW.

The president could tell them all he wants that it was to get the bad guys and they could believe it was legal but that alone does not absolve the telecoms. They have to prove that they DID NOT VIOLATE A CITIZEN'S Constitutional rights. That has been the law of this land for ages.

If a cop is told by his supervisor to beat the hell out of the guy he is guarding he can try to absolve himself of the wrong deed by claiming the defense of "sovereign immunity" but the claim alone does not absolve him. If he was acting as an agent of the sovereign and if the action he did was a direct order from his superiors he can still be held liable because he violated the law, he violated the civil rights, the constitutional rights of the guy he beat the hell out of.

That is the same thing here, yes, a telecom can say GWB told them it was okay and it was to get terrorist but if it compromised or violated the rights of US citizens the defense will not hold water. Throughout the bill is the language that no application/certification made can violate the 4th amendment (or the 1st).

[defendandprotect]

80. misplaced

[slipslidingaway]

26. I've asked this before and never received a reply. So maybe

you can point to all the articles that claimed that this bill, or the prior bill that was voted on by the Senate in February, contained criminal immunity.

The criminal immunity idea came about from the 6/20/09 Keith Olbermann show when he interviewed John Dean, prior to that, as far as I know, it was always about dismissing the current CIVIL suits.

If you were following this bill at that time you would know that the immunity provision was only about the CIVIL cases.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

"The House-passed bill has provisions virtually identical to many in the earlier Senate-passed bill. No one in the Senate watches out for the best interests of Bush Administration better than Republican Senator (and former presidential candidate) Sam Brownback of Kansas. During the January 24, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, “The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases.” (Emphasis added.)"

[Bjorn Against]

71. Do you realize how difficult it is to press criminal charges against a telecom company?

If they are immune from civil lawsuits there is little that can be done to them, it is not very easy to arrest a corporation on criminal charges.

[chimpymustgo]

91. Not to mention, B*sh can issue blanket pardons on criminal offenses, NOT on civil.

That's at the heart of the bill.

[Asgaya Dihi]

78. NO, not even close to good enough

This bill strips us of *our* protections under the fourth, simple as that. Sure, if big daddy government wanted to enforce it FOR US they still have that option, and we can all take great confidence in how they've rushed to defend our rights so far. Right?

We have civil provisions for a reason. To give US the chance to protect our OWN rights, without needing to beg big brother to come look out for us. It gives us a way to force issues into court that others might rather avoid and the loss of it removes a lever we could use against them to get at bigger fish and more detail. Charges bargained away for info up the ladder, sure, but given away for nothing and just because Bush said to do it? No.

What depresses me these days isn't Bush, the war, or even our Congress. It's us. Like many victims of abuse we're excusing it and compromising on it instead of simply and clearly saying enough. It ends here. That's our rights we're bargaining away as if it's just some personal preference and that's a legal precedent we're setting, the idea that we can be stripped of our ability to enforce our own rights and left to the mercy of the government and if THEY care to enforce our rights. Little by little we're being stripped of our rights and our ability to enforce them and I'm more depressed at how easily some are willing to just GIVE those rights away without even fighting for them.

Don't people see what's at stake here? It's well past an election, it's the value of our so called rights in general and we're deciding that in whole or in part they can be offered up as a bargaining chip and given away. If you want the idea of rights to mean anything when your kids get older it's time to pay attention to what's happening today. Otherwise they won't have any that mean anything.

[merh]

22. I agree with you.

And the surveillance cannot continue if the court does not authorize it to continue, despite what is written in that piece the OP quoted.

[QC]

8. A very interesting article, comrade, but did you get the Politburo's permission

to post it?

I certainly hope you do not get sent to the re-education facility!

Seriously, I appreciate your willingness to speak out on this issue, despite the best efforts of our bullies to browbeat you into silence.

[ShaneGR]

11. Sadly its not based on reality or fact....

The premise for the "outrage" and "concern" on the FISA bill has been debunked several times over. Criminal immunity? Doesn't exist. Retroactive criminal immunity? Doesn't exist. Ok, lets move the bar to civil trials, no immunity, just a transfer of plaintiff from corporation to government. Which forces the government to be careful of what they ask of communication providers.

[dailykoff]

13. What on earth are you talking about.

Criminal immunity" was never an issue and is irrelevant in any case. Bush isn't going to sue the Telcos and neither is Obama.

[ShaneGR]

14. Untrue, the majority of the original several day long outrage was criminal immunity...

Then when that turned out to be untrue, the bar got moved, then moved again, then moved again. What, no one expected to have FISA warrants in the future? All this bill does is clarify that what happened during the Bush years won't happen in the future. Either you have a warrant or you don't.

[dailykoff]

15. Tell me another one. The telco immunity itself isn't the worst of this

by a long shot. The BILL STINKS, period. It's a piece of shit and you better believe the media vultures will spill the beans come fall.

[ShaneGR]

17. Ok, why does it stink?

What stinks about it? What specific part of the bill do you not like? I'm actually trying to help some people out here so let me tell you what the bill does.

The bill effectively ends the Bush Administrations tactic of going around the FISA system. Once the bill is law it will once again, finally, become illegal for the government to go around the FISA courts. No warrant? No wiretap. No different than SoP before Bush.

There is no immunity in the bill.

[dailykoff]

19. Where are you getting this shit? It gives the AG sole power to determine

whether surveillance actions merit "certificates," and once certified, NOBODY -- not citizens, not the FISA court, and not congress -- gets to oversee diddly. THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT. The FISC is reduced to checking for certificates and adjudicating denials (bwaahaha). Ditto the congressional "reports." It's a sick joke and nobody but you is laughing.

[ShaneGR]

23. That's simply untrue...

I think what you're saying is that the bill contains language giving the Attorney General's Office "carte blanche." It does not.

[dailykoff]

24. That is what I am saying, correct. Congress and the FISC get to check certificates,

PERIOD. They also get to adjudicate denials and read reports about them. They do NOT get to investigate who is being surveilled or why. The AG determines that. There's lots of criteria listed for him to follow, but unfortunately, no way to enforce it. The Gonzo is the enforcer and he serves at the pleasure of you know who.

[merh]

31. The AG does not determine a thing

They cannot conduct the surveillance without the approval of the FISA court. Yes, there is that "emergency" provision, but it is limited and even then they have to notify the court, which in practice would require the application be presented ASAP, the 7 day rule is a "limitation".

Do you have any idea how search warrants are obtained, upon what basis, what is the criteria?

[dailykoff]

36. Right merh, the ACLU got it wrong. Whew!

[merh]

43. I know you did and if you are relying on them, then yes they did.

Go find the language from the legislation that states that, go on read it and copy it and paste it here. Do your own thinking.

[madfloridian]

45. That is just not true. They can surveil for 7 days....

before going to court, then they keep no matter how long the court takes. and if the court says no...they keep spying anyway if they wish.

[merh]

53. Go read it, the bill, again.

Ah hell, let me quote that portion to you:

‘(d) Emergency Authorization-

‘(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--

‘(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order authorizing such acquisition can with due diligence be obtained, and

‘(B) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subsection to approve such acquisition exists,

the Attorney General may authorize such acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) is informed by the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.

[Mojorabbit]

20. Thank you for this

I can't believe there are people on this board who are ok with this bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I can... and it is scary

And if Bush was doing this... and spinning this they'd be screaming too

[Skip Intro]

35. it really is mindblowing

evidently, you're not supposed to believe what he's saying now, he's only saying it to win...

I am a Democrat, and I am fucking sick of republicans, but that can't mean I have to sit still and smile while my rights are being compromised.

That the argument you shold is even put forth here is scary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Well it is the sports team mentality of politics

and until the country gets over that shit... we will continue to be in this circular thinking

It is fine AS LONG AS MY GUY DOES IT

Oh wait, I am now going into verbotten territory

[Jakes Progress]

74. Scary part is that they are not just on board

they are now defending it as "vital to our nation's safety" just like attacking Irag was and just like sending citizens to the Gitmo Gulag was. Many here have seen the enemy and have become just like them. Four years ago all of the right wing were circled around their candidate. Show them a black hat and they tell you it was white. Point to the huge hole in the ground and they refuse to see it, even while standing in it. Now we have our candidate. The one we are left with and must be elected. But we are become the enemy, refusing to acknowledge fallibility.

[dailykoff]

25. "The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications

coming in to and out of the United States." Exactly, and if unwarranted domestic communications get swept up in the dragnet, which of course they will, there's nobody but the AG to say it isn't legal, and he won't.

[merh]

29. Where?

Which provision?

[dailykoff]

34. Please, inform yourself:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

[merh]

42. I don't need the ACLU to tell me how to read legislation.

I ask you again to provide me the actual language from the bill. Come on, think for yourself, find the provision and we will discuss it. Don't rely on another, don't let someone think for you.

[madfloridian]

44. You look it up. I have the bill number in many journal posts

You type it into a search engine and off you go.

It is about 140 pages long.

[merh]

47. I don't need to look it up

If you are saying it is there it is on you to provide the language to support your contention.

[madfloridian]

52. That is it.

Good by. I would never have thought that would happen with you.

I am tired of posting sensible stuff and getting effing lectured.

List updating.

[merh]

54. Let me know when you post sensible stuff

gosh, if folks don't agree with you they go on ignore, how sad for you.

[knight_of_the_star]

67. His post isn't sensible?

That MadFloridian dares point out the bill Obama voted for is vile as pig shit isn't sensible?

[merh]

70. Has there been a vote?

And you may want to read this discussion
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bi...

What is vile is what is happening NOW without this amendment and at the discretion of the admin.

And no, the discussion wasn't in any way sensible. When asked for particulars from the proposed legislation the OP couldn't provide them, the OP could only say go read it. I doubt the OP has read it and if the OP had read it the OP doesn't understand it. As posted in this thread, the OP stated a definite which I debunked simply by quoting the proposed legislation.

I do my own thinking, I don't rely on the ACLU or Obama or Feingold, I tend to go read the legislation that bothers folks and try to see if their concerns are valid. For the most part, the concerns are knee jerk reactions, not to the bill, but to folks reactions to the bill. You let me know if you want to go into a discussion of the legislation and not just someone's view of the legislation.

[knight_of_the_star]

73. My apologies, I was mistaken on the vote part

But then again his statement doesn't give me any encouragement that he won't considering he spends the first paragraph saying the bill sucks, then the next saying its much better than its predecessor (not hard to pull that considering how bad the Protect America Act was) and the rest of it in an impressive snowjob.

[merh]

75. Read what I linked for you

Then go see these links, review the comparisons that can be found at this link.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fisa+comparison&bt...

Make your own comparisons with this proposed legislation. If you actually do that, if you read the legislation and make the comparisons, you will see he is correct, it is better to have this than nothing, this than what is. It isn't perfect but it is better than nothing and far better than what we have now. Try to remember that we have to worry about getting as many dems elected as possible to congress. When that happens the dems can propose better legislation to amend this in 2009, then we can have an admin that respects the rule of law and the rights of the citizens, not what we have now.

I like to think this compromise will lull the telecoms into a sense of complacency, that they will feel it is the relief they seek. Then they won't worry the president for the full pardons he is bound to make if this isn't passed.

Oh, something you should KNOW - no laws passed by congress can upsurp the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This bill specifically says that no surveillance of US Citizens shall be had that violates the 1st or 4th amendment.

[merh]

79. I notice you didn't respond when reason was presented to you.

I suppose it feels all better to run around upset.

[madfloridian]

49. Here is a google link to H.R.6304...all kinds of things to read.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=H.R.6304&bt...

[Political Heretic]

50. Yes, I read the ACLU's analysis and accept their assessment. I'm still voting for Obama.

And this bill is going to pass with or without his vote... so where do we go from here?

[knight_of_the_star]

62. He could have done the principled thing

And stand up for a little thing called the 4th Amendment.

[Political Heretic]

63. Could have should have would have..... I'm still voting for Obama.

So, what's next?

[knight_of_the_star]

66. Should have end of discussion

Only reason at this point I'm voting for him is he's not John McCain, that he was willing to mortgage the 4th Amendment for an ephemeral and illusory political gain on something that shouldn't even be up for debate sickens me.

[Political Heretic]

85. Fine. But I'm still voting for him...so what is there to discuss?

[L. Coyote]

72. What is rally worrisome: They capture the entire communications stream, and we get to trust them

to follow the law. Of course, once that stream is routed outside the USA,
there is no applicable law!! Kind of a giant loophole there, to spy on EVERYONE ALL THE TIME!!!

=======
Deja DU: Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
Nov-09-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I was told years ago that ALL fiber optic communication traffic was routed overseas so that "everything" was moved outside the protections of the law and Constitution and ANYTHING could be monitored. I thought the idea quite fantastic even though it came from a very reliable source that would know exactly such things. Then, the story of the fiber optic splitters hit my radar. I now see now how easily exactly that, routing ALL COMMUNICATIONS overseas, was accomplished.

Is that Bush's and the Telecom's HUGE crime hidden and covered-up behind this story?

If the telecoms get immunity, will it aid in covering up Bush's crime.
ABSOLUTELY! That is why it is so important to the Rs! Support = obstruction of justice.

Have we arrived at the point in the history of the Bushco junta where
laws passed and people nominated are part of crimes of obstructing justice?

===================
AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up
By Spencer Ackerman - Nov 7, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004662.php


Earlier today we flagged that Mark Klein, who uncovered a secret surveillance room run by the NSA while employed as a San Francisco-based technician for AT&T, is in Washington to lobby against granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies. In an interview this afternoon, Klein explained why he traveled all the way from San Francisco to lobby Senators about the issue: if the immunity provision passes, Americans may never know how extensive the surveillance program was -- or how deeply their privacy may have been invaded.

"The president has not presented this truthfully," said Klein, a 62-year old retiree. "He said it was about a few people making calls to the Mideast. But I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything."

What Klein unearthed -- you can read it here -- points to a nearly unbounded surveillance program. Its very location in San Francisco suggests that the program was "massively domestic" in its focus, he said. "If they really meant what they say about only wanting international stuff, you wouldn't want it in San Francisco or Atlanta. You'd want to be closer to the border where the lines come in from the ocean so you pick up international calls. You only do it in San Francisco if you want domestic stuff. The location of this stuff contradicts their story .....

=======================
NSA Monitors All Web Traffic, Says Ex-AT&T Employee

NSA Monitors All Web Traffic, Says Ex-AT&T Employee
Tom Corelis (Blog) - Nov 10, 2007
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+Monitors+All+Web+Traffic+S...


Felt "forced to the connect the Big Brother Machine" if he wanted to keep his job

Mark Klein, the former AT&T technician and whistleblower who helped kick off the AT&T/NSA eavesdropping scandal, clarified further details regarding what he witnessed while connecting a secret NSA eavesdropping facility: secure room 641A in AT&T’s San Francisco switching center, presumably commissioned by the NSA, received copies of all the traffic its splitters were connected to, including both international and domestic e-mails, web traffic, and phone calls, both from AT&T’s customers as well as other providers.

Previous statements by the government, AT&T and President Bush indicated that the only affected communications are communications relevant to national security, like those of suspected terrorists and suspicious foreign nationals. According to Klein, however, the technology used to connect the secure room was far more democratic, consisting of simple, dumb splitters incapable of any kind of contextual filtering: essentially, room 641A received “a duplicate of every fiber-optic signal routed through facilities.”

Klein, appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann show, told viewers about his personal association with secure room 641A. “When I was a technician, I had the engineering/wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room … I had to know in order to do my job,” he said, “so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied; the entire datastream was copied into the secret room.”

Referring to the equipment itself, Klein states, “the splitter device has no selective capability, it just copies everything. .............

=======================
Interview: AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein on Bush's Illegal Surveillance and Retroactive Immunity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dJJhLueEg

=======================
NSA Pressured LA Times To Kill Domestic Spying Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOI1VGKcgGY

=======================
November 5th, 2007
AT&T Whistleblower to Urge Senate to Reject Blanket Immunity for Telecoms
Press Conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, November 7
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/05

Washington, D.C. - On Wednesday, November 7, at 10:30am, telecommunications technician and AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein will speak out at a press conference on Capitol Hill, explaining why he is asking lawmakers to reject immunity for telecoms who assisted the Bush administration's spying on millions of Americans.

Klein witnessed first-hand the technology AT&T built to assist the government's domestic warrantless wiretapping program at AT&T's main switching facility in San Francisco. As part of his job at AT&T, Klein connected high-speed fiber optic cables to sophisticated equipment that intercepted communications from AT&T customers and then copied and routed every single one to a room controlled by the National Security Agency (NSA). Klein has provided evidence for the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class-action lawsuit against AT&T for its role in the illegal spying.

"My job required me to enable the physical connections between AT&T customers' Internet communications and the NSA's illegal, wholesale copying machine for domestic emails, Internet phone conversations, web surfing and all other Internet traffic. I have first-hand knowledge of the clandestine collaboration between one giant telecommunications company, AT&T, and the National Security Agency to facilitate the most comprehensive illegal domestic spying program in history," said Klein.

Also speaking at the event Wednesday ...........

=======================
Judge Orders Telecommunications Companies to Preserve Evidence in Government Surveillance Cases
Ruling Advances EFF's Class-action Lawsuit Against AT&T
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/06


San Francisco - A federal judge today ruled on a preservation motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ordering that telecommunications companies must preserve any evidence of collaborating with the government in illegal spying on ordinary Americans.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ordered the telecommunications companies to halt any routine destruction of documents or to arrange for the preservation of accurate copies. On December 14, each party must provide the court with confirmation that the court's order has been carried out. The court order did not require the government or the carriers to reveal whether or not they had any relevant evidence.

The government and the carriers had opposed the preservation motion, claiming that the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege made it impossible to proceed with a preservation order. In litigation, parties are typically required to preserve all relevant evidence.

For the judge's order:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/393%20order.pdf

For more on the class-action lawsuit against AT&T:
http://www.eff.org/cases/att

===== MORE ======
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[hardtoport]

76. K&R

nt

[defendandprotect]

81. ...and just imagine where we would go from here as this new precedent is set ---

[DevonRex]

82. I guess I just wonder why this isn't in General Discussion. nt

[madfloridian]

86. I have a note from the moderators saying I can post in either forum.

Would you like to question them? Go ahead.

When did we become such fraidy cats to discuss real issues?

Let me know if you want to see the note..

[merh]

88. LOL - you have yet to discuss the issue.

You have posted other folks thoughts but have offered none of your own. For that matter, it appears you haven't even read the legislation (let alone understand it). You stated an absolute that your sources claim is an absolute and I easily debunked it in this thread with language from the legislation.

[woolldog]

93. Thank you for exposing this.

These posters haven't even read the bill and have no idea what they're talking about! Good job, merh.

[WCGreen]

94. As dark as the Alien and Sedition act of 1798...

Fear of the unknown and loathing of our freedoms.

[woolldog]

95. Have you read the entire bill?

[WCGreen]

96. No, but I will...

It just seems to me that any regulation or impedimate set up by the law is after the fact. In essence, trying to get the Genie back in the bottle. To me, they should at least have to get warrents from a court. That would at the bare minimum force them to make a case before someone other than themselves.

That's my objection, no prior restrain on the power of the administration. Too much cost for the individual harmed to make it realistic to challenge.

If I am wrong, I defer.

[madfloridian]

100. Kick for the rationalization starting today.

[madfloridian]

101. A non attack, not read carefully.

It was just presenting facts.