When WILL Obama Speak to the Nation on Torture and Wiretapping?

buhdydharma at daily kos asks some very good questions...

In light of the DOJ's recent action to dismiss the right of citizens to sue for being spied on, which it is very difficult NOT to see as the government protecting it's right to spy on YOU without a warrant.

In light of the ICRC's, as the body charged with the task of charging torture, charges that the Bush Administration did indeed torture.

In light of the massive body of evidence in the public sphere that torture was systematically approved and used.

In light of Spain investigating the US for torture.

In light of the United Nations investigating the US for torture.

In light of the UK investigating itself for torture

In light of the assertion that the Obama Administration has apparently been pressured, either by Republicans or by the CIA or by a combination of both into not releasing the latest batch of Bush Torture Program memos.

And in the light of the fact that President Obama has not addressed either Domestic Spying or Torture in a meaningful and substantive way since he has taken office....yet in his campaign championed the Constitution, the rights of citizens, transparency, and the Rule of Law.

Finally, in light of the fact that Obama is rapidly losing the trust of many in his politically necessary base over his silence on these issues.

When will President Obama address these issues before the American people?

buhdydharma's concerns are immediately tempered on the same site by wmtriallawyer...

Now, it has been suggested that someone the new assertion of sovereign immunity made via the Patriot Act, FISA, etc. is breathtaking and such, but I just don't see it the way others do. I look at it from the perspective of the government lawyer, and if there is another argument to be advanced to defend my client on immunity grounds, even if that argument hasn't been advanced before, I'm going to use it. And I'm reasonably certain that is what the DOJ attorneys are doing...their job to defend their client. It has also been suggested that Congress, in passing the telecom immunity in the FISA revision claimed "Well, you can always sue the individual government actors," and that somehow, this Motion goes against the grain of that claim. This Motion doesn't change that one iota. Again, this is a Motion filed on behalf of the United States of America and related government Defendants, in their official capacity. If a Plaintiff finds that Wendy Wiretapper, working for NSA, violated a Plaintiff's civil rights, that lawsuit can still continue, but still be subject to personal immunities for official acts.

I am still wary of where this is going. Clearly, I'd like some more policy assurances from the Obama administration with respect to the wiretapping issue, and changes in the law.

But you can't blame the lawyers for defending their client. And you can't translate what they are doing to defend their client as a policy decision. At least not yet.

it's like i said in my post yesterday... i'm waiting for some REAL changes and so far all i'm seeing is more of same... the clock's tickin' and daylight's burnin'...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

YAY...! House rejects telecom amnesty and warrantless surveillance

damn... i wasn't at all confident THIS was going to happen... what a GREAT way to start a weekend --- for a change...

glenn greenwald...

The House just now approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin.

As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.

[...]

It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them.

WOO-HOO...! even if it's only the weekend that i have the smile on my face, it's one hell of a lot better than the news that's been trickling in the past year...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The "no-big-secret" secret session

a wapo follow-up to to the "secret session" (see my post from last night)...

"I will bring information . . . to the secret session that some members are aware of but others are not," promised a coy Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), declaring it his solemn "obligation to bring information and communicate information that is confidential and that I believe ought to be kept secret."

[...]

They sounded like schoolgirls whispering among themselves in class. Except they weren't schoolgirls: They were members of Congress, debating whether to grant immunity to telecom companies that cooperate in a clandestine government eavesdropping program. A vote on that program, a rewriting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will come today. Last night was the time for an hour-long secret debate about the spy bill -- preceded by a 90-minute public debate about whether to have the secret debate.

[...]

Blunt finally ... offered some soothing words.

"I have not suggested this is at the top-secret level," he said.

The secret was out! The man who requested the secret session in the first place finally admitted he had no big secrets to divulge.

the money quote...

"There are some of us here who feel that this country has drifted toward a version of a national security state," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

uh... yeah... no kidding...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

House in secret session for the first time in 25 years

this can't be good, particularly since it was called by the r's...

The House of Representatives will shutter C-Span's cameras Thursday afternoon and evict citizens and reporters from the chambers to hold an extremely rare, one-hour secret session where Republicans say they will present information about the current spying debate that cannot be publicly discussed.

The secret session, only the sixth in the House's history and the first since 1983, comes just hours ahead of a planned vote on a new proposal from House Democrats who oppose giving amnesty to telecoms that helped President Bush's warrantless, domestic wiretapping program.

i'm dreading the outcome...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The REAL reason why the telcos don't care about immunity and Bush DOES...?

kevin drum offers up blogger bmaz' thoughts about why...

[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.

fits nicely, doesn't it...? maybe we could get some in-depth info on this before congress takes another shit on the constitution...?

(thanks to smithintheus at daily kos...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

NO-O-O-O-O-O-OOOOOOO...!

did ANYONE ANYWHERE entertain anything but the most psychotic delusion that this wouldn't happen...?

Lawmakers may consider a compromise bill that would renew the law, which expired last month, and possibly grant some sort of protection to phone companies from lawsuits. But it would differ from a Senate-passed measure backed by the White House that would provide blanket immunity.

"We think we're very close. Probably within the next week, we'll be able to hopefully bring it to a vote," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes of Texas said of efforts to craft and pass such legislation.

[...]

Reyes said House Democrats were now reviewing confidential U.S. documents they received in recent weeks about the warrantless electronic surveillance program and were talking with phone companies.

Consequently, Reyes said he now had an "open mind" on whether to shield companies from lawsuits.

keee-f'ing-rist... is there even one of the s.o.b.'s that takes their goddam oath of office seriously...? the country they're screwing with belongs to ME TOO...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Presidential press conference [UPDATE] [UPDATE II] [UPDATE III] [UPDATE IV] [UPDATE V]

honest to god, this will be the first one i've watched... not sure i'm going to be able to take it...

[UPDATE]

"abusive lawsuits"

gag me with a spoon...

[UPDATE II]

fear, fear, terror, terror, iraq, "the surge is working," "democrats just want to retreat," "the same old call for withdrawal"...

[UPDATE III]

"you can't expect telephone companies to participate if they think they're going to be sued..."

they're not going to be sued if they're operating within the law...

btw, i'm not doing very well watching this bastard... i may not last very much longer...

"my judgment happens to be the will of the people..."

oferchrissakes...

[UPDATE IV]

i've got the "And, yes, I DO take it personally" radio show coming up in 15 mins on blog talk radio with co-blogger brother tim... thank god... i'll have to shut george down...

[UPDATE V]

you miserable, rotten, son-of-a-bitch... you refuse to talk with "tyrants" like raúl castro but you feel perfectly comfortable talking about religious freedom with the chinese premier, arguably a tyrant on a much greater scale than the castro brothers...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Glenn reviews CNN's John King's interview of Mike McConnell

our government bought-and-paid-for propaganda machine at work...

[DNI Mike] McConnell is burdened by one of the most glaring conflicts of interest that we've seen in any significant political debate over the last seven years. His career before becoming DNI was devoted to the very private telecom sector on whose behalf he's now demanding immunity. When he claims that the Fate of the Nation rests on granting retroactive immunity to the telecom industry, he's advocating for his long-time partners, colleagues, and business associates. In the job he held prior to becoming DNI -- director of defense programs at Booz Allen -- he was directly involved with the very people, and possibly the very programs, for which he is now demanding amnesty

[...]

CNN invited a high government official onto its news program to issue extremely dubious, fear-mongering demands for more government surveillance power and for a huge gift for the industry of which he was long a critical part, threatening Americans that they would be in severe danger if they didn't assent in full. They had nobody on with him or afterwards to contradict anything he said. The interviewer confessed to knowing almost nothing about the topic and spent his time doing very little other than vouching for the government official's honesty and apolitical integrity. After several minutes of airing uncontradicted government propaganda, the interview ended and the interviewer profusely thanked the government official for coming on.

do these "news" outlets really get it that we're on to them...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Just say "NO" to illegal wiretapping and telecom immunity

(thanks to kagro x at daily kos...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Olberman's FISA comment last night: "illegal and unjustified spying" [UPDATE]

[BUMPED]

truth bites...

"Mr. Bush, you are a fascist!"

[UPDATE]

i was just sitting here, browsing through my daily assortment of blogs and news sites when a terrible thing occurred to me... what if the house passing the contempt measures and then adjourning for presidents' day weekend without taking action on the fisa bill, accompanied by all the ballyhooing about the house dems suddenly having grown a spine is nothing but more charade, designed to lull us into a false sense of a congress that actually takes its oath of office seriously...? and, yes, i could be accused of exceptionally hard-edged cynicism had it not already happened so many times recently...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Americans no longer have an understanding of what it means to be free"

a call to action...

Americans no longer have an understanding of what it means to be free, we’ve become so accustomed to big brother’s hand that torture, spying without warrants, and engaging in illegal wars of aggression are to be expected. Many of the candidates running for president campaigned hard on these issues, insisting that we would “remain on offense” in the propaganda-ridden war on terror. What Americans need now is a miracle, we need a hero or group of heroes to stand up in our legislature and fight for them. We don’t need more government parenting and rules that cater to corporations and fear.

Terrorism should be a tool that only the enemy is allowed to use. Illegal government activity should not be tolerated in its current form. Soon, we will lose a part of ourselves, the American spirit will die. This country is no longer FDR’s America, it isn’t JFK’s or Reagan’s America. It most definitely is not Bill Clinton’s America, yet his wife was curiously absent from the Senate floor on this most important matter. Unless our voters and elected officials stand up and fight for freedom, we’re going to lose this fight for our country. If you feel even a modicum of pride and love left for this nation that people the world over once admired, equip yourself with knowledge and do your part so that our country won’t slip away into the dark abyss of fascism.

still beating the same old drum, but it's the only one i've got...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

I quit

this is the last fucking straw... why do we bother...? the country is totally at the mercy of criminals... ordinary citizens...? screw 'em...

The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 an amendment that would have stripped a grant of retroactive immunity to the companies. President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program.

so much for the united states constitution, the rule of law, and any semblance of oversight or accountability... just shoot me... now... please...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Pick up the phone and call Harry Reid, fercryinoutloud

the only thing i've run across today that seems at all worth moving a muscle for (and that includes putting up a post) is this...

i gave the s.o.b. a call from argentina... how about you...?

Dear Friend,

By Wednesday night, the debate over government eavesdropping will end in the Senate.

In less than three days, we will know who stood up for civil liberties and who failed freedom. Help put Senator Reid on notice before the Senate votes.

Our demands are simple and unwavering. Stay true to your oath to protect the Constitution. Stand up against an overreaching executive branch. And, don’t grant blanket immunity to huge corporations that sold out Americans’ privacy.

Call Senator Senator Reid toll-free in Nevada at 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343), or call his Las Vegas office at (702) 388-5020 and say something like this:

I am calling about the spying bill currently being considered by the Senate. I urge you to fight for a bill that’s constitutional and respects the rule of law. Please vote NO on the current Senate Intelligence Committee spying bill, and keep telecom immunity out of any bill that comes up for a vote.

Please reject any bill that allows for the warrantless surveillance or “bulk collection” of Americans’ phone calls and emails.

When you are finished, log your call here.

Your actions have made a difference in this fight. Together, we have jammed congressional switchboards, flooded the Capitol in a sea of email and buried lawmakers in a mountain of petitions.

After all the twists and turns in this debate, we are finally down to the wire. Every lobbyist, lawyer and organizer at the ACLU is determined to win this fight, whether we have to do it in Congress or in the Courts. But right now it is absolutely essential that the voice of freedom be heard throughout the halls of Congress.

Please call Senator Reid right now.

Help us finish the work we started in December 2005, when the warrantless wiretapping program was first exposed by the New York Times. Together, we will bring the government’s surveillance programs in line with the Constitution and the rule of law.

We will be in touch later this week about next steps in this fast-moving legislation.

Thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson, ACLU
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Glenn: "Mukasey explicitly embraces the most extreme theories of presidential omnipotence and lawlessness"

i missed this most worthwhile post from glenn on thursday...

Mukasey's radical worldview is now the norm

Yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, featuring day-long testimony from Attorney General Michael Mukasey, was extraordinary for only one reason: for our country, what happened in the hearing is now completely ordinary. While Mukasey may be marginally more straightforward than Alberto Gonzales was -- more willing to conform to the procedural formalities of independence -- he is, ideologically, a clone of John Yoo and David Addington and is as much of a loyal adherent to the Bush/Cheney extremist worldview as Gonzales ever was.

Mukasey explicitly embraces the most extreme theories of presidential omnipotence and lawlessness and displays as much Cheney-ite contempt for the notion of Congressional oversight as the Vice President himself. He repeatedly endorsed patently illegal behavior -- including torture -- and refused even to pretend that he cared what the Senate thought about any of it. He even told Republican Senators that they have no right to pass a whistleblower law allowing federal employees who learn of lawbreaking to inform Congress about it, because such a law would infringe on the President's constitutional powers. In Mukasey's worldview, the President has unlimited power and Congress has none.

And none of this is particularly surprising, given that -- as I emphasized after his nomination was announced -- Mukasey is the federal judge who, when presiding over the Padilla case in 2002, endorsed the most tyrannical and un-American power there is, when he ruled that the President even has the power to imprison U.S. citizens indefinitely, even when detained on U.S. soil, with no process of any kind -- a position he refused to repudiate during his confirmation hearing.

None of what he said yesterday is extraordinary, despite how radical and jarring it is. Mukasey repeatedly insisted that even his most lawlessness-endorsing views are within our political mainstream, and he's right about that. It's now been seven years that our country has functioned under the radical executive power theories of the Bush administration, which include the right of the President to break the law. Congress long ago decided it would do nothing about any of it, would acquiesce to it, and thus -- as was predictable and predicted -- it has all become normalized.

glenn has gradually evolved into one of the most insightful, articulate, and no-holds-barred observers of the bush administration's ceaseless efforts to accumulate unlimited and unaccountable executive power while running roughshod over every principle espoused in our constitution and our self-proclaimed veneration of the rule of law... but he is also wise enough to not shrink from the full reality surrounding our descent into fascism...

I long ago stopped blaming the Bush administration -- at least exclusively -- for what has happened to our political system. They were responsible in the first instance, but the rest of the country's institutions -- its media, its Congress, the "opposition" party, even the courts -- all allowed it to happen, choosing to do nothing -- or to endorse it -- once it all began to be disclosed. It wouldn't have surprised the Founders that we would have corrupt and lawbreaking political leaders, including in the White House. The idea was that there would be numerous checks on that corruption. But when those other institutions fail, or are complicit, the fault is collective.

Consider how normalized this has all become: President Bush this week issued one of his most brazen signing statements yet, contesting the right of Congress even to exercise its spending power to bar the use of funds for permanent bases in Iraq. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin noted that not a single journalist other than The Boston Globe's indefatigable Charlie Savage even reported on this event. As Froomkin said:

The overall message to Congress was clear: I'm not bound by your laws. . . . But it's Bush's cavalier dismissal of the ban on funding for permanent military bases that really speaks volumes -- not just about his view of the role of the legislative branch, but also about his intentions for Iraq. . . . Looking for a news story about all this in your morning paper? You won't find one in The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times or the Wall Street Journal.

In one sense, I understand Froomkin's indignance. It ought to be newsworthy, to put it mildly, when the President announces that he has the power to violate the law at will. But in another sense, it's not really newsworthy any longer. It's been going on for years and we've chosen to do nothing about it. We have a Government where the President is not bound by the law, and it is just as simple as that.

i swear, i put up these posts and, as i read them over, it feels like some kind of extra-grim groundhog day - pounding the same drum, over and over and over...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Olbermann on the FISA bill: "If anyone is soft on terror, it is Mr. Bush;" Glenn on the Dems "holding tough"

< sigh > so true...



glenn thinks the spin that the democrats didn't "cave" is pure b.s...

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

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

The whole agreement seems designed to ensure that the GOP gets everything they want -- that they are able to defeat all of the pending amendments which Dick Cheney dislikes, and to do so without having to engage in a real filibuster. In what conceivable way is this an instance of "Dems not caving" or "holding tough?"

even richard clarke was moved to weigh in via an op-ed in today's nyt...

For this president, fear is an easier political tactic than compromise. With FISA, he is attempting to rattle Congress into hastily expanding his own executive powers at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections. . . .

In these still treacherous times, we can't afford to have a president who leads by manipulating emotions with fear, flaunting the law, or abusing the very inalienable rights endowed to us by the Constitution. Though 9/11 changed the prism through which we view surveillance and intelligence, it did not in any way change the effectiveness of FISA to allow us to track and monitor our enemies. FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies.

what can we do except continue to scream our heads off to our congresspeople and to publish and disseminate the truth to counteract the endless torrent of lies...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Greenwald: "Are there any limits at all on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to be bullied and humiliated by Republicans?"

glenn writes on bush's threatened veto of the 60-day fisa extension...

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.

when the results of the 2006 mid-term elections came out, i spent the entire day in a buoyant mood, thinking that perhaps, at last, the tide was turning and that the most corrupt and criminal presidential administration in history would finally be held accountable, that unfettered executive power would be put in check, and that the separate but equal balance of powers laid out in the constitution would be restored... after congress began its new session in january, it didn't take any longer than the first few weeks to see that my hopes were sadly misplaced... the much-ballyhooed democratic takeover of congress only served to throw the criminal complicity of the democrats into high relief... i spent many months after that, huffing and puffing, elevating my blood pressure through outbursts of indignation and outrage, all for naught... now, the thought of there being only one or two senators (dodd and maybe feingold) standing between the citizens of the united states, our constitution, and the darkest cabal in world history, is not a comforting thought...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

CNN's Jack Cafferty on Bush pardoning HIMSELF for war crimes

retroactive immunity for the telcos, now for bush himself...



how low can you go...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Telecom immunity = Bush immunity

NOW, we're gettin' down to it...

Bush wants to keep Senators clueless because telecom immunity also gives Bush immunity. Telecom immunity includes by definition the approval of two condition precedents: Bush had constitutional authority for the warrantless surveillance and the surveillance was determined to be lawful. Under the doctrine of Congressional ratification, the effect of this approval is to retroactively "legalize" Bush's authority and program. This means that Bush may have immunity from prosecution. Moreover, for years, Bush could not cite any statutory authority for his theory of unitary presidential prerogatives. Bush will now have precedent.

did anybody think for a second that bush wasn't attempting to cover his own sorry ass...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A sad farewell to Dodd, good riddance to Biden, tough noogies Hil, and hello Huck

and do ya s'pose we're maybe even seeing the end of the bush-clinton dynasty...?

the nyt on biden and dodd...

Two Democrats dropped out Thursday night: Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware.

i was hoping for a better showing for chris dodd last night than he got, but i'm also not surprised... not only does defending the constitution, the rule of law, and calling for accountability barely register on the national media and political radar screen, damn few voters have really tuned in to what's happening to our country... and, sadly, other than dodd's recent heroic battle against telecom immunity, i don't think he made nearly the big stink that is so desperately called for... would that have been different if, for instance, a story like the recent re-categorization of the u.s. as an "endemic surveillance society" had been a national lead story that consumed as much media energy as the killing of a san francisco zoo patron by a tiger...? idle speculation, i admit, but minimally adequate media treatment of our dire straits could have made at least a small difference... maybe the media and our citizens will wake up... maybe bill gates will give me a ten million dollar, no-strings attached grant...

but, as robert parry points out, perhaps the best news to come out of iowa is this...

[T]he Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 dealt a stunning blow to the Bush-Clinton duopoly, with Sen. Barack Obama thrashing Sen. Clinton on the Democratic side and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee trouncing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had the backing of some elements of the Bush Family.

Though the presidential selection process has a long way to go, the inevitability of another election between representatives of the Democratic/Republican establishments was thrown into severe doubt by the victories of Obama and Huckabee.

i'm pleased that edwards did as well as he did and i'm completely noncommittal on barack... huck is a different story, however... he is one scary guy...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A study in netroots/grassroots power and a portrait of leadership: "The best gift you could have given this country"

glenn has an excellent and detailed chronology of the events leading up to yesterday's amazing and heartening senate debate on the fisa bill, highlighting the courageous stand taken by chris dodd, who quite likely would not have taken such a stand had it not been for a few savvy bloggers who initiated a groundswell... it's well worth reading... glenn includes this youtube clip of dodd delivering his own summation and urging us to remember that the fight has just begun...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments