Labels: ATT, Democrats, FISA, Protect America Act, Stephen Colbert, terrorism, warrantless domestic wiretapping
Submit To Propeller
posted by profmarcus at
3/07/2008
[T]he reason the telcos don't care all that much about the lawsuits being pursued against them is because they almost certainly signed indemnification agreements with the feds back in 2001. Such agreements would force the federal government to pay any legal judgments awarded in suits against the telcos:It is my contention that the telcos have just such indemnification agreements with the Administration/government, that we do not know about because they are classified and hidden, that so protect them for any liability and losses resulting from the litigation they are faced with; thus they do not need immunity to protect them from potential liability verdicts, they are already covered....As someone that has had dealings with such entities regarding bad/illegal wiretaps, I can attest that they always protect themselves vis a vis the governmental entity they are working for and are not shy about the use of indemnity provisions.
In email, bmaz put it to me even more strongly: "The general counsels and legal departments of telcos are extremely accomplished and always protect their company's interests meticulously. They have been dealing with wiretapping and surveillance agreements with the government and law enforcement for over seven decades, this was not a matter of first impression to them; and in difficult and unique cases, I have never seen them not insist on indemnification. Never."
In the Washington Post today, Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima talk to some of the people behind the telco suits, and they don't seem to think that potential payouts are the issue either — which is why the telcos are remaining fairly low key about the whole thing. Rather, it's the Bush administration that wants immunity, and they want it because they're trying to keep the scope of their wiretapping programs secret:
"I think the administration would be very loath for folks to realize that ordinary people were being surveilled," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the lead lawsuit, against AT&T.
....Peter Eliasberg, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney involved in cases against AT&T and Verizon, said that if the cases proceed, the plaintiffs could submit an interrogatory to the carriers seeking answers to the questions: Did you turn over customer phone records en masse to the government? Did you receive a warrant or a subpoena?
Answers to those questions, he said, might reveal that "everybody in the country" has had their phone calls "combed through, and lots of people will be outraged."
Obviously some of this stuff is guesswork, though pretty well-founded guesswork, and bmaz suggests that the press ought to show some interest in the possible existence of indemnification agreements. I agree. If they exist, it would mean the telcos have never been exposed in any way, and immunity would have no effect on their willingness to cooperate with the government in the future. It would also explain why the Bush administration was able to keep the telcos on board so easily even after the Protect America Act expired three weeks ago. Indemnification might be a good subject for some enterprising national security journalist to start prying into.
Labels: 4th Amendment, Bush Administration, constitutional crisis, FISA, Protect America Act, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, U.S. Constitution, warrantless domestic wiretapping
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
3/04/2008
There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is "George W. Bush." That is who refused to agree to the Democrats' offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension ("US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law"), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension. It's just that simple.
[...]
[M]any right-wing polemicists use fearmongering techniques like this... manipulatively, to exploit the Terrorist threat for more unchecked government power and to advance their political agenda.
But many of them actually believe this, and there are undoubtedly all sorts of individuals in the U.S. today nervously looking at their clocks, with accelerating heartbeat and a deepening sense of foreboding, knowing that the Hour of Danger is nigh upon us. This pitiful, fear-drenched absurdity is the face of the Bush Movement, the symbol of the post-9/11 Bush Era in the United States.
If the nation is really going to be more vulnerable as the result of the expiration of the PAA (Protect AT&T Act), why hasn't Homeland Security's color coded threat level been raised to Magenta or Puce or some such thing?
Officials made clearer Friday that the real dispute is over the protection of phone companies for past actions. Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, told National Public Radio on Friday: "It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. We can't do this mission without their help."
Labels: 9/11, fear-mongering, FISA, George Bush, Homeland Security, jihad, Mike McConnell, Protect America Act, Republicans, Salon, telecommunications companies, warrantless domestic wiretapping
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
2/17/2008
This veto threat is one of the President's most brazen acts ever, so nakedly exposing the fun and games he routinely plays with National Security Threats. After sending Mike McConnell out last August to warn that we will all die without the PAA, Bush now says that he would rather let it expire than give Congress another 30 days. He just comes right out and announces, then, that he will leave us all vulnerable to a Terrorist Attack unless he not only gets everything he wants from Congress -- all his new warrantless eavesdropping powers made permanent plus full immunity for his lawbreaking telecom partners -- but also gets it exactly when he wants it (i.e., now -- not 30 days from now).
If the Democrats had even the slightest strategic sense and/or courage -- just the slightest amount -- this is a political confrontation they would be uncontrollably eager to have. Just imagine if they sustain the filibuster today and instead pass a 30-day extension of the PAA, and then Bush vetoes it, knowingly choosing to leave the intelligence community without the ability to Listen In When Osama Is Calling. It would be the height of political stupidity for Democrats to be afraid of that outcome.
* * * * *
That's what is at stake today as Senate Democrats try to sustain a filibuster against the Republicans' efforts to force a final vote on the truly pernicious Senate Intelligence Committee bill. Are there any limits at all on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to be bullied and humiliated by Republicans, even by the most transparently disingenuous tactics such as these?
[...]
The veto threat from the President is so unbelievably corrupt and manipulative that if our national press had even the smallest amount of critical faculties and understanding of the issues, that veto threat would be a major story. After all, how can the President possibly threaten the country that he will veto a law that he himself has claimed for months is indispensable for Protecting Us All?
[...]
Any rational person has long ago given up the hope that Congressional Democrats will stand for any actual political convictions, but the most basic sense of personal pride and human dignity -- which one thought was an intrinsic part of human nature -- would preclude their capitulation today. If they don't stand up to the White House and Senate Republicans under these circumstances, one might as well accept that they never will do so.
Labels: Chris Dodd, FISA, George Bush, Glenn Greenwald, Mike McConnell, Protect America Act, retroactive immunity, Russ Feingold, Senate Intelligence Committee, warrantless domestic wiretapping
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
1/28/2008
Help Me Spy onAl QaedaEverybody
The intelligence community cannot go it alone. Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits. I share the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which, after a year of study, concluded that “without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future,” and warned that “the possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our nation.”
Labels: 4th Amendment, constitutional crisis, DNI, FISA, lies, Michael McConnell, New York Times, Protect America Act, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, U.S. Constitution
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
12/10/2007
Labels: Bush Administration, Lahore, martial law, Military Commissions Act, Pakistan, Patriot Act, Pervez Musharraf, Protect America Act, war on terror
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/05/2007
Police throughout the country raided the homes of opposition party leaders and activists, arresting at least 500. Top lawyers were also taken into custody, and 70 activists were detained at the offices of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in the eastern city of Lahore. Police confiscated the equipment of journalists covering the raid and ordered them to leave the premises. All independent television news stations remained off the air for a second straight day. The prime minister, meanwhile, said that elections could be delayed for up to a year.
If Bush and Cheney are ever tempted into extreme measures in the United States, Musharraf has provided a template for how it would unfold. Maintain you are moving against terrorists and extremists, but actually move against the rule of law.
- dongoodwin1 wrote: I've been warning that we need to be alert for an attempt by Bush to declare Martial Law. This action by his buddy, Musharraf, is likely designed as a "dress rehersal" for our Uberfuhrer_want-to-be.
- fslearjet wrote: It’s interesting to see the collapse of a a failed administration and a failed policy in Pakistan that closely mirrors the failure of this bush#2 administration. ... This failed president and the neocons deserve to clean up this mess and further this entire administration (bush#2) should resign from office right now.
- eco-pharm wrote: Bush's hero is inspiring Bush. Look for the same thing to occur here next spring.
- justjunkemail wrote: A letter to the Pakistanians. Please do not be alarmed! This is only a test. The US Goverment wants to see if it can accomplish the same thing under the current leadership here in the US. This is only a test.
- pgardner1 wrote: "President Bush has 'regretfully decided' to impose martial law in the wake of the terrorist attack against the Chicago Board of Trade. The attack, coming only a week before the Federal elections, was, in President Bush's words, "proof that the call for withdrawing troops from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan encourage the enemies of this great democracy.' After detailing plans for the new biometric identity cards to be issued to all U.S. citizens, President Bush was asked about the upcoming elections. His response, 'we are looking at them,' left little doubt that the elections would not take place on schedule.
While Gen. Musharraf maintains that he was forced to make his most recent coup by the threat of Muslim extremism, many of Pakistan's Urdu newspapers have a different interpretation. They suggest in their editorials that the Bush administration' s pressure on Musharraf to move in an uncompromising way against Muslim fundamentalists sharpened the contradictions in Pakistani society and provoked the current crisis. That is, they think it is America's fault for denying to the Pakistani government the option of compromise and so pushing the country toward polarization and the coup.
[from Islam, an Urdu daily]We should tell the United States that we can offer no more sacrifices, and that it should fight its war on its own. The United States has plunged us into a 'quagmire' where the security and integrity of the country are at stake, not to speak of the holding of elections. How can elections be held at a time when explosions are taking place all around? How will the people be able to leave their homes and vote? The war of the United States, due to which the entire nation is in the grip of bomb blasts and suicide attacks, cannot be fought at the cost of the country's integrity.
Labels: Bush Administration, Juan Cole, martial law, Military Commissions Act, Pakistan, Patriot Act, Pervez Musharraf, Protect America Act, war on terror
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/05/2007
Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, and the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".
In a lengthy televised speech late on Saturday, Mr Musharraf said the situation had forced him into making "some very painful decisions".
"I suspect that Pakistan's sovereignty is in danger unless timely action is taken," he said.
He insisted his decisions were made for the benefit of Pakistan.
[...]
"Kindly understand the criticality of the situation in Pakistan and around Pakistan. Pakistan is on the verge of destabilisation," he said.
"Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."
[...]
Gen Musharraf's address echoed the text of the declaration of emergency rule, which opens with a reference to the "grave threat" posed by the "visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks".
It ends by saying that the constitution is in "abeyance" - which, according to our correspondent, in effect means that martial law has been imposed, although there is not a heavy security presence on the streets.
[...]
Shortly after emergency rule was declared, all private news channels were taken off the air and tough restrictions have been imposed on the media.
Statements that defame Gen Musharraf, the military or the government are prohibited and statements or pictures from Islamist militants are banned from broadcast or publication.
General Musharraf’s move to seize emergency powers and abandon the Constitution left Bush administration officials close to their nightmare: an American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public.
Labels: Bush Administration, martial law, Military Commissions Act, Pakistan, Patriot Act, Pervez Musharraf, Protect America Act, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, war on terror
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/03/2007
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising Islamic militant violence.
Eight Supreme Court judges immediately rejected the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several cities and telephone services in the capital, Islamabad, were cut.
[...]
The state TV report gave no reason for the emergency but it follows weeks of speculation that he could take the step. Military vehicles patrolled and troops blocked roads in the administrative heart of the capital.
[...]
Shahzad Iqbal, an official at a cable TV news provider in Islamabad said authorities were blocking transmissions of private news channels in Islamabad and neighboring Rawalpindi. State TV was still on the air.
"The government has done it," he said.
Labels: Defense Authorization Act, martial law, Military Commissions Act, Pakistan, Patriot Act, Pervez Musharraf, Protect America Act, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/03/2007
Bush's Spying Hits Americans Abroad
By Robert Parry
October 19, 2007In August after the Democratic-controlled Congress caved in to George W. Bush’s demands for broader surveillance powers, I noted that the new authority went far beyond what was advertised and that the President could obtain year-long spying orders on Americans who ventured outside the United States.
My , which was based on a reading of the law’s language, wasn’t shared by commentators in the major U.S. news media and even drew some reader criticism as alarmist for failing to take into account secret “minimization” provisions that supposedly would protect American citizens.
[T]he Bush administration’s hostile reaction to a seemingly innocuous amendment added to a new surveillance bill by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, suggests that targeting Americans who travel abroad was a key goal of Bush’s “Protect America Act of 2007.”Wyden told the New York Times that his amendment would require the government to get a warrant whenever it wants to wiretap an American outside the country, such as a U.S. soldier serving overseas or an American on a business trip.
“The individual freedom of an American shouldn’t depend on their physical geography,” Wyden told the Times. He said his amendment passed on a 9-6 vote in a closed Senate Intelligence Committee meeting on Oct. 18. [NYT, Oct. 19, 2007]
After the committee vote, the Bush administration and a key Senate Republican took direct aim at Wyden’s provision.
“We have strong concerns about that amendment,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. “We certainly could not accept it.”
Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, the ranking committee Republican, said Wyden’s amendment was “problematic” and could scuttle the entire bill if not changed.
In other words, the seemingly loose phrasing of the Protect America Act wasn’t just an oversight or something that would be cleaned up with some internal technical adjustments. Rather, it was an important feature of the legislation that was slipped past the Democratic leadership and most of the Washington press corps in August.
Labels: Consortium News, Democrats, domestic surveillance, George Bush, Kit Bond, Protect America Act, Robert Parry, Ron Wyden, Senate Intelligence Committee, Tony Fratto, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
10/19/2007
The enactment in August by the Democratic Congress of new eavesdropping powers for the President was one of the worst, if not the single worst, acts of capitulation to the Bush White House. The only comparable disgrace was the Democrats' complete failure even to attempt a filibuster of the Military Commissions Act, largely due to their decision to allow John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham to speak for them so that they did not have to participate in the debate. Once those three GOP Senators predictably blessed the MCA, Democrats had no strategy and thus actively enabled the abolition of habeas corpus along with the other abuses that Act legalized.
The FISA capitulation, though, was probably even worse. It occurred when they supposedly control the Congress. They enlarged the President's powers under the very law that he has been violating for years. They gave the Bush White House what it demanded even though the White House continues to provide them with no meaningful information about what was done during all those years when they eavesdropped on Americans in secret. And Democrats passed the law in a frenzy, under the crassest and most transparent exploitation of the Terrorist Threat ("a Terrorist attack is about to happen in DC and the blood will be on your hands unless you pass the bill we dictate").
Ever since that debacle, many Democrats have clung to the illusion that all of this will be fixed because the bill was passed with a six-month sunset provision and, some hope, the next time things will be different. But far, far more likely than the Democrats reversing what they have done when re-visiting FISA is the prospect that they will make it worse still, by giving the Bush administration even more of what it wants.
Mr. McConnell argued on Tuesday that the expanded surveillance powers granted under the temporary measure should be made permanent.
He also pushed for a provision that would grant legal immunity to the telecommunications companies that secretly cooperated with the N.S.A. on the warrantless program. Those companies, now facing lawsuits, have never been officially identified.
Democratic Congressional aides say they believe that a deal is likely to provide protection for the companies.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, FISA, George Bush, Glenn Greenwald, Michael McConnell, Military Commissions Act, Protect America Act, Salon, telecommunications companies
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
9/20/2007
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
[T]he U.S. Senate is expected to consider legislation scrapping one part of the 2006 law, its denial of habeas corpus – the ancient protection against arbitrary arrests – to foreigners whom Bush has designated “unlawful enemy combatants.”
[...]
[T]he Military Commissions Act creates a parallel legal system not limited to foreigners. The law could put “any person,” including those “in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States” before a military tribunal if the person “knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States.”
Who has “an allegiance or duty to the United States” if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreigners.
This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens who are deemed (by the Bush administration) enemy fellow travelers. It seeks to put them inside Bush’s “star chamber” proceedings if they are alleged to aid and abet foreign enemies.
“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September 2006 and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.
[To see an excerpt from the “any person” section of the law, click here. To read the entire law, click here.]
[...]
[I]t appears the goal of these “any person” provisions is to allow for the detention of perceived “fifth columnists” or other domestic enemies of the state at a time of crisis, such as during some future terrorist incident.
Though it’s true the Military Commissions Act specifically strips non-U.S. citizens of habeas corpus, the law implicitly denies everyone who gets swept into Bush’s new legal system the opportunity to challenge their incarceration.
Once inside, the law prohibits detainees from appealing to the traditional U.S. courts until the tribunals have fully prosecuted and sentenced each defendant, a process that could last indefinitely since there are no timetables for the tribunal process to play out.
The law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”
In the event of another terrorist incident or a similar national crisis, there’s also little reason to think that Bush won’t interpret every legal ambiguity in the Military Commissions Act as granting him the broadest possible powers.
Labels: 6th Amendment, Congress, George Bush, Habeas Corpus, Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, Protect America Act, Republicans, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
9/17/2007
Bush Administration Aiming To Ease Surveillance Concerns
The Bush administration, facing withering criticism over its temporary foreign intelligence wiretap law, has launched a campaign to assure Democratic lawmakers that the law will not result in domestic surveillance without a court order, and at the same time it has indicated that it is willing to consider changes.
The effort comes as Congress prepares to tackle a broad overhaul of the government's foreign intelligence wiretap authority.
In a letter sent to Capitol Hill yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein said the Protect America Act, passed in August under intense White House pressure, does not authorize physical searches of homes, domestic mail or people's personal effects and computers, and that Justice Department lawyers "do not think" it authorizes the collection of medical or library records.
He said that "to the extent that this provision could be read to authorize the collection of business records of individuals in the United States . . . we wish to make very clear that we will not use this provision to do so."
"To put it plainly," Wainstein said, "the Protect America Act does not authorize so-called domestic wiretapping without a court order, and the executive branch will not use it for that purpose."
But key Democratic lawmakers said their concerns are not allayed.
"The Bush administration admits that the Protect America Act can be read to let them collect Americans' business records," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "They simply ask us to trust them not to. Trust is not good enough -- that's why we need to have court oversight."
Labels: Bush Administration, Democrats, Department of Justice, House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, Kenneth Wainstein, Protect America Act, warrantless domestic wiretapping
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
9/15/2007
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said Friday that the agency's ability to pursue Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks was being hampered by declining political and public support for aggressive methods that the CIA had used in interrogations and other counter- terrorism operations.
In a rare public speech by a CIA chief, Hayden lashed out at the media and complained that the political climate was slipping toward apathy and risk aversion characteristic of the period leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"When I get in the car at Langley and drive down the George Washington Parkway," Hayden said, referring to the corridor between the CIA's headquarters in Virginia and downtown Washington, "it's not long before it begins to feel like Sept. 10.
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Hayden provided new details to counter what he characterized as damaging misconceptions about the agency's interrogation and "rendition" operations.
In particular, he disclosed that the CIA had transferred fewer than 100 prisoners to other countries. Critics have contended that the rendition program has led to detainees being tortured in such nations as Egypt and Uzbekistan.
Hayden also lashed out at a European Parliament investigation that was harshly critical of CIA operations. He called the contents of its report "wild speculation."
Under an executive order signed by President Bush this summer, the CIA is still allowed to use an array of interrogation techniques -- including sleep deprivation and so-called stress positions -- that are banned under the military manual that the Army adopted. The manual was developed in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.
Hayden argued in his speech that imposing the stricter military rules on CIA interrogators would damage the agency's ability to collect intelligence and protect the country from future attacks.
Labels: CIA, detainee rights, enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, George Bush, Michael Hayden, Michael McConnell, Protect America Act, secret detention, torture
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
9/08/2007
U.S. news reports mostly parroted the White House claim that the law “modernizes” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance of 1978 and “narrowly” targets overseas terror suspects who call or e-mail their contacts in the United States. But the “Protect America Act of 2007” actually casts the wiretapping net much wider.
The law applies not just to terror suspects abroad who might communicate with Americans at home, 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 means 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 – is vulnerable to warrantless intercepts approved on the say-so of two Bush subordinates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.
Beyond the breathtaking scope of this new authority, the Bush administration also snuck in a clause that grants immunity from lawsuits to communications service providers that comply with spying directives from Gonzales and McConnell.
[...]
Though getting almost no attention in the U.S. press coverage, the immunity paragraph reads: “Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.”
In other words, U.S. citizens, who believe that warrantless surveillance has violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, will have no legal recourse against the service provider that collaborated with the government.
This immunity provision is important, too, because the only meaningful safeguard against abuse of the new spying power was that service providers could challenge a wiretap directive through a secret court proceeding.
[...]
The Bush administration’s goal was to scoop up any information that might be interesting to the intelligence community, not just what was needed to protect the nation from a terrorist attack.
It’s also unclear what restrictions apply to the year-long surveillance directives if the target enters – or reenters – the United States. Under the law as written, there’s no indication that the service provider must be notified that the 12-month order should be suspended if the target steps onto U.S. territory.
Conceivably, therefore, a directive aimed at an American traveling overseas might stay in effect after the target returned home, with the service provider continuing to give the National Security Agency access to the target’s phone calls and e-mails.
Labels: 4th Amendment, Alberto Gonzales, Bush Administration, FISA, Michael McConnell, Protect America Act, Robert Parry, surveillance, warrantless search and seizure
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
8/13/2007
An alternative look at NEWS THAT MATTERS: current events, politics, opinion, perspective, discussion, analysis, issues, debate, and insight - national and global.
Reno |
London |
 |
 |
