Zed! Good morning!

Good morning Christy! I see we have our marching orders for today :)

My fear is that Mukasey opened up the investigation into the FISA spying knowing full well that the Congress will give blanket immunity before a disposition is reached.

Another dirty deal.

-GSD

Hello and morning to everyone…

slightly O/T, but. . .

a live video window for
the waxman hearing on the
obstruction and stove-piping
of investigations at the state
department OIG — on iraq abuses. . .

just about to be called to order. . .

waxman presiding. . .

also on c-span3. . .

p e a c e

Burp!

Bloggers here seem not to believe what I say about spam prevention on fax machines.

O/T (please excuse): the House Oversight hearing to assess the performance of State Dep’t IG Howard Krongard was to begin at 10 a.m. It’s scheduled for C-SPAN3, and the committee has its own webcast up and ready to go.

I have started a new political party called the Liberal Democratic Party of the United States. You can read the web page at http://www.dmocrats.org and you will find that this party works differently from other political parties. Take a look and help enact progressive legislation and end the war where you work as a legislator and you vote on legislation.

alank at 7 — Yes, well bloggers here seem to have contacted several congressional offices to have asked about it — and were told that our faxes are coming through just fine. But thanks for asking so pleasantly.

great idea christy!

i’ve been calling and not faxing (probably ‘cuz i like to try for a conversation)… but when it’s a list of folks to contact, calling takes a lot of time.

one suggestion…

i don’t use the same talking points with Rs as i do with Ds. when calling republican senators, i’ve been saying something to the effect, “don’t let hillary have the power to spy on us, president bush will be gone in a little over a year” and “republicans used to be the defenders of our rights, i hope we can be again soon”

Here’s my fax, borrowed from the Nov. 8th brainstorming:

Senator:

If the telecoms didn’t break the law, they don’t need immunity. If they did break the law, they don’t deserve amnesty.

Stand up for the rule of law, or stand down.

P.S. Remember, you work for ME.

Two questions:

* Why was it so awful for Nixon to spy on his political opponents, but it’s now okay for Bush and all future presidents?

* Why is copying documents as they traverse the Internet less odious than breaking into an office and copying those same documents there — assuming of course that a cooperative landlord let them in?

We are talking about legalizing the theft of information.

“Unfettered domestic spying” with immunity and a government paid “private” army of mercenaries, like Blackwater, etc., with immunity at the call of some future leader and a country with significant fiscal problems - it sets up a scary scenario.

damagedone at 13 — It does, indeed.

skdadl @ 7

O/T (please excuse): the House Oversight hearing to assess the performance of State Dep’t IG Howard Krongard was to begin at 10 a.m. It’s scheduled for C-SPAN3, and the committee has its own webcast up and ready to go.

ding! — now about to start. . .

and on FISA mark-up tomorrow:
my faxes have all been sent.

check. roger that. done.

i also mailed a hard copy, full
color, version of this, to all of
the relevant senators’ offices, at
the end of last week. . .

it is the EDITED fourth amendment.

feel free to use/edit/derive/send/etc. . .

p e a c e

Folks, remember one contact is good — but multiple contacts is even better. They keep track of each one. So if you FAX, also consider making a call to the DC office and then, perhaps, also to a local office. Thanks!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 16

Folks, remember one contact is good — but multiple contacts is even better. They keep track of each one. So if you FAX, also consider making a call to the DC office and then, perhaps, also to a local office. Thanks!

an excellent point, chs!

i’ll go log a few telephone calls,
now — which means i’ll have faxed,
hard-copy mailed, and CALLED. . .

p e a c e

alank @ 6

Bloggers here seem not to believe what I say about spam prevention on fax machines.

Could you say it again or give me a link to what you said? I seem to have missed it, and I think it would apply to me. I broadcasted a fax to all the members of the SJC on 10/26/2007, and another fax on 11/8/2007.

I really imploree everyone to use real life terms in how the fisa law affects YOU, and how it WILL affect that representative

I write and say things like;

“I don’t want elected officials to be able to steal my information at will with nobody looking out for my intelectual property”

also;

“what the president wants to do with this bill is have the ability to go into my secret files and take whatever information he thinks is worth stealing and nobody is there to keep him from doing it”

or;

“do YOU really trust people to go into your secret files and expect them NOT to steal?”

believe me guys, this works MUCH better then “the rule of law” or “protect the constitution” or “violates my rights”

the cute phrasing is nice as a throw away on leaving but it they are NOT effective in CONVINCING representatives that are on the fence

believe me, you phrase the discussion that way even to a republican and they HAVE to agree with it

with a republican you can be more benign and take out “the president” in the conversation, like so;

“what this fisa bill does is give any official, including criminal elements who are in the public sector, to go into my secret files and take whatever information he thinks is worth stealing and nobody is there to keep him from doing it”

give that type of discussion a go and it will gain legs

When I call, I ask to speak to one of that Senator’s staffers on either the Judiciary or Intelligence Committees. They tend to be closer to the subject and more knowledgeable.

I tell them that these are American citizens who have brought suit against the Telcos and that if they grant immunity, they are taking away the only legal recourse that these citizens have.

I also ask them to replace basket warrants with individual warrants, in keeping with the Fourth Amendment. Keep hitting them with the Constitution!

OT: Per TalkingPointsMemo, Majority Of Iowa Republicans Favors Withdrawal From Iraq In Six Months. Per Harry Truman, “good policy is good politics”.

Good morning Christy and everyone. I called Feinstein’s San Diego office yesterday and asked when she will make her decision with regard to immunity. The staffer said that she was going to vote in favor of immunity, but that he could note my opinion…

CHS:

This will warm the cockles of your heart. It’s about an overflowing town hall meeting Rep. Moran (Virginia) presided over:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02569.html

question for firepups…

has anyone created “contacts” of all these senators in their email application? “contacts” can be shared across applications (i think as .vcf files?) and it would make writing (and sending) faxes to the committee much easier.

brendan at 24 — Excellent — thanks so much for that link. Love it when people show up and speak their minds. My fave was the traffic snarl portion — great work from folks in VA. :)

Ima @ 21

When I call, I ask to speak to one of that Senator’s staffers on either the Judiciary or Intelligence Committees. They tend to be closer to the subject and more knowledgeable.

I tell them that these are American citizens who have brought suit against the Telcos and that if they grant immunity, they are taking away the only legal recourse that these citizens have.

this is good but I would add why citizens NEED that recourse, not some kind of notional philosophy like “to protect our privacy”, that is too played

we NEED recourse to regain comensation for property that has been stolen

here is something VERY important to consider;

the MAIN reason we need our privacy prtoected is NOT to protect the information we are ashamed

it IS to protect the information we are MOST PROUD, have WORKED HARD and NEED that information to REAMAIN PROPRIETORY so WE can use the information the way we need to use it…privacy is to keep information we have aquired through hard work from our competitors and rivals.

that is the REAL reason we need privacy protection and you use THAT whenever anyone says;

“if you didn’t do anything wrong you have nothing to hide”, which is a false statement, I have PLENTY to hide to which NONE OF IT is “wrong”

I sent this out on 11/8:

Dear Senators:

You are about to do the markup for the FISA bill which will include tentative provisions to immunize the telecom companies for colluding with the Bush administration in an apparent unconstitutional bid to indiscriminately spy on Americans with impunity, as well as the right of the administration to do blanket or basket warrants. I, and I’m sure, many other Americans implore you to think hard about what you’re doing and what you have been asked (required?) to do, because you are being asked (required?) to take the telecom companies side against their own customers, who you happen to represent as constituents. There should be no question where your allegiance lies. The telecoms may have money, but their customers have the vote, which to my knowledge, the telecoms do not.

Just in case you need a refresher course, this is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And I believe the oath you swore to uphold goes something like this:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE KING!
Stand up for the rule of law, or you should stand down for the good of the country!

There are many other issues involved here, including but not limited to separation of powers, checks and balances, whether we want to be ruled by laws or men. On the basis of all of those other issues, as well as the future security of a country without freedom because they’ve surrendered their freedoms to terrorists, one by one in the name of national security, please do the right thing by your constituents, the voters, and let the courts decide what’s right, as they have always been meant to do. Please do not usurp the court’s powers as the legislative branch has so many times allowed the executive branch to do to their powers. At some point, someone has to take a stand, or we will be changing our form of government by neglect and capitulation. Please do not let your vote become a part of bringing down the government as we know it. Stand up for the Rule of Law, or stand down! Thank you.

I also sent a different letter on the same subject on 10/28. I expect to need the use of phone for some part-time and much needed work. I might get a chance though to write again later in the day, and then I should be able to automate sending so I don’t need to babysit the process of sending.

re: that link @24 — the article’s title is “Iranian Policy Questioned at Alexandria Town Hall Meeting”. I suspect this is the Webb effect.

Isn’t Sheldon Whitehouse on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Why isn’t he on your list?

Larry at 30 — He is — and he should be there. Hold on a sec — may be an HTML glitch…will fix it.

Christy, you and Jane and this blog are some of the bright spots counterpoising this miasma and train wreck of a government we have had to endure for the last seven years. I wasn’t all that fond of Bill, but damn, at least he was trying to take care of business.

My job doesn’t allow me to contact politicians during the day or make “frivolous” political phone calls on their time. And they have a right to expect that.

DiFi no longer accepts my emails. It must have been something I said about her complete capitulation (actually, she’s always been there, it just took a while for it to become painfully obvious to everbody who’s not a zombie) to the right wing hacks and climbing into bed with George that did it…

Anyway, I give what I can, fight where and when I’m able, and think you guys are the greatest. Thanks

Just stepping back in…

My previous advisory about spam prevention on fax machines and the implications of that for such campaigns as this, was very brief.

In re blogger comment, I would be very interested to know which offices reported receiving faxes during these initial positive actions. I mean, if they’re friendlies, you’re preaching to the choir, after all. It’s the rat bastards who vote with Republicans that need friendly persuasion by such means as the fax. They’re likely, however, to block faxes, especially if the faxes are channeled through a single tube and advise voting Democratic.

Something to keep in mind as you are writing/calling

“basket warrant” is an oxymoron. The Constitution requires that a warrant be issued upon “probable cause” what is proabale cause in one situation will not be in another. By necessity it must be determined on a case by case basis.

There is no way for a judge to find Blanket or basket probable cause.

Is there any sense of which (if any) of the Republican members of the Judiciary committee are on the bubble on this one? Maybe we can focus on them to counter Feinstein’s vote.

One other thing to remember is that Chris Dodd has threatened to filibuster if the telco immunity provision makes it out of committee. Be sure to call your own Senator (even if they’re not on Judiciary) and ask them to support Dodd’s hold and the filibuster if it comes to that.

CHS:

They need to know — very clearly — that we are not only paying attention to the details here, but that we care, deeply, about the rule of law and the constitution, and that fear is no excuse for undermining our commitment to liberty.

what they know is that many of those who “care deeply about the rule of law and the constitution” have bound themselves to the (D) party with the Axiom of automatic support for the Least Worst, and their reflexive distaste for the notion of third party callenges.

Therefore, they have nowhere else to go.

On the other hand, the corporate interests can and do reward misbehaviour with withdrawal of support so who is going to have the upper hand with a craven, devoid of principle congressperson?

looseheadprop @ 34

“basket warrant” is an oxymoron.
There is no way for a judge to find Blanket or basket probable cause.

Aren’t they calling these “umbrella warrants”?

I talked with a couple of aides in Kennedy’s office and he is coming out against immunity but is not committing on basket warrants which in many ways is, I think the more fundamental issue. The last aid I talked to said it is a really complicated issue. Argh.

Anyone from MA needs to make sure Kennedy gets his head straight about basket warrants. Make sure not to take him for granted.

OK folks, I set up a digg promotion.. Please consider a quick click on digg at the top of this post to help spread the word!

sporkovat @ 36

CHS:

They need to know — very clearly — that we are not only paying attention to the details here, but that we care, deeply, about the rule of law and the constitution, and that fear is no excuse for undermining our commitment to liberty.

what they know is that many of those who “care deeply about the rule of law and the constitution” have bound themselves to the (D) party with the Axiom of automatic support for the Least Worst, and their reflexive distaste for the notion of third party callenges.

Therefore, they have nowhere else to go.

On the other hand, the corporate interests can and do reward misbehaviour with withdrawal of support so who is going to have the upper hand with a craven, devoid of principle congressperson?

Which is why we need primary challengers for some of these turkey’s.

looseheadprop @ 34

Something to keep in mind as you are writing/calling

“basket warrant” is an oxymoron. The Constitution requires that a warrant be issued upon “probable cause” what is proabale cause in one situation will not be in another. By necessity it must be determined on a case by case basis.

There is no way for a judge to find Blanket or basket probable cause.

what should i write/say then? the administration is saying the standard is “reasonable”

DiFi …. ‘Lost cause’ is the first phrase coming to mind. Next is ‘useless if you’re not a corporation’.

selise @ 24

question for firepups…

has anyone created “contacts” of all these senators in their email application? “contacts” can be shared across applications (i think as .vcf files?) and it would make writing (and sending) faxes to the committee much easier.

I finally figured out how to do that when I sent the fax of 11/8, and it certainly does make it much easier. You need to set up the individual contacts, but then you also need to make them into a group. Then you can send a fax to the whole group. I had a bit of a problem finding where my contacts were from the previous fax, but then I looked under “shared” and viola, I had my group populated.

Nobody could be more surprised than me when I sent one fax and it automatically sent all the 18 others. I would not even have needed to be there. No babysitting the sending process! If the line is busy, it automatically tries again later. Sweet!

selise @ 41

looseheadprop @ 34

Something to keep in mind as you are writing/calling

“basket warrant” is an oxymoron. The Constitution requires that a warrant be issued upon “probable cause” what is proabale cause in one situation will not be in another. By necessity it must be determined on a case by case basis.

There is no way for a judge to find Blanket or basket probable cause.

what should i write/say then? the administration is saying the standard is “reasonable”

That is ultimately what the Supreme Court will have to decide.

BobbyG @ 44

selise @ 41

what should i write/say then? the administration is saying the standard is “reasonable”

That is ultimately what the Supreme Court will have to decide.

The court will never decide on this one. They will not admit anyone has standing since being in a basket will be a state secret. They already walked away from this once this way.

OT..But another example of what a nasty, corrosive, evil, thing the Republican party is.

David Brooks: Apologist for Racism
by MissLaura
Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:55:49 AM PST

Kos

realworld:

I did some media work for a primary challenger in 06 here in Chicago, and might even do so again.

But I think 3rd party would give them the frighteners even more, and would therefore be more effective in shifting positions on policy matters like this, that concerned bloggers and activists watch and understand, but few others do.

for those who say 3rd party is too difficult, primary challenges are no cakewalk, either.

realworld @ 45

BobbyG @ 44

The court will never decide on this one. They will not admit anyone has standing since being in a basket will be a state secret. They already walked away from this once this way.

That is ultimately what the Supreme Court will have to decide.

Yeah. In that case, Bu’ush wins on this one — the assertion of “reasonableness.”

selise at 41 — I quoted the text of the Fourth Amendment itself which states that the right to privacy and personal security “shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Ann in AZ @ 43

selise @ 24

question for firepups…

has anyone created “contacts” of all these senators in their email application? “contacts” can be shared across applications (i think as .vcf files?) and it would make writing (and sending) faxes to the committee much easier.

I finally figured out how to do that when I sent the fax of 11/8, and it certainly does make it much easier. You need to set up the individual contacts, but then you also need to make them into a group. Then you can send a fax to the whole group. I had a bit of a problem finding where my contacts were from the previous fax, but then I looked under “shared” and viola, I had my group populated.

Nobody could be more surprised than me when I sent one fax and it automatically sent all the 18 others. I would not even have needed to be there. No babysitting the sending process! If the line is busy, it automatically tries again later. Sweet!

would you be willing to email me the .vcf contact files? (i’m at speakeasy dot net) i’d be happy to post them to share with other ‘pups.

i did some of this during the lobbying against the alito confirmation, but it takes time to fill in all the info… maybe later we could even organize ourselves to create contact .vcf files for all senators (and maybe even representatives too).

better yet, there may be something like this already on the net - i just haven’t been able to find it.

brendan @ 24

CHS:

This will warm the cockles of your heart. It’s about an overflowing town hall meeting Rep. Moran (Virginia) presided over:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02569.html

O/T We live in line of the flight pattern between Wright Patterson Air Force base and Rickenbacher Transport base. Before we went to war in Iraq, the flights between the two were quite regular, (which is unusual for the most part.) Blackhawks and Transports have been flying over with more regularity this week. My heart sinks…

On Topic:

Christy, love the link to “campaign” phrases against FISA which was posted last Thursday. Would love to see a posting with example paragraphs people could use for letter writing so that people could select a choice of graphs to formulate a letter and then the letters faxed would not come off as “form” letters but would seem more personal. Research shows the more personal the letter, the more play it has with the staff. I know just sending something “counts” but content does have a further “weightedness” when letter writing on issues and specifically, legislation. Lake participants are quite capable of writing their own letters — a bright and articulate crew. However, in trying to get friends to participate, more would probably be willing if they could look at sample paragraphs, select ones they like and compose a letter. It would make the process time efficient and more people might be willing to send something if given content guidance on specific, vital points.

Just a thought. Perhaps as FDL’ers write those letters, they could post them and we could “lift” from them…Most I talk to want to do something, they just do not know “what” specifically to say and opt to do nothing due to a loss of words and constraints on time.

selise @ 41

looseheadprop @ 34

Something to keep in mind as you are writing/calling

“basket warrant” is an oxymoron. The Constitution requires that a warrant be issued upon “probable cause” what is proabale cause in one situation will not be in another. By necessity it must be determined on a case by case basis.

There is no way for a judge to find Blanket or basket probable cause.

what should i write/say then? the administration is saying the standard is “reasonable”

Hmmmmm. Seems to me that a warrant is a document issued by a judge. IMHO, there can be such a thing as a “blanket warrant.” But, as LHP points out, it would be unconstitutional for a judge to issue such a warrant (which to some extent makes the warrant invalid, and hence maybe not a warrant at all, etc.) ;-)

Waxman committee on oversight is on cspan. Chris Shays is trying to give Waxman a hard time and standing up for Bush’s man testifying.

sporkovat. I tend to agree but the problem with 3′rd party drives is they tend to start with the presidency and that is just a way to shoot ourselves in the foot. It’s one of the reasons I’ve been supporting Steven Porter. We need more like him.

Ann in AZ @ 43

selise @ 24

question for firepups…

has anyone created “contacts” of all these senators in their email application? “contacts” can be shared across applications (i think as .vcf files?) and it would make writing (and sending) faxes to the committee much easier.

I finally figured out how to do that when I sent the fax of 11/8, and it certainly does make it much easier. You need to set up the individual contacts, but then you also need to make them into a group. Then you can send a fax to the whole group. I had a bit of a problem finding where my contacts were from the previous fax, but then I looked under “shared” and viola, I had my group populated.

Nobody could be more surprised than me when I sent one fax and it automatically sent all the 18 others. I would not even have needed to be there. No babysitting the sending process! If the line is busy, it automatically tries again later. Sweet!

Ann, this is a great idea.. May I ask what fax software/program you use? Are you using MAC and gmail?

Ima @ 20

I tell them that these are American citizens who have brought suit against the Telcos and that if they grant immunity, they are taking away the only legal recourse that these citizens have.

I also ask them to replace basket warrants with individual warrants, in keeping with the Fourth Amendment. Keep hitting them with the Constitution!

Although removing the only recourse these citizens have is the entire point, it is good to couch it in these terms. I’m using that line
in my fax!

On that point, a bundle fax service can be useful to fax entire commitee’s at once. I found one for 6 cents per page with the first 500 free.

wigwam @ 52

selise @ 41

what should i write/say then? the administration is saying the standard is “reasonable”

Hmmmmm. Seems to me that a warrant is a document issued by a judge. IMHO, there can be such a thing as a “blanket warrant.” But, as LHP points out, it would be unconstitutional for a judge to issue such a warrant (which to some extent makes the warrant invalid, and hence maybe not a warrant at all, etc.) ;-)

Christy, selise and LHP: questions like these are real with constituents who do not have a legal background here at the Lake. This dialogue from the question is a good example of why I was suggesting sample paragraphs to be posted @ 51. People want to be correct and clear in what they are writing in their letters so as to not accidentally endorse the wrong stance.

I think I’ve unearthed some of what we missed when the C-SPAN audio/radio feed had “technical difficulties” last week during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s 11/8 business meeting to debate and amend S. 2248 (the Intelligence Committee’s new FISA bill) - a meeting which C-SPAN elected not to videotape or televise live, in deference to another in a long line of hearings featuring the Fed Chief Bernanke (priorities, you know…).

The further detail I found about last Thursday’s SJC meeting is here:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/me.....it_id=2629

It’s Pat Leahy’s opening statement to the 11/8 SJC meeting (and is the only information directly linked on that meeting’s main notice page - don’t know if there may be other more hidden links elsewhere on the SJC site). And it seems to indicate that Title I of the Senate Intelligence Committee bill was largely disposed of last week, if things went according to Leahy’s plan (as they did so smoothly in the SJC with Mukasey’s nomination earlier that week…).

Note that Title I in S.2248 is the mother-lode as far as DNI McConnell, Cheney, Addington, et al, are concerned - aside, that is, from the immunity provisions in Title II - because Title I is where the datamining-enabling ‘program warrant’ spying provisions purporting to authorize the collection of targeted categories of data - as opposed to individual criminal (or foreign agent) suspects’ communications - are found. Title I is basically the entirety of the Protect America Act, reworded. To get an understanding of S.2248 pre-SJC changes, see the ACLU’s thorough analysis linked above in Christy’s post, which is very helpful.

Back to Pat Leahy’s posted statement from 11/8’s SJC meeting. Here are key excerpts, which illuminate what is transpiring behind closed doors since the Senate Intelligence Committee voted out its version of a new FISA law:

After my opening remarks and any opening remarks by the Ranking Member, I would like to proceed directly to the FISA legislation and will place before the Committee the amendment to title I of the bill, which we circulated yesterday, and which Senator Feinstein is cosponsoring.

I would ask that the Committee adopt that amendment as a starting point with the understanding that it would be open to amendment and that any amendments filed to title I of the underlying bill be considered in order as amendments to it. It would be my hope that we could today adopt the substitute title I amendment, work through other title I amendments and complete our consideration of title I today. Yesterday evening, in compliance with our Committee rules, 26 amendments were filed to the bill, including 21 amendments to title I. So working through the title I amendments would be a good start and a logical place to begin.

I know that Members have been considering and are trying to work together to make improvements to title II of the underlying bill, which concerns, among other things, retroactive immunity provisions. This would allow us a few more days to continue working to try to get consensus on title II and title III.

[snip]

The [Leahy/Feinstein S. 2248 Title I] substitute also eliminates the provision in the Intelligence Committee bill that would have changed the definition of electronic surveillance. In his testimony to the Committee last week, Mort Halperin correctly called that language the “Alice in Wonderland” provision because it defined “electronic surveillance” to mean the opposite of what it said. Our amendment corrects that. The definition of “electronic surveillance” is used throughout FISA and should be consistent. Most importantly, there appears to be absolutely no reason to change the definition in the way the underlying bill had done it. It accomplishes nothing and creates significant confusion and potential harm.

Other significant provisions of the [Leahy/Feinstein Title I] substitute include a strengthening of the minimization provisions in the Intelligence Committee bill. I thank Senators Whitehouse and Feingold for their important contributions to this provision. Another provision, which Senator Feingold has developed, would impose a common-sense restriction on the use of information the FISA Court has found to be collected improperly. - Senator Leahy, 11/8/07

What I don’t know, and haven’t seen reporting on, is whether the SJC in fact proceeded to adopt Leahy’s proposed Title I substitute, and further amend it, on 11/8, or if that action was somehow postponed along with action on Titles II & III, for this coming Thursday’s SJC meeting.

[First posted as a coment in EW’s TNH post about ‘FISA and Data Mining, Part One’ last evening:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c.....#comments]

Christy Hardin Smith @ 49

selise at 41 — I quoted the text of the Fourth Amendment itself which states that the right to privacy and personal security “shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Entire academic jurisprudential careers have been devoted to conjunctive severability (”…and no warrants…”). Beyond the obvious case law clarifications of the “reasonableness” stuff like “plain view” exceptions, this WOT wiretapping issue could stand (but won’t get) a case law clarification.

Another point, in the context of Scalian “contextualism”: At the time of the Framing, “probable cause” commonly meant that someone in authority said so in front of a magistrate. “Probable cause” has, to my knowledge, never been comprehensively analyzed post hoc as an empirical matter, i.e, Judge X issues 100 warrants. Did at least 51 result in something other than acquittal or dismissal? IIRC, USDOJ WOT proceedings to date are running at about 20%, vs a historical 92% conviction rate for other federal charges.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 49

selise at 41 — I quoted the text of the Fourth Amendment itself which states that the right to privacy and personal security “shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

i’m not disagreeing with you… but the way i understand what i keep hearing the administration saying is that the standard for a search is “reasonable” and the standard for a warrant is “probable cause”… and since warrants aren’t required (apparently it’s just approval of the program by FISC) - voila! they say the standard is “reasonable”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

maybe this conversation is better left for another time… i’ve been using the term “basket warrants” and am happy to do so today, i just thought lhp was saying i should use a different term.

happy to use whatever language the lawyers say i should… now i’m back to building my contact list.

Juicy new thread upstairs!

Ann in AZ @ 19

alank @ 6

Bloggers here seem not to believe what I say about spam prevention on fax machines.

Could you say it again or give me a link to what you said? I seem to have missed it, and I think it would apply to me. I broadcasted a fax to all the members of the SJC on 10/26/2007, and another fax on 11/8/2007.

Sending an identical faxed letter to all members would not be spam. And I doubt that it would trip any filter, as I’m dubious that they would share filtering mechanisms between offices. It would actually filter out important documents which are necessarily shared between Congressional offices in multiple, identical copies.

The dates between your two letters would also likely not be detected, particularly if you modified the content and didn’t have any of the “words” (like VINEGAR, SEE ALICE, and EYE PATCH) in it.

selise @ 50

Ann in AZ @ 43

I finally figured out how to do that when I sent the fax of 11/8, and it certainly does make it much easier. You need to set up the individual contacts, but then you also need to make them into a group. Then you can send a fax to the whole group. I had a bit of a problem finding where my contacts were from the previous fax, but then I looked under “shared” and viola, I had my group populated.

Nobody could be more surprised than me when I sent one fax and it automatically sent all the 18 others. I would not even have needed to be there. No babysitting the sending process! If the line is busy, it automatically tries again later. Sweet!

would you be willing to email me the .vcf contact files? (i’m at speakeasy dot net) i’d be happy to post them to share with other ‘pups.

i did some of this during the lobbying against the alito confirmation, but it takes time to fill in all the info… maybe later we could even organize ourselves to create contact .vcf files for all senators (and maybe even representatives too).

better yet, there may be something like this already on the net - i just haven’t been able to find it.

I’d be happy to if I can figure out how to do it. I believe it is the business cards that can be e-mailed. I’ll just take a stab at it; then we’ll know.

wigwam @ 22

OT: Per TalkingPointsMemo, Majority Of Iowa Republicans Favors Withdrawal From Iraq In Six Months. Per Harry Truman, “good policy is good politics”.

If true, Ron Paul should win in a Landslide…all the pro-War hawks like Son of Cain, Romulan, Mussolani, Sherif Huckleberry would be fighting for slivers of the war advocates.

pow wow @ 58

What I don’t know, and haven’t seen reporting on, is whether the SJC in fact proceeded to adopt Leahy’s proposed Title I substitute, and further amend it, on 11/8, or if that action was somehow postponed along with action on Titles II & III, for this coming Thursday’s SJC meeting.

excellent digging. thank you, as always pow wow.

based on your comment, i just called the sjc and asked. the gentleman who answered the phone knew exactly what i was talking about and said that consideration of the title 1 amendments had been postponed along with everything else - that no amendments had yet been voted on.

i don’t know how to confirm this, but that’s what i was told.

Ann in AZ @ 63

I’d be happy to if I can figure out how to do it. I believe it is the business cards that can be e-mailed. I’ll just take a stab at it; then we’ll know.

yes, i think so. every email program seems to call them something different. but if you can get .vcf files - i think that is a readable standard. you should be able to just add them all as attachments to an email to me. thanks!

selise at 65 — When I reported on the hearing last week, that was what I was told by three different sources — and I am fairly certain that I put that in the comments at the time as well. There was no consideration of anything substantive, the only thing done was that opening statements were given.

Eureka Springs @ 55

Ann in AZ @ 43

I finally figured out how to do that when I sent the fax of 11/8, and it certainly does make it much easier. You need to set up the individual contacts, but then you also need to make them into a group. Then you can send a fax to the whole group. I had a bit of a problem finding where my contacts were from the previous fax, but then I looked under “shared” and viola, I had my group populated.

Nobody could be more surprised than me when I sent one fax and it automatically sent all the 18 others. I would not even have needed to be there. No babysitting the sending process! If the line is busy, it automatically tries again later. Sweet!

Ann, this is a great idea.. May I ask what fax software/program you use? Are you using MAC and gmail?

I just wrote the body of my “letter” in Word. Then I had set up contacts in my Outlook Express address book by sending previous fax, so I found those in the “Shared Contacts” file in my Outlook Express address book. Since everyone that I had in there was a member of the SJC, I created a group called Senate Judiciary Committee. Then, to send, I went to Word, selected send to,(and along with frequent use of “help”,) figured out how to send to all of the members of the group. I hope I don’t have to relearn the process to do it again, but was thrilled when it worked so well without any special software. I have no idea about Macs. Never had the privilege of having one.

Also, FWIW, I am told that they do not expect to finish the entire bill mark-up tomorrow. Looks like it will be a partial mark-up with further work to come later. Just FYI.

Thanks Ann.

cinnamonape @ 64

wigwam @ 22

OT: Per TalkingPointsMemo, Majority Of Iowa Republicans Favors Withdrawal From Iraq In Six Months. Per Harry Truman, “good policy is good politics”.

If true, Ron Paul should win in a Landslide…all the pro-War hawks like Son of Cain, Romulan, Mussolani, Sherif Huckleberry would be fighting for slivers of the war advocates.

But perhaps the Iowa GOP are concerned, as is David Neiwert, that Paul might be a closeted (or not so closeted) racist:

His supporters are fond of talking about Ron Paul’s integrity and honesty and forthrightness, but the stark truth is that, so far, he has been incredibly disingenuous about his beliefs and his background, as well as his supporters.

I mean, it’s one thing to claim that you want nothing to do with white supremacists. People in my line of work hear that a lot from people for whom the evidence suggests otherwise (see, e.g., Trent Lott). But the fact is that Ron Paul gladly accepts not just their support but their money. Given the opportunity to disavow them — especially, say, by refusing their donations — he politely declines. Actions, after all, speak louder than words.

But even Paul’s words, moreover, are somewhat less than forthcoming. The most thorough disavowal of his support from overt racists I’ve seen so far has been along the lines of, “Well, they’ll be disappointed if that’s why they’re supporting me.” Hello? (Perhaps Glenn can find better, but I haven’t yet.)

Of course, it’s not just Paul who’s being disingenuous here. It’s his supporters — and his apologists.

I’m still having trouble, I’ll admit, recovering from my astonishment that Glenn Greenwald is one of them.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 67

selise at 65 — When I reported on the hearing last week, that was what I was told by three different sources — and I am fairly certain that I put that in the comments at the time as well. There was no consideration of anything substantive, the only thing done was that opening statements were given.

yeah. but then, it does seem strange that after the hearing leahy’s office would post that statement. just couldn’t help myself…. itchy fingers wanted to make the call - and i didn’t remember your comment from last week until your reminder today.

sigh. wish we had had a working audio feed last week. :( …. today i am doing what i can so that tomorrow we will have one if c-span decides not to provide video coverage.

which reminds me…. if anyone here has a pc and is willing to do some experiments for me on the audio feed it would be greatly appreciated (i think it would be ok now that we are in epu-land).

selise @ 60

i’m not disagreeing with you… but the way i understand what i keep hearing the administration saying is that the standard for a search is “reasonable” and the standard for a warrant is “probable cause”… and since warrants aren’t required (apparently it’s just approval of the program by FISC) - voila! they say the standard is “reasonable”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

maybe this conversation is better left for another time… i’ve been using the term “basket warrants” and am happy to do so today, i just thought lhp was saying i should use a different term.

happy to use whatever language the lawyers say i should… now i’m back to building my contact list.

IANAL, I’m a Scientist. But often the way to look at the logic of a statement is to look at the obverse. If the Bush Administration is arguing that they don’t require warrants if the search is reasonable…then the only time warrants would be required would be for….UNREASONABLE SEARCHES. So logically the WH is arguing that the Framers were actually in favor of UNREASONABLE SEARCHES…as long as they followed specific procedures that made sure those searches were REASONABLE.

Clearly one can’t treat the first element of the Clause as seperable from the second part. In fact the first part directly is manifested in the second part. It defines what IS a REASONABLE SEARCH.

BTW Did you know that the comprehension and usage of complex sentences with a variety of dependent clauses is, cross-culturally, associated with high intelligence, while the individuals that have a failure to follow complex sentences and tend to read them as fragments have lower intelligence. Both Alzheimers and Schizophrenics also have difficulties dealing with complex sentences.

Makes one wonder about the Bush Administrations lawyers.

wigwam @ 71 -

imo, glenn was NOT being either a supporter or an apologist - and david was waaay over the line to call glenn disingenuous. i think david is reading more into glenn’s posts than is there…. and i think that david is not considering how apparently racist all the other candidates are.

… in any event, david’s apparent unwillingness to actually discuss questions people have had about his posts on paul doesn’t help foster understanding (especially since he’s been willing to throw insults).

cinnamonape @ 73

Clearly one can’t treat the first element of the Clause as seperable from the second part. In fact the first part directly is manifested in the second part. It defines what IS a REASONABLE SEARCH.

well, that’s how i read it too.

but we’ve already crossed over into no warrant land with national security letters. sometime i’d love to discuss it more with all the lawyers here.

selise @ 74

wigwam @ 71 -

imo, glenn was NOT being either a supporter or an apologist - and david was waaay over the line to call glenn disingenuous. i think david is reading more into glenn’s posts than is there…. and i think that david is not considering how apparently racist all the other candidates are.

… in any event, david’s apparent unwillingness to actually discuss questions people have had about his posts on paul doesn’t help foster understanding (especially since he’s been willing to throw insults).

David traffics in guilt-by-association.

Thanks so much for taking that initiative, selise @ 65 (great phone-jockeying), and for the confirmation, Christy. That’s very good to know. I wasn’t sure, based on Christy’s posts/comments last week, whether only the Title II immunity provisions were postponed, or whether the whole bill was. Perhaps the reason the Republican (as the rumor was?), who moved to hold over the bill for a week, did so, was because the White House objected to the helpful Title I amendments that Leahy was proposing last week.

I faxed all the committee members (except for Specter, whose line was continually busy) the following:

Dear Committee Members,

Please vote against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. No member of American society should be above the law, and this is even more important in the case of corporations — especially corporations with enormous legal departments which are paid millions of dollars to ensure compliance with relevant statutes.

Furthermore, please vote against so-called “basket warrants.” The civil liberties of American citizens are the real freedoms we need to preserve. If we abandon these, our “democratic experiment” of the past two and a quarter centuries can be said to have failed.

Signed,

………..

I’m not sure why everyone is worried about parts of FISA. This entire bill should have been killed along time ago.
jo6pac

pow wow @ 77

Thanks so much for taking that initiative, selise @ 65 (great phone-jockeying), and for the confirmation, Christy. That’s very good to know. I wasn’t sure, based on Christy’s posts/comments last week, whether only the Title II immunity provisions were postponed, or whether the whole bill was. Perhaps the reason the Republican (as the rumor was?), who moved to hold over the bill for a week, did so, was because the White House objected to the helpful Title I amendments that Leahy was proposing last week.

i don’t suppose all the amendments are published somewhere for the public to review?

wigwam @ 76

selise @ 74

wigwam @ 71 -

imo, glenn was NOT being either a supporter or an apologist - and david was waaay over the line to call glenn disingenuous. i think david is reading more into glenn’s posts than is there…. and i think that david is not considering how apparently racist all the other candidates are.

… in any event, david’s apparent unwillingness to actually discuss questions people have had about his posts on paul doesn’t help foster understanding (especially since he’s been willing to throw insults).

David traffics in guilt-by-association.

or at least, i think, he’s not applying the same standard of guilt-by-association to everyone, and i think he’s conflating some associations. for example - it’s quite different to solicit $ and votes vs. to hire someone into senior position on one’s staff.

in any event, i read all the comments in both threads last night - over 700, including at sadly, no! and wiskeyfire who wrote posts on it (if there are new ones, i’m behind) and had some interesting conversations. although, not with david. it’s really irksome that he won’t explain good faith questions and engage in any substantive discussion. i’m not irked so much that he doesn’t respond to my quesitons - it’s that he doesn’t really respond to anyone. i’m left thinking maybe i don’t understand his point - and he seems pissed off when people that people don’t understand and/or don’t agree.

If this fails, lets do what the Declaration of Independence says:

“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (i.e. fails to protect our unalienable rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

We’ll have no choice but to take it to the streets. Like the Czechs or the Indians under British rule.

Here’s what I said:

Re: Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) S.2248

Honorable Senator _________:

Thank you for your energetic and consistent support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The White House and some in the Congress seek to erode the American tradition of equality under the law by granting amnesty for telecommunications companies who broke the law in order to facilitate the Administration’s illegal domestic surveillance program.

I am confident that you will argue against any such amnesty, because these privileged and powerful telecommunications companies knew that the Administration was asking them to spy illegally on Americans. This was not, it is now clear, a set of isolated incidents as we were led to believe. The illegal surveillance was very broad and undertaken prior to 9/11.

The telecommunications corporations who abetted the Administration in these crimes have benefited enormously through the awarding of Federal contracts. This is not “patriotism.” Even the most sincere patriotic efforts must adhere to the law that protects our rights. Otherwise, such efforts are not truly patriotic.

Allow the lawsuits to go forward by blocking blanket amnesty and basket warrants from the new legislation. If the companies did nothing illegal, our courts will rule accordingly. If they did break the law, the courts need to try those cases in order to preserve equality under the law.

Sincerely,

Top of the day to Christy and all at FDL
Could someone explain to me why this wouldn’t be in fact an ex post facto law that is unconstitutional under article one section nine.My dictionary defines it as”formulated,enacted or operating .retroactively,Used esp.of a law” I’ll check back later ,off to make sawdust for.

No such luck, selise @ 80. Thomas’s bill summary/status entry for S. 2248 shows a referral to the Judiciary Committee, with action scheduled tomorrow, and “Amendment(s): none” to the bill. If there’s a place on Thomas where proposed committee amendments (not yet passed) are listed, I haven’t been able to get around the “Server Error” messages to find it. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s website is similarly cryptic/silent about the proposed amendments to this bill, as far as I can tell.

Christy, thanks for the reminder - just finished calling every senator on the Judiciary Committee. Couldn’t leave a message @ DiFi’s office, line is busy.

wigwam @ 13

Two questions:

* Why was it so awful for Nixon to spy on his political opponents, but it’s now okay for Bush and all future presidents?

* Why is copying documents as they traverse the Internet less odious than breaking into an office and copying those same documents there — assuming of course that a cooperative landlord let them in?

We are talking about legalizing the theft of information.

Terrific arguments against immunity.

realworld @ 45

BobbyG @ 44

That is ultimately what the Supreme Court will have to decide.

The court will never decide on this one. They will not admit anyone has standing since being in a basket will be a state secret. They already walked away from this once this way.

Why are we in this basket?
Why is it so hot in here?
Where are we going?

Shhh, that’s a state secret!

The Bush administration’s argument for basket warrants, like all of them is butressed with lies. Obtaining individual warrantes is not “too cumbersom” considering that the FISA court has turned down one since 2005 and 4-5 in its entire history. Like most Bush arguments, it is based on an assessment that all Americans have been “left behind” and are too ignorant to understaand how specious their arguments are.

Besides Immunity, and Basket warrants there is a third major element of this legislation, and that is the Bush push to give DOJ oversight of the surveillence program. Congress, not the executive branch, is supposed to be the appropriate oversight branch. Of course they have abdicated completely to the Executive branch, particularly the Democrats with no backbone whatsoever who continue to vote as Bush rubberstamps.

wigwam @ 13

Two questions:

* Why was it so awful for Nixon to spy on his political opponents, but it’s now okay for Bush and all future presidents?

* Why is copying documents as they traverse the Internet less odious than breaking into an office and copying those same documents there — assuming of course that a cooperative landlord let them in?

We are talking about legalizing the theft of information.

Why should the real crooks go without accontablity, when they are spying on the American People, we DESERVE THE SAME BACK!
Have a great day!