Am I the zed?

Good morning, Christy – dang cold at my house this morning – 23 degrees. No snow though. Solai has gotten snow but she is about 60 miles northeast of me and in “the snow belt” on the Thruway. Hope all is well at your house.

Morning, Toby — we had a heavy frost on the ground this morning, and had a few flurries yesterday. Brrrr….

To hell with retro-immunity: If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

Good morning Christy! Thanks for the marching orders. Gonna be a busy day.

The phone companies screwed up. But they would probably do it again, unless they would get in trouble for doing it. Maybe they didn’t break any law, but that should be for a court to decide, not Congress.

When Jack in the Box lets E Coli into it’s meat, it’s a screw up. They didn’t do it on purpose. But no one says, let’s give them immunity. That’s crazy.

the whole retroactive immunity drive is as embarrassing and damning an element of this time in our country’s life as any other effort the government has taken.

the laws they don’t like, they ignore. the ones they can’t ignore, they use their magic wand to get out of jail free.

what does it mean to be law-abiding in a lawless time?

Seems to me that the fax route could be hopeless as the machines are nowadays equipped to automagically block fax spam. Not that the writing campaigns are spam, but they could be treated as such by the recipients, thus defeating the effort.

dmg @ 7

the whole retroactive immunity drive is as embarrassing and damning an element of this time in our country’s life as any other effort the government has taken.

the laws they don’t like, they ignore. the ones they can’t ignore, they use their magic wand to get out of jail free.

what does it mean to be law-abiding in a lawless time?

Scooter Libby, anyone?

wigwam @ 4

To hell with retro-immunity: If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

yep

Good Morning Christy and pups

g’moring all firedogs!

I really want to see a democrat ask someone from the administration;

“how do we know you aren’t stealing from us when you trace without oversite?”

I REALLY want to see them start using terms that make BUSSINESS stand up and say “now wait a minute, without oversite they CAN steal can’t they, I think I’m gonna support the democrats on this one”

Updated the post above:

Here’s a word for you Arlen: NO. H/T to Ari, who sent me the link to The Hill reporting on the alleged “Specter Comrpomise,” which is an abomination of legal train wreckery. Can you say state secrets and greymail dodges, and the hands of Addington and Cheney trying to CYA for themselves? I knew you could. Ari has an op-ed in the Politico that is worth a read as well this morning.

this is the most depraved use of “executive priviledge” I could have ever imagined;

Many pages of it were redacted… And by the way, we wrote the President. He gave our letter to Fred Fielding, the chief counsel over there, his counsel, who said ‘executive privilege, I don’t have to tell you what she wrote.’ … So yes, I think they are hiding this. I think they are hiding a lot of things. It’s their way, it’s their habit, it’s wrong.

holy friggin crow, this guy is just smugly saying, ‘ya, we are gonna lie to you and then we are just gonna claim executive priviledge when you find the documenation of lies, we cannot ever be held to account so just plain give up”

I am SO unsettled by this particular claim of priviledge it’s hard to express

linkerage

So the clarion call should be:

“Congress should not interfere in ongoing legal proceedings.”

Vote for the Rule of Law. That’s how we need to frame it. Rule of Law. Let the Courts do their job.

Dodd’s tool says Sheldon Whitehouse and LEAHY are MAYBE?

What kind of f*ckery is that?

You know the part that amazes me? The Congress has just rolled over to this unitary executive. Who could have ever figured the demise of the nation would be a branch of government not fighting to retain their Constitutional role? That they’d not jealously guard their power, and make sure that the checks on the other branch were in place. That just floors me.

leinie at 15 — It means they haven’t taken a public position on the issue. The maybe means that there hasn’t been an absolute yay or nay from them publicly. You have to put something in the box to keep track, after all.

So are the Dems being blackmailed into voting for continued systems of gathering info to blackmail them again and again?

Their spinelessness is what makes many overlook their discomfort with Ron Paul, just to have someone not be afraid to say No!

Shorter Morning Screech [I watch so Christy has time to write our morning prompts…go to it, kids!]

Awoke to Morning Joe and Cramer circle-jerk attacking NY State Attorneys General, especially Cuomo. Here’s a thought, guys, maybe if you hadn’t fought tooth and nail to deregulate everything in sight, the pirates wouldn’t have moved in.

Guess they never heard of Trustbuster Teddy Roosevelt. Republican.

Mika questioning Hillary’s electability in the general. Even if she edges out Ghouliani in polling, she can’t get above the 46-47 approval rating.

Segue to shilling Hardball power rankings. Great way to dumb down the process, Tweety. Issues? Fuggedaboudit.

The econowoman up now…but I gotta say, does anyone believe any numbers that come out of this administration? Labor? Commerce? Call me cynical.

Oh, and the Fargo National Guard’s going back to Iraq.

From the sounds of that article in The Hill, Leahy’s sense of snark is just about to boil over.

But what’s up with Sheldon Whitehouse? From the article: “Two wildcards on the Democratic side will be Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), who both voted for the bill with the immunity provisions in the Intelligence Committee.”

DiFi I can believe, but Whitehouse?

Peterr at 19 — Wish I had a definite answer for you on that one…but I don’t know. Am working on it.

O/T but look at this. WaPo front page headline that reads Other Blackwater Case Drew Little Scrutiny was something different an hour ago when I looked.

It used to read something like, Blackwater Cleared by State Department.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 16

leinie at 15 — It means they haven’t taken a public position on the issue. The maybe means that there hasn’t been an absolute yay or nay from them publicly. You have to put something in the box to keep track, after all.

According to that piece in The Hill, Whitehouse *has* voted for a bill with immunity provisions in it when it came before the Intelligence Committee.

TheraP @ 14

So the clarion call should be:

“Congress should not interfere in ongoing legal proceedings.”

Vote for the Rule of Law. That’s how we need to frame it. Rule of Law. Let the Courts do their job.

Excellent.

Lieberfein Syndrome.

The economic statistics issued by Commerce, Labor, etc., do not bear close examination, lo these past few years under the Junta.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 16

leinie at 15 — It means they haven’t taken a public position on the issue. The maybe means that there hasn’t been an absolute yay or nay from them publicly. You have to put something in the box to keep track, after all.

Correct – Leahy said in the hearings that he is opposed to retroactive immunity. But because he is the primary force driving what the SJC will be voting on, he’s not yet said how his position on amnesty will manifest itself. It’s very possible that Leahy strips retroactive immunity out.

Whitehouse has also expressed opposition to telecom immunity but has not publicly stated that he will definitively vote against legislation with it in the SJC.

Yeah, Christy, I get that you have to have a marker. The incredulity is that there isn’t a publicly stated postion of “HELL NO, CRIMINALS” from Leahy, and I expect it from Whitehouse too, although his intel vote would seem to indicate I’m going to be disappointed.

I really don’t care if the only information they got from my e-mail was a picture of my wedding dress i just sent my mother – it is NONE OF THEIR DAMNED BUSINESS, and they don’t need to be looking at it unless a judge says they have cause. If they didn’t have that, and they violated their agreements with me to protect my privacy, and the 4th amendment requirements for violating my privacy, and I decide to sue, they don’t get out of it before I can even bring my case.

And the blanket warrents are even worse.

I’m checking to see whether C-Span and/or the committee webstream are going to be covering the discussion on this, and will let you know as soon as I know for sure.

christy – from the c-span schedules, there is no listing for video coverage of the hearing, but there is a listing for audio streaming.

i haven’t called c-span or the sjc to confirm yet this morning, but would be happy to do it (was planning to anyway) for you and report back here (i figure you’ve already a dozen balls in the air).

It’s very interesting that when it was just “the Bush administration is violating the Fourth Amendment” the issue got little traction in Congress. Suddenly, when corporations like AT&T and Verizon get hauled into court over it, the GOP leaps into action.

Might bear keeping this pressure point in mind, when trying to get Congress to step up in the future.

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 25

Christy Hardin Smith @ 16

leinie at 15 — It means they haven’t taken a public position on the issue. The maybe means that there hasn’t been an absolute yay or nay from them publicly. You have to put something in the box to keep track, after all.

Correct – Leahy said in the hearings that he is opposed to retroactive immunity. But because he is the primary force driving what the SJC will be voting on, he’s not yet said how his position on amnesty will manifest itself. It’s very possible that Leahy strips retroactive immunity out.

Whitehouse has also expressed opposition to telecom immunity but has not publicly stated that he will definitively vote against legislation with it in the SJC.

my bold. can you give me a link on this? i’ve been calling his office almost every day for an explanation of his vote FOR immunity in the intelligence committee (of course, i also ask that he reverse course and vote against it in the sjc).

morning all… coffee just finished brewing…

can I have my coffee before I have to call the odious Feinstein?

gak.

selise at 27 — That would be great. The SJC offices don’t open until 9 am, so I was waiting to call then. But if you can track down info either way, it would be much appreciated. I asked yesterday, but didn’t get anything definite in return. At least they know we’re definitely interested. *g*

Prairie Sunshine @5:22 -

It may be my imagination but it seems like scarmouth gets worse on a daily basis….and Mica stands up for the good guys less and less. This business about MSNBC turning to the “left” is a great big batch of hog wash, IMHO. When you consider scar, tweety, f*cker pitted against KO, there’s very little “left” left. :-(

Coastie@30, perhaps you should try a double pepto, instead…

nonplussed @ 33

Coastie@30, perhaps you should try a double pepto, instead…

unfortunately, there isn’t enough pepto in the world to counter the effects of having Feinstein as your senator.

I like Dodd’s techno tool. I was able to get right through to Sen. Grassley’s office. He has not declared his position as of yet. I encouraged him not to support retro-active immunity as it contradicts our constitution and the rule of law.

We all know about the hypocrisy of the GOP, but this just adds icing to the cake.

1.)How many Gun-Loving 2nd amendment right fundies argue the unconstituionality of “Gun-Control”? Yet, it is perfectly fine for the GOP true believers to violate our 4th amendment rights? Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

2.)The GOP loves to scream let the free market work. No Government intervention. Well as soon as that Free Market might start having a negative impact on a few of the large providers who willingly chose to violate the law, the GOP wants the Government to intervene and provide them with retro-active immunity. Disgustingly, hypocritical.

just curious – aren’t the telcos already indemnified by the fed anyway in this case? isn’t Spector just duplicating what they already have?

Why should the maneuverings of Arlen “Magic Bullet Theory” Specter surprise anyone? He’s made quite a nice career for himself in derailing the truth and protecting the guilty…

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 25

Christy Hardin Smith @ 16

leinie at 15 — It means they haven’t taken a public position on the issue. The maybe means that there hasn’t been an absolute yay or nay from them publicly. You have to put something in the box to keep track, after all.

Correct – Leahy said in the hearings that he is opposed to retroactive immunity. But because he is the primary force driving what the SJC will be voting on, he’s not yet said how his position on amnesty will manifest itself. It’s very possible that Leahy strips retroactive immunity out.

Whitehouse has also expressed opposition to telecom immunity but has not publicly stated that he will definitively vote against legislation with it in the SJC.

If one reads the report that came out of the SSCI markup of the FISA Amendment Act, Whitehouse was one of the few who said absolutely nothing about retroactive immunity in his comments (page 47 of the 52 page report). This was unlike Senators Feingold and Wyden.

That was very bothersome then, it is more bothersome that in the intervening time, he has continued not to express a public opinion on this point.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 31

selise at 27 — That would be great. The SJC offices don’t open until 9 am, so I was waiting to call then. But if you can track down info either way, it would be much appreciated. I asked yesterday, but didn’t get anything definite in return. At least they know we’re definitely interested. *g*

here’s your update on c-span (confirmed by phone):

1) no video coverage – that means they won’t have a camera in the hearing room for later broadcast (maybe i should email dan at politics tv to see if they want to cover the hearing?).

2) there will be the c-span room audio stream (it’s listed as active for this morning on the website, and i was told it would be operational). the hearing is in Dirksen room 226. i think that feed is: rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

here’s how to get to the room audio feeds (if my link doesn’t work and for future reference):

go to capitolhearings.org
on the right hand side scroll down to Dirksen 226
click on the room number (not the committee).

this is a realplayer feed. i will make every effort to rip the audio and post the mp3 (if there is interest).

… there may be video webcasting of the hearing provided by the sjc, i will call at 9am to ask (although i’m not confident, because recently the sjc has been relying on c-span feeds). fingers crossed.

Steno — I don’t think anyone is surprised that he’s doing it. The surprise comes in every time something like this is discussed on just exactly when Specter decides to spring his compromise on everyone else. Will it be a week out? Two days? One? The day of? It’s a crapshoot as to when he’ll cave — but the cave-in is pretty much a foregone conclusion, isn’t it?

Peterr @ 19

From the sounds of that article in The Hill, Leahy’s sense of snark is just about to boil over.

But what’s up with Sheldon Whitehouse? From the article: “Two wildcards on the Democratic side will be Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), who both voted for the bill with the immunity provisions in the Intelligence Committee.”

DiFi I can believe, but Whitehouse?

DiFi is a foregone conclusion. She will vote the GOP way, whatever that turns out to be…or will fall all over Specter’s “compromise”.

Durbin has no excuse. I will NOT pay my tax dollars out as a penalty for Telecom’s illegal spying. The Telecoms have their own billions and MUST pay out of pocket. As for government crooks, they need to go to jail, NOT pay fines.

Oh, and besides no immunity, the information (ALL of it) must be purged and no database record kept of the illegal data. The government must NOT be allowed to plumb the well of illegal information.

Arlen “The Floater” Specter.

Whittling away at our constitution one floated compromise at a time.

-GSD

George Simian @ 6

The phone companies screwed up. But they would probably do it again, unless they would get in trouble for doing it. Maybe they didn’t break any law, but that should be for a court to decide, not Congress.

When Jack in the Box lets E Coli into it’s meat, it’s a screw up. They didn’t do it on purpose. But no one says, let’s give them immunity. That’s crazy.

The telecoms didn’t screw up — they actively went along with an illegal request from high governmental officials that like went something like “Hey, this is so secret and so important that we can’t even take it to a judge for a warrant. You’ll just have to trust us.”

(Now that I think about it, I got an email like that from a high governmental official in Africa, who needs my help in getting some funds out of their country . . . but I digress.)

Going along with a line like that — and continuing to do so for years — is not an accident, not a screw up, and not a mistake. It is active cooperation in a conspiracy to violate the Fourth Amendment. Beyond whatever penalities might be levied against the companies, if their corporate counsels signed off on this, either before or after the fact, they ought to be disbarred.

hatch is voting yes.

i almost feel bad that i basically hung up on the phone guy.

I was like, “So, the senator is voting for amnesty for lawbreakers? yes. great! good to know.”

Urgh. I always end up shaking and angry and lose my train of thought. Great!? Great? i was being sarcastic but geez, where did that come from?

And as a reminder, if you yourself haven’t yet voted, the latest poll at The Poll Vault is your opportunity:

“Should the Congress give Telecoms retroactive immunity for warrantless eavesdropping?”

They hear us; understand us; and, for the most part agree with us. But, on any issue in anyway linked to security they are going to fold.

Why? One reason, they are terrorized that one day we will be struck again and the Right will blame them and cite one of these votes as evidence of their complicity.

notableabsence @ 44

hatch is voting yes.

i almost feel bad that i basically hung up on the phone guy.

I was like, “So, the senator is voting for amnesty for lawbreakers? yes. great! good to know.”

Urgh. I always end up shaking and angry and lose my train of thought. Great!? Great? i was being sarcastic but geez, where did that come from?

What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

I’ve apologized for Larry Craig. Utah still owes me an apology for Hatch.

Mad Dogs @ 45

And as a reminder, if you yourself haven’t yet voted, the latest poll at The Poll Vault is your opportunity:

“Should the Congress give Telecoms retroactive immunity for warrantless eavesdropping?”

I did vote. But what does this achieve? Does anyone pay any attention to these Internet “straw polls”?

another tip for c-span junkies…

it used to be we could check the day’s broadcast schedule to try to guess which hearings c-span was going to be covering. no always the best way, because their schedule changes around alot and sometimes they record the hearing for later broadcast.

now, we can check their hearings archive – they’ve been posting links for hearings that c-span is going to cover (for the today), even if only to broadcast later. so far checking this link has been a pretty good source.

[i’ve been posting comments about the cool things in the new c-span archives, but you can explore the archive for yourself… it is very cool)

old gold @ 46

They hear us; understand us; and, for the most part agree with us. But, on any issue in anyway linked to security they are going to fold.

Why? One reason, they are terrorized that one day we will be struck again and the Right will blame them and cite one of these votes as evidence of their complicity.

Another “monster under the bed” – they need to understand a couple of things:
1)The monster is going to blame them and accuse them of being “soft on terror” no matter what they do. This is the stick that the monster under the bed has to beat them with. As long as they allow the monster under the bed to frighten them, they will cower under the covers. They need to jump off the bed, rip the monster out from underneath and give it a good shake. How many times are they going to end up feeling like they’ve “been had” by this? It’s nuts.
2) Rachel Whatshername from AirAmerica said it right the other night on KO – “Fighting Works.” The American People, in general, are just incredibly tired of watching the Bush/Cheney Administration trash the country, the constitution, and our credibility. They WANT the Congress to fight back, big time. Why Pelosi, Reid et al. are not willing to do that – I guess we are back at number 1 – the Monster Under the Bed.

update from the SJC (by phone) – no webcast of the markup hearing this morning, “we don’t webcast our business meetings”.

bummer.

then, i guess it’s fingers crossed for the c-span room audio feed.

[wasn’t’ tuesday’s business meeting webcast from the sjc website?]

Next week’s Torture confirmation is the Vote that will hang around the Goopers’ necks for the rest of their lives.

But, this Domestic Spying confirmation Vote today is the one that the Dems won’t be able to shake-off.

Free People don’t take lightly to having their Rights given away for any reason.

selise @ 49

another tip for c-span junkies…

it used to be we could check the day’s broadcast schedule to try to guess which hearings c-span was going to be covering. no always the best way, because their schedule changes around alot and sometimes they record the hearing for later broadcast.

now, we can check their hearings archive – they’ve been posting links for hearings that c-span is going to cover (for the today), even if only to broadcast later. so far checking this link has been a pretty good source.

[i’ve been posting comments about the cool things in the new c-span archives, but you can explore the archive for yourself… it is very cool)

hey thanks selise, great link!

msmolly @ 48

Mad Dogs @ 45

And as a reminder, if you yourself haven’t yet voted, the latest poll at The Poll Vault is your opportunity:

“Should the Congress give Telecoms retroactive immunity for warrantless eavesdropping?”

I did vote. But what does this achieve? Does anyone pay any attention to these Internet “straw polls”?

I would hope so. Given politicians’ proclivity for all things “polls” over constituents’ “comments”, we probably shouldn’t let any chance go to waste.

And at the very least, it does tend to lift one’s spirits to know that many across this land feel as you do.

OT but good news: both Senator Jon Tester and Senator Max Baucus have announced they will vote NO on Mukasey. GO MONTANA!

Now off to the phones to call them about FISA – no retroactive immunity and no blanket warrants.

thank you FDL for all you do in educating us

Now for the serious news:

Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats
link

Jeebus!

barb in west yellowstone @ 55

OT but good news: both Senator Jon Tester and Senator Max Baucus have announced they will vote NO on Mukasey. GO MONTANA!

Now off to the phones to call them about FISA – no retroactive immunity and no blanket warrants.

thank you FDL for all you do in educating us

WOOHOO! Montana shows the way.

Good work, barb in west yellowstone!

Clinton got a BJ?

How about: Bush and Larry Craig and David Vitter and Pete Domenici and Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter and Diane Fienstein and…you get the idea…

Voted for Torture.

But, first, Our Dems are going to genuflect to Bush as the UE.

selise @ 51

update from the SJC (by phone) – no webcast of the markup hearing this morning, “we don’t webcast our business meetings”.

bummer.

then, i guess it’s fingers crossed for the c-span room audio feed.

[wasn’t’ tuesday’s business meeting webcast from the sjc website?]

Alas, no — Tuesday’s meeting was on C-SPAN. So I guess they mean it.

Thanks for all your hard work, selise.

Just talked to Cardin’s office. Urged that he oppose the Specter “compromise”. The staffer I talked to hadn’t heard about Specter’s move, but seemed fully conversant with the loopholes this would create. It sounds as though Cardin will not be taken in by this arlenfoolery, at least.

radiofreewill @ 52

Next week’s Torture confirmation is the Vote that will hang around the Goopers’ necks for the rest of their lives.

But, this Domestic Spying confirmation Vote today is the one that the Dems won’t be able to shake-off.

Free People don’t take lightly to having their Rights given away for any reason.

-_-

absolutly

Steve-AR @ 56

Now for the serious news:

Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats
link

Jeebus!

Yes, Hillary the murdering Ice Queen could only muster a feline assassination in her campaign of intimidation against Willey.

America 2007, delusions are rewarded, facts are shunned, truth is an orphan.

-GSD

selise @ 29

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 25

Correct – Leahy said in the hearings that he is opposed to retroactive immunity. But because he is the primary force driving what the SJC will be voting on, he’s not yet said how his position on amnesty will manifest itself. It’s very possible that Leahy strips retroactive immunity out.

Whitehouse has also expressed opposition to telecom immunity but has not publicly stated that he will definitively vote against legislation with it in the SJC.

my bold. can you give me a link on this? i’ve been calling his office almost every day for an explanation of his vote FOR immunity in the intelligence committee (of course, i also ask that he reverse course and vote against it in the sjc).

Selise, I just went back over the reports we’ve received from callers to Whitehouse’s office. I was mistaken – he is squarely in the undecided column.

I looked around (trying to find where I’d seen anything to make me think that), but couldn’t find anything to support my comment.

Of note, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein had a meeting with Whitehouse’s office yesterday according to TPM Muckraker.

mornin’ all.

Christy, been lurking only lately, but his is a topic you know is one that you and I see eye-to-eye on. As you said – just follow the law. I cannot believe how fucking gullible americans have become. A president with “terrorist” tourette’s and it’s OK to tap our phones? Good god. In a prior life you (and Rudi the Plunger) could have prosecuted them, and couldn’t have used what they got to prosecute the bad guys. When I was in law school, my criminal law prof’s position was that the Rehnquist court’s mission in life was to narrow the 5th & 6th amendmends out of existence. This is more fundamental. I’ll try to drop in and participate more often.

BTW, hope that birthday vacation was a good one – better than the trip, I’d bet. ;-)

barb at 55 — Having a moment of jealousy for the views you must have in that west Yellowstone area. *g*

Arlen Specter – the Paper Tiger.

Speaks loudly and carries a big back scratcher.

Favorite ploy:

Admonish BushCo for misdeeds, then back it up with a vote in their favor.

A very predictable fellow.

radiofreewill @ 52

Next week’s Torture confirmation is the Vote that will hang around the Goopers’ necks for the rest of their lives.

But, this Domestic Spying confirmation Vote today is the one that the Dems won’t be able to shake-off.

Free People don’t take lightly to having their Rights given away for any reason.

Cal Thomas, the moral wag columnist who has been lecturing me about the benefits of “Christian morality” for about 2 decades on the pages of my local paper now hearts torture because we must play by the ‘Islamo-fascists’ rules.

-GSD

Morning pups, swallowed half my coffee & called Specter’s office – “no statement on how he’s voting”.

Steve-AR @ 56

Now for the serious news:

Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats
link

Jeebus!

things are going to get very, very weird…

Steve-AR @ 56

Now for the serious news:

Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats
link

Jeebus!

Sounds like a cat fight to me

pogo — Yes, the astonishingly ballsy maneuver of saying “Hey, flip the onus on the Bush Administration and then watch them make the case disappear altogether by gumming up the works entirely” is just ludicrous on its face. And if it were any other Administration, I’d start to wonder if it were April Fool’s day.

Sometimes, you just have marvel at the sheer jackassery that they try and pull off. That they sometimes succeed at it is evidence of just how much shit they are throwing at the fan — you can’t dodge all of it, I suppose, but this one is a matter of fundamentals in my book. And every lawyer out there in the audience knows exactly how ludicrous it is to think that telecom companies — with both scads of highly trained, highly paid in-house counsel and squadrons of law firms on retainer full of equally well-paid and well-trained lawyers — didn’t know what they were doing in this. They knew exactly what the law required, what the normal course of business was, what warrants and subpoenas require in terms of proof from the government, what it meant to allow them to install illegal domestic spying equipment ON THE TELECOM’S PREMISES without court order of legality of doing so…the list is endless, and it points to a substantial level of culpibility.

I swear, this is both appalling and irritating on so many levels, not the least of which is watching elected members of Congress be apologists for illegal behavior. The Founders must be rolling in their graves.

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 63

selise @ 29

my bold. can you give me a link on this? i’ve been calling his office almost every day for an explanation of his vote FOR immunity in the intelligence committee (of course, i also ask that he reverse course and vote against it in the sjc).

Selise, I just went back over the reports we’ve received from callers to Whitehouse’s office. I was mistaken – he is squarely in the undecided column.

I looked around (trying to find where I’d seen anything to make me think that), but couldn’t find anything to support my comment.

Of note, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein had a meeting with Whitehouse’s office yesterday according to TPM Muckraker.

matt – thanks very much for the response. i’ve just been following whitehouse’s stand on this pretty carefully because i was so surprised to read that he voted against the amendment stripping immunity in the intelligence committee (in fact, his staff, when i first called didn’t believe me until they checked the article and asked the aide responsible for this matter)

i hope klein helps change whitehouse’s mind.

p.s. do you know if politics tv and/or capnews (are they related?) are going to be at today’s sjc meeting? there is no c-span or sjc video coverage – so if anyone wants video clips it’s going to have to come from another source.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 12

Ari has an op-ed in the Politico that is worth a read as well this morning.

From the op-ed:

Another little-noticed provision in the bill reinforces this secretive approach.

The legislation would deny states the authority to investigate illegal surveillance and violations of state law.

Disregarding any federalism principles, the “Preemption of State Investigations” section purports to deny states the authority to even “conduct” investigations into illegal surveillance, apply state sanctions against companies for surveillance abuse, or require basic disclosure of companies’ “alleged assistance” to the NSA.

Perhaps some phone calls to certain governor’s offices, or state AGs might be in order as well. If we can get them to push some of their reluctant Senators, it may help our efforts.

And yes, CA firepups, I’m talking about AG Jerry Brown calling DiFi. It might not help, but she’d at least take his call.

Peterr @ 43

George Simian @ 6

The phone companies screwed up. But they would probably do it again, unless they would get in trouble for doing it. Maybe they didn’t break any law, but that should be for a court to decide, not Congress.

When Jack in the Box lets E Coli into it’s meat, it’s a screw up. They didn’t do it on purpose. But no one says, let’s give them immunity. That’s crazy.

The telecoms didn’t screw up — they actively went along with an illegal request from high governmental officials that like went something like “Hey, this is so secret and so important that we can’t even take it to a judge for a warrant. You’ll just have to trust us.”

(Now that I think about it, I got an email like that from a high governmental official in Africa, who needs my help in getting some funds out of their country . . . but I digress.)

Going along with a line like that — and continuing to do so for years — is not an accident, not a screw up, and not a mistake. It is active cooperation in a conspiracy to violate the Fourth Amendment. Beyond whatever penalities might be levied against the companies, if their corporate counsels signed off on this, either before or after the fact, they ought to be disbarred.

It was wrong of the NSA to ask, but I think what was illegal here is that these companies violated their customers’ privacy and coughed up the info without a warrant. The judge who accepted the argument that the phone companies may be at fault said that it was pretty clear the NSA had no authority to compel the companies to hand over the information.

Sorry comepletely OT.
This is old, but with Pat Robertson popping up again (re, supporting Ghouliani) we may remember that Mr Robertson has an interesting past. There also a link somewhere trying Robertson to the blood diamond market and more interesting people, but I can’t find it.

Web Posted: June 4, 1999

After its founding in 1821, the state of Liberia became a haven for freed American slaves. Today, though, the West African nation is beset with social and political problems, and is attracting a different sort of visitor. Liberia is turning into a haven for mercenaries, gangsters, get-rich-quick artists, and questionable “missionary” groups which are being accused with using the cover of religious belief to exploit the country’s resources.
Pat Robertson has now landed on Liberian soil, and wants to look for gold.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts5.htm

Mark Klein is on Washington Journal right now – CSPAN-1

http://www.cspan.org

Opps, I am so rude :(
Good Morning everyone :)

George at 74 — That’s correct. And in the normal course of business, attorneys for the telecoms would have pushed back, demanded a warrant and/or a subpoena with a hearing to determine the legality of the request before turning over anything. But that didn’t happen here — the telecoms just did whatever the Bush Administration asked, regardless of the legality of it. This is EXACTLY the sort of case that civil litigation is designed for — for discovery of what took place and as a means to dissuade corporations from conducting themselves illegal in the future. This has tremendous deterrent capabilities, which is what civil litigation is supposed to do when there is corporate wrongdoing.

It’s a myth that the Goopers are ready for action.

During Vietnam, every one of them was livid over the Protest Marches, but how many did anything about it? Next to none. They bark a lot, but they’re weak due to years and years of hypocrisy paralysis and cognitive dissonance.

We and Our Dems are actually closer to action than the Goopers. They are at home enthralled over the ‘Biggest Loser’ and ‘American Idol’ re-runs – anything other than hearing that they’ve been blindly, greedily, perversely, willfully ignorantly following a Depraved and Unskillful Tyrant, a hater, on the Run from Accountability.

The bottom line is – there aren’t any Goopers left who are willing to fight for Bush.

We’ve got to push on the Wall for it to fall, because it won’t fall on its own.

The Goopers are on the other side sucking their thumbs.

On Washington Journal they are saying that Leahy is delaying markup of the telecom immunity for a week, and that first they are going to markup the section on the scope of oversight of FISA by the courts.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 71

pogo — Yes, the astonishingly ballsy maneuver of saying “Hey, flip the onus on the Bush Administration and then watch them make the case disappear altogether by gumming up the works entirely” is just ludicrous on its face. […]
I swear, this is both appalling and irritating on so many levels, not the least of which is watching elected members of Congress be apologists for illegal behavior. The Founders must be rolling in their graves.

Well, the Founders WERE spinning in their graves but the spin ramped up to such a high RPM that they all exploded catastrophically due to centripedal forces. The Founders, even in their graves, are now LONG gone and irrecoverable.

The Washington press conference announcing the Robertson endorsement was carefully constructed to make it all look like an alliance of strict-constructionist legal philosophers. Introducing the televangelist was not the campaign’s director of evangelical outreach, or a political figure known for sharing Robertson’s literal reading of the Book of Revelation. Instead the task fell to Ted Olson, the former solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department, a leading conservative legal thinker. The message was clear: This melding of minds was about putting more Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court, not about Giuliani’s personal life and beliefs.

TPM

Makes me think that the people behind the curtain, who are calling the shots for the Reichwing, have picked Rudy and the GOP primary is Kabuki.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 71

pogo — Yes, the astonishingly ballsy maneuver of saying “Hey, flip the onus on the Bush Administration and then watch them make the case disappear altogether by gumming up the works entirely” is just ludicrous on its face. And if it were any other Administration, I’d start to wonder if it were April Fool’s day.

Sometimes, you just have marvel at the sheer jackassery that they try and pull off. That they sometimes succeed at it is evidence of just how much shit they are throwing at the fan — you can’t dodge all of it, I suppose, but this one is a matter of fundamentals in my book. And every lawyer out there in the audience knows exactly how ludicrous it is to think that telecom companies — with both scads of highly trained, highly paid in-house counsel and squadrons of law firms on retainer full of equally well-paid and well-trained lawyers — didn’t know what they were doing in this. They knew exactly what the law required, what the normal course of business was, what warrants and subpoenas require in terms of proof from the government, what it meant to allow them to install illegal domestic spying equipment ON THE TELECOM’S PREMISES without court order of legality of doing so…the list is endless, and it points to a substantial level of culpibility.

I swear, this is both appalling and irritating on so many levels, not the least of which is watching elected members of Congress be apologists for illegal behavior. The Founders must be rolling in their graves.

Exactly. Christy – I’ve worked in the telecom industry now for 8 years and I can tell you that with these big guys, EVERYTHING take major time. Want to discuss “possibly” working together? You get sent a Nondisclosure Agreement that is between 15 and 25 pages long. Ditto if you want to attach to their poles. This was not a “4:40 in the afternoon on a Friday emergency phone call, quick we have to have a decision immediately and do something RIGHT NOW” sort of thing. I have had those sorts of phone calls on Friday afternoon and those are the ones where nothing will get done because the lawyer(s) you need to talk to have already left for the day and no one will deal with it until at least Tuesday.
So, whoever “did the deal” (I’m still going with ATT and then everyone else got snagged because they were in the same cables as ATT)had everything in writing – and it took months and months of discussions, believe me. Shoot – even on Nondisclosure, I’ve had Verizon lawyers take two weeks of back and forth on one word.
No wonder the Qwest guy is talking about NSA approaching them six months before 9/11 — putting this sort of thing in place, just on paper, takes a whole lotta time.

Just saw this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..whats_news
In a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing today, Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, was set to testify regarding another concern that has long troubled uniformed lawyers: Regardless of their accuracy, statements obtained under torture or certain other forms of duress are inadmissible in legal proceedings. Because most evidence against Guantanamo prisoners comes from detainee statements, convictions hinge on whether they can be used in court….Yesterday, however, he was advised by email that the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, “has determined that as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow.”

Watching the kids from James Madison High School gives me some hope about the next generation. They are definitely asking the right questions.

Makes me think that the people behind the curtain, who are calling the shots for the Reichwing, have picked Rudy and the GOP primary is Kabuki.

Just like the Dems have anointed Hillary?

Fresh thread up and running, with an update on the hearing straight from someone at the SJC…

The Goopers should be thinking to themselves: “Hmmmm, if I sign-on with Bush on Torture, will future revelations about War Crimes and Abuses, Secret Executive Orders and Memos, make me a party to Cruel and Unusual Treatment?”

The Dems should be asking themselves: “Hmmmm, if I sign-on with Bush on Warrantless Domestic Spying, will future revelations about Targeting Innocent Citizens, Media, Politicians, Businesspeople, etc, make me a party to Fascist Enablement?”

Whitehouse can destroy his promising career, in less than an hour from now…

New thread upstairs!

Civil War is right around the corner folks. It won’t be long before the government gets too big for their panties and the “people” of this country grow some balls and say they’ve had enough.