The SJC FISA bill mark-up is set to begin around 10 am ET. The committee has a number of other items on their plate as well this morning, so it may be a bit before we get to the FISA discussion. As always, I’ll try to liveblog as accurately as I can. I could use your help, though: please try and keep comments to a minimum. The more I have to switch threads, the higher the possibility that I’ll miss a big chunk of the discussion for you guys. Thanks!
___________________________
While we are waiting for the committee room feed to get going (H/T to selise for getting me the link), I thought you all would appreciate this from Sen. Feingold’s office:
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold will offer an amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow to strike retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies alleged to have assisted with the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. The retroactive immunity provision, included in the current version of the FISA Amendments Act being considered by the committee, would likely deny the courts the opportunity to review the warrantless wiretapping program. Lawsuits against private entities alleged to have cooperated with the program may provide the only avenue for judicial oversight of the program.
“Granting retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly went along with this illegal program is unjustified and undermines the rule of law,” Feingold said. “Not only would retroactive immunity set the terrible precedent that breaking the law is permissible and companies need not worry about the privacy of their customers, but it would likely prevent courts from ruling on the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. This program was one of the worst abuses of executive power in our history, and the courts should be able to rule on it once and for all.”
Current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government’s request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. This limited immunity already protects companies that act in good faith while also protecting the privacy of Americans’ communications.
“We want companies not only to cooperate with the government, but to comply with the law. And we want the government to comply with the law as well. Granting retroactive immunity sends exactly the wrong message,” Feingold added.
Good for Sen. Feingold. I’ve been hearing all sorts of rumors on what may or may not happen today, but that Leahy, Feingold, Durbin and several others have been working quite a bit behind-the-scenes on a numberof issues, but that they are dealing with problems with Schumer, Feinstein and Whitehouse (the latter two are also on the Intel committee and were briefed into the background aspects of the NSA program and voted with Rockefeller’s telecom immunity in that committee). We’ll see how it goes today if we get a live feed.
UPDATE from the committee room: “We are hearing that we have nine votes. Nine. (we need 10 to win) With Difi being the ONLY hold out. But that is really just rumor…we’ll know soon. Mark up is underway.”
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Morning, Christy -
zed, if so my first?
the feed is not working for me (on a mac) – but it is for elliot (on a pc).
if anyone can get it to work on a mac, will you please let me know – so i’ll know it’s a problem on my end and not on c-span’s end. thx.
p.s. if anyone who can get the feed working would be willing to record the audio… i’d be very grateful.
Hello everyone!
selise at 3 — I got the tone, and now nothing at all. So either it hasn’t gotten started or the feed isn’t working again today. We’ll give it a few minutes. I may have a Plan B available at least for updates if all goes well this morning, but I’m going to have to wait and see on that as well…
BlueStateRedHead @ 2
yes, get a little box to keep them in..then in odd moments, you can take them out and count them and laugh maniacally. *g*
Christy Hardin Smith @ 6
I just got the tone Christy, will keep checking it
my mistake – it’s not working for elliot either (but there is a different symptom).
cspan tech is trying to track it down now (they confirmed to me on tuesday it would be working today. sigh).
Love the haggis! I’m getting the tone on the audio link as well.
In terms of raw politics, I sometimes understand why senators from red states, like Ben Nelson, are reluctant to get in Bushco’s face. But, these senators from the bluest of the blue states, like Schumer and Whitehouse, puzzle me.
selise @ 3
I couldn’t get it on my Mac. I get “connecting” and then after a few minutes, a statement that it is “paused.” If I click the play button, the “connecting” repeats. No sound at all.
Selise at 9 — Thanks much. I did get the tone this morning when it first turned on, now nothing. We may have to just give up on the hearing today in terms of liveblogging and I’ll report any updates I happen to get from people in the hearing room itself as I get them.
I’m hoping some folks that I know are in the hearing today and will be able to send a dispatch or two, but I don’t have confirmation on that as yet either. Tough doing this long-distance…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 6
they (c-span) are working on it again… :(
Let’s give CHS and selise a big round of applause for their efforts this morning!
(((applause)))
Part of the problem is that the tech infrastructure in Congress is woefully behind where it ought to be in terms of connectivity. The building is old, and the tech updates that could have occurred through the years haven’t kept pace in some areas. It can be tough to get a signal in parts of the buildings and hearing rooms are especially spotty sometimes.
Kind of symbolic of a lot of things in this country, isn’t it? *g*
Christy Hardin Smith @ 13
thanks christy – yes, very tough being long distance. wish i was in dc and could be at the hearing myself.
Why on earth would Feinstein and Whitehouse believe anything the White House “Intelligence” tells them?
I am astounded that Whitehouse is wavering. He has impressed me as being a very bright guy.
And even if they believe it, why the need for immunity? Have they no respect for the courts?
liavc @ 19
i thought it was very weird that he voted FOR immunity in the senate intelligence committee.
Anyone check regular TV for coverage?
Prairie at 18 — Because they would not have been briefed by just someone at the WH — it would have also come from intel professionals with longstanding connections to the committee and to the intel community. There is so much about all of this that we don’t know publicly, but I do know that whatever was in the briefing was enough to give even Feingold pause for quite a while. That Whitehouse has agreed to parts of this is telling in terms of what was presented being both very serious and needful of careful consideration — but retroactive immunity is a step that has long-term, ripple out consequences and should not be given without a LOT of very careful, very considered thought. And even then, I’d be very reluctant to do it because of the message it sends that they can get away with repeatedly breaking the law without recourse from the public.
Are we sure the meeting has started yet? Some other committee feeds on the site are working. Here is the link I went to: CapitolHearings.org
liavc — Yep — no live coverage. C-Span is apprently recording the proceedings live, for later broadcast today or some other time. But they are carrying coverage of an Armed Services committee this morning as well as floor proceedings in the House and Senate.
Just a reminder that Russ Feingold is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and has received the same information about the TOP SECRET details of the high-tech corporate spying that Feinstein and Whitehouse have. Feinstein and Whitehouse don’t get a pass for their “higher knowledge” in this case; ignoring the Constitution is ignoring the Constitution.
Nothing but ‘tone’ at this end – which is the same feed I got last Thursday as well. [Though if C-SPAN is in fact video-recording today’s meeting for later broadcast, selise, that’s good enough for me.]
P.S. I wonder why the Senate Judiciary Committee can’t be as ‘with it’ as the House Judiciary Committee – the HJC provides its own hearing (at least) livestream broadcasts without any assistance from C-SPAN.
liavc @ 19
Agreed, and also a tough guy with respect to the repugs. This news is discouraging.
I’ve got to admit that, although I don’t trust the others much, Whitehouse really puzzles me. He’s also on the Intel committee, right? It makes me wonder what he’s seen there that might make immunity seem like a more reasonable request to him. OTOH, Russ is even more trustworthy, and he’s also on the Intel committee, and he’s taken the opposite stance, it seems.
Bottom line, it’s in the Courts already, it should remain so. We need to pay attention to the separation of powers, and reaffirm the balance of power within our own government.
Article on Gonzalez’s defense fund:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02318.html
commenter bmaz at emptywheel also indicates the University of Florida Board of Regents are also doing their share, paying Gonzalez $40,000 for a speaking engagement:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..l#comments
Updated above with a dispatch from the committee room.
Gonzales…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 16
I read an article yesterday about the i-Phone release in Europe and how it wasn’t the big splash it is here. The reason is that wireless technology in Europe is way ahead of what we have here. Phones there use high speed 3G (3rd generation) wireless technology that we do not have here. Some have 5megapixel cameras on them. Meanwhile, the iPhone has a relatively crappy camera, works on the slower wireless network, is limited to one company’s cell service, and costs a lot more than comparable phones in Europe.
There is no real reason I can see that we do not have 3G wireless here.
pow wow — The SJC also does live feed for hearings, but they don’t do it for business meetings. That’s their policy — wish it had been waived in tis instance, but there you go…
As I said in the last thread: Write off DiFi. She voted yes on the Intel committee and justified that vote on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning.
What is Harry Reid’s position on FISA and immunity? And hasn’t DiFi already said she supports immunity?
I take it this vote is strictly on party lines and DiFi is the one vote remaining…
Why don’t I have confidence that this is being reviewed on the merits?
Christy, I only just now looked a the graphic lmao!
Good Morning.
I suck at phone calls, and probably don’t help the cause any by sounding hesitant and uncomfortable, and I really don’t want to put heavy usage on the company fax machine for personal stuff, but I did send emails. I’ll post the text in case anyone finds anything that I’ve written to be useful. To be completely truthful, I borrowed a bit myself from someone here yesterday (Ann in AZ I think).
I’ll be watching along with the rest of you.
For now, it’s back to work.
old gold @ 11
I think some of these Senators, deep down inside, really believe that if the government is trying to do the right thing, it is OK to break laws.
Is there any information out there that might indicate Whitehouse receiving a wad of Telecom cash? I don’t trust his integrity. Sorry, but I don’t. I don’t trust ANY of them to have integrity. Money from company X means X buys their vote. That is the way they work regardless of what they say.
difi’s spouse is big into the MIC one has to wonder if he has holdings in the telcom industry as well?
I am listening to the debate on the “rule”, and they are discussing Section 18…the Repubs are saying that it says that any undocumented alien in the US can be spied on without a warrant, and they are objecting to it. From what they are saying, I think it is a very scary scenario. Anyone know what this is about? Will they be able to intrude into any household in the US where someone may be suspected of being illegally on US soil? That would give Homeland Security a blank check to spy on tens of millions of homes or basically on everyone from what it sounds like. JMHO
pow wow @ 26
c-span has today’s markup on their schedule (for video broadcast at a later time) and here’s where the archive file will be.
the sjc has their own feed, but refuses to use it for business meetings… which, imo, sucks for meetings that are open to the public. i’ve requested that they change their policy, but i’m only a peon… so, i’m not holding my breath on that.
in the mean time, we should have the c-span audio feeds. they’re not great – but i’ve used them before and when they are working, are very useful.
selise — I’ve made that request, too, fwiw, on the policy change.
How do I get the radio feed?
Praedor Atrebates @ 40
I have looked and haven’t found any but who knows. His position is quite strange. It’s almost like Feingold’s position on giving the Pres. his judicial appointments.
Yes, the very same community that wants us all to “redefine” privacy to NOT mean “privacy”. They want us to redefine privacy to mean the government (and corporations), from whom the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us against, keeps our privacy “safe”. Safe from whom, exactly?
THIS community is the one that Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse want to blindly go along with…
F*ck them. F*ck them right out of office.
liavc — There is a link in the post above…
Good morning Christy.
Anyone have a working link to listen?
Fresh thread, up and running gang.
Oh, thanks, Christy @ 33, my mistake. I shouldn’t complain – the SJC website seems to be quite a helpful resource, with a lot of material available. Yes, let’s hope C-SPAN does fill the gap for the SJC today, with a later, recorded broadcast (as it looks like they will – thanks for the update and link, selise @ 43).
Chris Dodd: I hope you know the hope and undergirding support that your announced hold (and filibuster if necessary) is providing to those of us who are paying attention to our government’s actions today with regard to FISA. If not for the pending backstop of your hold, on this bill, I don’t think I could stand to watch developments unfold in real time. This is so important for our liberty and for our future as a democratic Republic. THANK YOU so much. Please hold fast to your principles, for all our sakes.
Biodun @ 31
I never noticed!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 44
thank you christy! you’re not a peon, so maybe there is a chance – fingers crossed.
pow wow @ 51
Well, let’s hope the hold is honored. But let’s hope even more that it doesn’t come to that.
Tim
Chris Dodd’s internet director
russ holt just made a statement on the house floor – he says that the restore act has been amended via a manager’s amendment that makes the changes he has been requesting (i think it’s about the basket warrents).
holt is now supporting the restore act. pow wow, i will be very interested to know what you think of the changes (when they are available to us for reivew).
now, if have some hope, because it looks like holt has been a hero (along with dodd and feingold) on this.
selise at 55 — THAT is great news. I had heard that there might be some behind-the-scenes amendments ongoing, but couldn’t get any specifics from anyone on what theymight be. If Holt is satisfied with the changes, then that is very good news.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 56
yes…. of course we’ll have to take a look ourselves… but holt has been dogged on this and i think there is reason to hope he wouldn’t have caved. fingers crossed – and with some hope this time *g*
…. i’m listening to the house floor debate now (on the rule for the restore act) while i wait for the call back from c-span.
The RESTORE Act changes are visible at H.Res.824
ttagaris @ 54
i am hoping!
and i have more hope ever since senator dodd said he would block and if that didn’t hold he would filibuster…. it’s hard for me to imagine that the sjc isn’t taking into account the threat of a filibuster.
many thanks to you and to senator dodd!
A more direct link .. House Report 110-449. See Text of Amendment to be considered as adopted.
SEC. 18. NO RIGHTS UNDER THE RESTORE ACT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, an alien not permitted to be in or remain in the United States.
?????????????????????
Oh man, selise @ 55. If Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and John Conyers, et al, decided to listen to Rush Holt and John Tierney’s careful, principled, competent, constitutional work re FISA, that development would be just huge.
I’m sorry I missed Holt’s speech – but we can access it by tomorrow at the latest, we know. [Edit: THANKS, cboldt @ 58 and 60. They sure sprang this floor action on us - I’ll take a look.] Holt and Tierney were blazing the trail ahead on FISA for both the House and Senate, from their positions on the House Intelligence Committee; yet the House’s committee-passed RESTORE Act (in lieu of the Holt bill) needed a lot of revision to get away from the cotton-mouthed PAA language. Holt certainly sounded like he was sticking to his principles in the face of leadership opposition, so I sincerely hope this is as good as it sounds…
Maybe Chris Dodd’s hold will work its magic before Harry Reid has to decide to find his principles – yes, Tim T., let’s hope.
LS at 61 — If they are not an American citizen or lawfully in the US, then FISA is not designed to cover them. Never has.
cboldt @ 58
i think that’s just the rule – not the amendments.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 63
Thanks for answering that for me, because Hoekstra’s rant about it was a little unsettling.
selise @ 64
Go to the far right column on that page and follow the links to the amendments.
cboldt @ 60
thanks!
My first-glance impression of the Rules Committee-adopted amendment to the RESTORE Act: this seems to be tinkering around the edges of the program warrant provisions, in an attempt perhaps to strengthen minimization procedures, without actually calling them that. Not very impressive, as far as I can tell. The secret FISA Court continues to be cut out of a meaningful supervision role, and to have its hands tied when it comes to an independent check or enforcement of Executive Branch actions executed behind a unilateral claim of “national security” need.
Very little actual change in language is included – the program-based, no-probable cause, year-long data-mining FISC order provisions of RESTORE remain, along with prospective immunity, and all the mumbo-jumbo of the re-arranged PAA language. I doubt very much whether the ACLU (or the courts if ever given the opportunity) will conclude that this passes Constitutional muster.
Rush Holt knuckled under, I’m afraid, for a few tokens thrown his way by the leadership.
pow wow @ 62
holt’s floor statement this morning (realplayer file – possibly a temp file):
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/…..25_117.ram
i didn’t see a statement from tierney…
i may make a youtube…
pow wow @ 68
damn.
no youtube for holt then.
but thanks for the quick analysis pow wow… i will plan to call holt’s office tomorrow if i can get wrap my head around the meaning of the language.
p.s. i get to meet marcy saturday!
And how, pray tell, will the government go about identifying “undocumented workers” who, by their nature, are virtually invisible to th government? By blanket spying on all communications and fishing for undocumenteds?
All the guv’mnt need do is say “but we thought there was an illegal living with them!” and that gives them a free pass to spy on anyone?
edited:
nevermind
new fisa thread…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 23
In one of my messages to the Senators, I pointed out that the President could have done everything in a lawful manner, if he would just have deigned to make nice with his own majority Congress (although I did point it out more artfully than I just did.) One of my points being that the precedent set by allowing the President to operate for long periods of time outside of the law, and even approving it officially retroactively, would have severe implications for the form of government that we will have in the future.
Thank you so much for the video link to Holt’s brief floor statement today, selise @ 69 (I have dial-up, so it takes a bit to load it and view it, but this one was short enough to be worth it).
Holt said all the right things. If I went only by his statement, I’d think they’d really fixed the RESTORE Act. It was a very good, if too short, statement.
But… I just don’t see it in the language of that amendment. Maybe that’s because they have to hide what they’re doing, with vague, obtuse construction, because of the TOP SECRET nature of the spying, so that it’s just not obvious via a surface reading. Dunno. Would like to know if Tierney’s on board too. Looks like it’s going to pass the House later today, no matter what, though.
But back in our world – I hope you have a blast with Marcy on Saturday, selise! That ought to be fun. You’ll both have someone informed to vent to in person, since you’ll probably be looking back at dastardly deeds by our Congress, that seem to be unfolding at lightning speed today – SOP for this Congress with another two-week vacation about to start (I checked the House Rules Committee site late last night sometime – I’m quite positive no mention of an 11/14 meeting on RESTORE was listed – in fact it still isn’t today, although notice of the new rule is now included on the site, which have visibly fewer listings than late yesterday’s ‘Recent Actions’ page listings).
http://www.rules.house.gov/