|
Banned
|
Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed
We are about to experience a crucial end of the month, as far as deliberations in the US Senate go. Odds are, we'll get to see if Clinton and Obama take time away from their presidential primary campaigns to spend the time in the senate to support CT senator Chris Dodd's, probably futile attempt to block democratic majority leader Harry Reid's effort to push through a bill drafted by Cheney and Senate Intel Committee chair, WV democrat Jay Rockefeller.
<h3>(Note...on voting in the poll, I don't think I enabled multiple votes, so if you agree that this is an instance when you could consider violent protest, chose the third poll choice.... )</h3>
Unlike the bill passed late last year by the house, the senate bill Reid chose, includes immunity from telecom customer lawsuits for telecoms, except for Qwest Comm., deciding to cooperate with the government, without required warrants being issued, in turning over private communixations records and customer records, to government investigative and monitoring agencies. legal advisors at Qwest advised executives of that company not to cooperate with government request that did not include warrants authorized by judges, because it woild not be legal to do so without them,
Reid's choice...he could have selected the version of the bill which more closely matched the already passed house version, makes it necessary to achieve 60 votes in the senate to remove the telecom immunity provisions, instead of, as in the other version drafted by senate democrats, adding the telecom immunity as an amendment to the deomcratic senators' version.
I'll keep this simple...this bill, if passed, is even less protective of our right "to be secure in our papers", i.e. our fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search, than the temporary FISA "modernization",passed last August, without telecom immunity, and now set to expire in two weeks.
If Clinton and Obama do not join Dodd in the senate to speask and vote against passage of this bill, and with the democratic congress accumulating a legislative record as "Bush's poodle"...and, if you believe that sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to attempt to redress grievances against a government undermining the foundations of our constititutional bill of rights, would lack of firm oppostion to this bill by Clinton and Obama, and it's passage, be one of those times when consideration of responding with violent protest, in lieu of defense of our rights by either party's leaders and likely successors, be something you would consider, or....would you elect to wait.....for what, and for how long?
Quote:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ust-exami.html
NSA Must Examine All Internet Traffic to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says
By Ryan Singel January 15, 2008 | 12:55:56 PM
....Simply put, the FISA law is intended to prevent the NSA from operating inside the United States.
In any event, that restriction collapsed this summer with the fear-induced, strong-armed passage of the so-called Protect America Act. That law radically re-architected the nation's surveillance apparatus.
Now the NSA can turn Gmail's servers and AT&T's switches into <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html">de facto arms of the surveillance industrial complex without any court oversight.</a>
And though the law ostensibly sunsets in February, any orders in effect at that time will have power for another 12 months. Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is reportedly planning to discard legislative attempts to rein in these new powers and will instead simply push to extend the current scheme another 12 months.
In short, McConnell's politically convenient exaggerations have already worked well for him in winning domestic spying powers, despite their flimsiness under any real scrutiny....
http://snafu-ed.blogspot.com/2008/01...nitor-any.html
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Feds Drafting Plan to Monitor All Internet Activity
This will make warrantless wiretapping seem like a walk in the park. In the January 21st print edition of New Yorker magazine, Lawrence Wright's piece on Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, The Spymaster, has some disturbing info about new measures the government is planning. These measures will infringe still further on our privacy - if in fact we have any after they are instituted.
<i>In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"</i>
You can also hear Wright interviewed <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/01/21/080121on_audio_wright">here</a> by Matt Dellinger of the New Yorker. At about 17 minutes into the MP3 file, he says:
<i>We live in a world of an open Internet and we all depend on that. But the openness of it is also what makes it so fragile and vulnerable to attack - to manipulation and destruction by a sinister force. He's (McConnell) has come up with a cybersecurity policy that the president has not announced yet, but it would in many ways revolutionize the relationship between government and industry and also with American citizens.
Every bit of information throughout the Internet could be monitored by the government. This is going to be a very thorny development. It requires Americans giving up the presumption of privacy. But it may be the only way to protect the systems.</i>
The article is called The Spymaster in the January 21st issue of the New Yorker - print version (until they archive it) only.
|
Quote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-01-18.html
Warrantless-spying debate puts Obama, Clinton in bind
By Manu Raju
Posted: 01/18/08 12:01 AM [ET]
A political landmine awaits Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when the Senate takes up the hot-button issue of warrantless spying ahead of the pivotal Super Tuesday primary contests.
The Democratic presidential candidates’ votes could either give Republicans a fresh opening to attack them as weak on national security or provoke a backlash from the Democratic base.
Staying on the campaign trail, rather than returning to Capitol Hill, is no safe haven either. Campaigning instead of legislating would likely lead to griping from both sides about the candidates’ leadership on one of the most contentious issues facing the 110th Congress.
“As close as things are in the presidential race, I think it would be in their interest to show where they stand,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “If they don’t, it will certainly be remarked upon by activists.”
Attacks from the left could also fly toward Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a front-runner for the GOP nomination who has largely backed the administration on this issue. How the three candidates vote may also give a clue on whether they are starting to weigh a general-election strategy aimed at attracting more centrist voters, or are still taking positions that appeal to their respective bases active in the primaries.
At stake is Congress’s effort to overhaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Many liberal Democrats and civil liberties groups charge that a GOP-backed interim FISA bill passed last summer tramples on Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.
The Senate’s debate, likely to begin toward the end of next week, comes at a critical time during the nominating process. The short-term law, slammed by the left because it greatly expanded the government’s powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping, is set to expire Feb. 1. That is four days before Super Tuesday, when 22 states hold primaries that could catapult a candidate to the general election.
Obama and Clinton both voted against the White House-backed interim measure enacted in August, and they supported a Democratic alternative that would have provided more safeguards on privacy but failed to clear the Senate. McCain was not present for either of those votes.
In December, the Senate attempted to resurrect the debate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor that would establish new court and congressional oversight of the program, but would also grant retroactive legal immunity to the phone companies that participated in the wiretapping program after Sept. 11, 2001.
But Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, then a long-shot Democratic presidential candidate, returned from campaigning in Iowa and vowed to derail the bill because he said the retroactive immunity provision would let the Bush administration and phone companies off the hook for breaking the law. Supporters of the immunity provision argue that the companies should not be sued for working in the interest of national security, and the White House says President Bush will not sign a bill silent on the issue.
Reid was forced to pull the bill from the floor after Dodd led an effort to tie up the floor in procedural knots. While Obama and Clinton said they were supportive of Dodd’s effort, they were campaigning ahead of the Iowa caucuses, which were less than three weeks away.
During that debate, Dodd said he was “disappointed” that Obama and Clinton did not return to Capitol Hill to join his effort.
“I can’t go to a gathering of Democrats here and not have this issue come up here,” Dodd said. “This is the moment, and you ought to be here to be a part of it.”
Since Dodd objected to efforts by Reid to speed consideration of the bill in December, there is little time now for the Senate to conclude its debate and draft a bicameral compromise that Bush would be willing to sign before the Feb. 1 expiration date....
....An Obama aide would not say whether the senator would return to Washington for the debate or would support an extension of the current law. The aide said the senator is backing an amendment to strike the retroactive immunity language from the bill and supports “restoring oversight and accountability” to the program while ensuring there are "vital constitutional protections.”
Spokesmen in Clinton’s campaign and Senate offices did not return several inquiries seeking comment.
Democratic activists say the presidential candidates should stand up to the fear-mongering by the Republicans, arguing that polls show that the general public strongly opposes warrantless surveillance and retroactive immunity for the telecommunications firms.
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), too, will likely add pressure to his rivals Obama and Clinton, having already criticized the Democratic-led Congress for not having a “backbone” on the issue.
|
Quote:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...FISA_vote.html
January 16, 2008
Read More: Homeland Security
Rove's eye will be on FISA vote
Take note, Democratic presidential operatives: Karl Rove will be very carefully watching the Senate floor vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Addressing the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting Wednesday, Rove urged the party faithful to watch closely how the Democratic presidential front-runners, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, vote on the issue.
“Do they or do they not want our intelligence agencies to be listening in on conversations between terrorists in the Middle East who may be plotting to hurt America?” Rove asked.....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011302800.html
Dan Froomkin
White House Watch Columnist
Wednesday, January 16, 2008; 1:00 PM
....West Union, Iowa: What's your take on how the upcoming FISA renewal will play out?
Dan Froomkin: I'm betting on Bush beating the Democrats into submission again. So far, that's been a safe bet....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301134_pf.html
Congress Goes Belly Up
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, December 13, 2007; 11:46 AM
<h3>Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed.</h3>
Time and time again, President Bush has run circles around what is, at least on <a href="http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html">paper</a>, a co-equal branch of government. Sometimes he doesn't bother to ask Congress for its approval. Sometimes he demands it -- and gets it.
Amazingly enough, that didn't change when the Democrats won control of the House and Senate. They just make a bit more fuss before rolling over.....
|
Last edited by host; 01-18-2008 at 02:47 AM..
|