G’mornin!

Good Morning Christy!
love the graphic, now to read…

Good morning, Christy – it’s pouring and 40 degrees here – they tell us that we’ll see snow today.

I suppose the amendment that was supposedly going to be added to remove Telecom immunity from the bill has fallen through? Or is that what happens in the mark-up?

I swear the more I follow our government the less I understand it!

I was thrilled to see that the calls made yesterday seemed to make a difference. Will continued calling help? And how likely do you think it is that Feinstein cannot vote the way we would like…because of the personal cost to her. Translation…have they put the screws to her…do you think that she has been victimized by her husband’s dealings? I guess we’ll know by her vote today after all the calls, faxes and letters that have been sent to her regarding the immunity issue.

a very enjoyable read for the morning christy, thanx for the early morning post

I have a comment on one paragraph;

But here’s the rub: demanding the retroactive immunity for the telecoms is, in effect, an admission against interest by the Bush Administration that they, indeed, broke laws and thus need immunity for their corporate accomplices to cover their tracks. Because the Bush Administration knows that if the corporations get this payoff to cover their bottom line, they won’t be disclosing complicity any time soon.

the term “in effect”, I understand the legal necessity not to make blanket absolute terms but I am not a lawyer and most of us don’t plan on getting the chance to argue the point before a judge

I will therefore in my conversation and writing, eliminate the term “in effect” and I WILL be absolute when discussing “retro active immunity”

as far as my conversation, demanding this imunity IS an admission of guilt

if they didn’t do anything wrong they don’t need immunity

Good Morning Christy. I hope all in your house are well this AM.

Yesterday I received a missive from Verizon informing me that they had made (arbitrary) changes to my dsl agreement. Herewith the changes:

16.5 THE LIABILITY OF THE VERIZON ENTITES OR, SUBJECT TO ANY DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY IN THIRD PARTY LICENSE OR OTHER APPLICABLE AGREEMENTS, THEIR THIRD PARTYPROVIDERS, FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES SHALL NOT EXCEED A PRO RATA CREDIT FOR THE MONTHLY FEES (EXCLUDING ALL NONRECURRING CHARGES, REGULATORY FEES, SURCHARGES, FEES AND TAXES) YOU HAVE PAID TO VERIZON FOR THE SERVICE DURING THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO WHEN SUCH CLAIM AROSE, WHICH SHALL BE YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF CLAIM OR NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO ASSERT ANY LIMITATIONS OR DEFENSES WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. 16.6 ALL LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS STATED IN THIS SECTION 16 ALSO APPLY TO VERIZON’S THIRD PARTY LICENSORS, PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS, AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Sorry mods, their caps.

It would seem to me that they are attempting to limit liability prior to the expected illegal spying lawsuits?

something pretty ominous happened to me on the way to the coffee shop this morning

I saw what at first looked like some kind of private security automobile as I was driving

to my surprise, as I got close it had in BIG letters across the door

POLICE

I thought, …hmmmm…that’s a bigger sign then I am used to

and then on the front fender, in pretty big script read as so;

“providing homeland security”

that’s right, a vehicle that invoked the terms of the Nazi’s

was this a black water vehicle?

I don’t know but I was as appalled seeing “homeland” on a police car as I would have been seeing a swastika

VERY OMINOUS and it is a dark dreary day on top of it

not in a good mood this morning

I made calls all day yesterday to help our California friends with the DiFi censure and to push Reid to talk to her…..I don’t know if it will change her mind….but I plan on starting in again this morning. DiFi is an abomination, but let’s all keep up the pressure on her, maybe she will resign before her term is up…I KNOW more than wishful thinking., but I believe in miracles!

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

I am not finding any coverage of the hearing today, gang. C-Span’s schedule hasn’t changed as yet this morning, and the SJC website is not indicating that they plan on streaming (am waiting back on e-mails to confirm on this).

I know selise was working on finding a streaming radio connection yesterday — but if anyone finds a hearing source on this, let me know. Thanks!

Ross Holt on FISA right now on c-span 1.

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

c-span is scheduled to provide delayed video coverage of the SJC mark up meeting today on FISA legislation. if we want to follow along live, i think our only option is to use the room audio feed from c-span.

last week i spent a bunch of time on the phone with c-span while they tried to track down the problem. and they think they’ve got it fixed last week (if you recall our problems trying to listen last thursday – they also couldn’t get it to work on their end).

this week they think they’ve got it working, but for me it’s worse – i can’t even get the high pitched tone feed that is supposed to be indicative of the lines working when no hearing is currently underway.

but – the audio feeds are now working localing at the c-span offices…. is the problem me or somewhere between the c-span office and me?

so we’re doing a bit of trouble shooting down below in late late night’s epu-land.

will report back here with results…

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg – waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

g’ morning, all… coffee is ready (we’re gonna need it today).

OldCoastie @ 16

g’ morning, all… coffee is ready (we’re gonna need it today).

Along with the Tums, I’m afraid. :(

some big, red-faced blowhard is on Morning Joe sayin’ Hillary Clinton gets nothing (NOTHING!) but positive press…

I think I’m in bizarro land this morning.

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Even if those business entities intentionally break the law?

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Sorry LL
If the corporations would follow the law, then there would be no need for these kinds of law suits. It’s that simple.

The Law. it’s for everyone.

RevDeb @ 20

LibertyLee @ 13

Sorry LL
If the corporations would follow the law, then there would be no need for these kinds of law suits. It’s that simple.

The Law. it’s for everyone.

Not if the law is being abused by private parties for their personal political agendas. And against the National Security Interests of the country.

And if the law is not, in fact, for everyone, can someone tell me how to get on the “excused list”?

Good morning from L.A. Went back to the “Contact” post of yesterday for the phone & fax #s & I’m on it…

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

RevDeb @ 20

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Sorry LL
If the corporations would follow the law, then there would be no need for these kinds of law suits. It’s that simple.

The Law. it’s for everyone.

“litigation happy” is corporate marketing to try to get the American public to actually believe they shouldn’t be sued when they screw up

law suits SAVE us money, they keep our kids pajamas from igniting while they sleep, they keep our cars from blowing up if someone taps our bumper, they make sure trucks have bumpers that match car bumpers so in an accident the truck doesn’t go straight through the window

however corporations have done an excellent job selling to the masses that we are “litigation happy” and then people actually vote against their interest and against their family

this strategy is juvenile but it does seem to work on plenty of people

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

FUNNY THAT
you do know 90% of the litigation in this country is between one corporations DEEP POCKETS and another corporations DEEP POCKETS

Well, Chuck Schumer – guess what you lumbered us with:

“In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..retap-law/

that productivity argument is either a joke or a con, ll.

the retroactive immunity, christy, is as you say — the latest tactic of stall, avoid, ignore. remember when bush ran on the promise of being the m.b.a. president? this is one vow he made good on: corporate executives all operate on the same premise of doing what they want with a minimum of oversight and barely nodding acquaintance of what contstitutes legal behavior.
in every sphere of influence, from the energy task force on, this is the face of corporatism: your contemptuous government at work.

Toby Wollin @ 27

Well, Chuck Schumer – guess what you lumbered us with:

“In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it
if it is passed
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..retap-law/

JUST DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUM!

I am afraid that the Dems will cave. I think they are so afraid of this administration that they will continue to give them what they want until the end of their administration. All Bush has to say is: “If you do not give us what we want/need then you will be responsible for another 9/11 happening”. Boo! Dems fold and Bush gets what he demands.

Toby @ 27

That news shocked me too. I mean, who could have possibly seen that coming.

At least now that he is confirmed he can comment on these issues…

Good morning Christy and all
The way I see it when the telecoms did a wire tape it is with a court order and they have a legal staff to guide them,you know keep it legal.
Alberto? saw reviewing info stream as legal therefore taking judicial oversight unto themselves. The legal dept should have demanded a court order nullifying the court system which ,as they say, was in the mail.
Can congress give the administration and themselves immunity againest any and all war crimes and crimes againest humanity,using this logic?

from the LA Times, a tiny bit of good news:

The LAPD on Wednesday abruptly scrapped a program to map the city’s Muslim population, a major retreat for a department that said the system was needed to identify potential hotbeds of extremism.

The reversal comes after a week of protests from Muslim groups and civil libertarians, who equated the mapping with religious profiling. Others questioned whether it was possible for the LAPD to accurately map the city’s far-flung Muslim community.

somtimes complaining loudly works.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 23

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

I love the word “shat”

JF at 34 — I’m not even going to ask you about that one. *g* But am happy that you enjoyed the read nonetheless…

Mornin’ Christy et al

I am so happy to read your post, Christy. You have given the long view of the consequences retro immunity. It is the snowball at the top of the hill that in its rapid descent and growth will topple anything that stands in its way. Expect this and all future battles wrt FISA to be bloody.

OldCoastie @ 33

from the LA Times, a tiny bit of good news:

The LAPD on Wednesday abruptly scrapped a program to map the city’s Muslim population, a major retreat for a department that said the system was needed to identify potential hotbeds of extremism.

The reversal comes after a week of protests from Muslim groups and civil libertarians, who equated the mapping with religious profiling. Others questioned whether it was possible for the LAPD to accurately map the city’s far-flung Muslim community.

somtimes complaining loudly works.

And during the week of protests, the LAPD was quietly mapping Muslims in LA.

nomolos @ 7

Good Morning Christy. I hope all in your house are well this AM.

Yesterday I received a missive from Verizon informing me that they had made (arbitrary) changes to my dsl agreement. Herewith the changes:

16.5 THE LIABILITY OF THE VERIZON ENTITES OR, SUBJECT TO ANY DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY IN THIRD PARTY LICENSE OR OTHER APPLICABLE AGREEMENTS, THEIR THIRD PARTYPROVIDERS, FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES SHALL NOT EXCEED A PRO RATA CREDIT FOR THE MONTHLY FEES (EXCLUDING ALL NONRECURRING CHARGES, REGULATORY FEES, SURCHARGES, FEES AND TAXES) YOU HAVE PAID TO VERIZON FOR THE SERVICE DURING THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO WHEN SUCH CLAIM AROSE, WHICH SHALL BE YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF CLAIM OR NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO ASSERT ANY LIMITATIONS OR DEFENSES WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. 16.6 ALL LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS STATED IN THIS SECTION 16 ALSO APPLY TO VERIZON’S THIRD PARTY LICENSORS, PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS, AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Sorry mods, their caps.

It would seem to me that they are attempting to limit liability prior to the expected illegal spying lawsuits?

I was wondering what this was about. Your suggestion didn’t occur to me, and it doesn’t really make sense. Verizon can’t claim that 3rd parties put on the taps.

I thought they are trying to defend themselves from intellectual property suits, myself, fearing being the deep pocket in a suit involving a minor content provider.

Not so long ago, I seem to remember the Right chanting damn near in unison: “No one is above the law.”

With the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, packed with Bush toadies, its difficult to see how judicial scrutiny amounts to anything more than a rubber stamp for Bush Administration actions.

old gold @ 39

Not so long ago, I seem to remember the Right chanting damn near in unison: “No one is above the law.”

They were wrong. Bush and Cheney are above the law.

And during the week of protests, the LAPD was quietly mapping Muslims in LA.

really, kdh22? how do you know that?

jayackroyd @ 38

nomolos @ 7

G
It would seem to me that they are attempting to limit liability prior to the expected illegal spying lawsuits?

I was wondering what this was about. Your suggestion didn’t occur to me, and it doesn’t really make sense. Verizon can’t claim that 3rd parties put on the taps.

I thought they are trying to defend themselves from intellectual property suits, myself, fearing being the deep pocket in a suit involving a minor content provider.

Third parties are possibly the company that owns the lines? And why can it not be that they had “third parties” putting on the taps. Verizon does a lot of “out sourcing” to non-union workers.

Frankly I cannot see where the “intelectual property” reasoning would come in… explain?

One thing that baffles me is this compartmentalized ideology of the GOP. They have no qualms or issues backing legislation that clearly violates our 4th amendment rights, yet they would be rioting in the streets if the government or any private company were to infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights. I do not get this. How does one rationalize this?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 24

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

OldCoastie @ 42

And during the week of protests, the LAPD was quietly mapping Muslims in LA.

really, kdh22? how do you know that?

I don’t know anything, OC, but logically and tactically that would be the thing for anyone (LAPD, FBI, US MARSHALS, DOD, even CIA maybe) to do during diversionary protests. If I were in law enforcement, that’s what I would suggest doing at that particular time.

JF @ 34

Christy Hardin Smith @ 23

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

I love the word “shat”

Ditto!

selise, I tried the second link..which on my MAC reqired qucktime.. once open, it didn’t work.

update on the c-span audio feed for this morning’ sjc markup meeting. here is the feed:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

you can test it now – if it’s working for you, you will hear a high pitched tone until the hearing starts.

thanks to elliot for the help with trouble shooting (it doesn’t seem to be working for me, but it works for elliot – i’m hoping it only something on my end, and if i can’t get it to work on my end in the next 30 minutes, i’d be very grateful if one of you could rip the audio)

LibertyLee @ 45

I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

Oh dear have you been a “victim” of a restraining order by any chance?

Eureka Springs @ 47

selise, I tried the second link..which on my MAC reqired qucktime.. once open, it didn’t work.

which link?

and, if you are willing… could we take the trouble shooting to the previous thread? i don’t want to distract the conversation here – and it’s too much for me to try to follow along here while i’m troubleshooting my own feed problem… thank you!

It’s working for me I think, selise. Sometimes it sounds a bit like tuning bagpipes. Sometimes it sounds like lift-off. And then sometimes it goes silent. Well, we’ll try to hang in there.

selise @ 49

update on the c-span audio feed for this morning’ sjc markup meeting. here is the feed:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

you can test it now – if it’s working for you, you will hear a high pitched tone until the hearing starts.

thanks to elliot for the help with trouble shooting (it doesn’t seem to be working for me, but it works for elliot – i’m hoping it only something on my end, and if i can’t get it to work on my end in the next 30 minutes, i’d be very grateful if one of you could rip the audio)

Thanks selise. I just love that tone. Is the markup at 10:00?

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg – waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

Agreed – thanks once again to Christy for keeping the pressure on the SJC to do the right thing.

As always, the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you if you go to http://chrisdodd.com/immunity. It’s a really cool tool that’s let thousands of people call the SJC already – at no cost to them.

And Diane’s right: if the FISA legislation comes out of committee with retroactive immunity in it, Senator Dodd has a hold on it. If that hold is not honored, Dodd will filibuster it.

nomolos @ 49

Oh dear have you been a “victim” of a restraining order by any chance?

careful. please don’t mock. anyone who has spent any time in family courts knows just how unfounded claims for restraining orders can be.
if ll got hosed, he has my deepest sympathy.

nomolos @ 50

LibertyLee @ 45

I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

Oh dear have you been a “victim” of a restraining order by any chance?

Just victimized by looters as most successful Conservatives are.

LibertyLee @ 45
I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

I’m sure your wife and kids don’t.

dmg @ 55

nomolos @ 49

careful. please don’t mock. anyone who has spent any time in family courts knows just how unfounded claims for restraining orders can be.
if ll got hosed, he has my deepest sympathy.

thank you.

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 53

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg – waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

Agreed – thanks once again to Christy for keeping the pressure on the SJC to do the right thing.

As always, the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you if you go to http://chrisdodd.com/immunity. It’s a really cool tool that’s let thousands of people call the SJC already – at no cost to them.

And Diane’s right: if the FISA legislation comes out of committee with retroactive immunity in it, Senator Dodd has a hold on it. If that hold is not honored, Dodd will filibuster it.

matt –

has senator dodd been talking with representative holt on what good fisa legislation would look like holt is on the house intelligence committee and is playing the lead role in the house for the progressive caucus. he’s also very smart (phd in physics who ran a lab at princeton before going to congress).

if senator dodd is not already working with representative holt – would you please ask him to at least consult with him? i think we’re much more likely to get good legislation on this if the progressives in the house and senate are working together and supporting eachother’s efforts.

i have contact info, etc for holt’s chief of staff… email me at speakeasy dot net if you want details.

many thanks for all you and senator dodd are doing on this.

cinnamonape @ 56

LibertyLee @ 45I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

I’m sure your wife and kids don’t.

No kids. Just a looting ex.

Lee — Family law is a whole other level of practice, and I hated it because there is never a good answer in a contested domestic situation. There just isn’t. No one is ever happy…which, perhaps, is as it should be but it doesn’t make it any less crappy.

But a family law issue is not the same as civil litigation in a malpractice or liability context. Apples and oranges in terms of focus.

And as there are a large number of current and former national security and law enforcement professionals who all understand the need for security concerns to be taken seriously and yet balanced with a concommitant need for third-party oversight and following the laws as they are written, you should really reconsider on this. The FISA law is very clear, and allows for domestic surveillance when a warrant is obtained — the FISA court has only disallowed warrants in fewer than ten cases in its entire history. The court oversight has been done in accordance with national security considerations for decades, and the judges on the court take their duty very seriously — being available 24 hours a day for warrant issuance. There is a 72-hour window for emergency circumstances where the tap can be placed and the warrant obtained after the fact.

The Congress built in provisos for emergency situtations and for a 15-day window for national emergency as well. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to follow any of these requirements, thumbed its nose at a law, refused to comply with oversight provisions fully, and got major US corporations to go along with their conduct in contravention of the expressly written law ought to be of concern to all of us.

The Bush Administration could have access to any information about any American that it was entitled to obtain under the law by simply getting a warrant. That they have chosen not to do so speaks volumes about their disrespect of the laws, for the Congress and for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws, not Presidential fiat — and if “conservatives” are willing to throw that away on the altar of political expediency, then they no longer have the right to call themselves conservatives.

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Surprisingly, I somewhat agree. I think monetary damages should be mostly “actual damages” and the punitive part should be criminal prosecution of the people responsible for the violation of the law. Why should management be able to get away with felonies and “corporate murder” by giving up assets from a “public company”?

I would prefer it if people didn’t get personal at each other in the comments. I’m balancing posting with a sick Peanut still this morning, and have been running on very little sleep all week. I’ve got enough to do without having to step in to an idiotic, name-calling squabble — so I’d appreciate it if we could stick to issues, please. Thanks.

selise @ 58

matt –

has senator dodd been talking with representative holt on what good fisa legislation would look like holt is on the house intelligence committee and is playing the lead role in the house for the progressive caucus. he’s also very smart (phd in physics who ran a lab at princeton before going to congress).

if senator dodd is not already working with representative holt – would you please ask him to at least consult with him? i think we’re much more likely to get good legislation on this if the progressives in the house and senate are working together and supporting eachother’s efforts.

i have contact info, etc for holt’s chief of staff… email me at speakeasy dot net if you want details.

many thanks for all you and senator dodd are doing on this.

Selise, I don’t know if Senator Dodd has specifically talked to Rep. Holt or not or what conversations the Dodd Senate staff are having with other Congressional offices (what with the campaign/senate firewall).

I do know that Senator Dodd has talked with his colleagues in the SJC. A lot of work is being done by Senator Leahy and others to improve the FISA legislation in committee. Sen. Feingold has introduced an amendment to strip retroactive immunity. We just don’t know yet where all the chips…er, votes…will land.

But, but, she looked at me first!

Steve-AR — the FISA law has an expressly written provision detailing the extent of civil penalties involved for violation of the law. Just FYI.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 60

I would prefer it if people didn’t get personal at each other in the comments. I’m balancing posting with a sick Peanut still this morning, and have been running on very little sleep all week. I’ve got enough to do without having to step in to an idiotic, name-calling squabble — so I’d appreciate it if we could stick to issues, please. Thanks.

I stand corrected, chastened and apologetic.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 61

Lee — Family law is a whole other level of practice, and I hated it because there is never a good answer in a contested domestic situation. There just isn’t. No one is ever happy…which, perhaps, is as it should be but it doesn’t make it any less crappy.

But a family law issue is not the same as civil litigation in a malpractice or liability context. Apples and oranges in terms of focus.

And as there are a large number of current and former national security and law enforcement professionals who all understand the need for security concerns to be taken seriously and yet balanced with a concommitant need for third-party oversight and following the laws as they are written, you should really reconsider on this. The FISA law is very clear, and allows for domestic surveillance when a warrant is obtained — the FISA court has only disallowed warrants in fewer than ten cases in its entire history. The court oversight has been done in accordance with national security considerations for decades, and the judges on the court take their duty very seriously — being available 24 hours a day for warrant issuance. There is a 72-hour window for emergency circumstances where the tap can be placed and the warrant obtained after the fact.

The Congress built in provisos for emergency situtations and for a 15-day window for national emergency as well. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to follow any of these requirements, thumbed its nose at a law, refused to comply with oversight provisions fully, and got major US corporations to go along with their conduct in contravention of the expressly written law ought to be of concern to all of us.

The Bush Administration could have access to any information about any American that it was entitled to obtain under the law by simply getting a warrant. That they have chosen not to do so speaks volumes about their disrespect of the laws, for the Congress and for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws, not Presidential fiat — and if “conservatives” are willing to throw that away on the altar of political expediency, then they no longer have the right to call themselves conservatives.

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, all of whom were deeply committed analysts who KNEW where the bodies were buried. There were simply too many leads which led to too many networks to handle each case one by one Because as you well know, any time you attach “accountability” rules, you have to have tracking apparatuses and auditing systems, and you didn’t have time to do all those updates and still do your jobs which were to protect the country. The elected leaders informed the Intelligence Committee leadership who basically understood the problems and gave tacit overhead. The corporations followed on request of the government. Maybe they did break the Letter of the law. But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.

O/T but I was reading Broder and it pissed me off.

If Hillary wins and is President, will the character slurs and attacks from the wingnuts continue? Don’t they know that it is unpatriotic to criticize a President in a time of war? Don’t they know that it will weaken our country? Don’t they know it will harm the President’s ability to protect us? I’m expecting they’ll forget all about that.

LibertyLee @ 56

Just victimized by looters as most successful Conservatives are.

MBIA, Ambac Downgrades May Cost Market $200 Billion (Update1)

“Investors in guaranteed debt have never questioned the AAA guarantee from monolines,” said Toby Nangle, who helps oversee $37 billion at Baring Asset Management in London and avoids debt guaranteed by monolines. Given the rise in the perception of risk, they “may start to wonder if the emperor has no clothes,” he said.

Not these looters by chance…

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

msmolly @ 10

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

((((Peanut & Mom))))

james @ 68

msmolly @ 10

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

Is this a block from the board of a Russian version of “Monopoly”, perhaps?

pma @ 70

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

707!!

if the senate feed
for the FISA mark-up meet-
ing DOES go live — this
will be where it is — as
a real media stream. . .

click about twenty lines
down in the the notice. . .

gotta’ bounce — can’t stay
to watch the mark-up. . .

p e a c e

kdh22 @ 72

((((Peanut & Mom))))

((((Peanut & Mom))))

pma @ 67

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

udderly different?

selise — is the committee room link working for you now? And, if so, can someone tell me where to find it?

I’ve got a movie playing for The Peanut at the moment, so I’m going to have to listen in under the movie. Could be a bumpy ride of liveblogging for me this morning, gang, so I’m warning everyone up front that it won’t be the usual attention to detail liveblog from me today. Apologies, but I’ll see what I can do…

nomolos @ 78

pma @ 67

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

udderly different?

But if an udder falls in a forest….

I am shocked!!!

WASHINGTON (CNN) — In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.
(snip)

CNN

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 61

Selise, I don’t know if Senator Dodd has specifically talked to Rep. Holt or not or what conversations the Dodd Senate staff are having with other Congressional offices (what with the campaign/senate firewall).

I do know that Senator Dodd has talked with his colleagues in the SJC. A lot of work is being done by Senator Leahy and others to improve the FISA legislation in committee. Sen. Feingold has introduced an amendment to strip retroactive immunity. We just don’t know yet where all the chips…er, votes…will land.

thanks for the response. i understand about the firewall… retroactive immunity is not the only problem with the legislation (although i understand it’s a big one and one that is easy to understand and campaign on)… if there is someone you could recommend i talk with on the sentate side, could you send me the name via email? i haven’t had much luck figuring out who that person is on my own. thanks!

pma @ 76

nomolos @ 78

udderly different?

But if an udder falls in a forest….

milking this for all it’s worth?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 66

Steve-AR — the FISA law has an expressly written provision detailing the extent of civil penalties involved for violation of the law. Just FYI.

But the exec’s won’t be prosecuted. My comment was directed more at “product” liability where people are injured or killed and the people responsible just move to another job.

nomolos @ 83

pma @ 76

But if an udder falls in a forest….

milking this for all it’s worth?

No, just going tit for tat.

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg – waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

I’m absolutely flummoxed about how “Cookie” Krongard could not know brother Buzzy was workin’ for the Blackwater group that he was investigating!!!

Sounds like the old song “Cookie, Cookie! Fend off the Probe!”

Lemme see, even though the “dirty rumors” of his brother being in tight with Blackhawk were REVEALED in the NY Times, LA Times, Salon, Harpers and all sorts of other media months ago…Cookie failed to realize that there was any likelihod of the claims being real?

He didn’t bother to have an independent check done in a case where he was being charged with blatant nepotism? Instead he simply called his brother and trusted his statements.

But wait! “I am not my Brother’s keeper” he says…that’s how much loyalty he supposedly now has for his Bro? That sounds like a relationship of distrust and dislike to me? So why would he trust him explicitly? Without checking up?

I’d suggest that Cookie knew that Buzzy was working for Blackwater, and knew that he was acting to help Blackwater evade responsibility. I bet it will turn out that it was Cookie who asked that all those Blackwater employees be given immunity. And all that “I’m Not my Brothers Keeper” stuff is actually bogus. Cookie and Buzzy are probably in like thieves.

Somebody needs to subpoena their phone calls.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 76

selise — is the committee room link working for you now? And, if so, can someone tell me where to find it?

I’ve got a movie playing for The Peanut at the moment, so I’m going to have to listen in under the movie. Could be a bumpy ride of liveblogging for me this morning, gang, so I’m warning everyone up front that it won’t be the usual attention to detail liveblog from me today. Apologies, but I’ll see what I can do…

christy – i posted it above, but just so you don’t have to go looking for it while doing a gazillion other things, here it is again:

selise @ 48

update on the c-span audio feed for this morning’ sjc markup meeting. here is the feed:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

you can test it now – if it’s working for you, you will hear a high pitched tone until the hearing starts.

thanks to elliot for the help with trouble shooting (it doesn’t seem to be working for me, but it works for elliot – i’m hoping it only something on my end, and if i can’t get it to work on my end in the next 30 minutes, i’d be very grateful if one of you could rip the audio)

not working for me – but working for elliot.

so, i think think the work c-span did to fix it might make it ok for today’s hearing.

but, i’ve got a problem on my end – so i won’t be able to record the audio – please, will somone else give it a try? thanks!

james @ 71

msmolly @ 10

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

Thanks, James. I took a couple of Russian classes in college (early 60s) but couldn’t begin to decipher that.

I have emailed Feinstein every day for a while on this issue. I’m not especially hopeful given her history, but I’ve been hammering away at it nonetheless. Lately I’ve been emphasising the sort of legacy her voting will leave, since she’s already “Senater Torture” for the Mukasey vote. :-P

Christy Hardin Smith @ 66

Steve-AR — the FISA law has an expressly written provision detailing the extent of civil penalties involved for violation of the law. Just FYI.

I have also read that if they are hit with damages the Fed Govt will most likely have to cover them. True? I don’t know. But the cover up is probably more important than the money.

LibertyLee @ 58

cinnamonape @ 56

LibertyLee @ 45I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

I’m sure your wife and kids don’t.

No kids. Just a looting ex.

You were “framed”…you mean like “Tokyo Rose”????

Maybe you should apply for a Presidential pardon!

nolo are you sure that link works for business meetings?
According to selise as of last Thursday, that only linked to actual hearings.

LibertyLee @ 68

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, [snippety snoo]

If that’s the problem, then proper staffing of the NSA is the correct solution, not shredding of the Constitution.

You can pretty much write off Hatch and DiFi, since they’re on the Senate Intelligence Committee and already voted for telecom immunity.

LibertyLee @ 66

Christy Hardin Smith @ 61

Lee — Family law is a whole other level of practice, and I hated it because there is never a good answer in a contested domestic situation. There just isn’t. No one is ever happy…which, perhaps, is as it should be but it doesn’t make it any less crappy.

But a family law issue is not the same as civil litigation in a malpractice or liability context. Apples and oranges in terms of focus.

And as there are a large number of current and former national security and law enforcement professionals who all understand the need for security concerns to be taken seriously and yet balanced with a concommitant need for third-party oversight and following the laws as they are written, you should really reconsider on this. The FISA law is very clear, and allows for domestic surveillance when a warrant is obtained — the FISA court has only disallowed warrants in fewer than ten cases in its entire history. The court oversight has been done in accordance with national security considerations for decades, and the judges on the court take their duty very seriously — being available 24 hours a day for warrant issuance. There is a 72-hour window for emergency circumstances where the tap can be placed and the warrant obtained after the fact.

The Congress built in provisos for emergency situtations and for a 15-day window for national emergency as well. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to follow any of these requirements, thumbed its nose at a law, refused to comply with oversight provisions fully, and got major US corporations to go along with their conduct in contravention of the expressly written law ought to be of concern to all of us.

The Bush Administration could have access to any information about any American that it was entitled to obtain under the law by simply getting a warrant. That they have chosen not to do so speaks volumes about their disrespect of the laws, for the Congress and for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws, not Presidential fiat — and if “conservatives” are willing to throw that away on the altar of political expediency, then they no longer have the right to call themselves conservatives.

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, all of whom were deeply committed analysts who KNEW where the bodies were buried. There were simply too many leads which led to too many networks to handle each case one by one Because as you well know, any time you attach “accountability” rules, you have to have tracking apparatuses and auditing systems, and you didn’t have time to do all those updates and still do your jobs which were to protect the country. The elected leaders informed the Intelligence Committee leadership who basically understood the problems and gave tacit overhead. The corporations followed on request of the government. Maybe they did break the Letter of the law. But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.

Then why did the NSA start the illegal stuff in Feb 2001.

Alberto Gonzales Defense Fund Begins

link

LibertyLee @ 68

Christy Hardin Smith @ 61

Lee — Family law is a whole other level of practice, and I hated it because there is never a good answer in a contested domestic situation. There just isn’t. No one is ever happy…which, perhaps, is as it should be but it doesn’t make it any less crappy.

But a family law issue is not the same as civil litigation in a malpractice or liability context. Apples and oranges in terms of focus.

And as there are a large number of current and former national security and law enforcement professionals who all understand the need for security concerns to be taken seriously and yet balanced with a concommitant need for third-party oversight and following the laws as they are written, you should really reconsider on this. The FISA law is very clear, and allows for domestic surveillance when a warrant is obtained — the FISA court has only disallowed warrants in fewer than ten cases in its entire history. The court oversight has been done in accordance with national security considerations for decades, and the judges on the court take their duty very seriously — being available 24 hours a day for warrant issuance. There is a 72-hour window for emergency circumstances where the tap can be placed and the warrant obtained after the fact.

The Congress built in provisos for emergency situtations and for a 15-day window for national emergency as well. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to follow any of these requirements, thumbed its nose at a law, refused to comply with oversight provisions fully, and got major US corporations to go along with their conduct in contravention of the expressly written law ought to be of concern to all of us.

The Bush Administration could have access to any information about any American that it was entitled to obtain under the law by simply getting a warrant. That they have chosen not to do so speaks volumes about their disrespect of the laws, for the Congress and for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws, not Presidential fiat — and if “conservatives” are willing to throw that away on the altar of political expediency, then they no longer have the right to call themselves conservatives.

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, all of whom were deeply committed analysts who KNEW where the bodies were buried. There were simply too many leads which led to too many networks to handle each case one by one Because as you well know, any time you attach “accountability” rules, you have to have tracking apparatuses and auditing systems, and you didn’t have time to do all those updates and still do your jobs which were to protect the country. The elected leaders informed the Intelligence Committee leadership who basically understood the problems and gave tacit overhead. The corporations followed on request of the government. Maybe they did break the Letter of the law. But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.

The government needs to move from “what if” thinking to “thinking” in a situation like this. Working smarter, not harder.

I hear your concerns;however, there has to be a better way than to break the law… Expediecy and efficiency cannot be an excuse for violating the law…ever.

kdh22 @ 46

OldCoastie @ 42

really, kdh22? how do you know that?

I don’t know anything, OC, but logically and tactically that would be the thing for anyone (LAPD, FBI, US MARSHALS, DOD, even CIA maybe) to do during diversionary protests. If I were in law enforcement, that’s what I would suggest doing at that particular time.

Today’s LA Times Front Page: http://www.latimes.com/

peanutbutter @ 93

LibertyLee @ 68

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, [snippety snoo]

If that’s the problem, then proper staffing of the NSA is the correct solution, not shredding of the Constitution.

PB, proceed cautiously…overwhelming with logic has been shown to cause permanent damage in some test subjects…:)

msmolly @ 87

james @ 71

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

Thanks, James. I took a couple of Russian classes in college (early 60s) but couldn’t begin to decipher that.

I’m there a couple of times a year….once you get into it the language isn’t that daunting. It’s a challenge definitely but I’m hoping it keeps the Alzheimer’s away :)

Biodun @ 94

You can pretty much write off Hatch and DiFi, since they’re on the Senate Intelligence Committee and already voted for telecom immunity.

Yeah I know. I’ve been busy with the Censure DiFi movement as well :-P

Still yelling at her in email gives me a tiny bit of satisfaction…

just an fyi – folks, Christy is upstairs with the first go round…

Badwater @ 98

kdh22 @ 46

I don’t know anything, OC, but logically and tactically that would be the thing for anyone (LAPD, FBI, US MARSHALS, DOD, even CIA maybe) to do during diversionary protests. If I were in law enforcement, that’s what I would suggest doing at that particular time.

Today’s LA Times Front Page: http://www.latimes.com/

BadH20: Thanks very much for the LAT link! Interesting and hopeful reading, but I’ve always been a tough sell (read: cynic).

james @ 100

msmolly @ 87

Thanks, James. I took a couple of Russian classes in college (early 60s) but couldn’t begin to decipher that.

I’m there a couple of times a year….once you get into it the language isn’t that daunting. It’s a challenge definitely but I’m hoping it keeps the Alzheimer’s away :)

What I remember most clearly, 45 years later, is that we could all “read” Russian within about a week. The alphabet looks the most daunting, but isn’t difficult to master. Learning to actually understand what we read was not a lot different than other languages I was exposed to (lots of French).

LibertyLee @68:

“But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.”

The post 9/11 “era”? Eras are pretty long, LL. Any chance you’d like to offer a ballpark on how long this twilight stuggle will last? You also ignore evidence that the administration was pulling this shit before 9-11.

And from yesterday: have you gotten around to finding an “avowal” from Al-Jazeera? Or are you a different person from day to day? — Your grammar and vocabulary have improved since yesterday’s sloganeering.

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 54

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg – waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

Agreed – thanks once again to Christy for keeping the pressure on the SJC to do the right thing.
Just used the Dodd connection to call Whitehous. Calling was easy; staffer sounded absolutely uninterested in call, however.

As always, the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you if you go to http://chrisdodd.com/immunity. It’s a really cool tool that’s let thousands of people call the SJC already – at no cost to them.

And Diane’s right: if the FISA legislation comes out of committee with retroactive immunity in it, Senator Dodd has a hold on it. If that hold is not honored, Dodd will filibuster it.

Seamus D @ 95

LibertyLee @ 66

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, all of whom were deeply committed analysts who KNEW where the bodies were buried. … The corporations followed on request of the government. Maybe they did break the Letter of the law. But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.

Then why did the NSA start the illegal stuff in Feb 2001.

In addition, if this was such a problem then why didn’t the Bush Administration bring this before Congress LONG BEFORE the whole plan was blocked by the FISA Court blocking a DIFFERENT ASPECT of the program, and only after the Washington Post blew open the NSA-Telcom intercept program???

There was a problem, it violated the letter of the law, and the didn’t bother to come to Congress…some six years ago (or anytime thereafter~ even after FISA revisions were presented before) to ask for changes on the Wholesale Domestic Espionage without a warrant aspect of the program???

Jeesh! Can’t imagine WHY!?

brendan @ 105

LibertyLee @68:

“But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.”

The post 9/11 “era”? Eras are pretty long, LL. Any chance you’d like to offer a ballpark on how long this twilight stuggle will last? You also ignore evidence that the administration was pulling this shit before 9-11.

And from yesterday: have you gotten around to finding an “avowal” from Al-Jazeera? Or are you a different person from day to day? — Your grammar and vocabulary have improved since yesterday’s sloganeering.

I would not be surprised if The West were not in another Hundred Years’ War against Islamo-Fascism. Not at all. The Islamists see in terms of long timeframes. As to the avowals and biases of the Qatari government and Al-Jazeera, they are made every day and self evident except to those who believe that just because Gerald Ford pardoned one of the Tokyo Roses ladies (primarily because she was an old lady and it was the end of the Ford Administration) that there was no Tokyo Rose committing treason.

perris @ 8

something pretty ominous happened to me on the way to the coffee shop this morning

I saw what at first looked like some kind of private security automobile as I was driving

to my surprise, as I got close it had in BIG letters across the door

POLICE

I thought, …hmmmm…that’s a bigger sign then I am used to

and then on the front fender, in pretty big script read as so;

“providing homeland security”

that’s right, a vehicle that invoked the terms of the Nazi’s

was this a black water vehicle?

I don’t know but I was as appalled seeing “homeland” on a police car as I would have been seeing a swastika

VERY OMINOUS and it is a dark dreary day on top of it

not in a good mood this morning

Come to think of it, the police uniforms are starting to change around here as well, from blue to black and these new uniforms have a blackwater kinda look to them. I’ve seen them at Wall Street near the Exchanges, but never in the outer boroughs.

Christy – I’m going to dump a long comment here that is mostly cut and paste from one I left at EW’s yesterday. I’m pushed over the next few days, but there were a couple of things I wanted to get off my chest on the overall status/approach yesterday so I did a quick ramble. Don’t have time still to clean it up and if you think it doesn’t really fit here, just delete.

*********
[I am going to toss this in here and now for when EW gets to other parts of her FISA destruction series.]

Re: the AG oversight/decisionmaking v. FISC oversight/decision making provisions. Keep in mind that the law has been very clear that judges cannot issue general warrants. Nomenclature not being the deciding factor, that would include FISC “orders” authorizing general, blanket searches & seizure. That makes it hard to have the court responsible for issuing something that may not be able to issue, Constitutionally. This is especially true where, per below, FISA “warrants” or order rest on very thing underpinnings to the extent they affect Americans as it is and those underpinnings have already been assaulted by the Patriot Act(s) provisions to where they have been left with the consistency of wet tissue paper.

What has the Sup Ct said about foreing surveillance?
Not much. The one thing the Sup Ct has said specifically about foreign surveillance is that the Executive does have powers to engage in surveillance without a warrant of foreign powers or agents of foreign powers for national security purposes. Good, old fashioned, nation v. nation spying. That was done as dicta in a case where the court also said it was not going to get into what is or is not domestic v. foreign surveillance.

But this is why you see certain things in “old FISA.” First, a carve out for warrantless surveillance only when you have foreign powers or agents of foreign powers – - – not for all foreigners. It is a national security carve out that had in mind things like spying, invasive and sabotage actions of foreign powers. Not so much listening in on a Chinese businessman’s calls to his mistress so that a Madame President could use the info to blackmail bigger campaign contributions.

So you already get into a grey area when you have foreign communications that are not communications involving foreign powers or their agents. The Sup Ct has not really spoken to the right of the Government to be unfettered from the Constitutional constraints of the Fourth Amendment when it is seizing and searching ALL KINDS of foreign communications, especially on US soil, without regard to whether or not they involve foreign powers or national security issues.

That will happen with dragnetting and datamining EVEN IF the technology made it possible to confine such dragnets to only foreign originating communications – - – and EVEN IN in that case (where they can limit to foreign orignating calls and emails etc.), there is nothing to prevent that dragnet from also picking up communications of US citizens who are overseas and who are not in communications with foreign powers on matters involving national security.

Certainly, those kinds of actions are a far different scenario than the legitimate Executive powers recognized in Sup Ct dicta carve outs with respect to warrantless surveillance of foreign powers for national security purposes.

Moving on, with the changes to the intra-Executive Branch approach to handling operational aspects of the wall, you also had legislation that changed a lot more than the operational aspects. Part of the court’s reasoning for the warrantless capacity for the Executive to spy on agents of foreign powers dealt with the presumed diplomatic, rather than legal, avenues of reprucussion the Executive branch would take in those settings (expulsion being one of the primary actions, but war also being an aspect)

But with the understanding that such surveillance might at times involve US citizens, Congress crafted an approach – FISA – that has never been tested in its OLD format (much less its newly proposed format) with respect to the concept of issuing orders or warrants to allow such foreign powers surveillance to impact US citizens on US soil, as long as appropriate minimization procedures are in effect. Once more – that is a completely untested concept in and of itself.

Part of the reasoning for allowing the “with warrant” (i.e., with court order) surveillance that might include or capture US communications, but which is based upon a much lesser and different probable cause standard than a criminal surveillance warrant, was that criminal penalties would not be applying, the judicial system would not be invoked, and minimization procedures would require destruction of US communications except in narrowly circumscribed parameters.

Even with minimization, the concept of judges issuing warrants that allow the interception of US citizens’ communications based, not on probable cause that they are committing a crime, but rather only on probable cause that they will be talking to someone who is an agent of a foreign power, is not only something the S.Ct hasn’t addressed, but something that should cause its own sets of concerns, standing alone.

But then came the Patriots of the Bush DOJ and their axts. Now, of course, you have not only the intra-dept. operational aspects of the wall being changed, but you also had a tremendous sea change on how FISA orders/warrants would be used.

Now, FISA orders could be sought and used with a specific intent of using them to fish for evidence of criminal violations, even in circumstances where no criminal warrant could be issued bc there was not even the beginnings of a showing of probable cause of a crime was being planned or committed. All as long as there was a colorable showing of probable cause that the person being surveilled would be in contact with an agent of a foreign power.

Meanwhile, the definition of agent of a foreign power has been changed to include this large and nebulous grouping of “terrorists” (and because of other things, possibly those who provide material aid to terrorists, with no clear delineations or who or what is included in such groups or descriptions).

So the FISC is already being forced into a very uncomfortable place by the Patriot Act legislation. No longer is it “just diplomatic” reprucussions and spying on foreign powers by the Executive Branch. And even some of the thought process behind the carve outs because actions would proceed on non-judicial front, there has been a big change. No longer are we looking at things like expulsions from the nation, but instead we have become a nation of Executive Branch conspired and coordinated disappearances of disappearing suspected or alleged enemies into blackhole torture or just permanently.

None of those were points touched on the in the dicta that set the scene for saying the President has warrantless surveillance powers with respect to agents of foreign powers for national security purposes.

And now that the judicial warrant is being issued specifically for use to fish for criminal evidence where no criminal warrant could have issued – we are so far beyond what was originally discussed that it takes a quantum of quantum leaps to get there.

Still, the old FISA was structured to take into account that dicta regarding the President’s Constitutional powers to spy on French spies. It provides that when the AG is engaging in surveillance limited to only agents of foreign powers, not only does he not need a warrant, the FISC is basically prevented from issuing a warrant.

Since the Sup Ct seemingly agreed this kind of nationalistic spying was an area where the President did not need a warrant, and since it was surveillance intended only to be used for non-judicial purposes, there is a separation of powers issue. The FISC is in a hands off mode when the communications are only those between an agent of foreign power to agent of foreign power.

So a couple of additional issues present. First, throwing terrorists in with agents of foreign powers and allowing FISA to be used for criminal surveillance but without getting a criminal warrant, basically doesn’t work well with the original precepts of FISA.

That’s the big and basic point.

It’s the same as saying that “mafia” members (with no definition) are going to be treated as agents of foreign powers or labor organizers or socialists or fundamentalists etc. Terrorism is ideologically based, not geographically based, and it is a criminal state of mind. It is not a matter of foreign powers, but of demented persons.

We need to address terrorism, which is often (but not always) used as a tool of groups with multinational roots, involving paramilitary non-state actors and large scale destructive capacities such that the balancing tests for reasonablity and probable cause may indeed have differing elements or a stairstepping of elements which need to be discussed and hashed through by people who are trying to get it right – not depraved idiots who are trying to cover their own criminal behavior. We need to figure where we already have good and sufficient tools (and that is lots of places – maybe they can even start with background checks of FBI and CIA agents who might have family ties to Hezbollah?) and where we need something else or more that is really targeted to the problems and needs, not a tack on to FISA to cover up old violations.

Still, dealing with what we have and not what we need (after all, with Dems in the majority, the Republican criminal cover up brigade not only runs the show, they’ve recruited to the point where the brigade is bipartisan now), the “fixes” being proposed are generating a situation where it appears that what Congress and the Executive branch are wanting to allow (to the extent any of them even bother to sit and think about any of it rather than just tabulate political points) is dragnetting and/or data mining of all communications and/or of all “foreign” (not agent of foreign power) communications based on no warrants or warrants issued on much less than probable cause of a crime being committed, but for the use of fishing through that data for any Executive Branch whim of any kind, with no oversight – - – and making all that info available to the greedy and corrupt within the intelligence community, also with no oversight.

Whether technology is such that they can actually separate US from foreign in their dragnets and datamining they don’t really want to get into – which may be part of why the minimization references are being kept so tight (if you even can presume any reason based on factors other than intent to cover up Executive Branch and telecom and contractor crime these days – and I have a hard time getting there).

EVEN IF they were able to sever out and destroy all US communications (bet they won’t and aren’t being asked to) and EVEN IF you ignore that now with other Patriot Ac changes, dragnetting all foreign communications has no requirement that it be limited to national security puruposes and can include all kinds of other uses, including criminal uses or Presidential whim or *rogue* Executive branch officers sending info to Hezbollah family members or blackmiling politicians, etc., THEN you still get to the point that an approach that provides for FISC court involvement in this process, (which is what they are saying makes it all “safe”) would require the court to disregard the Constitution and precedent and issue blanket warrants.

So that is one reason for the focus on the AG. How you go from saying that while it’s unconstitutional for the courts to issue blanket warrants for criminal investigations, it’s ok for the AG to unilaterally approve such blanket searches and seizures, including US communications, for purposes that will include criminal prosecution but preferably include kidnap and blacksite torture, generally of non-citizens but in cases like Padilla using the USAttys offices to facilitate disappearing US citizens, all based on some tenuous thread that maybe someone somewhere somehow thought a call might have involved a foreigner or a US citizen calling home from a foreign place – - – it just boggles the mind if you follow it through.

So some of the resistance to court involvement is not only tied to the fact that a court can’t constitutionall do what they want done, but also very likely that FISC won’t do it either – probably a part of the old ruling that peeved the DOJ this spring. (BTW- did anyone ever ask what happened at the end of that dubious 3 day emergency surveillance that Gonzales put in for? Bc I wonder if the court went ballistic and if that had anything to do with him leaving – but that’s another day)

In any event – identifying political enemies of the US or those having “bad thoughts” about the US and taking punitive actions – criminal prosecutions or blackhole torture – against them using FISA as a vehicle doesn’t work bc that is not what FISA was intended to be or to do.

We have a workable criminal system. We have a workable spy system. We need a workable way to integrate them and to coordinate an overall approach to multinational crime groups like terrorists (including drug cartels and the like) which at times receive support and protection from state actors and at times do not, and which have significant paramilitary overlasy. That’s not a “FISA issue” and everyone should just step back, realize that the only things being done to FISA right now are being proposed and done by people interested in protecting Executive Branch persons and poltical allies and contributors from their crimes – - nothing is being proposed, structured and promoted by anyone with a focus to the real problems and concerns that exist and that need to be addressed, and nothing is being done with an understanding of what FISA was intended to address.

“National security” is becoming a blanket for all bodies, and so are a half dozen other waffle words they are wanting to use and none of it works with and within a Constitutional democracy that obeys the rule of law and does not have a big brother Executive.

So we either admit we are not a Constitutional democracy that respects the rule of law anymore (and the last 6 years of poisening the Constitution from within by the DOJ may just have accomplished that goal) and give the appropriate salute to the members of the Bush DOJ, past and present, who made sure the change took place; or we draw the lines, make FISA stay within what FISA was intended to be, and recognize that terrorism is a massive and paramilitary criminal undertaking that needs a well thought through approach, nationally and internationally, that is targeted to those needs and that we already have many of the tools we need and we focus on where the gaps are and how they should be addressed in a fashion that meets the national and international pressures brought to bear by the problem and by the solutions which may often involve multiple countries with mulitple approaches to the law and the problem.

IMO, where we are is a a bad place at the end of a trail laid by bad men patting themselves on the backs for being brave and protecting a country they were helping to poisen from within. And there we seem destined to remain, as the reins of government have been taken by Democrats who are morally and functionally incapable of making a trail of their own.

LibertyLee @108:

My apologies. You’re the same person. Same arguments, same slogans, same hysteria in lieu of logic.

You still haven’t found an actual avowal, and your notion that the Quatari government is somehow with the “Islamofascists” beggars the mind. They’re a vassal state, for Christ’s sake!

Thanks, though, for the “Hundred Year” ballpark. It’s a mark of your historical illiteracy that you would use it without irony; I’ve heard other warmongers more modestly, but with similar historical illiteracy, say “Thirty Years”. You seem a lot like those jihadis, by the way, with your long timeframes.

I just don’t get why you’re so emotionally invested in all this. I have a hard time believing you’re really scared of these jihadis, and I can’t even really believe you believe that Saddam slept with Atta in Prague, or whatever phantasmagoric lies it is you people circulate among yourselves. For some reason you support a war of aggression and atrocity that’s bankrupted the nation and aligned the world against us and are falling all over yourself to cede your and my rights under the Constitution and suspend article I and amendments four and eight of said document. Why? I can’t believe it’s really pants-wetting fear of “Islamofascists”. Is it fear FOR the fate of the Republican party that got us into all this?

Speaking of Russian, great review of a new translation of “War and Peace”:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20810

LL @ 68

I know the paperwork demands of FISA

They are such that Judge Lambert was able to grant several FISA orders from his car on 9/11. That’s without regard to emergency 72 hour suveillance with no warrant/orders.

IOW – they are already tailored to exigencies.

and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals,

… who were already not translating and analyzing known terrorist intercepts, like the bin laden intercepts that did not get translated until post-9/11 and so, of course, needed to have lots more data implosion.

all of whom were deeply committed analysts who KNEW where the bodies were buried

which is why after 6 years of unfettered surveillance on any and everyone using billions of dollar companies as well as US assets and having US citizens PAY ATT for the privilege of having the government surveill them (how much better does it get than that – the goverment spies on you and you pay for the service directly as well as pay indirectly through your taxes) they have found bin laden and why they had all the WMD ducks in a row and …

Bull. Those national security professionals have known exactly what has been being done with diverting efforts from al-Qaeda to Iraq and with massive round ups (holding 25,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan right now) and and bounty hunting for torture specimens for GITMO, blacksites, and Syrian and Egyptian and Moroccan and other outsourced torture. If they knew where the bodies were buried and didn’t put a stop to any of that, they are worse than hideously depraved.

The truth is, there’s a lot they don’t know, the are already overwhelmed with irrelevant information to the point where they use an agent with Hezbollah family ties who is illegally accessing classified info to do their al-Qaeda debriefings, the FBI counterterrorism people years after 9/11 still could not answer questions of basic affiliations between the different fundamentalist islamic groups, there are “lists” of “terrorist” groups floating around between agencies and between the military and those agencies that have little similarity or congruence and it goes on and on.

So did those people who knew where the bodies were buried just get their rocks off by standing by and biting their tongues while Maher Arar was shipped off for Syrian torture, or el-Masri for blacksite US torture based on his name?

The elected leaders who? You make it sound like there were many, but the only elected person in the Executive branch and in that band of security analysts calling the shots is the President – the VP is even just a tack on. informed the Intelligence Committee leadership so one guy (and not even that guy – never did Bush think it important enough that he showed up or participated in those briefings by all reports) telling 6 or 8 other people the bits and pieces of what he wants them to know, with the admonition they can’t do anything with that knowledege and they now all say lots wa left out – that constitutes informing and informing thereby makes it all ok?
Whew – interesting approach.

who basically understood the problems and gave tacit overhead

Big Fib. They are STILL CONFUSED about what they were told, what they havent’ been told, and what the problems are and I don’t know what a tacit overhead is, but if you mean tacit approval then no they did not. They were told they could not speak to give objections- that’s pretty different from approving.

And from the very very very beginning, the FISC Chief Judges have told DOJ that the program was illegal and so illegal that the court put up firewalls to keep the information out of that court (firewalls that DOJ breached). But apparently no one passed that info on to the corporations (in which case those “dedicated national security professionals are liars and weasels) or the corporations knew it and were getting such a lovely taste of what happens with breaking the law when you own the prosecutor and when the prosecutor’s boss is giving you big paybacks to break the law – that they didn’t care.

The corporations followed on request of the government. Maybe they did break the Letter of the law. But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”.

You do give exigent circumstances a pass if they meet the justification defenses in the law – so that is a part of the law as well.

Numerous lies to courts later, numerous legislative initiatives later, numerous lies to American people later and SIX DAMN YEARS LATER does not meet any standard of exigency except in a cartoon Bizarro world.

I wish you would see that side. Can’t speak for Christy, but I have seen that side and have seen how what happened is that after the exigency gave license for a brief period response, integrity collapsed in the intelligence commnunity and as integrity collapsed, they became more and more entrenched in illegal activities, and that set up the hamster wheel rolling and very soon they all knew that exigencies were long past and they were just criminals and they all began to act like criminals. No one came forward, took responsibility or demanded a truthful approach. No one tells the truth now.

People are tortured and die and are maimed and have their minds destroyed and children are orphaned and kidnapped and abused every day, and while that would happen any day in any world, there is now a subgroup of the above who suffer all that specifically and directly because of the depravity of the so-called dedicated national security professionals – none of whom raise a voice.

The more you watch them abandon anything related to actually defending the country and being prudent – in favor of defending their crimes and the crimes of their friends – the less sympathy I find for their original dilema. And the more I wonder what this country has become to spawn and protect such people.

Mary:

LL needs to explain how he “knows the paperwork demands of FISA”.

Mary
Whew Wow wonderful