Your Bank Helped President Violate FISA

Most of the attention on the President's illegal FISA violations has been on the telecoms. There's apparently no discussion on how the President provided the telecoms with the information they used to assist the President. One answer are the illegal Presidential orders to financial institutions to turn over without a warrant your personal contact information including your non-public emails and phone numbers. FISA expressly addresses these financial institution issues during wartime:

"A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order
pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for
such
production."

The intelligence committees whitewashed the WMD investigations. There's been no adequate public discussion of what records the intelligence committee has or has not reviewed related to the financial institution's collusion with the President on FISA violations:

"the Attorney General shall fully inform the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate
concerning all requests for the production of tangible things"

Someone right now knows whether the AG and/or Members of Congress have or haven't done their job. We need to publicly examine and discuss these aspects of the declassified versions of these AG reports to Congress. The right answer is not to grant immunity to sweep the following issues under the rug:

A. Either the AG complied with this requirement, or he did not;

B. Either the Congress received this information, or it did not; and

C. Either the AG and Congress did or did not meet their legal obligations under the Constitution.

We're still not clear what the Congress and President hoped to shield with this grant of immunity. The grant of telecom community implicitly means there was no adequate or lawful order for either the telecoms or the financial institutions. It defies reason to believe the President and Congress granted immunity only to the telecoms because the financial institutions had "fully complied" with FISA. NSLs have been abused, but we haven't had accountability within the financial services:

A full account and public discussion over the financial institutions conduct when they knew or should have known about the illegal FISA activity.

A. When did the banking institutions discuss their concerns with legal counsel;

B. How do these discussion timelines in the banking sector compare to DOJ OLC discussions with telecoms; and

C. Did the banking board of directors raise issues which, on the telecom side, the Qwest CEO raised?

Investigations are needed outside Congress. The public should broaden it's view of the FISA violations from what the telecoms did or didn't do; and ask who helped the banks, President, and telecoms to:

A. Transfer this information;

B. Bypass the warrant requirements; and

C. Agree to share your personal information outside your financial institution with the President and telecoms, in violation of your privacy rights and agreements with your financial institution.

Your State Attorney Generals may have reviewed the narrow question of telecom collusion with the President. Vermont, Deleware, and New Jersey are only some that are taking the telecoms to court. The State AGs in Federal court are alleging your right to privacy was violated.

The Department of Justice failed to convince Judge Vaughn Walker to dismiss the cases. The litigation against the telecoms continues, and the EFF plans to challenge the recent bill granting immunity to the telecoms. Arguably, the grant of immunity to the telecoms is illegal: The President and Congress unlawfully exercised judicial power in affecting the outcome of pending cases.

The broader questions include:

A. How the President acquired this information;
B. Which financial institutions and other entities had access to your phone numbers and emails, and provided these illegally to the President, telecoms, or others;

C. How did the President convince financial institutions you trust to breach their agreements with you;

D. Which overseas entities and intermediaries did the President use to bypass the FISA requirements, and unlawfully coordinate the transfer of information from your financial institution, through intermediaries, to the President and telecoms to support the NSA's illegal activity;

E. How was a DoD military analyst-like propaganda program developed with Presidential approval and review to distract attention from these legal compliance issues; and

F. How did the President and Congress use the illegal NSA monitoring to craft media messages designed to ensure toleration for this illegal activity?

There should have been warrants to access, use, and transfer this information, especially this many years after 9-11. Telecom immunity means Congress has not adequately conducted oversight. Without this information, there is inadequate public attention to review the compliance programs.

The FISA violations and AG comments indicate the US government still is not securing warrants. This suggests despite the United States President well passing the 15-day window authorizing warrantless surveillance, something else is convincing the financial institutions and others to provide your personal information to the President without a warrant.

FISA Violation Conspiracy Between President, Members of Congress, Financial Institutions, Telecoms

One argument is "the FISA statute does not expressly prohibit" the transfer of information from the banks to the President; nor does it relate to the transfer of information which does not relate to electronic surveillance.

This misses the point. Once the President openly admits he's violating FISA, the question turns on who knew or should have known their assistance to the President was and remains material in his FISA violations. Arguably, the banking system has well known, or should know, the illegal FISA violations were only possible if the banks provided this information to the President and telecoms.

When you open an account at a financial institution, you and the bank agree to terms and conditions. Those are not unilateral conditions the bank only imposes on you. Rather, when you open your account you should reasonably expect the bank internal controls to only disclose your personal information when there are lawful requirements. Arguably, when the President's agents appears at your bank demanding information, your banks should do what the telecoms refused to do: Demand warrants.

It appears the President is not, in all cases, securing the required warrants to access your banking information; and not adequately justifying to the court why, on his assertion alone, he needs your email and private contact information. The President said he wasn't trolling your emails. He didn't rule out the possibility that he was trolling non-public databases to get email accounts and other private information.

The integrity of the financial reporting system appears to have been compromised. The issue isn't merely which bank boards have colluded with the President, but which bank auditors and examiners have ignored this illegal cooperation; and have not ensured there are strict controls on how the information in your accounts is transferred.

The public needs to have a discussion about the lessons we've learned from the telecom support of FISA violations. Granting immunity to the telecoms is one way the Congress and President can squash any broader examination. Note the similarity in the questions to issues raised with the telecoms and DOJ OLC memos on POW abuse in violation of Geneva:

A. Members of Congress refused to investigate war crimes.

How long have the Members of Congress on the banking committees known about the illegal transfer of your private contact information to the President, but did not investigate this material support required to support FISA violations?

B. The Qwest CEO was investigated.

How many bank board of directors were threatened or fired because they refused to cooperate with this illegal data transfer from your financial institution to the President and telecoms?

C. Congress granted the telecoms immunity, despite having no judicial power to affect ongoing litigation.

As with the telecoms, which bank directors have lobbied the President to thwarte FISA enforcement, get immunity, or other retroactive protections?

D. The President legalized unlawful activity against POWs.

As with the POW abuse memos, where are the copies of the DOJ OLC memos which retroactively "legalized" this unlawful transfer of information, without a warrant, from your bank to the President and telecoms?

E. Congress Has Been Intimidated Not to Investigate the President For Impeachable Offenses

What are the details of the plans to dissuade the public from conducting investigations against bank officials for their unlawful cooperation with the President, and failure to secure warrants before data was transferred to the telecoms?

The banks are only part of the problem. Other data warehouses include the internet websites, the email accounts, and other data-mining operations which gather emails. The questions include:

A. How the President acquired these emails and telephone numbers;

B. Did the President bypass the FISA warrant requirements to secure some non-telecom records;

C. What are the names of the intermediaries and overseas entities helping the President violate FISA;

D. Who in Congress knows about this, but has done nothing.

One issue to consider is the "backlog" of NSA intercepts. Once the President and others use this massive vacuum cleaner to troll through email accounts and phone numbers, the President and others need to explain what they're doing with this information, how it is safeguarded, and how the private contact information is adequately safeguarded so that it is not exploited, misused.

For example, once the President and law enforcement illegally acquire your email or telephone number -- and know that that information relates to you -- without a warrant, they could troll through anything waiting for you to "possibly" be involved with something questionable.

Arguably, the President and others are doing things which even the State AGs don't know about. This may be behind how Governor Spitzer was caught. When he was AG he knew or should have known about the emails and NSA; but it appears the President and others are doing things and accessing private information without a warrant using methods the leading prosecutors may not want to openly discuss, much less admit.

The Framers intended for warrants to regulate how the executive conducted searches. The idea was to have a magistrate review the facts and ensure the search is reasonable, not arbitrary, as the Red Coats were doing. This President appears to have too much information, not enough justification, and an inadequate legal compliance program.

It appears Members of Congress have secretly endorsed these methods, including the roving teams conducting warrantless interrogations. Using information the President and others acquired from your bank, the IRS, and other sources, the President has questions about transactions. He's not arguing that you're engaged in criminal activity; he's only asserting -- because his databases are incomplete -- that he needs to interrogate you, without a lawyer, because your job is to explain the gaps in his database.

FISA expressly prohibits the President and others from -- as it appears he is doing -- punishing people for engaging in Constitutionally protected activity, and targeting them for surveillance:

FISA: "(B)
not be conducted of a United States person solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States."

Consider the still secret DOJ OLC opinions. The President's legal counsel likely uses unconvincing criteria to argue something is "not substantially" linked with protected rights.

That's not a reasonable search. It's the President using his incompetence and ignorance as the pre-text to put the attention on you.

Illegal presumption of guilt: The President, using your financial data, is starting with the incorrect presumption: "All inexplicable gaps are possible evidence; and that you, as the target, must explain away his ignorance."

The correct approach is for the President and others to develop a case using evidence, and for the government to prove the case.

We must examine the broader scope of these FISA violations; and ask who else must have helped the President violate FISA. The answer isn't to grant immunity for FISA violations; but to broaden the legal restrictions against the illegal support of FISA violations. FISA needs to be strengthened, not explained away as trivial.

What You Can Do

1. Contact your state AGs and ask them whether they have or have not discussed the broader illegal support for the President's unlawful FISA violations. Ask them whether they plan to work with the other State AGs reviewing telecom violations of State privacy statutes, and broaden the investigation from telecoms to including other illegal support for these privacy violations.

2. Raise this issue with your financial institution board of directors. Ask them whether they've been threatened if they discuss the ongoing illegal transfer of information outside the warrant requirements.

3. Contact Members of Congress on the House and Senate banking Committees. Ask for the Congressional correspondence logs showing who members of Congress on the banking committee were talking to to grant immunity to the bank board of directors for their assistance to the President and telecoms.

4. Ask through FOIAs to see the DOJ OLC opinions related to the banking institutions cooperation with the President on these FISA violations;

5. Secure copies of the concerns banks' legal counsel raised with DOJ staff counsel on the liability financial institutions would have when this illegal support was disclosed?

PHONE ACTIVISM ALERT!! CALL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE!!

We’re not done yet. FireDogLake has a petition to pressure the House to stand firm behind the RESTORE act.

Dear Virginia,

What is wrong with our Senate leadership?

Three times now, DFA members like you and me have made phone calls demanding Senators stand up to the Bush administration and pass a FISA bill without granting immunity to telecommunication companies who spied on innocent Americans.

Each time, Washington insiders predicted that we would fail to stop it. And because of you, each time the insiders were wrong.

But President Bush is determined to get telecom immunity passed before he leaves office because he knows the lawsuits against AT&T and Verizon are America's last chance to hold the Bush administration accountable for spying on you. He's even promised to veto any FISA reform bill that doesn't let his cronies off the hook.

How many Americans will die in Iraq while the Senate spends another worthless day fighting over a flawed bill that only the President and his friends want passed? How many children will continue to go without health insurance because the Senate is too busy helping AT&T instead of fighting to expand S-CHIP or provide health care for all?

Why is a "get out of jail free" card for Verizon more important than stopping global warming?

It's time to take FISA reform off the table until America elects a new President next November. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could end this once and for all -- today.

Call Senator Reid right now and demand: No new FISA reforms while President Bush is still in office.

Democratic Majority Leader
Senator Harry Reid
(202) 224-3542

Suggested Script:
"Take telecom immunity off the table. Pull the FISA reform bill and extend current law until President Bush leaves office. The U.S. Senate has more important work to get done than figure out how to let AT&T get away with spying on Americans."

Please report your call here:
www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/reportfisacalls

Wait! Don't stop there. Contact your senators too! They need to know where you stand. Senator Reid is more likely to stand strong if your senator stands with him. Please call your senators now:

Senate Switchboard
(202) 224-3121

Don't forget to report how your calls went here:
www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/reportfisacalls

Washington insiders say we can't stop this bill. Maybe they are right, but we've heard it before. Let's see what they are saying after you and I and our progressive community make thousands of calls today.

We will stand up to President Bush today. Together, we'll demand the Senate follows our lead.

Voting with the Republicans were the following eighteen Democrats (again, rough count):

Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Joe Lieberman also voted against stripping retroactive immunity.

Nays TRAITORS TO THE US CONSTITUTION

Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)

American readers, if your senator is on this list, would you please let them know how you intend to vote when they are up for re-election? Thank you.

Senate Protects Telecom Immunity in Spy Bill

Who's Blogging » Links to this article

By William Branigin and Paul Kane

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 12, 2008; 2:53 PM

The Senate voted today to preserve retroactive immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that cooperated with a government eavesdropping program, decisively rejecting an amendment that would have stripped the provision from a bill to modernize an electronic surveillance law.

Senators voted 67 to 31 to shelve the amendment offered by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A filibuster-proof 60 votes had been needed for the amendment to move forward.

The vote represented a victory for the Bush administration and a number of telecommunications companies -- including AT&T and Sprint Nextel -- that face dozens of lawsuits from customers seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Approval of the amendment would have exposed the companies to privacy lawsuits for helping the administration monitor the calls of suspected terrorists without warrants from a special court following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The amendment was one of a series the Senate is considering today to modify legislation that would extend the government's authority to carry out electronic surveillance against targets outside the United States.

President Bush has called on Congress to rapidly renew the surveillance authority granted to the federal government in the Protect America Act approved last year. But he has vowed to veto any bill that does not shield the companies that helped the government carry out the warrantless wiretapping program he ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against U.S. telecommunications companies by plaintiffs who alleged that the firms' actions violated wiretapping and privacy laws.

Immunity from such lawsuits must also be approved by the House, which does not provide such protection in its version of the bill.

The Senate bill is aimed at modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The Protect America Act last year gave the government expanded authority to carry out surveillance, but its provisions expired Feb. 1. Congress and Bush agreed to an extension that runs out Friday.

In debate on the Senate floor before the vote, Dodd said it was a bad precedent to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, and he urged senators to "allow the courts to do their job."

Arguing against the amendment, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) said that permitting lawsuits against the companies would lead to public disclosure of vital intelligence-gathering methods and would discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future. He said the companies facing lawsuits had acted "in good faith," and he called the immunity provision "an essential part of this bill."

Seventeen Democrats and one independent joined 49 Republicans in voting against the Dodd-Feingold amendment. Among those voting with the majority was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is battling for the Democratic nomination, voted in favor of the amendment. His chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), did not vote.

Civil liberties groups denounced the Senate's action.

"When companies break the law, they should be held accountable by our government -- not given a multimillion-dollar favor," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office. "The millions of Americans who are telecom customers deserve to know that their phone conversations are private."

In a statement, she charged that telecommunications companies "illegally turned over private customer call information to the government." But instead of "having faith in the U.S. court system to fairly handle these cases," she said, the Senate opted to "give the telecom providers a get-out-of-jail-free card."

The Senate today also rejected two other amendments aimed at diluting the immunity provision. One would have allowed the lawsuits to go forward but would have made the federal government--not the telecommunications companies--the defendant in those cases. The measure, co-sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), was rejected 68 to 30.

The other rejected amendment, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would have authorized the secret FISA court, which oversees federal surveillance of foreign intelligence and terrorism suspects inside the United States, to decide whether a company could be sued for providing customers' records to the government.

It was defeated by a vote of 57 to 41.

Kathy's US Politics Blog

From Kathy Gill,
Your Guide to US Politics.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

Should Congress Provide Blanket Immunity For Wiretaps?

About Poll

Should Congress Give TeleCom Firms Immunity From Lawsuits Resulting From Bush White House Warrantless Wiretaps? Yes, of course No, absolutely not Maybe

Current Results

Telecom Immunity: It's Up To The House Now

If you believe in the Constitution ... if you believe that White House actions require more than "make it so" commands to be judged legal under the Constitution ... then you need to contact your US Representative. Now. (Note: most of the readers of USP oppose telecom immunity -- see the poll.)

Political expediency is the name of the day; President Bush threatens to veto any FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) legislation that does not contain immunity for telecommunications firms that performed warantless wiretaps at Administration behest.

So Democrats in the Senate capitulate: today 18 Democrats joined the 49 Senate Republicans to keep the telecom immunity provision in FISA . Who were they? Bayh, Carper, Conrad, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Stabenow and Webb. Clinton did not vote; Obama voted against amnesty. (See details on 12 key senators.)

Coupled with last week's admission by the Department of Justice that there will be no investigation of the waterboarding of Gitmo prisoners because the DOJ had ruled the practice "legal" at the time, Americans who believe in the rule of law should be up in arms. Glenn Greenwald details the damage:

Mukasey's son works for Giuliani and Verizon: FISA conflict for AG

Mukasey's son works for Giuliani and Verizon: FISA conflict for AG

FISA conflict for AG - Mukasey's son & Verizon

by Gorette

Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:53:24 PM PST

This is a two part diary on Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Part I: The conflict of interest Mukasey has re the extremely important telecom immunity in the FISA case and his son Marc.

Part II: The Attorney General's statement that whether it's torture, well that's all about "circumstances" -- his refusal to now state publicly that waterboarding is torture and his tense testimony with Senator Whitehouse this week.

Part I. Yesterday I learned that Attorney General Michael Mukasey's son works with Rudy Guiliani's law firm of Bracewell & Guiliani. Marc Mukasey is heading the Verizon defense in the FISA case.

Wikipedia: Mukasey's stepson, Marc L. Mukasey .... as of 2007 leads the white-collar criminal defense practice* in the New York office of Bracewell & Giuliani....

*as in Verizon

This is a conflict of interest in a topic of supreme importance. I kept waiting to see references to it in the MSM but have not since of course the corporate owned media may not want us to know that government officials at the very top collude with corporate interests, or at the very least give that impression by their close ties.

Mukasey should recuse himself from all FISA matters as AG. Did the Senate know about the FISA connection Mukasey had when they approved him as Attorney General? They must have because these things have been out in the open for some time.

Raw Story: Mukasey conflict of interest?
Attorney General Michael Mukasey has recently been a strong proponent of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that were involved in illegal warrantless surveillance at the request of the Bush administration.

Mukasey argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that allowing lawsuits against the telecoms is undesirable because it both "puts means and methods in the courts for everybody to examine and for people to become aware of" and "casts some doubt on the question of whether they acted in good faith."

Verizon (seeking immunity for illegal spying) is a client of the Houston lawfirm of Bracewell & Giuliani, where former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani became a partner in the spring of 2005. Attorney General Mukasey's son, Marc L. Mukasey also joined the firm as a partner a few months later, after having served for eight years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

talkleft.
....The conflicts even reach to the NSA wiretapping issue with respect to Verizon: snip Verizon is a prime client of Bracewell & Giuliani.

In addition, Paul Crotty, the respected federal judge who joined Mukasey on the Manhattan bench in late 2005, was the regional president of Verizon, which is based in New York. Crotty was Giuliani's corporation counsel and contributed $5,500 to his federal campaign committees before he became a judge—$1,000 more than the legal limit (the excess was returned). When Crotty left, a Verizon press release stated that he was "responsible for government relations and regulatory affairs for Verizon's largest telephone operations company," but a company spokeswoman declined to answer questions about his possible involvement in the surveillance decisions....

Newsvine....
(The Senate, in approving Mukasey as AG) overlooked a glaring conflict of interest, or did they?

Michael Mukasey is now and always has been, a close friend of Giuliani, starting when they both worked as young prosecutors and moved on to the law firm of Patterson Belknap together, and in fact, Mukasey returned to the firm after he stepped down from the federal bench....

That sounds innocent enough, but when one starts to look a little deeper into the many conflicts of interest surrounding both of these men, a pattern of deceit and lies emerges that should cause everyone to call into question not only Giuliani's integrity, but Mukasey's also.

snip (quoting)The Village Voice...: "Even the recent ruckus about Verizon and its cooperation with the National Security Agency's domestic-surveillance program may put Mukasey in a Giuliani-connected bind. The company has admitted that it (illegally spied on Americans). Verizon is a prime client of Bracewell & Giuliani."

Also, the Wayne madsen report calls for impeachment of the AG ....but I could not find the LATimes Op Ed he refers to below:

Verizon, other telecommunications companies, and the Bush administration want the phone companies given immunity from any criminal or civil violations of the law. Mukasey has not recused himself from Justice Department deliberations concerning immunity for the companies
even though his son and best friend stand to benefit from immunity for Verizon.

In fact, Mukasey has not merely failed to recuse himself from the immunity issue but he is actively lobbying for it.

In a December 12, 2007, op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Mukasey wrote that it would be unfair for telecommunications companies, including his son's and best friend's client Verizon to, "face the possibility of massive judgments and litigation costs." Verizon, AT&T, and other firms are facing lawsuits from customers for permitting NSA to engage in warrantless eavesdropping of their communications.

snip If Mukasey fails to appoint a firewalled Special Counsel in the
telecommunications immunity case and other cases that have an impact on Giuliani's business activities, the House Judiciary Committee should, without delay, begin impeachment hearings against the Attorney General.

Indeed, quoting from the above source, it seems Mukasey's position has formed the GOP talking points for immunity:

Mukasey added, "in the future we will need the full-hearted help of private companies in our intelligence activities; we cannot expect such cooperation to be forthcoming if we do not support companies that have helped us in the past."

Mukasey... wants any immunity agreement for the telecommunications companies to be retroactive.

So, I ask of the WHITE HOUSE!

Question for the White House:
You promised that the Mukasey would recuse himself
from any Guiliani issues, so why haven't you
insisted he recuse himself from
Marc Mukasey/Bracewell & Guiliani issues as well?

Part Two - Waterboarding and Attorney General Mukasey's refusal to say it is torture, pure and simple, awful torture. See BarbinMD's account-- "What an embarrassing, infuriating disgrace." --of the 1/30/08 Senate testimony which I watched on CSpan. I heard that shocking and tense exchange between Senator Whitehouse and the attorney general.

The Nuremberg Defense ... is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Whitehouse, a gifted inquisitor, repeatedly brought up "the Nuremberg Defense"questioned the AG regarding whether waterboarding is torture. If he had had more time he might have been able to get somewhere. But the AG was on guard, speaking very carefully so as to avoid incriminating himself or anyone in the administration. You could see that Whitehouse had the AG's full attention! It was electrifying I felt.

This is a comment by Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law professor, who cogently stated the case last year on why Congress should refuse to allow Mukasey to serve as AG even if it meant having an acting AG for the rest of Bush's term.

Jonathan Turley:

Of course, (Mukasey) took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but now believes that it would be irresponsible to address a criminal act ordered by the President of the United States. It reflects a rather curious understanding of both his oath and his duties. It is the same relativistic view that led to clearly false statements made by Mukasey under oath in first denying that he did not know what waterboarding was and then, when told what it was, refusing to answer the question during his confirmation. Click here

In a maddening added comment, he insisted that "it is my job as attorney general to do what I believe the law requires, and what is best for the country, not what makes my life easier." Yet, that is precisely what he is doing: taking the easier and unethical approach. The difficult course would be to enforce the law and state the legal standard despite its implications for the President.

Mukasey said whether or not waterboarding is torture all depends on "circumstances" in his recent letter to Sen. Leahey on this question.

Gee, I dunno.......
"If this were an easy question, I would not be reluctant to offer my views," Mr. Mukasey wrote to Senator Patrick J. Leahy...

"But with respect, I believe it is not an easy question," he said. "There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. Other circumstances would present a far closer question."

The letter did not define any of the circumstances.

Digby said a couple of days ago--
It Depends On What The Definition Of Conscience Is.

Remember this?

Whether they voted for Mukasey or not, Democrats widely
want him to examine the interrogation tactic designed
to make the subject think he is drowning, and answer
definitively: Is it illegal torture?

"I do believe he will be a truly nonpolitical, nonpartisan
attorney general; that he will make his views very clear;
and that, once he has the opportunity to do the evaluation
he believes he needs on waterboarding, he will be willing
to come before the Judiciary Committee and express his
views comprehensively and definitively," said Sen. Dianne
Feinstein of California, one of the six who voted with
the majority for confirmation.

I repeat:

Question for the White House: You promised that the Mukasey would recuse himself from any Guiliani issues, so why haven't you insisted he recuse himself from Marc Mukasey/Bracewell & Guiliani issues as well?

What does this all amount to?

Our dear elected Congress has done it again. They have empowered more Bush administration breaking of law, of immunity to prosecution, of conflict of interest (read "corruption"). Democrats should have never accepted this man, Michael Mukasey, as Attorney General ofthe U.S.

Posted by CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON at 10:08 AM

Olbermann and Raw story have MOST of the FISA issue right, BUT ...

As I write this, not ONE of my blogposts about this is showing up on a google search on the topic, not even the blogs - and Verizon, AT&T and Bellsouth are trolling this blog.

That means that on one level at least, the unitary executive theory has found bipartisan acceptance --- the fourth amendment is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions. Every single vote along these lines that ostensibly are done to "protect" us, is a step toward the authoritarian power that lies at the heart of Dick Cheney's wet dream.

~ It's For Our Own Good, by digby

Wouldn't it be JUST GREAT if Olbermann had gone just a bit beyond the "politicial" issues in his long awaited Special Comment.

Another great BuZh bashing moment for "professional" commentators.

Fun for one and all.

However, the Telecoms and their CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES have been going on for a very long time - and not just in San Franciso either. There are plenty more facilities set up under William Jefferson Clinton - and he USED them.

How do I know?

He used some wierd tricks to spy on me on my telephone back in 1994 . and there had been no legitimate reason for the federales to get a warrant to tap my phone!! NONE - and I have an outstanding $3,000 bill with Sprint to prove it.

Keith and Raw Story, let's just take a brief look at the kinds of buck$ we are talking about here if people sue (see below on the blog for the tip of the iceberg), as that is the ONLY thing in America seems to understand these days . it's not quite enough to go after BuZh and his Imperial Bubble; the press, CONgress, even the blogosphere has played right along "playing politics" with this.

Invasion of privacy is just plain wrong.

It matters not one whit whether democrats or republicans are doing it - they've been doing on both sides of the aisle for decades - and yes, in America.

As insignificant as I may be, I find it interesting that Raw Story - posting remarks recently saying "leave Bill Clinton" alone is GATEKEEPING my remarks about government wiretapping and Telecom involvement right off it's comments.

While I enjoyed the BuZh bashing as much as anyone else - I do not think that Keith is still willing to look at the entire mess (where is the oversight that should have stopped this in the first place?) and what does he think the REMEDY is? Just ranting on television?

OBVIOUSLY telecoms need to be watched, OBVIOUSLY no one is above the law (and there are laws on the books to deal with this type of criminality - federal ones, too as the crimes cross state lines.

So why is Mr. Olbermann calling on us all to look at the psychopathy of BuZh&Co .. why not address the US CITIZEN (of which he is one himself) and I say (in exile) ..

TAKE BACK THE GOVERNMENT

O

GET A REAL INVESTIGATION ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH IMPEACHMENT

O

EVERYONE GO OUT AND FILE A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST THE TELECOMS

O

HOW ABOUT A STRIKE UNTIL THEY STOP DOING THIS REPRESSIVE TACTIC

BEING USED AGAINST EVERYONE ??

O

NO INCUMBANTS ELECTED IN 2008

Here are articles on FISA and the Washington establishment as it relates to Chris Dodds 'new" fight.

http://politicsplusstuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/washington-dc-establishment.html
http://politicsplusstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/Establishment
http://politicsplusstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/FISA

Olbermann: Bush push for telco immunity 'textbook example of fascism'

David Edwards and Nick Juliano Published: Friday February 1, 2008 del.icio.us |
Print This Email This

In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a "textbook example of fascism."

Bush and Congressional Democrats are in a pitched fight over whether to free telecoms from legal liability as part of an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The president says the companies should be rewarded for their cooperation in the war on terror; critics say legal immunity would preclude any oversight of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program that ensnared US citizens.

Olbermann accused Bush's threat to veto any bill without immunity of aiding the terrorists, when coupled with his threat that failing to act on a permanent FISA expansion would weaken US national security.

"You told Congress, if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened, and our citizens would be in greater danger," Olbermann said. "Yet you you are willing to weaken that ability. You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger. This is simple enough for you to understand. If Congress approves a new FISA act without telecom immunity, and sends it to your desk, and you veto it, you, by your own terms and your own definitions, you will have just sided with the terrorists."

The host further excoriated Bush for refusing to even acknowledge corporate assistance, always couching his calls for immunity by describing companies "believed" or "alleged" to have assisted his still-classified program.

"If you, sir, are asking Congress and us to join you in this shameless, breathless, literal textbook example of fascism, the merged efforts of government and corporations who answer to no government, you still don't have the guts to say the telecom companies did assist you in your efforts?" Olbermann asked. "Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything? Even the stuff you claim to believe in?"

Ironically, Olbermann notes, that Vice President Dick Cheney did go on the record about telecom involvement, when he spoke to conservative talker Rush Limbaugh Wednesday.

"The Vice President probably shouldn’t have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday. Sixth sentence out of Mr. Cheney’s mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, 'retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States,'" Olbermann said. "Oops. Mr. Cheney is something of a loose cannon, of course. But he kind of let the wrong cat out of the bag there."

Some critics dismissed Olbermann as a hyberbolic ranter who relies on over-the-top rhetoric.

"The MSNBC host, who once scolded public figures who use Nazi references, made his own latest invocation of Nazi Germany, as he compared the telecoms to the Krupp family who were convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg," wrote conservative media critic Brad Wilmouth. "Olbermann: 'It begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich trying to protect the Krupp family industrial giants by literally rewriting the laws of Germany for their benefit. And we know how that turned out. Alfred Krupp and 11 of his directors were convicted of war crimes at Nuremburg.'"

Unable to reach a final agreement on how to update FISA and whether to give immunity to the telecoms, Congress this week passed a 15-day extension to the Protect America Act, a temporary FISA extension forced through Congress just before its August recess.

On Monday, the Senate will resume debate on the FISA expansion, after Republicans backed off their demands that all proposed amendments be subjected to a 60-vote majority, according to Congressional Quarterly. The subscription-only Capitol Hill journal reports:

Three amendments to be voted on next week will address retroactive immunity for companies being sued for allegedly assisting the National Security Agency in its warrantless surveillance program.

One, by Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, would simply remove the immunity provisions, which are a priority for the Bush administration.

Another, by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits. Both would only need a simple majority for adoption.

A third, by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would require the companies to justify their actions before the secret FISA court, which would then decide whether immunity was warranted. It would require 60 votes to be adopted.

Some critics see the move as just another GOP gambit to block immunity from passing.

"It seems rather clear what happened here. There are certain amendments that are not going to get even 50 votes -- including the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the bill -- and, for that reason, Republicans were more than willing to agree to a 50-vote threshold, since they know those amendments won't pass even in a simple up-or-down vote," writes Glenn Greenwald, a prominent blogger covering the FISA fight.

"But then, there are other amendments which might be able to get 50 votes, but cannot get 60 votes -- such as Feinstein's amendment to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and her other amendment providing that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping -- and, thus, those are the amendments for which the GOP insisted upon a 60-vote requirement."

During his comment, Olbermann reiterated the revelation from former AT&T technician Mark Klein, who blew the whistle on his former company's collusion with the National Security Agency, that he connected a "Big Brother machine" to funnel every piece of communication crossing AT&T's wires into an NSA database.

"This isn't about finding that kind of needle in a haystack, this isn't even about finding that haystack" Olbermann said. "This is about scooping up every piece of hay there ever was."

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast January 31, 2008.

Telecoms facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits

Verizon sued for $50 billion over wiretap program

By Leslie Wines, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - AT&T Corp., BellSouth Corp and Verizon Telecommunications are facing lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the decision to turn over calling records to the government, the New York Times reported Saturday.

A federal lawsuit was filed in Manhattan yesterday seeking as much as $50 billion in civil damages against Verizon on behalf of its subscribers.

Under telecommunications law, the phone companies are at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order, according to Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University The telecommunications companies allegedly complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records, without warrants, to increase its surveillance capabilities after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. have insisted that they were vigilant about their customers' privacy, but did not directly address their cooperation with the government effort, the report said.

Verizon said it gave customer information to a government agency "only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes," but declined comment on any relationship with a national security program that was "highly classified."

"Verizon does not, and will not, provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition," the company said in a statement on Friday.

A fourth telecommunications company, Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q:

qwest communications intl in comQ 5.86, -0.03, -0.5%) , rebuffed government requests for the company's calling records after 9/11 because of "a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," according to a statement released by an attorney on behalf of the company's former chief executive, Joseph Nacchio.

The legal experts said consumers could sue the phone service providers under communications privacy legislation that dates back to the 1930s. Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.

The law governing the release of phone company data has been modified repeatedly to grapple with changing computer and communications technologies that have increasingly bedeviled law enforcement agencies, the report said.

Wiretapping has been tightly regulated by these laws. But in general, the laws have set a lower legal standard required by the government to obtain what has traditionally been called pen register or trap-and-trace information -- calling records obtained when intelligence and police agencies attached a specialized device to subscribers' telephone lines.

The restrictions still hold, said a range of legal scholars, in the face of new computer databases with decades' worth of calling records, according to the newspaper.

Leslie Wines is a reporter for MarketWatch in New York.

<<:>> <<:>> <<:>>

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 2248 )
Vote Number:	435	Vote Date:	December 17, 2007, 12:19 PM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Cloture Motion Agreed to
Measure Number:	S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007 )
Measure Title:	An original bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	76
	NAYs	10
	Not Voting	14

FISA topic: How did the Telecoms get SO powerful anyway??

Was the Telecom Act of 1996 a boon or bomb for U.S.?

Jim Carlini • Published 02/08/06

Print article • E-mail article • Read 2 comments • Reprints

The Telecom Act of 1996 was enacted to promote competition. It was supposed to create certain funds for universal service and to develop a better infrastructure. Ten years later, can we say this was good for America?

How much money was wasted? Did we ever really achieve the open competition the act was intended to establish?

Wednesday is the tenth anniversary of the act. Especially for those who may not know the roots of all of these controversies surrounding competition and the development of broadband infrastructure capabilities, it would be good to look back and see how we got here.

The revestiture of AT&T

Twelve years before the telecom act in 1984, AT&T spun off its Bell system into seven regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs): Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, NYNEX, US West, Southwestern Bell and Pacific Telesis. AT&T spun off 22 operating companies into these seven RBOCs. This was called the divestiture of AT&T. At the time, it was thought to be a good idea.

Throughout the years, the seven RBOCs became recognized as the local exchange carriers (LECs), the legacy telephone companies and the incumbents.

So many names were given to these local phone company entities across the years as competitors battled with them for market share and control of the local markets. The RBOCs wanted to dominate the local markets. Even though the intent was to break up telecom monopolies, there were some who still wanted to cling onto the idea.

AT&T, Sprint and MCI wanted to gain access to the local markets with new market plans and some RBOCs like Ameritech had strategies of getting a piece of the long-distance markets. Because they weren't successful, some started merging.

Southwestern Bell started buying up other companies and soon acquired Pacific Telesis. It also shortened its name and bought out Ameritech. You could slowly see that the seven RBOCs were combining into larger and larger entities. In effect, it was a “revestiture” of the Bell system.

A pork chop bill

The Telecom Act of 1996 was enacted before some of these big mergers happened. It was supposed to open up the doors to more competition. Instead, we saw mergers and less competition.

More here

On telecom immunity. Act now.

Today, there is a genuine opportunity -- the first in a long time -- for Senate Democrats to take a meaningful stand against the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Whether they are willing to take this stand largely depends upon how much citizen demand they hear from Americans like you and me.

The Bush administration has been trying to bully Congress into passing a law that would legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers for the President to spy on Americans. The law also provides full immunity to telecommunications companies which enabled the Bush administration to spy on you without the warrants required by law.

Worse, if telecom amnesty were granted, it would result in the immediate dismissal of numerous lawsuits against the telecoms, thus extinguishing the only remaining means for discovering what our Government really was doing over the last seven years as it illegally spied on our telephone conversations and emails.

Last week, it looked as though enough Senate Democrats were going to vote in favor of the Bush plan in order to pass this radical bill. But a funny thing happened on the way to the latest Democratic capitulation: Republicans tried to block the Senate from voting on ANY of the Democrats' proposed amendments and are trying to force a quick vote on the bill.

Now, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats are vowing to filibuster and block the Senate from voting on Monday. If the Democrats can sustain a filibuster and prevent passage of this bill, this would be a major defeat for Bush and the Senate Republicans. But because there are numerous Democratic Senators still wavering, it is unclear if a filibuster can be sustained. That's where you come in.

Please call your senators and demand they filibuster to stop telecom immunity right now:

Senate Switchboard
(202) 224-3121

After you call, please report how it went here:
www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/FisaCallReport

The more people who call the wavering Democratic Senators -- and even potential pro-filibuster Republicans -- and urge them to support a filibuster of the new FISA bill, the higher the likelihood is that the filibuster will be sustained. Let them hear your opposition to new warrantless eavesdropping powers and amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.

I will be live-blogging the proceedings on Monday at my blog on Salon.com and you can follow developments there. It has been a long, long time since Senate Democrats won anything and a victory on Monday could be a critically important win for real accountability and the rule of law.

Thank you for taking action today.

Glenn Greenwald
www.Salon.com

Back to the telecom immunity issue .. Bring on the brooms!!

“It’s particularly unusual in the case of the telecoms because you don’t really know what you’re immunizing,”

said Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law with the Law Library of the Library of Congress.

"You don’t know what you’re cleaning up.”

When I was a student at the art academy,
our education tended towards balance,
harmony, order, the observation of nature,
and the poetry of everyday life.
If only our leaders were required
to receive such an education.

picture and words from
www.robertsturmanstudio.com

"Even as the White House lobbied to expand the scope of FISA, we now know that President Bush disregarded the rule of law when he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on ordinary Americans' phone calls and e-mails without the warrant FISA requires. Shockingly, Congress voted to temporarily condone this abuse of power in August 2007 with legislation sanctioning this illegal operation. This legislation, which we've dubbed the "Police America Act," is only temporary and will expire in February 2008."

~ the ACLU website

For my Canadian readers, this first:

We need a clean sweep! Out with illegal legislation and Executive Orders! Out with the "Police America Act!" Out with the rePUGs who want everyone living as serfs! Out with those who side with them!!

The BuZh administration (can you say Dick Cheney and cohorts?) has done many abominable things to turn the United States into an IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY, rotting a republic striving to be democratic right to its very core.

The trampling of human rights really picked up steam under Clinton in many, many areas of law in a country which is SUPPOSED to be based on rights of individuals. The US is the child of yearings to be free of the power of Kings and Queens and rights are clearly delineated in the First Amendment to the Constitution which reflect its parentage.

Clinton was quite good at trampling people under by using the government - lest you forget, I am talking about Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the persecution of many indigenous tribes. He managed to subvert the purpose of the Department of Justice, as if by magic.

I fell into one of their little "traps."

And of course, as I am ALWAYS on about this -- he trampled the rights of people like me by insidious practices that broke the LAW on the war on drugs. At least the ACLU noticed some of it .. but because it lead to abuse, the current US adminstration thought that they would take it that many steps further ..

BuZh is something else. His something else is that PRIVATE corporations and government contractors now are the vigorous perpetrators of oppression, which has been workable as long as he can keep up his IMPERIAL WAR DRUM, which continues to eat away the rights of the US citizen, no matter where that individual may be. Motive is a seperate topic. We are concerned in this posting with only the wherefores of how they use criminality to do that today ..

One doesn't have to be in a "combat area" to fall under the purview of the US Intel "community" - according to them all areas are combat areas! Under the global war on terror, America has the most basic of its rights -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech suffer -- grave assaults. And he would take away the right to privacy, too, if people let him. You can catch a link to information on the The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act below and how that came out for We, the People below ..

This is to speak a very deep legal issue in very bare terms, I know. But I am trying to make a simple point.

When the US was founded there were no fax machines, no "singing wires", no computers and the founding fathers didn't sit down and figure out how to enact laws on each little thing that would be invented in the future. They figured just putting into the first amendment to the Constitution that people had a right to privacy was quite enough to cover any eventuality in the future that might crop up.

But BuZh, as is HIS want, thinks HIS decisions over what constitutes threats to America and what HE wants to do about his little Global War on Terror (choke!) outweighs the United Constitution. And to BuZh&Co, all areas are threatening - including the privacy of one's conversations with one's mother-in-law or an email to Santa Claus.

Or, has more darkly been contended, they can listen in to find out how to blackmail people .. because now whatever you express over some communications network is grounds for "surveillance" and the information gathered is "duly noted", but by who, we aren't really sure.

The intel agencies have mushroomed, blossomed, been given vast sums of money (who even knows how much??), become the elephant in your computer, on your phone, anywhere data can be collected. There were around 16 the last time I checked ..

When Clinton came to office there were a multitude of telecoms. The monopoly powers had been smashed in court. However, as time went along the power of the bigger telecoms came back with corporate takeovers and America was back to the powerful handful once again. How the FCC was manipulated is another story, for another time. But since BuZh, these telecom guys have been making unconscienable profits, and much of it due to the unwilling largesse of the American taxpayer who is apt to paying for his own surveillance! Make sense to you? Me, neither.

There it is - in a very written-down nutshell. It's We The People versus George W. BuZh and his staff of insidious legal advisers in the little matter of what rights do WE have to keep the federales outta our computers, off our phone lines, intercepting our fax transmissions .. and hanging unto data about us in storage for God knows HOW long and for what purpose(s) as yet determined.

Why should we fight for this -- what would appear to be a fundamental right?

Because the RePUGlican Party outweighs the interests of America, the US citizen and the democratic values enshrined in America's Bill of Rights. People have clearly forgotten what a republic is under the rePUGs and allow CONgress to "abridge their rights" and allow those who do it outside the DC Beltway to do it with IMPUNITY!!

The Patriot Act saw to that.

The bullies just see the imperial tax collectors, the corporate cronies right to profit without any accountability (and of course, the better war mongers they are and the more money they give the Republican National Committee, the more money they get to keep) all in a cozy little nest - and then there is everyone else. And anyone who violates this nice little system of theirs - well, they just better beware!! Big Brother is LISTENING.

While Bush&Co's imperium has clearly VIOLATED the law of the land, cronyism being what it is, they wish to keep their telecom friends from criminal (or civil) prosecution by saying that telecoms have total immunity for damages. Hey! you give yer buck$ to the rePUGs to get elected, you should have your immunity, eh? That's what the telecoms with their big fat dollars think.

Too bad the telecom's have invaded people's lives and tough cookie all you stiffs who got 'tapped.
Um HMMM. Sure.

Not just while BuZhistas are in office, but for always.

So to that end, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and their nice little GOP "reich" want to shove this down Congress's throat .. right away, before the bill which allows this to expire.

The neocons looked like they were gonna get away with this nasty little piece of cronyism BUT Christopher Dodd, a Senator STOPPED! them which came as a bit of shock to those of us used to seeing ONLY a spineless CONgress. But we still need them BROOMS to get rid of this mess once and for all.

Someone finally stood up to The Decider and made a difference. Which gives all of us human rights activists a bit of a thrill in a seven year slog.

There is a great fear on the part of some Congressmen/"ladies" and potential candidates that they just might not get re-elected or find a seat if they don't start standing up for Americans. Some of us are pretty busy letting CONgress know "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!" And not only THAT, but you're gonna find we don't give you another nickel to run for office.

So the spineless democrats are now coming onto us -- trying to make us believe we can count on them for another term to express our views, and stick up for our rights -- and DO something for a change. Not that they'll end the war, but at least let us sue the companies whose services we paid for not knowing that they had extra ears on our lines and huge storage facilities for all the data that they were collecting -- all supposedly in the "national interest." It's in the REPUBLICAN PARTY's interest, that is all.

[and not only that, but should it turn out that this info was used to blackmail or set someone up or .. then we can use that in impeachment proceedings and war crimes tribunals ... ] Funny how these Bushistas can conveniently "lose" millions of emails, but can find the time and inclination to store all of ours!!]

President Bush and the National Security Agency enlisted the help of telecommunications companies to spy on American citizens without the FISA-required warrants. Now Bush wants Congress to give the telecom companies permanent immunity from prosecution!! Like the Telecoms didn't KNOW?? I don't reach for metaphors easily, and I'm not going to now either, BUT this really stinks. It's just all Bad Law all around. And who wants this to turn into something SO big, it'll take a tank rather than a few brooms to remove it??

I ask you to fight/understand the telecom immunity problem in the first step towards restoring the US to being a republic. It's a SHAME to be fighting on this issue, but there ya have it, it's what must be done. And it might prove well worth it ..

Telecom immunity means that corporations who worked with the government to illegally spy on US citizens would never have to answer for their actions and I don't care if you are pro-republican or pro-democratic or from the moon, it's just not okay as it is a system just clearly meant to create different classes of people - those who can listen with impunity and do whatever they like with what they hear, and those who cannot. There is not even a guarantee that this date is actually accurate if it is used in a court of law! They can say you said anything they make it out you said . or didn't. It's really complicating a very basic idea on many levels .. that basic idea is that you have a right to privacy. nice. neat. simple. and people who violate that right, should be held accountable!!

This bill exemplifies how wealthy corporations have more rights than U.S. citizens. Large telecommunications companies spied on Americans, violating the 4th Amendment, the right to privacy, and now Congress and the president wants to give them a get out-of-jail-free card.

We need to protect the Constitution of the United States or we might as well just say, "let's have the kings back!" and it's okay for the US to ram democracy down people's throats around the world while not being the least bit democratic at home. And all this surveillance is a total waste of taxpayer's money! Not only THAT, but there's a very good chance this information is being used to cover up CRIMES. That's what Dr. Fisher is on about. Ya don't know whatcher cleaning up!!

Some of us are not too keen on that immunity for the king's chronies idea. History is replete with the tales of King's gone wild over the citizenry. It's hard enough with Presidents to ensure rights. King George II must be put back in his place .. as someone who is being paid to protect citizens and uphold the Constitution, whether he likes it or not, it's not "just a piece of paper." For some people like me, it's a birthright and something that was a model for taking on values as a citizen. To replace the Constitution with Big Brother is not my idea of republic at all.

What a dangerous precedent has been set by the actions of CONgress and the Bushistas. But the hope is that the damage can be undone.

The immunity that telecom companies "enjoy" due the spineless CONgress expires in February. Last December Dodd made his stand and said someone has to stop this! The new Senate session convenes on 15 January and the rePUGs want to vote on the bill as fast as they possibly can. Can we get out enough brooms in time and SWEEP??

IF enough people can swing their Senators (they guys with the big buck$ in CONgress), the US might finally get this message: no one is going to support lawmakers who give immunity to those who violate US citizens' rights. There should be no need for a further filibuster and endless debate; enough people should be good and mad to stop this complete breakdown of the law.

Here's a question: How do you commute the sentence for a crime, before you've even determined what it is, precisely? Rhetorical? No a question for some lawyers to look at and one for us ACTIVISTS to bring to the public's attention. It's not a textbook question, it's one that we all must solve if there is to be any freedom from Big Brother at all.

No Telecom Immunity Action Page:
http://usalone.com/laesch/pnum778.php (anyone can use this link)

Facebook Version:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum778 (to use
this you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)

this has been the subject of MUCH legal debate: here is the BEST summary of the some of the FISA issues and how this came to this pretty pass:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Fisher070607.pdf

The link below gives you a good precis of some legal issues with plenty of links AND just a smidgen of the now famous John Ashcroft confrontation (oh, these Bushistas! They'll stoop to anything!!)
http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2005/12/clash-between-then-attorney-general.html

and then this may help you get informed on the whole issue of the Surveillance in the US:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17321res20030408.html

Immunity for Telecoms May Set Bad Precedent, Legal Scholars Say
October 22, 2007, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101041.html

When previous Republican administrations were accused of illegality in the FBI and CIA spying abuses of the 1970s or the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, Democrats in Congress launched investigations or pushed for legislative reforms. But last week, faced with admissions by several telecommunication companies that they assisted the Bush administration in warrantless spying on Americans, leaders of the Senate intelligence committee took a much different tack -- proposing legislation that would grant those companies retroactive immunity from prosecution or lawsuits. The proposal marks the second time in recent years that Congress has moved toward providing legal immunity for past actions that may have been illegal. The Military Commissions Act, passed by a GOP-led Congress in September 2006, provided retroactive immunity for CIA interrogators who could have been accused of war crimes for mistreating detainees. Legal experts say the granting of such retroactive immunity by Congress is unusual, particularly in a case involving private companies. "It's particularly unusual in the case of the telecoms because you don't really know what you're immunizing," said Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law with the Law Library of the Library of Congress. Civil liberties groups and many academics argue that Congress is allowing the government to cover up possible wrongdoing and is inappropriately interfering in disputes that the courts should decide. The American Civil Liberties Union [said] in a news release Friday that "the administration is trying to cover its tracks."

A very famous TV clip about Andrew Card & Gonegonzles confronting Ashcroft