yo

Zed

Christy!

CHS is on fire today! You go girl..and we’re right behind you.

OT and EPU’ed

Crude oil (Cushing spot) is trading at $85.25. The ostensible reason for this is concern over a Turkish attack on Iraqi Kurdistan resulting in a disruption of oil supplies. The truth is that even if the Turks crossed the border the impact on the flow of oil would be minimal. In the last 6 months, there has been a lot of money (from hedge funds and others after the subprime fiasco) entering into oil markets. It is causing a general bid up in prices by people who don’t understand the market that well (and apparently don’t care to know about it).

This is part of a larger bid up of prices in commodities generally.

A longer term adjustment in oil prices (~$15) occurred earlier in the summer due to the falling value of the dollar.

Yo raven:

Fast on the draw there… Congrats!

Jane (nyc) @ 4

CHS is on fire today! You go girl..and we’re right behind you.

Ding!

Biodun @ 6

Yo raven:

Fast on the draw there… Congrats!

I post snark, if my browser gets hung I close and reload!

Lets see…. take a nap then make another round of calls or make calls then take nap…. Oh hell, I’ll have another cupa coffee and hit the phones… just like Miss Dog…. I can always have another nap

hmm the staff at Rockefeler’s office & Schumer’s local office both seem very grim on this topic

I need to attend to some editorial issues. (Might take an hour or so.) Then I’ll make the calls…

Check this video if you think one phone call can’t make a difference.

Kevin Spacey is the “motivational speaker.”

mmm, what about Kennedy?

Toby — Kennedy’s on the list. What about him?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 14

Toby — Kennedy’s on the list. What about him?

Isn’t he still in the hospital from his surgery? Is he going to be able to vote or participate? We need him going into this now.

Toby at 15 — SJC won’t be voting on anything for at least a week and a half or so, I’m hearing. Just FYI.

Feinstein’s number is busy *g*. will call later. gtg.

thanks christy for all you do.

Toby Wollin @ 15

Christy Hardin Smith @ 14

Toby — Kennedy’s on the list. What about him?

Isn’t he still in the hospital from his surgery? Is he going to be able to vote or participate? We need him going into this now.

Kennedy leaves hospital

do-si-do — You are welcome. Thanks for making the calls!

Christy,

I’ve occasionally called senators and representatives outside my district and state, but more often than not I tend to get the cold shoulder from their staffers once they learn I am not from their respective areas. I think it’s still worth it to try nonetheless, but do you think it makes a difference to our Congressmen (i.e. Rockefeller who’s paid handsomely from telecom lobbyists) that we call and express our dissent?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 16

Toby at 15 — SJC won’t be voting on anything for at least a week and a half or so, I’m hearing. Just FYI.

Whew. I just had this really scary vision.

As I mentioned in the previous thread, one response to staffers if you are calling from out of district or out of state is to remind them that we live in a very mobile society and that you have friends (and family) living in other states.

MisterOpus1 @ 20

Christy,

I’ve occasionally called senators and representatives outside my district and state, but more often than not I tend to get the cold shoulder from their staffers once they learn I am not from their respective areas. I think it’s still worth it to try nonetheless, but do you think it makes a difference to our Congressmen (i.e. Rockefeller who’s paid handsomely from telecom lobbyists) that we call and express our dissent?

If they ask whether we are a constituent, we should ask them if their congresscritter accepts campaign donations from non-constituents!

Anyone referenced this article in the WAPO?

Link

Seems that the Bush Administration approached the Telecoms 6 months prior to 9/11 about the NSA’s warrantless program. Hat’s off to Qwest for not bowing down before the Bush Administration. Shame on Verizon, AT&T Et. Al. Absolutely no immunity for breaking the law!!

WHEN I called Rockefeller’s offixe I stated that I was calling because he is chairman of the committee~that makes us all constituents

I also coached it as in we either support rule of law or we are nothing

a clarification - there are TWO house FISA bills.

H.R. 3773 is the “RESTORE ACT”. it is the bill that was reported out of the house judiciary and intelligence committees last week (amended in both committees). THIS IS A BAD BILL (because it includes basket warrents). and sadly, this is the bill that is being rushed through the house (with a vote expected on wednesday).

H.R.3782 is the “FISA modernization bill” from russ holt. although it was submitted to committee last monday (just like the restore act), it is still stuck in committee. THIS IS THE GOOD BILL (because it has individualize warrents - see christy’s info from the ACLU).

the text for H.R.3782 has not yet been posted to thomas, but russ holt’s chief of staff very kindly sent it to me and i’ve posted it to share (see the link above). pow wow has read both bills for us, and left this analysis for us as a comment last friday.

when you make your calls, please be careful to say that you support “H.R.3782, russ holt’s FISA modernization bill” because you don’t want basket warrants (which the restore act has) and you don’t want telco immunity (which the senate bill may have).

Ruffian @ 25

WHEN I called Rockefeller’s offixe I stated that I was calling because he is chairman of the committee~that makes us all constituents

Bingo!

christy,

shouldn’t we be calling the House on FISA this week? especially members of the judiciary and intelligence committees to ask them to report out the Holt bill?

selise at 29 — Yes, but I could only fit so much into one post. *g* Pressure on the Holt bill, though, would be fantastic.

E-mailed DiFi and used your three points, with added emphasis. Added my own paragraph - longer - pointing out that I don’t like the idea that my calls could be listened to without a warrant, for no reason at all or for a flimsy reason - and I don’t think she’d like it either.

(Not that I expect anyone in her office to notice, or even read the thing: past responses have been massively inappropriate form replies.)

Who’s our dog in this fight?

ANKARA, Turkey — The Turkish government will seek parliamentary approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a government spokesman said Monday, taking action on one of two major issues straining relations with Washington.

Where do they get the money to do this?

AP - The nation’s three largest banks said Monday they will team up to buy tens of billions of dollars in investments that lost value after global credit markets seized up.

Great to have all those fax numbers handy, Christy, thanks. And thanks for the update.

Here’s the House Rules Committee notice for tomorrow’s action on H.R. 3773:

TUESDAY, October 16, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in H-313 the Capitol

H.R. 3773 - RESTORE Act of 2007

http://www.rules.house.gov/comm_schedule110.htm

And here’s the ‘merged’ (I wonder when and how that was done…) House Judiciary/Intelligence Committees version of the RESTORE (Big Brother) bill that the Rules Committee will be considering tomorrow:

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr3773.pdf

[As an aside, I note that the special corporate exemption from federal grand jury testimony (earned because their stewardship of our “free press” has been so exemplary of late…), for any and all corporate employees who practice journalism, is in front of the Rules Committee today at 5 p.m. There are a couple of Republican amendments that have been proposed - at least one of which sounds like a good proposal to me (Smith’s), in line with Fitzgerald’s op-ed about this “Free Flow of Information” Act the other week. I believe that hits the House floor this week too. The “corporate servants” in Congress call this having their priorities straight…]

Oklahoma kiddo @ 33

Where do they get the money to do this?

AP - The nation’s three largest banks said Monday they will team up to buy tens of billions of dollars in investments that lost value after global credit markets seized up.

ATM fees?

Morning Christy -

Just made one round of calls (about half of those on list) and will complete the list later. I really appreciate the action calls you put out. If not me, who will make them, I ask myself. That question never lets me off the hook.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 32

Who’s our dog in this fight?

ANKARA, Turkey — The Turkish government will seek parliamentary approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a government spokesman said Monday, taking action on one of two major issues straining relations with Washington.

Our dog is peace and self determination isn’t it? Seems to me invading another country is inconsistent with that.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 32

Who’s our dog in this fight?

ANKARA, Turkey — The Turkish government will seek parliamentary approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a government spokesman said Monday, taking action on one of two major issues straining relations with Washington.

Good thing we got Condi on the job! Oil should be at $100/barrel by the end of the week.

I do not blame only the Republicans for FISA and the Patroit act.

KathieinMN @ 23

If they ask whether we are a constituent, we should ask them if their congresscritter accepts campaign donations from non-constituents!

DING!!

realworld @ 37

Oklahoma kiddo @ 32

Who’s our dog in this fight?

ANKARA, Turkey — The Turkish government will seek parliamentary approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a government spokesman said Monday, taking action on one of two major issues straining relations with Washington.

Our dog is peace and self determination isn’t it? Seems to me invading another country is inconsistent with that.

realworld,
You forgot your /snark tags there.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 30

selise at 29 — Yes, but I could only fit so much into one post. *g* Pressure on the Holt bill, though, would be fantastic.

here, i’ll help:

i’m going to call at least:
my represenative (complete list here)

john conyers, chair of house judiciary committee: (202) 225-5126
complete list of House Judiciary Committee members

silvestre reyes, chair of house intelligence committee: (202) 225-4831
complete list of House Intelligence Select Committee members

to ask that they support H.R.3782, russ holt’s FISA modernization bill.

Good news perhaps?

Despite neighborhood and regional differences, and although the levels of sophistication and competency among the individual campaign events varied, our correspondents found several common themes, the most striking of which is to what degree Democrats still declare themselves undecided.

It’s abundantly clear that, less than four months before the onslaught of decisive primaries and caucuses, many Democratic voters have just not made up their minds. “Of those that would speak to us, almost all were undecided,” reports correspondent Phoebe Love who followed the Obama canvass through Ballard, Washington. She is echoed by contributor Ethan Hova in Studio City, a middle-class Democratic suburban stronghold in Los Angeles: “The vast majority of voters were very much undecided and expressed reluctance to engage in debate without conducting research on their own.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....68440.html

Just sitting here having a basic gut-check moment wondering:

Is it truly possible that we need to have these giant grassroots efforts on subjects that seem so straightforward:

Supporting basic healthcare protection for low and middle income American CHILDREN…
Ensuring that legislation doesn’t undermine the clear language of 4th Amendment…
Or opposing the gift of bypass-the-justice-system-and-get-out-of-jail-free-by-adjusting-the-legislation-in-advance of-any-investigation cards to major corporations

P J Evans @ 31

E-mailed DiFi and used your three points, with added emphasis. Added my own paragraph - longer - pointing out that I don’t like the idea that my calls could be listened to without a warrant, for no reason at all or for a flimsy reason - and I don’t think she’d like it either.

(Not that I expect anyone in her office to notice, or even read the thing: past responses have been massively inappropriate form replies.)

Exactly my experience with DiFi - and complaining falls on deaf ears. Oh so arrogant and maddening for it is also true with Sen. Boxer’s California staff. So much for sisterhood and constituent respect in general unless one is a powerful corporate or wealthy constituent donor. And who can forgive much less forget Sen. Boxer’s advocacy and campaigning for HoJoeLieberman in CT last year against both her staff and constituents disapproval and outcry. aghhhhhhh!

I’d like to know how other people began their calls. Could always use a fresh approach so I don’t bore myself.

I begin with a “good morning” type greeting.

State my name and say I am a US citizen (unless it is my rep or sen)

Then I state my concern - in this case FISA.

I concisely give two or three points of concern.

I thank the aide and wish them a good day.

This is my routine. If I am a constituent, I request a response to my concern. Got any new suggestions?

You think DiFi is bad. Try complaining to Hillary. Or for that matter Reid or Nancy.

Badwater @ 38

Oklahoma kiddo @ 32

Who’s our dog in this fight?

ANKARA, Turkey — The Turkish government will seek parliamentary approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a government spokesman said Monday, taking action on one of two major issues straining relations with Washington.

Good thing we got Condi on the job! Oil should be at $100/barrel by the end of the week.

Condi is completely incompetent as Secretary of State. She’s trying to to broker an Israel/Palestine peace agreement as her legacy. But she’s done nothing beyond setting up talks and meetings to talk about subsequent talks and meetings that then also set up yet another round of talks and meetings. Not one agreement or accord has been produced so far from all these rounds of talks and meetings.

She also fell on her ass as the National Security Adviser.

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

Biodun @ 48

Badwater @ 38

Good thing we got Condi on the job! Oil should be at $100/barrel by the end of the week.

Condi is completely incompetent as Secretary of State. She’s trying to to broker an Israel/Palestine peace agreement as her legacy. But she’s done nothing beyond setting up talks and meetings to talk about subsequent talks and meetings that then also set up yet another round of talks and meetings. Not one agreement or accord has been produced so far from all these rounds of talks and meetings.

She also fell on her ass as the National Security Adviser.

Condi is so far over her head and out of her league. The only thing she’s done is wag her finger and look like her pants are in a bunch. This is Brownie on the world stage. She was no better at Stanford.

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

The problem is that one of the major TelCos DID stand up and say this is wrong and has been punished for it. Maybe ATT and Verizon would have a point if Qwest had not seen the same thing, had it reviewed by their lawyers and decided it was against the law.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 47

You think DiFi is bad. Try complaining to Hillary. Or for that matter Reid or Nancy.

I am a constituent of Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi, and I e-mail them regularly. I always get a reply, but its always a form letter and it’s usually more than a little self-referential and off-topic: “Thank you for sharing your views on [judicial nominations]. That’s why joined with Senator [So and So] to co-sponsor legislation to address [something completely beside the point]…”

I don’t object to getting a form letter, but I’m amazed at how off-topic and off-key it seems at times…

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

if there was reason to believe that the telcos acted legally (i have my doubts), then the proper place for that to be determined is in the courts - after discovery. blanket immunity has not place in this process.

QuakerGirl @ 50

Biodun @ 48

Condi is completely incompetent as Secretary of State. She’s trying to to broker an Israel/Palestine peace agreement as her legacy. But she’s done nothing beyond setting up talks and meetings to talk about subsequent talks and meetings that then also set up yet another round of talks and meetings. Not one agreement or accord has been produced so far from all these rounds of talks and meetings.

She also fell on her ass as the National Security Adviser.

Condi is so far over her head and out of her league. The only thing she’s done is wag her finger and look like her pants are in a bunch. This is Brownie on the world stage. She was no better at Stanford.

From CNN Rice touts “most serious” Mideast peace efforts in years.

QuakerGirl @ 50

Condi is so far over her head and out of her league. The only thing she’s done is wag her finger and look like her pants are in a bunch. This is Brownie on the world stage. She was no better at Stanford.

The only way for Condi to not have a completely negative legacy would be for her to repudiate Bush. That’ll never happen.

Ish — I had a talk with some staffers about that just last week — that constituent responses appear to have become a “lost art” for some offices. One of the things that I learned is that multiple contacts can be very useful interms of exerting pressure because a lot of offices don’t correlate on who is doing the contacting, just on the numbers of contacts. I found that intriguing — and useful to know.

I also discovered that, in a lot of cases (and this has proved true for me in my calls at atimes as well), local offices are both more receptive and more likely to pass on the whole of your message than the DC offices. FWIW…

dakine01 @ 54

QuakerGirl @ 50

Condi is so far over her head and out of her league. The only thing she’s done is wag her finger and look like her pants are in a bunch. This is Brownie on the world stage. She was no better at Stanford.

From CNN Rice touts “most serious” Mideast peace efforts in years.

She must mean in the years since Bush was first installed as Preznit.

Badwater @ 55

QuakerGirl @ 50

Condi is so far over her head and out of her league. The only thing she’s done is wag her finger and look like her pants are in a bunch. This is Brownie on the world stage. She was no better at Stanford.

The only way for Condi to not have a completely negative legacy would be for her to repudiate Bush. That’ll never happen.

No. A “heckuva a job” and a nice office at the Hoover Institution await…

Ish @ 52

Oklahoma kiddo @ 47

You think DiFi is bad. Try complaining to Hillary. Or for that matter Reid or Nancy.

I am a constituent of Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi, and I e-mail them regularly. I always get a reply, but its always a form letter and it’s usually more than a little self-referential and off-topic: “Thank you for sharing your views on [judicial nominations]. That’s why joined with Senator [So and So] to co-sponsor legislation to address [something completely beside the point]…”

I don’t object to getting a form letter, but I’m amazed at how off-topic and off-key it seems at times…

That’s what I mean. I lived in the bay area for many years and voted for all three of these pols. Voted for DiFi clear back to when the Senator was running for mayor of the City.

thegolux @ 49

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

this particular form of excuse that the telcos are trying has been used before.

at Nurmeberg

“we were ONLY following orders”.

Our military no longer accepts this excuse.
Since Nuremberg, all members of our armed forces MUST obey only
legal
orders.

if Qwest could tell then NO, then they all could tell them no.

dakine01 @ 54

QuakerGirl @ 50

Condi is so far over her head and out of her league. The only thing she’s done is wag her finger and look like her pants are in a bunch. This is Brownie on the world stage. She was no better at Stanford.

From CNN Rice touts “most serious” Mideast peace efforts in years.

Considering no efforts have been made since 2001, I guess this is true.

conyers’ and reyes’ offices were no help. i also called the HJC, and the person who answered the phone was very nice. he looked up H.R.3782 (russ holt’s FISA modernization bill) for me and said that there are no hearings scheduled for it.

friends, conyers and reyes need some more calls! otherwise, the flawed RESTORE ACT is going to be voted on wednesday, and the good bill will be stuck in committee never to be considered.

OT New Froomkin up. General Sanchez’s “October surprise”

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

Since there are laws on the books about non-disclosure of client information by telecoms and since the telecoms are well lawyered, they had no excuse not to know this and to evaluate any governmental request in light of this.

If the government continued to say this surveillance was OK, the telecoms had not only the right but the fiduciary duty to demand the government’s legal reasoning why this was so and pass it by their own lawyers.

It appears, however, that the telecoms were for the most part more interested in the politics of the situation rather than the relevant law covering it.

JF @ 61

dakine01 @ 54

From CNN Rice touts “most serious” Mideast peace efforts in years.

Considering no efforts have been made since 2001, I guess this is true.

you forget, there was another I/P (PR) effort, just before the iraq invasion (gotta try and make the usa look good before attacking another muslim country, don’t cha know?).

Oklahoma kiddo @ 47

You think DiFi is bad. Try complaining to Hillary. Or for that matter Reid or Nancy.

But remember, Nancy doesn’t like to have to listen to us because we “are advocates” — she and people like her “are leaders”.
Oh, yeah.

I recommend letters to the editor. And use politicians names. Believe me, elected officials read these things.

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

Under current law, they wouldn’t be liable in the situation you describe. That’s the point. The government is supposed to show a warrant before they give anything up. In their line of business, they deal with this all the time. If they weren’t shown a warrant then they had a duty to their paying customers not to allow access. If there was just cause and appropriate warrant issued, then they were acting in good faith and are exempt.

What is the basis on which these telcos believed they were acting. For that matter what actually happened (nb, we don’t know the answer here). Bush and the telcos aren’t saying what happened are asking for immunity for any “hypothetical” violations…If they get immunity, what other violations are they going to sweep under that rug.

…what about the Qwest folks that didn’t accede and seem to have paid a price in NSA contracts? How do they fit in tax example you offer?

I called and faxed my Senator (Feinstein and Boxer) plus Rep. Waxman.

Does it do any good to contact Senators who don’t rep you or do they not pay attention?

We have become a nation and government of consultants. Last I read, Hillary has 22. And I doubt this is unusual.

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

Good faith does not describe what the telcos have been doing. They started caving to Bush before 911. In February 2001. link

This was a business decision, worth mega - bucks to all concerned. And not all the telcos caved. Qwest had been negotiating with the NSA since the late 1990’s and when BushCo arrived on the scene they immediately started asking for customer data in addition to the switches and the fiber optic network that Qwest was putting together. Qwest’s CEO, Joe Nacchio, refused to play. His reward was a criminal prosecution for insider trading, the first selective prosecution by the Bush WH. He is now out on bail and appealing his conviction. Mike McConnell has been a telco lobbyist for years, the most influential in the country and he is still their stooge.

selise @ 65

JF @ 61

Considering no efforts have been made since 2001, I guess this is true.

you forget, there was another I/P (PR) effort, just before the iraq invasion (gotta try and make the usa look good before attacking another muslim country, don’t cha know?).

That was principally a sop to Tony Blair and, of course, went nowhere. Powell was Secretary of State at the time.

Hugh @ 72

selise @ 65

you forget, there was another I/P (PR) effort, just before the iraq invasion (gotta try and make the usa look good before attacking another muslim country, don’t cha know?).

That was principally a sop to Tony Blair and, of course, went nowhere. Powell was Secretary of State at the time.

i think it went exactly where it was supposed to go.

I posted a shorter analysis yesterday, selise, which may help illuminate things without so much in-depth detail, so I’ll post a link to that here.

I’m still trying to figure out whether there’s some legitimate issue about where the surveillance of foreign [FISA-exempt] communications takes place (here instead of abroad, for example, and beyond the foreign-to-foreign on a U.S. wire issue which has been addressed), that has forced these new basket warrant provisions into existence (which even Holt’s bill includes in a modified and more restrictive form).

I still think, however, based on the James Baker testimony, and the Nacchio revelations, that it’s primarily the emergence of e-mail and cell-phone traffic realities (e-mail can often be very difficult to geographically locate no matter where it’s intercepted, I believe), in combination with the massive data-mining collection procedures of the NSA et al, that are the problem. Data-mining collection that may have once been confined to data collection abroad with scant infringement on any parties in America, but which now ‘inevitably’ (for some reason) includes the communications of Americans intermingled in many or most cases - which is something FISA simply wasn’t designed to overlook (for good reason, I think, considering how it already provides for a rather lenient view of the Fourth Amendment in relation to foreign intelligence collection in the U.S.). Here’s the link to yesterday’s comment, and an excerpt:

http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....e/#respond

The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures, wherever Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy (in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” - which, according to our lawless Executive Branch, does not include our personal privacy and right to anonymity if we comment on or surf the internet). Only a warrant issued by a judge upon evidence of probable cause to suspect criminal activity, or - under FISA and its secret, IC-serving court - to suspect the presence of a foreign power’s agent, opens the door to legal searches and seizures of the “persons, houses, papers, and effects” of individuals in America - because only those are deemed “reasonable” Judicial Branch-checked exercises of the police powers of the government, under the Fourth Amendment.

The PAA and RESTORE Act are both full of “reasonable” qualifiers: for the design of the procedures to be used to conduct unreasonable searches of our ‘papers and effects’; for the presumed location of those whose ‘papers and effects’ may be unreasonably searched, etc.

Is such a “reasonable belief” of the involvement of mostly (or at least some) non-U.S. persons overseas (those beyond the scope of FISA) enough for a related search and/or seizure into the communications of some U.S. persons in America - because ‘unavoidably’ conducted in connection with the non-probable-cause “basket warrant” approved (as to “reasonable” programming design only) by the FISCourt for surveillance “directed at” those non-U.S. persons “reasonably believed” to be located outside the U.S. - to somehow suddenly be deemed a “reasonable” search of said (known or unknown) U.S. persons under the Fourth Amendment?

The RESTORE Act (like the PAA) tries to pretend it is, and to make it the semi-permanent law of the land. And if we disagree with this twisted, corrupt interpretation of our right to be left unmolested, as individual Americans, by this unwarranted, secret corporate/government invasion of our privacy? Well, Congress says we can stuff it:

LIABILITY OF ORDER.— 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 an order issued under this subsection.

In other words, Congress is agreeing with its King (with regard to the prospective immunity that’s in the temporary PAA and looming RESTORE Act, never mind the retroactive immunity provision that would thoroughly seal the blatantly illegal deal) and saying: ‘We know that the PAA/RESTORE Act is unConstitutional on its face, we don’t want to try to amend the Constitution, so we’ll just cut the Judicial Branch entirely out of the picture here, so that there’s no chance of being told of our misdeeds, and being forced to “re-Constitutionalize” them in future.’

We cannot let this happen.

Setting aside the steady erosion of true checks on the actions of the Executive Branch - this is an attempt to remove checks on the Legislative Branch by way of the judiciary.

Note that the Rush Holt bill (H.R. 3782 - see selise’s link @ 27) has neither prospective nor retoactive immunity in it for the corporations that we are paying to help the government to spy on us, unlike the RESTORE Act (which has prospective, but not - yet - retroactive immunity in it).

Maybe the Senate can save the Holt bill by using it as a model, instead of the RESTORE Act (which is basically a reshuffled Protect America Act). The more study that goes into this on the Senate side, the better. The House process so far has been mostly behind closed doors, and is shaping up (yet again) to be heedlessly hasty, from all appearances.

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

OK, I’ve heard this argument also. However, telco companies have well staffed legal departments to research such things. This isn’t the same as a private citizen having the wool pulled over their eyes or complying with what a fed tells them.

Didn’t the hospital visit to Ashcroft occur precisely because Gonzo knew some Telco’s were going to insist on proof of legality before proceeding? Telco needed CYA material for when the guano would hit the fan as they need it would when work got out to the American public/customers.

Please don’t take this as a smackdown of your comment, just of the argument. Just a friendly discussion *g*

thegolux @ 49

I have a little bit different take on immunity for the telcos. This is not going to be popular, but hear me out.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for obeying what they believe to be a lawful order of the government. I got into this argument some years ago here in NC when only people who filed their taxes with a note saying that they were paying under protest could get a refund taxes on a tax provision that was found to be unconstitutional. Th argument I made to a state supreme court justice of my acquaintance was that law abiding people who paid their taxes in good faith, believing that what the government was telling them to do was legal would be penalized for doing so. It almost falls into the category of an ex post facto law. In the end, he came to agree with me.

If, and this is a big “if,” the telcos believed that what the US was asking them to do was legal and proper, they should not be liable for helping. However, I would only support amnesty if 1) all was revealed about what they did, who told them to do it, and what their internal legal opinions told them, and 2) the people who wrongfully told them to do it were prosecuted.

Since neither of those things is likely to happen…

Point is, that’s already true. If they were directed to do so by the gov’t they’re already pretty much in the clear.

It sounds to me like what they really want is no details of WHAT were listened to to get out. Hence the ‘immunity’.

They don’t like sunshine much…

Looking through political donations to House and senate Democrats I noticed that they are top heavy in donations from labor unions and interest groups. Contacting these organizations and urging them to push may help this cause.Donations and subsriptions to the following organizations may help also.The Bill of Rights Defense Committee:
http://www.bordc.org/threats/spying.php
The Electronic frontier Foundation:
http://action.eff.org/site/Pag.....V_homepage
The ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/

Toby Wollin @ 66

Oklahoma kiddo @ 47

You think DiFi is bad. Try complaining to Hillary. Or for that matter Reid or Nancy.

But remember, Nancy doesn’t like to have to listen to us because we “are advocates” — she and people like her “are leaders”.
Oh, yeah.

These politicians are like Philosopher-Kings.

CHS @ 56:

I also discovered that, in a lot of cases (and this has proved true for me in my calls at atimes as well), local offices are both more receptive and more likely to pass on the whole of your message than the DC offices.

Today I’ve been contacting local offices. Other days I’ve called DC. (Long distance for me is not a problem.) Whatever works. For me, reception has been mixed in both instances.

i’ve been getting more and more pissed off and frustrated at the dems congress (especially in congress)..

but, i just watched this new currentTV video and it made me feel better. at least there is one democrat of national international stature who is also lobbying congress to control the administration’s warrantless wiretapping.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 33

Where do they get the money to do this?

AP - The nation’s three largest banks said Monday they will team up to buy tens of billions of dollars in investments that lost value after global credit markets seized up.

They are pooling their money and for good reason. By doing so they can prevent the sale of their assets at reduced value. They can hold on to them and keep the market rates high on the foreclosed homes and commercial properties. It’s self interest. And they avoid competing against one another for properties that are going up for sale.

Imagine a bunch of guys getting together and putting up inflated bids on EBay to encourage others to bid higher. Sure they might have to occasionally buy their own items (usually through a surrogate), but it keeps the bid prices higher and compels others that want the item to pay inflated amounts. Of course EBay and the Feds would likely declare this a case of “price-fixing”.

But in this case the Bush Administration is actually ASSISTING an illegal TRUST. The meetings were held at the Treasury Department!!

If the market was actually “free” they would have to put these foreclosed homes up for auction. Someone like me, who held off buying into the inflated Housing Bubble with dangerous Variable Rate Mortgages…who saw the risks…would be denied opportunity to purchase a home on the deflated market. The collusion between Citigroup, BofA, Morgan Stanley, etc. will allow them to simply carry these homes as vacant until the market allows them a soft landing.

Meanwhile those that they have evicted during foreclosure will have to find apartments, increasing rental rates…or bid on one of these “available” homes with the artificially inflated price.

There are causes (lobbyists). There are symptoms (bad government). There is a cure (public financing of elections).