Two more FISA stories. It really hurts me...

to keep posting these stories about the way our Dem leaders keep letting us down, but the truth is they have. I have been a die-hard Democrat my whole life and I will continue to be, but this is not the Democratic party that I grew up with, that much is clear. Maybe an Obama win could change that, I don't know, but one thing is certain, we need to elect Dems to Congress who will stand up for their constituants beliefs, if that means recruiting new candidates and tough primary battles so be it. We cannot just allow things to keep going as they are, much less get any worse. If Obama does win, and he must, he will face the toughest challenge; morally, ethically and financialy that any President in history has ever had to in trying to restore our standing in the world and at home. And he will absolutely need a Congress that is willing to implement these changes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parry's blog
Democrats Legalize Bush's Crimes
by Robert Parry | June 21, 2008 - 1:58pm
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15404

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap “compromise” is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law.

In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush’s theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the “exclusive” means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn’t that Bush and his team didn’t understand the old law’s language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war – even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” – the President’s powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed – as it was in December 2005 – that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps 2½ years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush’s impeachment was “off the table.”

Then, on the eve of the August 2007 recess, the Democratic-controlled Congress was stampeded into passing the “Protect America Act,” which effectively legalized what Bush had already done and expanded his spying powers even more.

After that law was passed, U.S. news reports mostly parroted the White House claim that it “modernized” FISA and “narrowly” targeted overseas terror suspects who might call or e-mail their contacts in the United States.

However, it soon became clear that the law applied not just to terror suspects abroad who might communicate with Americans, but to anyone who is “reasonably believed to be outside the United States” and who might possess “foreign intelligence information,” defined as anything that could be useful to U.S. foreign policy.

That meant that almost any American engaged in international commerce or dealing with foreign issues – say, a businessman in touch with a foreign subsidiary or a U.S. reporter sending an overseas story back to his newspaper – was vulnerable to warrantless intercepts approved on the say-so of two Bush subordinates, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

Beyond the breathtaking scope of this new authority, the Bush administration also snuck in a clause that granted forward-looking immunity from lawsuits to communications service providers that assisted the spying.

That removed one of the few safeguards against Bush’s warrantless wiretaps: the concern among service providers that they might be sued by customers for handing over constitutionally protected information without a warrant.

In short, the “Protect America Act” made warrantless surveillance legally cost free for a collaborating service provider, tilting the scales even further in favor of the government’s spying powers. https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/consortiumnews/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=261&t=SecrecyandPrivilege.dwt or Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Gets Spying Blank Check.”> http://consortiumnews.com/2007/080507.html

Catching On

A week after the “Protect America Act” was passed, the New York Times and the Washington Post published front-page stories explaining how the Bush administration had ambushed the Democrats.

Pressed up against the start of the August recess and the prospect of Republican taunts that Democrats were “soft on terror,” the Democratic leaders abandoned earlier compromise proposals and accepted the more expansive law. Their one point of resistance was putting a February 2008 sunset provision into the law.

Still, the Democratic cave-in in August 2007 provoked an uproar among rank-and-file Democrats. Pelosi’s office reported receiving more than 200,000 angry e-mails.

Stung by the reaction, House Democratic leaders balked at White House pressure to make even more concessions, including retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that had collaborated with Bush’s warrantless wiretaps in the years after the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2008, to the surprise of many observers, the Democratic leadership allowed the “Protect America Act” to lapse. Though Republicans attacked the Democrats as expected, the accusations seemed to have little political resonance.

Nevertheless, the Democratic leadership – behind Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland – continued working on a compromise.

While the new version drops some of the more intrusive features of the “Protect America Act,” such as allowing warrantless wiretaps of Americans outside the United States, the bill adds retroactive telecom immunity (only requiring the companies show they got a written order from the President).

The bill also would grant the administration emergency power to wiretap a target for up to one week before getting a warrant from the secret FISA court. But the bill bars the government from targeting a foreigner as a "back-door" way to spy on an American without a court warrant.

’Capitulation’

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, a strong constitutionalist, termed the new bill “not a compromise; it is a capitulation.”

One of the bill’s illusions would seem to be that the precedent of a President ignoring the FISA law and escaping any accountability can somehow be negated by restating what the original, violated law had declared.

In her June 20 floor statement, Pelosi said in her view this was a crucial feature of the bill, the statement that the President cannot ignore the FISA law again. However, Pelosi’s position sounded like the words of an indulgent parent of a spoiled child: “This time I really mean it!”

The more powerful message from the latest Democratic compromise is that a President – at least a Republican one – can break the wiretap law under the cover of national security and expect to ride out the consequences.

Rather than reaffirming the rule of law and the Constitution’s checks and balances, as Pelosi claimed, the new FISA “compromise” may have done the opposite, signaling that the President is above the law.

After Pelosi’s speech, the House passed the bill by a 293-129 margin with 105 Democrats – including most of the leadership – voting in favor and 128 Democrats against. The bill then went to the Senate, which was expected to approve it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cenk Uygur's blog
Are the Democrats Worse Than the Republicans?
by Cenk Uygur | June 21, 2008 - 2:37pm
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15405

President Bush is the most unpopular president of all time -- literally. No one has had approval ratings this low for this long in American history. Yet he keeps on kicking the crap out of the Democrats.

If you keep losing to the worst, what does that make you?

Today, President Bush will win another huge victory on telecom immunity. He will get away with breaking the law and ordering private companies to break the law for him, which he freely admits. He is making the argument that the president is above the law in the United States of America. And the Democrats can't find a way to beat that argument.

I have no respect for the Democrats. You'd be crazy to have any. Crazy. Blinded by hope or partisan fever to have any respect for these bunch of losers. They keep telling us that they can't possibly beat the most unpopular president of all time. Is there a word worse than loser? Because if there is, it should be applied to the Democrats; if there isn't, they should create one for the Democrats.

On the one had, Democrats will keep telling you that they can't get anything passed in this Congress because the Republicans have 41 Senators that they can filibuster any legislation with. On the other hand, the Republicans will now get this telecom immunity passed through Congress. So, do the Democrats not have 41 Senators, so they can block this bill? Of course they do. They just don't have the nerve. They are collaborators.

I don't believe there is anything the President could have done that would make the Democrats actually challenge him. He broke this law, admitted it, rubbed it in their faces and then made them pass a law that immunizes his law breaking. What other laws could the president have broken? Based on this precedent, just about anything.

If they cared to do this right, the proper strategy would have been painfully easy. Pass an intelligence bill that closes the foreign communication loophole (the only real national security issue that has to be addressed) and don't put in any provision about telecom immunity. Then send it to the president. Have him veto it. And then scream bloody murder that the president is jeopardizing national security. Because he would be.

Telecom immunity has nothing to do with national security at this point. First of all, it's retroactive, so it has nothing to do with current security issues. Secondly, they'll have their day in court. If they are right, then they have nothing to worry about. Their actions will be judged to be legal and they will have no liability. Problem solved.

It's not that this case is hard to make. It's that the Democrats don't want to make it. That's because they don't want to make any case or pick any fight or win on any issue. They are scared to death of the Republicans, to this day as the Republicans are running for the hills and figuring out how many more seats they are going to lose in Congress.

One quick side note. This might mean the Democrats lack all courage. It might mean they are callous and want to lose on purpose. But it doesn't mean they're stupid. They have calculated that policy losses will lead to political victories. And it looks like they are right. But these policy losses have real consequences for our country and our constitution.

Think about this for example. If the president is authorized to order private companies to break the law for national security, why couldn't he order other companies to do a break in -- say at a complex like the Watergate building in Washington -- and then say it was for national security?

You say that's absurd? But what is warrantless wiretapping but a break-in? It's breaking and entering into your private conversations and communications without a warrant and outside of the law. Do we even know who they wiretapped? Isn't it possible that the Democrats are now retroactively authorizing wiretaps of their own phones?

Since I am still a naïve and gullible guy, I don't think the Bush administration wiretapped the Democrats. But I have no basis for believing that. How do we know if they did or didn't? How do we know the Democrats aren't immunizing this very act? They don't know, because they didn't even bother to find out who got wiretapped and for what reason.

Now, I have to give the standard caveats about how there are some who do the right thing in the Democratic Party. I will give the standard example of Russ Feingold (he is the standard example because he seems to be the only who does the right thing on a regular basis). Having said that, if you think your particular Congressman or Senator is one of the good ones, you're probably wrong. This is capitulation en masse. They almost all go along to get along.

And then of course there is the standard caveat about how the Republicans are worse. Yes, of course, they are. They are the ones committing the crimes in the first place. But I get them, I get their motivation. It's the stomach churning capitulation by the Democrats that's infuriating. Who respects a collaborator? Aren't those the kind of people you least want to be associated with?

The main advantage of the Democrats is that they know we have nowhere to turn. They know we're smart enough to not vote for these Republicans. And that might be true in the short-term. But we better be making plans to throw these bums out the next time around. Make a list of all the people who collaborated with the Republicans when it mattered. And in due time, they should all get a knock on the door, from a primary opponent. Let's make a list and check it twice. And never forget those names.

Young Turks on You Tube
http://youtube.com/profile?user=TheYoungTurks

Why couldn't Rockefeller just say he couldn't reach a compromise? Then Obama could claim that none of this was his fault and we'd still be way, way ahead of the Republicans. Also, in case people haven't noticed, the economy is a way more important issue out there on main street than the "war on terror" these days. The Repubs. could probably jump up and down screaming all day and still not get traction.

what fucking complicit cowards. Rich as well for all of their lack of effort on behalf of The Coporatacracy.

And because the Republicans are really bad, so bad they cant hide it, the Democrats get to win some elections.

and they screwed us and sold us out.

constantly reminded of that, whether it matters is another thing.

The outcomes are the same but the screwing is even more degrading when administered by these lying bastards who suckered all of us into voting for their promises of peace in the Middle East and reestablishing checks and balances at home.

Being exposed as a gullible, idealistic fool is bad enough. Having a career politician run that game on you is beyond comprehension. I do know that forcing mass layoffs in the house and senate is the only way these sons of bitches are ever going to get the point that nobody gets a pass for practicing treachery and treason -- unless your name happens to be Bush or Cheney and you happen to have a useless twit like Pelosi pretending to be an adversary.

It's getting so very weird that, no matter the issue, all three branches of the federal government can be counted upon to make the worst possible choices for the little people, while making certain their corporate employers are getting their money's worth.

And yet, given the lizard people who occupy these jobs, I'd say the worst is still to come. They seem to have a limitless gift for reverse alchemy -- turning anything they touch into merde within seconds. They don't seem to have anything better to do between now and end times but eat, drink, be merry and fuck their constituents over several more times.


wp

Oh, I hear you. K&R for the 4th Amendment.

my local Dem party since before I was even voting age and back then my county was overwhelmingly Democratic. This was back in the late '60s and early '70s, slowly but surely my county has fliped to now where the Repubs hold about an 8% lead. I have tried numerous times to get in touch with our county chairman with no luck, so they are sending out the message to us of why bother, its disgraceful!!

Jimmy Carter was my first Presidential vote. The transformation of the Democratic party and our country as a whole since then has been stunning. It's mind boggling that it's gotten this bad. I just don't know what to say.

I don't understand why your county chairman doesn't want to hear from volunteers. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Isn't s/he on board with Dean's 50 state strategy? It sounds like you need a new county chairman.

his own interests. Back when I was young the party was run by the people, now their are a few "insiders" who do what they want. The last time I called the phones were disconnected, sounds like they didn't pay the bill. Like I said they are just telling us that they don't care anymore.

some time ago to support the candidates I want to, and not who they tell me to. I have been working for individual candidates on my own, I don't need the blessings of a few people who think they are in command when they are never around when you need them. BTW, my first vote was for McGovern.

They didn't want some of us old-timers.

Those who KNEW how to work the system.

We just weren't hip (read: corporate) enough.

So, they got rid of some really incredible Dem local leaders.

And see how great it's been for our party. :(

Since Bush is leaving office, I'm sure all the Repubs will now agree that we need this type of oversight. And the Democrats agree with them, of course.

but they don't know what to do with it.

fix this.

but it will never happen, at least(maybe)until we get a new President and Congress.

What is there to add? :shrug:

with waging a war based on lies with Iraq, they were both predetermined from the outset. The Congress knows this as well, apparently they just don't care.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3497613

"the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"....