Matt Stoller: Response from the ACLU: Blame Pelosi

[babylonsister]

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=611

Response from the ACLU: Blame Pelosi
by: Matt Stoller
Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:05:21 AM EDT

This is an emailed response from Caroline Fredrickson, the Washington Director of the ACLU, to my post yesterday titled 'Why the Progressive Movement Couldn't Stop the FISA Bill'.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1522395#1523399


Matt,

Much of your criticism is unwarranted: we worked FISA and hard (and have been since December 2005). We reached out to Democratic leaders -- we met with Pelosi and with Reid -- we spoke with the staff from every leadership office. They did not listen to us. It was dem leadership who scheduled the vote on these particular bills. Why be mad at us and not at them? We met with them. They rebuffed our arguments.

We weren't notified that the bill was moving until 6 days before when Rep. Harman let it slip on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. We gave it the full court press: with action alerts, meetings with Members of Congress and Senators and their staff.

Pelosi and friends spent the entire week negotiating with the DNI and cut out ALL the civil liberties groups - not just the ACLU. Senator Rockefeller led the effort on the Senate side (with McConnell). The bill only passed because a) 41 dems crossed the line in the house, after the "liberal leadership" could NOT muster up its own party to assert its 30 seat majority, and b) most importantly, Pelosi, our "liberal leader" scheduled the bill in the first place. She could have put any bill on the schedule and she chose the Administration's. We worked this hard, and somehow you blame the ACLU?

Here's the sad fact: Dems are scared to pieces about the issue of terrorism and feel that they desperately need to show "strength" - even when the cost is their principles, and our Constitution. Look for lots more of this in the Fall. (and of course "crime" has the same potential to soften spines).

We are trying to communicate to Americans what they lost. We need folks to keep the pressure on Congress -- as you know, this will be voted on again in six months.....It would be more helpful if you could explain to your readership what we lose when the Fourth Amendment gets turned on its head and Americans can be wiretapped without warrants than your fingerpointing at the ACLU. We lost, but we worked it hard. One of the key problems for this battle was that Mike McConnell, the DNI, enjoys tremendous respect from the Democratic leadership. They believe everything he tells them. Why not attack them for that rather than attacking us? And what about buying into pressure from President Bush? Has there been a president who can be trusted as little on national security? Remember weapons of mass destruction? But still the Dems gave him what he wanted.

Then on Habeas:

Find Habeas is one small piece of a much broader campaign that has included a massive rally and lobby day, radio and print ads, in-district organizing, building coalitions both in DC and in the field, etc. (see below for the details)

And as to your comment on results (i.e., habeas hasn't been restored yet), we can say that the relevant committees in both the House and the Senate have held hearings over the past two months, and the House leadership is committed to moving a bipartisan habeas bill sponsored by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, and the Senate is ready to vote on the habeas issue when the Defense Department authorization bill gets back on the Senate floor this fall. So while we have not had results yet, we think we are turning the corner on restoring habeas rights.

more...


http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=611

[truebrit71]

1. Sounds about right....Spineless fucking Dems...

Again... :eyes:

[bjobotts]

41. Impeachment is a waste of time because it would interferre with

"policy making". Now we know what kind of policy making Pelosi was talking about. Push everything off the table and make room for Bush's demands. Pelosi supporters are just shaking their heads now but she really can't be bothered, she's too busy policy making

[niceypoo]

48. Policy making? Everything is filibustered

[speakclearly]

58. Should we really be opposing intercepting terrorist

communications, or should we be calling for increased Congressional and court monitoring of the program to ensure that citizen privacy is being protected? I have struggled with this question for the last couple of years since the program was revealed. Are we interested in protecting America from foreign threats (which our Constitution charges our three branches of government to do) or concerned about privacy rights, or both.

I have come to believe that we should be interested in both protecting America from terrorism as well as ensuring that privacy rights are protected. That would seem to argue that what we need is more oversight on the program rather than eliminate it all together. Even Harmer says that the program has helped to interdict terrorist attacks. And it seems pretty clear that it stopped a major plot to blow up ten airliners last year. That seems useful and worth preserving.

Of course we must be concerned about privacy, which is an important part of our Constitutional rights, but that does not necessarily imply that a wiretap program has to be abandoned. We have managed to protect American privacy rights, yet permit the FBI and others to obtain permission to conduct wiretapping of teh mafia and other criminal elements. Can't we also construct a mechanism that permits us to intercept terrorist communications while protecting American rights? I think "oversight" is the answer.

While the program has been going on for 5 years, the ACLU (and the Dems in Congress who have investigated the program) have been unable to find a case where such wiretapping was abused and teh privacy of innocent Americans was compromised. While unchecked government power to conduct wiretaps could be misused at some point in the future, it would seem that enhanced Congressional and Judicial oversight would prevent such abuse. Is there a middle-ground?

[G_j]

2. K&R

good letter!

[Nutmegger]

3. Yes she put it on the table.

And now Bush Inc has more powers granted to them.

It's going to be hard putting this genie back into the bottle.

[Solly Mack]

5. ...

...

:thumbsup:

[ixion]

4. shut out all civil-liberties groups...

because our civil liberties don't mean jack sh*t in BushCo's 'Murika. :grr: :argh:

[silverojo]

43. Or in Pelosi and Reid's America n/t

[bananas]

6. the second link was pasted wrong

I think it should be http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1522395

[babylonsister]

9. Thanks-corrected in OP.

:hi: :thumbsup:

[endarkenment]

7. "She could have put any bill on the schedule and she chose the Administration's"

Nothing more needs to be said in defense of our Congressional leadership. It is out there in black and white. They are colluding with the cabal in the White House to continue the War Party's agenda. We all need to stop pretending otherwise and deal with the stark unpleasant reality of the situation we are in.

[jazzjunkysue]

22. She should have called his cards and gone home. She caved.

It would have been better than a philibuster to just go home and ignore the little king, and see if he really had the balls to call them back. That would have been great political theater.

But too many are involved in the Saudi arms deals, and they want to keep those nice fat campaign contributions coming. They'll all keep quiet so they can all keep their lousy jobs.

[Phredicles]

35. Of course she did. He's such a lovely man, after all.

:puke:

[Ian David]

8. Then again, it could all be part of a brilliant plot to give Bush enough rope.

The COULD be a whistle-blower inside the DOJ or White House who plans on informing congress of precisely how Bush uses and misuses this newfound power.

In other words, maybe it's a sting operation?


Hey, what's the opposite of a tinfoil hat, where you believe, without any proof, that everything is going to be okay depite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

[babylonsister]

10. And I thought EYE was an optimist!

:D

[Ian David]

13. I didn't say I BELIEVE it.

But I really really REALLY hope it!

[Junkdrawer]

11. enough rope....to hang us all...(that'll learn him)...n/t

[KoKo]

18. And....don't forget all that powder stored in the vault...waiting to be used someday...

Blechhhh.

[VLC]

12. I hope you're right, but it's a risky move.

Power is never given up without a struggle, and now that it's law, if they try to amend it won't Bush just veto it? I don't see it getting fixed anytime soon.

[Ian David]

15. They should ammend a bill legalizing gay marriage to it. n/t

[Zodiak]

17. It is called being a "Pollyanna"

and we have a large collection of them here on DU.

You can always spot their postings because they start with "Our Democrats may not be perfect, but..."

[TahitiNut]

30. It's called "looking at the world through a rose-colored rectum."

:evilgrin:

[truedelphi]

37. that does it! you have ruined the pleasant image of roses for at least a week

LOL!

[The Wizard]

44. or

they know which of their communications resources Bush is tapping and will give them bad information as to strategy and tactics in the coming elections. It would steer Rove's victory march into a blind alley.
It doesn't take much to outsmart drooling, knuckle dragging morans.

[proReality]

46. Blind faith. n/t

[frylock]

52. they're tripping over all that rope..

it's about time to start reeling it in.

[VP505]

57. I can't get my mind

wrapped around anything like that, they are not dealing with some dumb-ass petty criminal, oh wait, they are dealing with a dumb-ass criminal just not a petty one. Anyway I think its "complicity" our so called leadership is enabling team Bu$h/Cheney in their crimes because they also PROFIT from it all. Keep in mind these are educated and sophisticated people, well, except for * but there is more than enough evidence to go after the White House crew, as dumb as I am if I can see it why can't they? Its because the DON"T want to see the crimes and misdemeanors.

[bonito]

14. K&R n/t

[Junkdrawer]

16. "Senator Rockefeller led the effort on the Senate side (with McConnell)."

Led the effort to get the ADMINISTRATION bill passed? :shrug:

[AndyA]

19. Note to Pelosi - Wise words from Benjamin Franklin:

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

The man was much, much smarter than you. Live it. Believe it. And stop giving away our freedoms, that our ancestors fought so hard for us to have. It will be mucher harder to get them back.

STOP IT! YOU WERE NOT PUT IN OFFICE TO BE AN ENABLER TO A CONTINUED GOP AGENDA!

[villager]

20. Cindy Sheehan isn't looking too ridiculous anymore, is she?

n/t

[jazzjunkysue]

23. Cindy did enough time in jails that she can work at higher levels now

when we need the press. She's not done, just done with the handcuffs.

Cindy will always be a hero. Period.

[endarkenment]

27. .

what you said

[truedelphi]

38. Villager - You might enjoy this CS quote

"I don't have the power to destroy the Democratic Party as some people have written. The Dems themselves are doing a good job of that"

[KAT119]

21. k&R n/t

[jazzjunkysue]

24. Thank you, Ms. Fredrickson. I'm going to send you some $$.

You all do the real work, and you never forget the point, and you never give up.

[Me.]

25. Rockerfeller Led The Effort & Then Voted Against It?

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

26. Noticed that too, did we????

I want to examine this a little more closely....

The DIRECT heir of John D. may not be everything he seems....

[babylonsister]

29. Here's his August 1 statement: I'm confused, especially about the

'sufficient oversight. Nice of them to share what went down instead of us having to play guessing games.


http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2007/pr080107.html

CHAIRMAN ROCKEFELLER OUTLINES CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSAL FOR INTERIM FISA FIX

Washington, DC -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said today that he is working closely with Senators Reid and Leahy and their House counterparts, along with top officials in the Bush Administration, to craft a temporary legislative fix to FISA.

Rockefeller and Democratic congressional leaders are proposing a 6-month interim fix before Congress adjourns for the August recess with the expectation that the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees will work together on long-term FISA modernization when Congress returns in September.

“Given the continued threat environment, and some recent technical developments, I have become convinced that we must take some immediate, but interim step to improve collection of foreign intelligence in a manner that doesn’t compromise civil liberties of U.S. citizens.

“The Administration has offered a proposal that would instead permanently grant the Attorney General excessive surveillance powers by giving him sole authority to direct surveillance while completely removing the FISA Court from the process. That is simply unacceptable.

“The FISA Court must continue to play an essential role in authorizing surveillance and overseeing its execution. They are the trusted steward of FISA, and they can and must be a part of any new streamlined approach. The proposal we put forward maintains the essential role of the FISA Court while also giving our intelligence officials additional tools to strengthen their hand against terrorists. We need the Administration to act quickly if we are going to pass this critical piece of legislation in the next few days,” Rockefeller said.

The interim fix proposed by Senator Rockefeller and others seeks to:

Ø Reinforce that foreign-to-foreign collection is not covered by FISA, consistent with current law;

Ø Ensure that the FISA Court, not solely the Attorney General, has an oversight role where foreign target surveillance touches on individuals inside the U.S.;

Ø Grant FISA Court new authority for court orders covering certain aggregated foreign collection while protecting rights and privacy of U.S. persons;

Ø Ensure continued FISA Court approval of guidelines and procedures for minimizing U.S. identities and determining the point at which initial foreign collection transitions to cover U.S. persons of interest (thereby triggering individual probable cause warrant requirements);

Ø Maintain FISA Court authority to compel compliance from telecommunications companies; and

Ø Set forth a firm legislative sunset date to ensure continued action on more lasting comprehensive FISA reforms.

Earlier this year, the Senate Intelligence Committee began work on the issue of modernizing FISA with the overarching goal of improving foreign intelligence collection, protecting civil liberties, and preventing this or any future President from ever abusing surveillance laws again.

Unfortunately, the Committee has been hampered in its ability to address FISA modernization because the Administration has refused to provide key documents at the heart of the warrantless surveillance program: the Presidential orders authorizing the program and the Department of Justice opinions on the legality of the program.

The interim fix proposed by Senator Rockefeller and others would allow for improved intelligence collection, along with sufficient oversight, until a long-term solution is achieved.

[Me.]

31. Snake Oil Anyone?

I wonder if they expected the reaction to be as fierce as it has been.

[creeksneakers2]

39. The Rockefeller bill was the wise strategy

I was angry at the ACLU for not endorsing it. In fact,they spread disinformation about it,saying among other things that no fix was required at all.

It looks now like a few GOP votes would have been needed to pass the Rockefeller bill. It would have been a long fight getting them, but not an impossible one. But it turns out that what the ACLU did didn't cause the Rockefeller bill to fail, so I'm no longer angry with them. It sounds like it wasn't the fault of the ACLU that there wasn't better coordination on defeating Bush's plan. I'd still like to know more about how the GOP bill got to the floor of both houses.

Nothing can be changed now until a majority of Democrats will vow that liberty is more important than safety. Otherwise, they'll get rolled the same way again.

[redqueen]

54. They should just put it out that way. Liberty is More Important Than Safety.

Out these neo-con fearmongers as traitors... terrorizing this country from within, in order to change it for the worse.

[understandinglife]

28. Recommended.

[deacon]

32. She lost all her credibility- in the future how can you sit back

and listen to her and believe what she says? They done some good work on domestic issues- but when it comes to accountability- ZERO.

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. kick

[Canuckistanian]

34. I thought Stoller's post was harsh on the ACLU

This is a good response.

[EFerrari]

36. Now I know how freight feels. n/t

[ProudDad]

40. K&R

Bye, Bye, Civil Rights...

[Hawkowl]

42. Nancy is WEAK!!!

She is a big wishy washy hand wringing wuss. She became one the moment she took "impeachment off the table". She has now firmly cemented her cowardly, craven, sniveling, groveling demeanor into permanency by handing over our rights to that uber criminal Gonzo.

She doesn't deserve to be Speaker. Useless pile of dung.

[obiwan]

45. The sad sacks at ACLU shouldn't blame Pelosi for passage of the bill.

Both Pelosi in the house and Reid in the Senate voted against this bill. As did most of the Dems. This bill passed both chambers due to the defection of a number of "Blue Dog" Democrats. Pelosi was not responsible for passage. Democrats can only do what they can do. You can't perform miracles if you are outnumbered. The blame for the passage of this bill must be laid squarely at the feet of the Blue Dogs. Vote them out of office if you can. There were 14 Blue dog defections in the senate and 40-some in the House. 28 Dems in the Senate and 181 Dems in the House opposed the legislation .

The ACLU needs to examine its sorry-ass self closely. I am on a fixed income and have several medical issues. I was recently assaulted by the LA county sheriff's department. I haven't had a run-in with the law since 1972. The ACLU in LA said it couldn't help me. Sheesh!

[babylonsister]

50. Just maybe they have more critical things to do than defend you.

Doesn't mean you should be badmouthing the ACLU. Did you read their response? And you can defend Pelosi til the cows come home, but she did not do the right thing. Sheesh. :eyes:

[redqueen]

55. Yes, she made sure that on the surface, her hands LOOK clean.

She didn't have to schedule the bill at all, but she did.

[bigtree]

47. "It was dem leadership who scheduled the vote on these particular bills"

exactly

[Ezlivin]

49. Anthrax Attack, Part II

Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy got the message the first time around.

Terror attacks can be scheduled, you know.

[kaygore]

51. Pelosi has to go--we need a strong candidate

to run against her in the Democratic primary. I think that such a candidate would be shocked at the level of financial support he or she would receive as well as the number of feet on the street who would appear to support the candidacy.

[dragon82a]

53. Bush Publicly Defecates On Constitution

Bush Publicly Defecates On Constitution

Washington, D.C. - Today, in a brazen display of his absolute power, President Bush instructed his aides to place the original copy of the Constitution on the lawn of the Rose Garden. Then, in front of the entire White House press core, Bush pulled down his pants, squatted and proceeded to defecate on America's most precious document. When the president finished, he pulled up his pants and proclaimed, "Our form of government is over 200 years old. We need something new."

Reaction from members of Congress was swift and overwhelmingly favorable. Senator McCain, speaking for most Republicans, said "President Bush is my kind of leader. What he says makes sense. 200 years is a long time. Besides, what is the Constitution anyway? It's just a piece paper."

The initial response from the media was also very positive. Brit Hume of Fox News said, "It takes a bold leader to point out the fact that the Founding Fathers were radicals who created a flawed document that is more fitting for a hippie commune than a great country." Chris Matthews of MSNBC said, "I applaud the president for this grand gesture of reform. Bush is a manly man who is sure of himself. I can't see John Kerry or Al Gore acting this decisively."

A few hours later, the president's aides gathered up the soiled Constitution and returned it to the National Archives.

[tex-wyo-dem]

56. Pelosi and Reid both need a lesson in "The Art of War"

In addition to being "scared to pieces about the issue of terrorism," which immediately and always puts them in a position of weakness, the Dem "leadership" got totally outmaneuvered in this battle and got routed.

First of all, putting this bill on the schedule in the first place was a huge mistake and demonstrates that they are, in fact, "scared to pieces" about appearing to be "soft on terrorism." My bet is that Pelosi put it on the schedule before the long summer break so that the rethugs and WH couldn't accuse the Dems of delaying the legislation and "putting America at risk." So, in good faith, they began working with McConnell and the administration on a temporary measure that everyone could agree on:

Democrats said they were convinced that their proposal met key the demands of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) quoted him as saying that the bill "significantly enhances America's security."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296_pf.html

But their biggest and stupidest mistake was that they actually trusted the criminals in the WH and their enablers in congress.

The Dems, lulled into a sense of bipartisanship and looking forward to passing the "Democratic majority approved" surveillance measure before heading off on their beach vacations, where suddenly attacked from the rear on the Friday before recess and completely taken off guard.

But Republicans cited a letter from McConnell yesterday afternoon calling the proposal unacceptable and warning that it would prevent him from protecting the country adequately from terrorist attacks. That assertion in turn prompted charges by Democrats that the White House had overruled McConnell in an effort to gain political advantage by painting their party as weak on terrorism.

"We did everything he wants," Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said of McConnell, "and now he says he doesn't like the bill. They didn't move the goal post; they moved the stadium." Pelosi herself accused the Republicans of not caring "about the truth."

White House officials disputed Democrats' account of the tentative deal, and Republicans said McConnell's objections were justified by the Democrats' decision to subject more surveillance to oversight by a special intelligence court than the administration wants.

Adding to the drama was Bush's pressure on lawmakers to stay in Washington until a new measure is passed. The president said he opposes Congress's adjournment for its summer recess this weekend unless it approves "a bill I can sign." Presidents have the power to call Congress into emergency session to consider matters of national importance, although the power is rarely used.

"We have worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution," Bush said at a news briefing after a meeting with counterterrorism officials at FBI headquarters yesterday morning. "But we are not going to put our national security at risk."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296_pf.html

Of course, just as according to the Rovian plan, the Dems panicked and had no time to get all the party members on board to oppose the new WH demands...and the rest is history.