McCaskill lets me down yet again

Claire McCaskill just can't get it right. She continues to disappoint spectacularly. I don't think she's even trying to represent her constituents any longer. She knows we all pretty much hate her by this point, and she is pinning her hopes for a political future on Obama being elected and appointing her head of the GAO or something. But as far as I can tell, she has pretty much written off having a career in the Senate. That's what it looks like, anyway, her performance has been so lame.

I am really pissed off at her over FISA. For me, it's all about the Constitution, and I put a pretty steep premium on the Fourth Amendment. So when I get a weak-kneed, pathetic response like this, I crank up the livid a couple of notches, and go right to full-tilt, write-a-check-to-the-ACLU outraged.

Dear [Blue Girl]

Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On February 12, 2008, after months of debate, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.2248) by a vote of 68-29. I voted in favor of this effort to modernize the 30-year-old FISA in order to allow us to effectively monitor terrorist communications overseas.

As the FISA Amendments Act was debated on the Senate floor, I voted in favor of three amendments introduced by Senator Feingold (D-WI), all of which sought to add further safeguards against Executive Branch surveillance on innocent Americans. Unfortunately, these amendments failed to garner enough votes to pass. However, the Senate-passed FISA Amendments Act does include several measures to improve our national security without violating the constitutionally protected privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. For example, it would require the government to obtain a warrant whenever the target of surveillance is a U.S. citizen as well as bolster the authority of the FISA courts to oversee the eavesdropping activities of the National Security Agency.

As you may know, I joined 18 other Democrats in voting against Senator Dodd’s (D-CT) amendment to remove provisions granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies (telecoms) that cooperated with the Bush Administration’s wiretapping program. Please keep in mind that this is a limited immunity that applies solely to the telecoms, not the government. I just don’t think we should punish these companies for their good-faith reliance on government assurances that they were assisting in a legal effort to combat terrorism. If the government violated our surveillance laws by eavesdropping without the necessary warrants, then it is the Administration – not the telecoms – that needs to be held accountable. That’s why I supported Senator Specter’s (R-PA) amendment, which would have substituted the federal government in place of telecoms as the defendant in lawsuits, allowing existing legal actions to move forward in an appropriate manner. While this measure was rejected, the underlying legislation would still allow citizens to sue the government for past violations and telecoms for future violations of the new law. As your United States Senator, I remain determined to get to the bottom of any government misconduct. (emphasis added)

Currently, the Senate-passed FISA legislation needs to be reconciled with the House-passed version. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to debate this important issue.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other matters of interest or concern to you.
All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

Claire, you ignorant slut. The telecoms have fully staffed legal departments , and I presume that all of those attorneys on staff took at least one course in Constitutional Law when they were in law school, and presumably the Fourth Amendment was addressed.

Those attorneys knew that the government was asking them to abrogate the Constitution, and gave the go-ahead anyway. Hell, they probably insisted on indemnity contracts to make the government the payer in any future awards because they knew damn good and well what they were signing off on.

And now, this crazy woman wants to immunize them, and in so doing, immunize this criminal president. That's what her "solution" amounts to - let the telecoms (who donate a significant amount of money to McCaskill) skate away with no consequence, and the American taxpayers foot the bill for damage awards, and Bush skates away scott free?

What the fuck, over?

Get this through your bleached-blond head, Claire. You have been had. Immunity isn't about protecting the telecoms. It's about protecting Bush. He would never, in a million years, fight this hard if his ass wasn't the one in jeopardy, and you ought to know it.

If you want to get to the bottom of it, you oppose immunity for these companies - who started spying on us before September 11, by the way - and you let the civil courts sort it out. The discovery process of a civil trial is the best chance we have of determining the real, bedrock truth about just how far these criminal bastards have gone.

By insisting on immunity, McCaskill is aiding and abetting the criminal Bush.

Hold her accountable for that.

Not one dime, not one moment of my time.

There's more: "McCaskill lets me down yet again" >>

It is really pretty simple...

[This entry is a tag-teamed effort by Blue Girl and Pale Rider, crossposted from Blue Girl, Red State]

...but it clean evades the dipshit-in-chief.

If we are in such peril, and need the FISA overhall so fucking bad , like the shrieking chimp on my teevee right now is insisting, then take the telecom immunity out of the bill and it will pass overwhelmingly.

Present the telecom immunity as a separate bill and let it stand or fall on it's own merits or lack thereof.

But it isn't about protecting Americans, it is about giving the craven fascist fuckers who didn't even hesitate to spy on you and me, by listening to our calls and reading our emails, a petticoat to hide behind.

UPDATE - 10:00 a.m., by Blue Girl

It just gets better...GOP lawmakers are pissed off that the telecoms aren't showering them with donations as they fight the mean old Democrats who want to wreck their businesses over that "god damned piece of paper."

UPDATE II - PALE RIDER

Great minds! I was just bringing this over to post here:

Roll Call reports that congressional conservatives are “grumbling” and “griping” that their efforts to protect telecoms haven’t yielded more contributions from the industry:

With the House Democrats’ refusal to grant retroactive immunity to phone companies — stalling the rewrite of the warrantless wiretapping program — GOP leadership aides are grumbling that their party isn’t getting more political money from the telecommunications industry. […]

In a reflection of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and an apparent recognition that they would undermine their own messaging by appearing to be motivated by fundraising concerns, Republicans on and off Capitol Hill declined to comment on the record. […]

“There’s no question that from time to time staff, and maybe some Members, say to fellow travelers: ‘Are you giving us some air cover? Are you helping us help you?’”

COVER? That's what we're calling extortion money now? Cover??? And that's ALL this is about--ramping up the donations to support a collapsing party that is on the wrong side of the issue. They are using the fear of terrorist attack to try to ram through legislation on behalf on an industry that is EXPECTED to shell out campaign money to the Republicans--it's a shakedown and a scheme, and that's all it ever was from the start. Someone in the NRCC sat down and said, how do we get telecom companies to pay out? What do we give them? Immunity! Holy fucking shit. And it gets leaked on Roll Call??? How could anyone be so stupid as to reveal what this is actuall all about? These bastards are now caught, and expect the rats to flee from THAT sinking ship.

These shameful fucking crooks can't get out of town fast enough with that roll of bills in their pants, can they?

In case anyone hasn't figured it out, the GOP is facing a wave of retirements from the House, a corrupt fundraising apparatus that is mired in corruption, and a losing brand that is tied to a hundred years of war in Iraq, more fiscal disaster, and a nominee in John McCain who gets less and less appealing by the nanosecond.

There's more: "It is really pretty simple..." >>

What do you give the federal agency that already has everything, including your Fourth Amendment rights?

A Billion dollar biometric database, of course!

The task is already underway. Digital images of fingerprints, palm prints, faces and physical characteristics are already being integrated into the FBI's IT system, and the database is being assembled in a secure, climate-controlled two-acre basement in Clarksburg, VA.

This month, the FBI will award a ten-year contract that will vastly expand the amount and type of biometric information the FBI receives and retains, and will be able to draw on in future law enforcement investigations. The project will give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals world wide. If the planned system, known as Next Generation Identification, is successful, it will collect a wide variety of biometric information in one place for identification and forensic purposes.

The day is nigh upon us when law enforcement authorities will be able to rely on iris patterns, scars, face shape and bone structure data, and perhaps even speech and gait patterns, to solve crimes and identify criminal and terror suspects.

In addition, the FBI will, upon request by employers, retain the fingerprints of employees who undergo criminal background checks so employers can be notified if employees have even minor brushes with the law.

[Keep reading]

Currently, a request reaches the FBI database for searches every second of every day, and about 100,000 matches are either verified or ruled out every day. More than 55 percent of these requests are for background checks of civilians who work for the federal government in sensitive positions, and jobs that involve children and elderly. At the present time, these sets of prints are destroyed or returned to the employers when the checks are completed, but that will soon change. The FBI is planning what they refer to as a "rap-back" service that would allow employers to request the records be retained; that they can be notified if their employee gets popped for an unpaid parking ticket.

As biometrics are used more and more for identification purposes, privacy advocates are asking questions about the ability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny. Why bother with a national ID card when the feds have all the biometric data of your very corporeal being and can ID us all by our cheekbone structure? Some critics say that before the project proceeds, proof should be provided that the technology actually works, and can pick a criminal out of a crowd, rather than just collect a bunch of intimately personal data on Americans. "It's going to be an essential component of tracking," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's enabling the Always On Surveillance Society."

[The Washington Post article originally ran the Saturday before Christmas - the slowest news day of the entire year. I thought the issue merited actual attention, so I waited until now to address it.]

There's more: "What do you give the federal agency that already has everything, including your Fourth Amendment rights?" >>

This round goes to Dodd!

Christopher Dodd won a significant battle today when Majority "Leader" Reid withdrew the FISA overhaul that would have given retroactive immunity to telecoms that spied on American citizens.

Dodd left the campaign trail yesterday and flew back to Washington from Iowa to personally lead the charge. Of the four Democratic Senators running for the presidency, he was the only one to do so. "I respect immensely the people who spend a lot of time on these issues. But this is a critical moment," Dodd said on the Senate floor. "This is one of these moments you need to be here for this, to engage in this debate and discussion. They don't happen everyday, but this is an important one. This goes right to the heart of who we are. This isn't about selling your soul, it's about giving it away, in my view, if you don't stand up for these rights."

While he did not technically filibuster the bill, he did debate pretty much non-stop for eight hours, and when he ceded the floor to his Democratic colleagues, he remained engaged in the debate from start to finish. "Everyone who spoke on the floor said they were grateful for Dodd taking a stand," said a staffer to the Senator who asked not to be named. "They said if it weren't for him they wouldn't be having this much-needed debate."

Congratulations, Senator. That one you won today? You won it for all of us, and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of civil liberties and the Constitution. Thank you for standing up. And I mean that from the bottom of my bleeding, liberal heart.

(Hat-tip to Huffington Post)

There's more: "This round goes to Dodd!" >>

Call Senator Reid Right Now!

He is on the verge of sticking a thumb in your eye on a Friday afternoon! Flood his office with phone calls and emails! Fill his voicemail! Run his staff ragged!

He is threatening to ask for a 'motion to Proceed" on FISA - the bill that Senator Dodd placed a hold on! Reid wants to let the Telecom's off the hook for breaking the law and spying on you!

The phone number to his office is 202-224-3542.

If you can't get through to his office, acll the Capitol switchboard. That number is 202-224-3121

Here is the link to his senate email forum:

reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm


Call right now and tell him just exactly how pissed off his fecklessness makes you!

(Can you say Majority Leader Feingold?)

There's more: "Call Senator Reid Right Now!" >>

Remember the Constitution?

Well now. It isn't like we (meaning us DFH lefty bloggers) didn't tell you these bastards couldn't be trusted. We told you that if you gave them an inch they would take a mile. Sure enough, they decided to take two, since they're small.

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime.

These requests go against internal Justice Department recommendations that warrants be sought by federal prosecutors, based on probable cause. Because the orders are sealed at the request of the government, it is difficult, if not impossible to determine how often the orders are okayed or declined.

This month, a federal judge in Texas denied a request by a DEA agent for data that would identify the location of a suspected drug trafficker by the GPS chip in his cell phone. Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley did not just deny the request, he was scathing in his opinion, stating that the agent's affidavit failed to make the case and offer the "specifics necessary to establish probable cause, such as relevant dates, names and places."

Then the judge opted to publish his opinion and make it a part of the public record.

[Keep reading...]

In his opinion, he offered the details of the case, explaining in detail the shortcomings of the agents argument, in which the agent failed to provide "sufficient specific information to support the assertion" that the phone was being used to facilitate criminal activity.

The agent offered no substantiation of the allegation, instead merely arrogantly asserting that the suspect trafficked in narcotics and used the phone to do so. Owlesly wrote in his opinion that the agent simply stated that the agency had " 'determined' or 'identified' certain matters," but "these identifications, determinations or revelations are not facts, but simply conclusions by the agency."

Federal agencies are routinely applying for orders based on an absurdly low standard, when they should be seeking warrants based on probable cause.

And we warned you.

We told you that if you gave them special powers under the guise of "tracking terrorists" that in a New York minute they would be abusing their new, extra-Constitutional powers and going after Americans with them. We told you that if they were given a taste of that sort of power they would use it instead of shoeleather to prosecute criminal cases.

But instead of heeding our warnings, we were mocked, ridiculed and asked, in all seriousness, why we hated America and wanted the terrorists to win? And anyway, what did we have to hide? Hmmm?

This sort of thing might be right up some quivering, pissing coward's alley, but not mine. I actually give a rat's ass about the Constitution and liberty and freedom. I fear my government a hell of a lot more than I fear a few foam-flecked fundamentalists and their reich-wing enablers.

Extra-Constitutional powers granted to combat terrorism were quickly abused and misused by law enforcement to make criminal cases.

Next stop? Spying on political opponents.

Who is to say that isn't already happening?

It sure would explain the cowardice and spinelessness of a whole bunch of Democrats in congress.

I don't know about you, but the very first day that Congress is back in session, I will be calling all of my elected representatives and demanding a repeal of that un-American apostasy known as the Patriot Act.

There's more: "Remember the Constitution?" >>

Governor Bill Richardson's Statement on New England Patriots Spying Incident

The following is Bill Richardson's recent comment on the New England Patriots spying incident.

"The President has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue. You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush."

I guess Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid feel that there is no current need to restore the Constitution. The NFL has drawn the appropriate line on domestic spying.

There's more: "Governor Bill Richardson's Statement on New England Patriots Spying Incident" >>

What Really Happened in Ashcroft's Room

In his testimony Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that when James Comey raised objections to the administration’s spying program, he was referring to “other intelligence activities,” not the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush has confirmed. Gonzales also denied that he and former White House chief of staff Andy Card tried during to pressure a hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft was in an intensive care unit recovering from gall bladder surgery and Gonzales was Bush’s White House legal counsel. Ashcroft had transferred the powers of his office to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Comey testified in May that he thought Gonzales and Card tried to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general.

I've discovered a previously unknown video of the entire event. Below is a snippet:

There's more: "What Really Happened in Ashcroft's Room" >>

Comey: Cheney kiboshed career of Justice official who opposed domestic spying

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s written responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee are as dramatic and revealing as his testimony before the committee. Via his written responses, the Washington Post reports on a meeting that took place the day before at the White House:

"Mr. Comey has confirmed what we suspected for a while -- that White House hands guided Justice Department business," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The vice president's fingerprints are all over the effort to strong-arm Justice on the NSA program, and the obvious next question is: Exactly what role did the president play?"(emphasis added)

According to Comey, the hospital visit was preceded by a March 9, 2004, meeting at the White House on the Justice Department objections. It was attended by Cheney; Gonzales; Card; Cheney's counsel then, David S. Addington; and others, Comey said.

Comey also named eight Justice Department officials who were prepared to quit if the White House had not backed down, including FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, current U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria and Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel and led an internal legal review of the surveillance program.

Comey said that the review "focused on current operations during late 2003 and early 2004, and the legal basis for the program." He declined to answer detailed questions about the program or the review, citing restrictions on classified information.

Bush confirmed the existence of the surveillance effort after news reports in December 2005, saying it was authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was vital to protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. The program has since been put under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees clandestine eavesdropping in the United States.

What exactly were they doing? Ashcroft is no civil libertarian – so what line did they cross and how far over it did they go? I shudder to think.

There's more: "Comey: Cheney kiboshed career of Justice official who opposed domestic spying" >>

What will it take to put impeachment back on the table?

Waiting for impeachment, I feel like I'm eight years old again, schlepping across the country in the back of a station wagon en route to DisneyWorld - Are we there yet???

Just when I start to think that the lowest levels of mendacious chicanery have been plumbed, we learn of the existence of a whole new sub-basement of perfidy. Logic dictates that we have to be nearing the gates of hell.

Is the realization dawning on you yet that your entire freakin' country has been hijacked? The ideals that have allowed us to get away with projecting an aura of American Exceptionalism around the globe for the past half-century have been subverted, and the civil liberties that formed the justification for the original perception of exceptionalism were stripped away. The liberties that were not stripped away, were ignored, scoffed at and scorned by the authoritarian elites, whose offenses against liberty and the Constitution know no bounds.

Under the Bush maladministration, the American Way was taken out in the woods, and two were put behind the ear.

I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea that some of these Stalinist tactics actually came to be employed in my country. Mr. Yoo betrayed America when he conceived of the specious NSA domestic spying program.

…Mr. Bush backed down in the face of the threat of mass resignations, Mr. Ashcroft's included, and he apparently agreed to whatever more limited program the department was willing to approve. In the interim, however, the president authorized the program the Justice lawyers had refused to certify as legally permissible, and it continued for a few weeks more, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's careful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the Constitution, the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is. But as a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.

These are important topics for public discussion, and if anyone doubts that they can safely be discussed in public, they need look no further than Mr. Comey's testimony. Instead of doing so, Mr. Bush wants to short-circuit that discussion by invoking the continuing danger of al-Qaeda.

"And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress," Mr. Bush assured the country yesterday, as he brushed off requests for a more detailed account. But this is exactly the point of contention. The administration, it appears from Mr. Comey's testimony, was willing to go forward, against legal advice, with a program that the Justice Department had concluded did not "honor the civil liberties of our people." Nor is it clear that Congress was adequately informed. The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Yes, even the normally staid Washington Post has had enough – I may get pissy with the Post sometimes, but that’s because I grew up with it and have Katherine Graham standards for the nation’s local paper, and I simply expect journalistic integrity from them. (I am of the age that my worldview was cast by Walter Cronkite and the Washington Post.) My long-standing fondness for the paper feels justified when they get it right, like when they followed the money and brought down a corrupt president, and Katherine Graham was willing to go to jail for contempt to protect the journalistic integrity of her paper. Like they currently exhibit by employing Dana Priest. Like they just exhibited today by denouncing the subversion of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

We stand at the precipice people. If you are willing to sacrifice your freedom for a false illusion of safety in an inherently unsafe world, then Ben Franklin was right – you deserve neither safety nor security.

You feel free to capitulate to tyranny and surrender America without a fight.

You may be happy to be relieved of your liberties and responsibilities, but I will never surrender to fear, and you certainly do not speak for me.

I, for one, will never accept tyranny, I will never accept these assaults on my liberty. We knew how to deal with tyrants who abused our civil liberties back in 1776. If our government refuses to honor the will of the people and be set right, will we prove ourselves worthy descendants?

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "What will it take to put impeachment back on the table?" >>

They have to be kidding, right?

Buried on page A14 of today’s Washington Post is a story worthy of outrage and page-one coverage…and this buried nugget wasn’t even penned by Walter Pincus.

The Bush administration is urging Congress to pass a law that would halt dozens of lawsuits charging phone companies with invading ordinary citizens' privacy through a post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance program.

The measure is part of a legislative package drafted by the Justice Department to relax provisions in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that restrict the administration's ability to intercept electronic communications in the United States. If passed, the proposed changes would forestall efforts to compel disclosure of the program's details through Congress or the court system.

The proposal states that "no action shall lie . . . in any court, and no penalty . . . shall be imposed . . . against any person" for giving the government information, including customer records, in connection with alleged intelligence activity the attorney general certifies "is, was, would be or would have been" intended to protect the United States from terrorist attack. The measure, which has not yet been filed, is contained in a proposed amendment to the fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization bill.

The immunity measure has stoked controversy following public uproar over news reports of warrantless access to both telephone conversations and records as part of the administration's post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism policies. It is part of a larger debate about the proper balance between guarding national security and civil liberties and the extent to which private companies have acted as an arm of the federal government. In March, the Justice Department inspector general found that the FBI had secret contracts with three telephone companies to obtain Americans' phone records, claiming "exigent circumstances," when, in many instances, none existed.

This would have the effect of letting the telecom companies off the liability hook for facilitating the government’s domestic spying program and violating your civil liberties and mine.

The ACLU and other rights advocacy groups oppose the measure, while the government asserts that the only reason we have not been blow to bits and de-headed by terrorists is due to the patriots at AT&T who gave them access to our phone records.

Government lawyers crafted the immunity bill using terms deliberately vague in referring to activity that "would be or would have been" aimed at protecting the country from attack to avoid indicating whether a company cooperated.

But civil libertarians charged that blanket immunity would amount to a legislative pardon to telecommunications companies and others that have aided the government's warrantless surveillance, without explaining the pardon's basis.

"To let them off the hook now sets a dangerous precedent by encouraging them to continue to engage in illegal collaborations with the government in the future," said Kevin Bankston, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which last year filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T, charging that the company allowed the government to unlawfully monitor U.S. residents.

The measure would gut Congress's efforts to conduct inquiries into the administration's surveillance program because a subpoenaed company or government official could invoke immunity, said Tim Sparapani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued the government to force a halt to its wiretapping program.

The government asserts that the blanket immunity is necessary to protect sensitive national security information. "If companies are alleged to have cooperated with the government to protect our nation against another attack, they should not be held liable for any assistance they are alleged to have provided," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

The immunity would be limited to assistance from Sept. 11, 2001, to the date the measure becomes law.

Yeah…this bunch has been so trustworthy and honest, a veritable Upright Citizens Brigade, that we should just go ahead and trust them on this…NOT!

Personally, I agree with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon…"If somebody intentionally breaks the law . . . that's not something you should just ignore." Yet that is exactly what this legislation would do.

Contact your elected representatives today and tell them to give this legislation the appropriate reception when it comes up: Roaring freakin' laughter.

There's more: "They have to be kidding, right?" >>