whoa

Ya don’t think I could change Saxby’s mind?

My bad — I hit publish when I meant to save — this isn’t done yet, raven. Sorry — will be back later…

2nd zed?

Doesit do any good to call anyone during the holidays? Shouldn’t we keep our powder dry until after Thxgiving?

Good afternoon, Christy

–and others…

EPU’d, reposting:
There’s a report hitting the wires that a court has ruled that the government can use ’state secret’ as an excuse to not reveal wiretapping information.

Thank you ever so much, George. [/snark]

When I was teaching in Europe this year, I would show my students that video, and then say “Congratulations, you now know as much about the U.S. Federal legislative process as most people in the United States… and from the same source.”

[Copied from a prior thread:] My only concern is that we’re trading off our Fourth Amendment Rights (by passing any extention of the current FISA rules) in exchange for the dubious honor of maybe someday prosecuting the telecoms for something they did five years ago. Not that they don’t deserve it, but I see this as a false choice, and a bad bargain.

Christy:

This is repeated verbatim later below. It’s a transcript, yes?

I thought what the work of the Judiciary Committee was exemplary. I think that’s what should happen. And we have a process now where it will be brought to the Senate floor.

As I understand the process, we’ll have the Intelligence bill. There will be a substitute offered by the Judiciary Committee. We’ll have a vote on that. That’s the way things should be.

Christy,
Thank you!

I’m reading Sen. Reid’s remarks a bit differently than you are. What he says is that the Intel committee’s bill will be brought to the floor *first* , and I see that as a bad sign, even though he *says* he favors the SJC version. In other words, the SJC bill can only be on the floor as the Senate’s bill if they vote to amend. In other words, the SJC bill faces TWO votes to pass (plus any other procedural votes). That worries me. How do you assess that?

Bob in HI

OT
Scott Horton has some new info on Homeland Sec IG report on Maher Arar being withheld, what’s probably in it, & why they won’t release it. (Would you believe misconduct at the top of the Justice Dept?) Let’s see what Mukasey will do with this one.
http://www.harpers.org/archive…..c-90001676

IG investigators were astonished particularly by what transpired in the first ten days of Arar’s detention. Well-defined procedures were not followed. The State Department was consciously kept out of the loop. Steps were taken to circumvent Arar’s rights, and particularly to guard against the prospect that a lawyer for Arar would challenge his highly dubious treatment through a habeas corpus proceeding. Who was at fault in this process? A group of very senior figures, mostly in the U.S. Department of Justice.

Justice Department figures, and particularly those who are fingered and criticized in the early drafts of the IG Report, have been frantic in their efforts to quash it. And they’re succeeding. That, I am told, is why the IG Report has not been finalized and transmitted to Congress.

One pretext has been used to block the Report. It is the fact that civil litigation brought by Maher Arar is now pending in the U.S. Courts. Justice Department lawyers involved in managing the defense of this suit have expressed strong concern that the IG Report would, if delivered to Congress, deliver a potential death blow to their efforts. They also caution that it might result in the leakage of attorney-client privileged information which would greatly harm the litigating position of the United States.

Another reason to bypass the Intelligence Committee’s product (from last thread):

Ugly: I just heard a portion of the SJC meeting broadcast that I missed last time. It’s re-airing now on C-SPAN 3, streaming online (the last half hour or so, from 3:30-4 p.m. today will cover the Title II immunity provision):

http://c-span.org/watch/cs_csp…..p;Code=CS3

Russ Feingold made very clear in debate with Kyl yesterday that in the Senate Intelligence Committee “mark-up” of the FISA bill, they were presented with a “fait accompli” – a done deal – by Jay Rockefeller and Kit Bond. Those two (Jay and Kit) agreed to a “bipartisan” compromise bill and language (read: White House bill) privately, in advance, to present to the committee as a whole as a “bipartisan” bill, and further agreed not to support or vote for any amendments to the bill for fear of “unbalancing” their two-man deal… Which is why Rockefeller didn’t vote for the Wyden/Feingold amendment (to protect our privacy rights when we travel) which nevertheless somehow managed to get a full hearing in the committee (which little else did, apparently), and which two Republicans ended up voting for.

So there was actually very little real debate on the provisions of this bill in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the 13 Senators who voted in favor of that FISA bill irresponsibly acquiesced to a ramrodded, undemocratic process that avoided thorough debate and careful analysis by the committee membership (who are the handful of Senators in the Senate fully briefed on the TOP SECRET spying operations at issue, and are duty-bound to conscientiously represent the Senate as a whole on these secret matters) of a vitally important and dangerous piece of legislation. [I had thought I heard (so maybe I really did) Whitehouse make some similar reference near the end of the SJC meeting, as well, that the Title II immunity provisions were barely discussed in the Intelligence Committee as a whole, before final passage.]

Unreal.

raven @ 2

Ya don’t think I could change Saxby’s mind?

HA!

a few days ago when christy asked us to fax the members of the senate judiciary committee, i though it would be useful to make a file of congress contact info to share.

I’ve done the senate… It’s in the form of a vCard file that can be imported into most (I think) email/address book programs on pcs and macs – but so far only ann in az (pc) and newtonusr (mac) have tested the file for me. With newtonusr’s help I now have it posted for download (many tech difficulties because of the file type).

if any firepups think it might be useful to them and want to test it – that would be great. you can download it from here. after downloading it, you’ll have to double click on it to convert it to vCard (it’s a zip file) and import it into your addressbook. feed back, suggestions, corrections welcomed. i don’t want to go through the effort of doing the same thing for the house of representatives until i know the senate data is correct and in a useful format.

Anyway, I though it would be especially useful for faxing or mailing our congress critters when christy asks us to contact more than one or two.

Selise,

I thank you for taking the time to develop this amazing new tool for contacting Congress.

We can multiply our efforts with this.

Sorry OT the newspaper wars are getting serious USA Today and the NY Times might be going under soon leaving this country with only one National News Paper.
The Rupert Murdoch owned GOP approved WallStreet Journal.
Rupert wants to make the Journal a free paper.
Which given the GOP slant on news he spins shouldn’t that be an inkind political contribution?

http://money.cnn.com/news/news…..RTUNE5.htm

long time on hold at senator reid’s office. i hope that means there are lots calls coming in!

Servers are not stressed..So an OT..follow up on the “D or P” question.

CNN Spokesman Confirms Network Chose “Diamonds And Pearls” Question

(snip)
So this is both better and worse for the network. On the one hand, it’s better because the question was originally submitted by the girl, and it’s obvious that the girl was hardly “forced” to ask this; rather, she was offered the opportunity and took it. The network wanted to close on a light question, and they chose this one.

On the other hand, the network is confirming that it did in fact choose a question that quizzed the first credible female Presidential candidate on her taste in jewelry. That’s confessing to some pretty questionable taste.

TPM

I think SJC’s Title I language amounts to a “poison pill,” as far as veto goes. The House bill certainly has that “poison pill” quality. If the Intelligence Committee’s language was acceptable to Bond, then that language is probably acceptable to President Bush.
.
There can be, but isn’t necessarily advantage to being the language in the original offering of a bill. I say “not necessarily” because it takes the same number of votes to block adoption or force withdrawal of a simply stated amendment (e.g., Feingold’s amendment would say “strike Title II”), as it does to implement it.
.
My point being that it’s more useful to criticize and amend the substantive language, than to be concerned about the parliamentary process. Be on the lookout for amendments or WH agreements that sound good at a glance. The most clear example I can think of is the torture language in the MCA; where the WH “caved in” to McCain, but got what it wanted, buried in fine print.

This may help Windows users with Selise’s vCard file:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290840
which is on Outlook and vCards.

The Connecticut senator told reporters Friday that he is “vehemently opposed to retroactive immunity” and that he would use any “vehicle available [to block the bill], including a filibuster.”

[snip]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Intelligence Committee bill will be brought to the floor in December, and the Judiciary Committee bill will be offered as a substitute amendment. Reid would not say which bill he supports, saying he still had to study the Judiciary measure, and he downplayed the differences between the two measures.

[snip]

Similarly, Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) told reporters Friday he would defend his panel’s bill on the floor and signaled he would oppose amendments aimed at watering down the immunity provision.

But a host of powerful figures in the Democratic Conference are opposed to Rockefeller’s bill, including Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

“Passing a law to whitewash the administration’s undermining of another law would be a disservice to the American people and to the rule of law,” Leahy said.

http://thehill.com/leading-the…..11-16.html

The battle is joined.

off topic but concerning something reid said bothers me quite a bit now that I’m thinking about it, note my bold;

Reid explained Friday, “With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration informed me that they would make several recess appointments. I indicated I would be willing to confirm various appointments if the administration would agree to move on Democratic appointments.“

BULLcrap, why would he guarantee an appointment, that SUX!!!

cboldt @ 20

I think SJC’s Title I language amounts to a “poison pill,” as far as veto goes. The House bill certainly has that “poison pill” quality. If the Intelligence Committee’s language was acceptable to Bond, then that language is probably acceptable to President Bush.
.
There can be, but isn’t necessarily advantage to being the language in the original offering of a bill. I say “not necessarily” because it takes the same number of votes to block adoption or force withdrawal of a simply stated amendment (e.g., Feingold’s amendment would say “strike Title II”), as it does to implement it.
.
My point being that it’s more useful to criticize and amend the substantive language, than to be concerned about the parliamentary process. Be on the lookout for amendments or WH agreements that sound good at a glance. The most clear example I can think of is the torture language in the MCA; where the WH “caved in” to McCain, but got what it wanted, buried in fine print.

Why, you aren’t implying that they are just playing three card monty with the various bills, amendments and provisions to keep us all confused while they slide the bad stuff (immunity, non-particularized warrants, etc.) into law under our noses like they did in August with the PAA are you? Nah; they wouldn’t do that would they? Heh heh.

what an exemplar of fortitude, that Rockefella.

/s

Voinovich is my Senator and I contacted his office. For those who don’t know about him, he’s kind of an operational wonk, very interested in HOW the governemnt works and how to make it work better. He tends to vote his conscience over his party and I think this works for us.

The staffer I talked to was quite nice, but was wondering what was going on as she was getting a lot of calls, most in support of the 4th amendment. No offical position from the Senator yet.

If you phrase your argument as “This is the way government is supposed to work” rather than “The evil telco’s tapped my phone”, I think you’ll be more pursuasive.

Boxturtle(Voinovich is the WORST speaker in the Senate currently and possibly the worst ever, don’t expect him to convince anybody else)

O.T. Just now Thom Hartmann telephone straw poll across the nation.

Edwards-26

Kucinich-15

Obama-7

Clinton-4

Biden-2

Gore-2

Misc.-3

It’s a pity that there is no way to shame the republican and DLC bastards into supporting the Constitution that they swore to support and defend. Near as I can tell, starting with Jay Rockefeller, certain of them have done neither.

I guess that since there is no retroactive provision making Clenis™ Presidential Fellation illegal, they just can’t get behind any “rule of law” stuff.

P J Evans @ 19

This may help Windows users with Selise’s vCard file:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290840
which is on Outlook and vCards.

thank you! i’m on a mac, so i can’t test it for pc users.

perris @ 22

off topic but concerning something reid said bothers me quite a bit now that I’m thinking about it, note my bold;

Reid explained Friday, “With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration informed me that they would make several recess appointments. I indicated I would be willing to confirm various appointments if the administration would agree to move on Democratic appointments.“

BULLcrap, why would he guarantee an appointment?

Reid wants something and he is pissed that Bush won’t give it to him, after all how much has Reid bent over to accomadate him?
Reid is just throwing a hissy fit. Bush doesn’t take the Dem Centerist leadership seriously.
When Nancy said she would stop funding the war a week ago? Nobody here or on any blog I read it seemed believed her.
The Center is irrelevant, will the Center adapt to change or will it disappear?

OT, New Froomkin up Bush’ Other War: On the Courts

This is the money paragraph:

So last night’s 25th anniversary gala for the Federalist Society, complete with a keynote from Bush himself, was an orgy of self-celebration. Membership in (or at least affiliation with) the reactionary legal group is practically a requirement for Bush appointees to the bench or top legal jobs.

pow wow @ 21

The Connecticut senator told reporters Friday that he is “vehemently opposed to retroactive immunity” and that he would use any “vehicle available [to block the bill], including a filibuster.”

[snip]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Intelligence Committee bill will be brought to the floor in December, and the Judiciary Committee bill will be offered as a substitute amendment. Reid would not say which bill he supports, saying he still had to study the Judiciary measure, and he downplayed the differences between the two measures.

[snip]

Similarly, Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) told reporters Friday he would defend his panel’s bill on the floor and signaled he would oppose amendments aimed at watering down the immunity provision.

But a host of powerful figures in the Democratic Conference are opposed to Rockefeller’s bill, including Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

“Passing a law to whitewash the administration’s undermining of another law would be a disservice to the American people and to the rule of law,” Leahy said.

http://thehill.com/leading-the…..11-16.html

The battle is joined.

i think i’ll call senator leahy too – just for good measure.

Just got off the phone with a staffer of Senator Coburn who is on the judiciary committee. He was very non-committal on the FISA issue, saying he is looking over it very carefully. Said the Senator was wanting viewpoints of constituents.

I was fairly blunt. No on basket warrants and no on retro-active immunity for telecoms.

I’m curious how long Jay Rockefeller has been in the bag. Via wiki, he studied Japanese, was in the Peace Corps, and was friends with Bobby Kennedy.

In the it’s a small world department:

Since 1967, Rockefeller has been married to the former Sharon Percy, the chief executive officer of WETA, the leading PBS station in the Washington, D.C., area, which broadcasts such notable programs as The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Washington Week.

Sharon is the daughter of former U.S. Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois

His career as a Bush shill can be seen in this speech given in 2002 in the run up to the Iraq war:

“There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!”

Having been this wrong about Iraq seems only to have spurred him to further efforts in the wingnut cause. This brings me back to my original question. How could someone who started out so promisingly end up as a hardcore supporter of the worst excesses of the worst President in our history?

– There’s a report hitting the wires that a court has ruled that the government can use ’state secret’ as an excuse to not reveal wiretapping information. –
.

links from HowAppealing, including a couple avenues to the 9th Circuit opinion. I’ve just started to read, but the short version is that while TSP isn’t “state secret,” the fact that al Haramin was personally surveilled is a matter of state secret. Without evidence of being personally surveilled, al Haramin lacks standing (no proof of harm). The Circuit Court remands with instructions to the District Court to rule on the legal theory of FISA somehow preempting “state secret.”

.

Caveat, that’s based on a very hurried (

hmmm, this didn’t post, let me try again, if a dup please delete

funniest Iraq youtube I have seen to date

http://s137.photobucket.com/al…..rnouts.flv

perris @ 22

off topic but concerning something reid said bothers me quite a bit now that I’m thinking about it, note my bold;

Reid explained Friday, “With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration informed me that they would make several recess appointments. I indicated I would be willing to confirm various appointments if the administration would agree to move on Democratic appointments.“

BULLcrap, why would he guarantee an appointment, that SUX!!!

Because he is trying to get some Dem judges on the bench. frnakly, it has waited this long, it can wait another 14 months

While we are looking for snakes in the deep weeds, it is important to note Republican rhetoric about “preventing another 9/11″ and “terrorist surveillance program” is bogus since the program was put in place 5 weeks after Bush took office and 6 months prior to 9/11. The 9/11 commission concluded BushCo had 52 separate warnings, Dick Clarke and George Tenet metaphorically put a gun to Condi’s head and did everything but “pull the trigger” (Tenet’s language) about pending doom. The CIA dood ran to Bush in Crawford like his hair was on fire, Dubya reportedly said “Okay, you’ve covered your ass.”

They never even called a meeting.

selise @ 28

P J Evans @ 19

This may help Windows users with Selise’s vCard file:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290840
which is on Outlook and vCards.

thank you! i’m on a mac, so i can’t test it for pc users.

hmmm…. for people who use outlook, would it be easier if instead of the one file for all the contacts (as i have now), i create a folder of files, with a separate file for each contact? i can do that simply enough – if that’s what outlook users need.

looseheadprop @ 36

perris @ 22

off topic but concerning something reid said bothers me quite a bit now that I’m thinking about it, note my bold;

BULLcrap, why would he guarantee an appointment, that SUX!!!

Because he is trying to get some Dem judges on the bench. frnakly, it has waited this long, it can wait another 14 months

bush has made it his POINT to ONLY appoint members of the federalist society

a society that believes this country is to serve the wealthy

I don’t want ANY judges appointed by wrote, and one of the DISQUALIFICATIONS is membership in the federalist society

Oilfieldguy @ 32

Just got off the phone with a staffer of Senator Coburn who is on the judiciary committee. He was very non-committal on the FISA issue, saying he is looking over it very carefully. Said the Senator was wanting viewpoints of constituents.

I was fairly blunt. No on basket warrants and no on retro-active immunity for telecoms.

I told a senator’s aide that I expected everyone to get immunity for breaking any and all leafy illegal substance laws. I think I mentioned bongs. She laughed and laughed.
I said I was glad to bring a smile to her face but I’m not kidding. You want to give big companies retroactive immunity for breaking the law by spying on me? No no no. That’s not Rule of Law. One rule is for ALL, not one for big companies who contribute to senators and one rule for us poor folks. I want the law followed, the Constitution upheld, I don’t want to be spied on and I don’t want favoritism to telecoms.
I believe I made my point.

It’s great that procedure is being considered carefully. It’s a bit alarming, tho, when you read that parliamentarians don’t understand it.

dakine01 @ 30

OT, New Froomkin up Bush’ Other War: On the Courts

This is the money paragraph:

So last night’s 25th anniversary gala for the Federalist Society, complete with a keynote from Bush himself, was an orgy of self-celebration. Membership in (or at least affiliation with) the reactionary legal group is practically a requirement for Bush appointees to the bench or top legal jobs.

All Democratic Presidential Candidates should pledge to not hire any Federalist Society people and fire the ones all ready in office.
A group that tries to keep its members secret and undermine the Consitution by infiltrating American government is UnAmerican.
The GOP attacked Commies for years ussing these charges. But its ok for their groups to plot like this?
What if we rally the 30%ers with a GOP enemy like the Federalist Society? The 30%ers need an enemy because we have a loosing war an economic crisis and despite the MSM, Lou Dobbs and Ron Paul we don’t have a real scapegoat yet.
We know where they are going so lets head them off at the pass.
Lets keep blaming Bush, blame the MSM blame the Federalist Society.
After all they wanted to change government by any means necesary lies, threats, outright force into an oilgarchy where money=might =Right.
So lets show them the fear of being hunted! After all we have failed, the Center Dems we trusted, that we brought to power won’t end the war they are not doing real anything about the economy.
But the Authoritarians will be looking for scapegoats sure they are blaming immigrants but they are blaming the War and Bush more.
If a tipping point is reached in our society the Bush supporters could swing violently against Bush, the MSM, Corporations etc.
We would then have a revolution and while the Left would get the blame and praise we would not be in control anymore.

Hugh @ 33

I’m curious how long Jay Rockefeller has been in the bag. Via wiki, he studied Japanese, was in the Peace Corps, and was friends with Bobby Kennedy.

In the it’s a small world department:

Since 1967, Rockefeller has been married to the former Sharon Percy, the chief executive officer of WETA, the leading PBS station in the Washington, D.C., area, which broadcasts such notable programs as The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Washington Week.

Sharon is the daughter of former U.S. Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois

His career as a Bush shill can be seen in this speech given in 2002 in the run up to the Iraq war:

“There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!”

Having been this wrong about Iraq seems only to have spurred him to further efforts in the wingnut cause. This brings me back to my original question. How could someone who started out so promisingly end up as a hardcore supporter of the worst excesses of the worst President in our history?

Hugh – I met Rockefeller at a in the early 80s at a function for Mo Udall, who I worked with a bit at the time. Rockefeller was Governor of WV at the time, and this appearance with Udall, Robert Redford, Ted Kennedy and some other notables was the national rollout of his campaign for the 1984 Senate seat he eventually won. He was very shy and almost uncomfortable with the power and limelight; but seemed very bright and very committed to the RFK type of agenda. My thought at the time was that he was a decent and intelligent chap, but a total wuss that needed to toughen up a whole lot. I don’t think he is a bad guy, he just never outgrew the “wuss factor” and got steamrolled into the village and away fro the legacy of RFK.

alank @ 41

It’s great that procedure is being considered carefully. It’s a bit alarming, tho, when you read that parliamentarians don’t understand it.

This too goes back to Harry Reid. If he had been clearer going in how this would be handled, it would be less confusing now.

cboldt @ 34

– There’s a report hitting the wires that a court has ruled that the government can use ’state secret’ as an excuse to not reveal wiretapping information. –
.

links from HowAppealing, including a couple avenues to the 9th Circuit opinion. I’ve just started to read, but the short version is that while TSP isn’t “state secret,” the fact that al Haramin was personally surveilled is a matter of state secret. Without evidence of being personally surveilled, al Haramin lacks standing (no proof of harm). The Circuit Court remands with instructions to the District Court to rule on the legal theory of FISA somehow preempting “state secret.”

.

Caveat, that’s based on a very hurried (

I only read the holding synopsis at the very beginning, but LOVE this opinion.

Remember, “States Secrets” is a comon law doctrine. Common law is usually trumped by Statute to the contrary.

And the case is being remanded for a determination of whether FISA trumps common law States secrets. The question will be do these two legal doctrines occupy the same space? If so, FISA wins.

This seems to be a very helpful developement. Not saying I know how the remand will turn out, but I like this development. I alsi think it seems fair, but I haven’t read it carefully

Rockefeller has just recently acquired vast campaign donations from the telecommunications industry. No further explanation needed.

Things Come Undone @ 42

dakine01 @ 30

OT, New Froomkin up Bush’ Other War: On the Courts

This is the money paragraph:

All Democratic Presidential Candidates should pledge to not hire any Federalist Society people and fire the ones all ready in office.

If we do that, how are we any better than the GOP? Being a Federalist should not disqualify anybody from serving, nor should ACLU membership.

Boxturtle (Not a member of either)

Hugh @ 44

alank @ 41

It’s great that procedure is being considered carefully. It’s a bit alarming, tho, when you read that parliamentarians don’t understand it.

This too goes back to Harry Reid. If he had been clearer going in how this would be handled, it would be less confusing now.

I have never found him to be clear about anything. He just doesn’t give the appearance of knowing what he’s talking about. Sad.

bmaz @ 43

Hugh – I met Rockefeller at a in the early 80s at a function for Mo Udall, who I worked with a bit at the time. Rockefeller was Governor of WV at the time, and this appearance with Udall, Robert Redford, Ted Kennedy and some other notables was the national rollout of his campaign for the 1984 Senate seat he eventually won. He was very shy and almost uncomfortable with the power and limelight; but seemed very bright and very committed to the RFK type of agenda. My thought at the time was that he was a decent and intelligent chap, but a total wuss that needed to toughen up a whole lot. I don’t think he is a bad guy, he just never outgrew the “wuss factor” and got steamrolled into the village and away fro the legacy of RFK.

What does it say about our system and Democrats that the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is a “wuss”?

Give ‘em huh? Harry!

Trivia…

Senate Judiciary Revisits Surveillance Bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a rare “do-over” vote Friday to clarify its desire to strip immunity for telecommunications firms from a proposed overhaul of the nation’s electronic surveillance law.
(snip)

CQ

Boxturtle @ 47

Things Come Undone @ 42

All Democratic Presidential Candidates should pledge to not hire any Federalist Society people and fire the ones all ready in office.

If we do that, how are we any better than the GOP? Being a Federalist should not disqualify anybody from serving, nor should ACLU membership.

Boxturtle (Not a member of either)

Thank you Boxturtle, you beat me to it.

What the Turtle said, goes for me too

Boxturtle @ 47

If we do that, how are we any better than the GOP? Being a Federalist should not disqualify anybody from serving, nor should ACLU membership.

Boxturtle (Not a member of either)

I think it is helpful to recognize that all sides have Litmus tests. The kabuki is that all sides protest they don’t.

my posts seem to be winding up in never land, gonna try this one again

we’ve been saying we’re the ones causeing the problems in Iraq and now the british generals are going after bush with the same meme

from think progress;

British General: Our Presence ‘Instigated’ Violence In Iraq, ‘90 Percent’ Reduction After Withdrawal
After Britain partially withdrew forces from southern Iraq in September, the White House slandered its “closest ally,” claiming “British forces have performed poorly in Basra” and suggested “it’s best that they leave.”

The White House should take notice of what has happened in Basra as British troops have left. According to Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, commander of British forces in Basra, the presence of British troops instigated violence. Now, violence has reportedly dropped to one-tenth that of earlier levels:

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.

“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?,’” Binns said.

Sectarian tensions in Basra, a predominantly Shiite city, are not as high in other parts of Iraq, but “it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops.” British Defense Secretary Des Browne observed last month:

The people of that city are no longer subject to the significant level of violence that was directed against the British forces and our allies.

cboldt, Looseheadprop and all concerned – This is interesting. The 9th Circuit entered an order severing the consolidated Hepting case, but made no other determination whatsoever on Hepting as far as I can tell. Wonder whats up on Hepting?

perris @ 54

The people of that city are no longer subject to the significant level of violence that was directed against the British forces and our allies.

I don’t buy entirely either the British or the American view on this. Basra is run by 4 militias who when not at each others throats severely repress the local citizenry. While the US may be critical of what the British did, they are doing much the same in their own “bottom up” strategy in Sunni areas where they are essentially arming and organizing local militias that take over control much as the militias in Basra have done.

perris @ 54

my posts seem to be winding up in never land, gonna try this one again

we’ve been saying we’re the ones causeing the problems in Iraq and now the british generals are going after bush with the same meme

from think progress;

British General: Our Presence ‘Instigated’ Violence In Iraq, ‘90 Percent’ Reduction After Withdrawal
After Britain partially withdrew forces from southern Iraq in September, the White House slandered its “closest ally,” claiming “British forces have performed poorly in Basra” and suggested “it’s best that they leave.”

The White House should take notice of what has happened in Basra as British troops have left. According to Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, commander of British forces in Basra, the presence of British troops instigated violence. Now, violence has reportedly dropped to one-tenth that of earlier levels:

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.

“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?,’” Binns said.

Sectarian tensions in Basra, a predominantly Shiite city, are not as high in other parts of Iraq, but “it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops.” British Defense Secretary Des Browne observed last month:

The people of that city are no longer subject to the significant level of violence that was directed against the British forces and our allies.

Perris,
Haven’t I seen situations where you said you were hitting the hard refresh button too early? For myself, I tend to wait until after the “posting new comment” message goes away and the “refreshing comments” message/spinning wheel is hanging before I do a hard refresh.

But then I tend to run upstairs if the refresh comments is hanging in search of the zed and then return to the old thread.

Hugh @ 33

I’m curious how long Jay Rockefeller has been in the bag. Via wiki, he studied Japanese, was in the Peace Corps, and was friends with Bobby Kennedy.

In the it’s a small world department:

Since 1967, Rockefeller has been married to the former Sharon Percy, the chief executive officer of WETA, the leading PBS station in the Washington, D.C., area, which broadcasts such notable programs as The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Washington Week.

Sharon is the daughter of former U.S. Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois

His career as a Bush shill can be seen in this speech given in 2002 in the run up to the Iraq war:

“There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!”

Having been this wrong about Iraq seems only to have spurred him to further efforts in the wingnut cause. This brings me back to my original question. How could someone who started out so promisingly end up as a hardcore supporter of the worst excesses of the worst President in our history?

Rockefeller is a quintessential member of the power elite. One of his last surviving uncles is David Rockefeller, he of the Bilderberger group, who has not been known to be shy about offering his opinions.

And of course the Rockefellers are a storied Banking family. All previous Rockefellers were Republicans, IIRC. So he may be a Democrat, but he comes from a Republican family and married into a Republican family. A family used to cutting backroom deals amongst themselves.

Bob in HI

selise @ 14

I’ve done the senate… It’s in the form of a vCard file that can be imported into most (I think) email/address book programs on pcs and macs – but so far only ann in az (pc) and newtonusr (mac) have tested the file for me. With newtonusr’s help I now have it posted for download (many tech difficulties because of the file type).

You TOTALLY rock. I’ll try importing into my Powerbook in just a moment.

Have you put this in a KOS diary?

P J Evans @ 19

This may help Windows users with Selise’s vCard file:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290840
which is on Outlook and vCards.

selise @ 38

thank you! i’m on a mac, so i can’t test it for pc users.

hmmm…. for people who use outlook, would it be easier if instead of the one file for all the contacts (as i have now), i create a folder of files, with a separate file for each contact? i can do that simply enough – if that’s what outlook users need.

ok… did an update to individualized cards – hope this is of help to outlook users.

please let me know if anyone has a problem – i’m depending on you-all as beta testers before i email out the link.

With Lugar you may as well hit Bayh too, bc while he is what passes for a Democrat these days, he’s in Bush’s back pocket every time a war, torture, domestic spying, Executive Power issue comes up.

JulieWaters @ 59

selise @ 14

I’ve done the senate… It’s in the form of a vCard file that can be imported into most (I think) email/address book programs on pcs and macs – but so far only ann in az (pc) and newtonusr (mac) have tested the file for me. With newtonusr’s help I now have it posted for download (many tech difficulties because of the file type).

You TOTALLY rock. I’ll try importing into my Powerbook in just a moment.

Have you put this in a KOS diary?

NO!!!

still testing… there’s a lot of different mail programs out there – the last thing i want to do is put up something that doesn’t work for people.

Boxturtle @ 47

Things Come Undone @ 42

All Democratic Presidential Candidates should pledge to not hire any Federalist Society people and fire the ones all ready in office.

If we do that, how are we any better than the GOP? Being a Federalist should not disqualify anybody from serving, nor should ACLU membership.

Boxturtle (Not a member of either)

If you belong to a group whoose members provide *cough* legal justifiction for torture then how is going after them any differnt than going after Nazis for war crimes?
This if the President does it its not illegal argument rests more on Might is Right than real law. Our Consitution was made to prevent just this type of thing.
So either we get them, the Hague gets them, or they get away with it. Accountabilty can’t be had if they have infiltrated even the Supreme Court.
Commie ideas, Federalist Society ideas do seek to overthrow the Consitution to get what they want by any means necesary. I morally draw the line there. The extremism in the defence of Liberty is not a vice argument is wrong especialy when we disagree about what is Liberty.

Hmmmm…this is an interesting story that needs some sunlight:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/16/134949/74

“….Curious, given his less than stellar record in running hospitals that did the same. It is even more curious when you find out his brother John also worked for the State of Florida. It gets downright obscene when you find out that his agency, the AHCA, is now one of several investigating WelCare his most recent previous employer.

What does all of this mean? Well, it certainly means there is some corruption to be exposed in the REPUBLICAN administration in Florida. Depending on how well it gets exposed it will leave a black eye. Depending on how deep the wound is, it will make Florida that much more ripe for the Dems in 2008. If the Dems win Florida, they are almost assured of the Presidency……”

looseheadprop @ 45

cboldt @ 34

– There’s a report hitting the wires that a court has ruled that the government can use ’state secret’ as an excuse to not reveal wiretapping information. –
.

links from HowAppealing, including a couple avenues to the 9th Circuit opinion. I’ve just started to read, but the short version is that while TSP isn’t “state secret,” the fact that al Haramin was personally surveilled is a matter of state secret. Without evidence of being personally surveilled, al Haramin lacks standing (no proof of harm). The Circuit Court remands with instructions to the District Court to rule on the legal theory of FISA somehow preempting “state secret.”

.

Caveat, that’s based on a very hurried (

I only read the holding synopsis at the very beginning, but LOVE this opinion.

Remember, “States Secrets” is a comon law doctrine. Common law is usually trumped by Statute to the contrary.

And the case is being remanded for a determination of whether FISA trumps common law States secrets. The question will be do these two legal doctrines occupy the same space? If so, FISA wins.

This seems to be a very helpful developement. Not saying I know how the remand will turn out, but I like this development. I alsi think it seems fair, but I haven’t read it carefully

LHP – I agree that the panel sure seems open to the FISA theory, and that is not a bad thing at all. But from what I have been able to discern about “the document”, I cannot for the life of me figure out how they think states secrets is correctly applied to it here. It is a freaking call log. Redact the irrelevant other numbers etc. and let al Haramain have his standing. I used to know mike Hawkins a bit, and i trust him pretty far; but I just don’t get the decision on the damn call log. At least the suit is still alive; i guess I should be content with that….

I’m hoping that this is an appropriate letter to Harry Reid:

Dear Senator Reid,

As Senate Majority Leader, you will soon be engaged in deliberations about whether to give the major telecom companies retroactive immunity for their cooperation with the current Administration in letting the Government have access to the private records of thousands of Americans without warrants or probable cause. On its face, this is, by definition, unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, if the President had wanted to access the information legally, there are steps that could have been taken to lawfully proceed. However, the President chose to acquire the information that he wanted by Presidential fiat, and he is now trying to co-opt your approval in making Presidential whim into the law of the land.

This matter is currently in the courts. If Judges see fit to dismiss cases because they find that the telecom companies acted in good faith, that’s a verdict I’m willing to accept, because the court did its job of acting as impartial, objective observers who can interpret the laws. I am not willing to accept a pass from one of the principals with collaboration from a legislative branch that sees fit to legitimize the President’s actions retroactively to their own detriment. You will be publicly saying that whatever the President does is legal simply because he did it. You will be placing the President of the United States above the law. This single act turns the rule of law and the balance of power in our government on their ears.

The Congress is being asked to erode the power of the Judiciary, and to weaken its own legal standing as a co-equal branch of government. The question is, do you want to go down in history as the Majority Leader that let the Legislative Branch of Government as well as the Judiciary Branch become subservient to the Executive Branch of Government? Thank you for your time and consideration.

eCAHNomics @ 11 – the Arar case has always been shocking to me and I can never understand why no one mentions the DIRECT (not some wishy washy legal opinion that solicits someone to go off and torture or conspire to torture, but the DIRECT) participation by the top lawyers at DOJ in making sure that Arar was sent to torture and the direct participation of the top lawyers at DOJ in making sure there was a “State Secrets” invocation and cover up of their activities.

Every time I don’t buy a Pepsi product I think of Larry Thompson.

perris @ 54

my posts seem to be winding up in never land, gonna try this one again

we’ve been saying we’re the ones causeing the problems in Iraq and now the british generals are going after bush with the same meme

from think progress;

British General: Our Presence ‘Instigated’ Violence In Iraq, ‘90 Percent’ Reduction After Withdrawal
After Britain partially withdrew forces from southern Iraq in September, the White House slandered its “closest ally,” claiming “British forces have performed poorly in Basra” and suggested “it’s best that they leave.”

The White House should take notice of what has happened in Basra as British troops have left. According to Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, commander of British forces in Basra, the presence of British troops instigated violence. Now, violence has reportedly dropped to one-tenth that of earlier levels:

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.

“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?,’” Binns said.

Sectarian tensions in Basra, a predominantly Shiite city, are not as high in other parts of Iraq, but “it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops.” British Defense Secretary Des Browne observed last month:

The people of that city are no longer subject to the significant level of violence that was directed against the British forces and our allies.

Perfect Talking point against America needing to keep troops in Iraq. I just hope the Dem Presidential candidates are watching.

bmaz @ 55

cboldt, Looseheadprop and all concerned – This is interesting. The 9th Circuit entered an order severing the consolidated Hepting case, but made no other determination whatsoever on Hepting as far as I can tell. Wonder whats up on Hepting?

What’s even weirder, is it doesn’t say if the severance is on motion by a party, is sui sponte (on hte court’s own motion) or what the purpose of he severance might be.

Very weird order

Thanks for that analysis, lhp @ 45. I’ve been hoping the Ninth Circuit would come down with its pending ruling on these spying cases in time to affect the FISA debate in Congress, although I could see it impacting negatively as well as positively.

Dianne Feinstein was just worriedly mouthing “common law” and concerns about state secrets in the SJC meeting, while hesitating about whether the telecom companies should have obeyed the “highest levels” (of the Executive Branch alone, which Feinstein calls “the government”), in connection with how she might compromise on the immunity provisions via a Specter “substitute” (we, the people in place of the ‘innocent, patriotic’ corporations as defendants) amendment, or with some other “out” for the corporations short of full immunity. She hasn’t done “due diligence” yet on those alternatives, she said, and I hope this Ninth Circuit Opinion helps her (and others) come down on the side of FISA and equal justice under the law (FISA) that was written and passed in the 1970s (when AT&T was our only phone company) to clarify the exact concerns she was expressing yesterday.

Rockefeller, on the other hand, seems to be absolutely a lost cause, and the Democrats will have to resist his efforts to sabotage any unity in the caucus (and to undercut Harry Reid’s honoring of Chris Dodd’s hold) to have a chance at a no-immunity FISA bill.

looseheadprop @ 69

bmaz @ 55

cboldt, Looseheadprop and all concerned – This is interesting. The 9th Circuit entered an order severing the consolidated Hepting case, but made no other determination whatsoever on Hepting as far as I can tell. Wonder whats up on Hepting?

What’s even weirder, is it doesn’t say if the severance is on motion by a party, is sui sponte (on hte court’s own motion) or what the purpose of he severance might be.

Very weird order

Good point. I assumed sua sponte, but there is no firm indication of that.

Mary @ 67

eCAHNomics @ 11 – the Arar case has always been shocking to me and I can never understand why no one mentions the DIRECT (not some wishy washy legal opinion that solicits someone to go off and torture or conspire to torture, but the DIRECT) participation by the top lawyers at DOJ in making sure that Arar was sent to torture and the direct participation of the top lawyers at DOJ in making sure there was a “State Secrets” invocation and cover up of their activities.

Every time I don’t buy a Pepsi product I think of Larry Thompson.

Well, I’m on the edge of my seat jonesing to know what’s in that IG report

selise @ 62

JulieWaters @ 59

You TOTALLY rock. I’ll try importing into my Powerbook in just a moment.

Have you put this in a KOS diary?

NO!!!

still testing… there’s a lot of different mail programs out there – the last thing i want to do is put up something that doesn’t work for people.

Fair enough :)

Anyway, it works on my Powerbook. Very spiffy.

looseheadprop @ 72

Mary @ 67

eCAHNomics @ 11 – the Arar case has always been shocking to me and I can never understand why no one mentions the DIRECT (not some wishy washy legal opinion that solicits someone to go off and torture or conspire to torture, but the DIRECT) participation by the top lawyers at DOJ in making sure that Arar was sent to torture and the direct participation of the top lawyers at DOJ in making sure there was a “State Secrets” invocation and cover up of their activities.

Every time I don’t buy a Pepsi product I think of Larry Thompson.

Well, I’m on the edge of my seat jonesing to know what’s in that IG report

We can probably make it up from what we already know about “senior Justice Dept officials.” It’s all to avoid prosecution. My god, I hope we get them some day.

Severing al Haramain makes sense, because that is the only case before the court where the plaintiff has held a hard copy of a state secret, and still holds a mental copy of it. It’s severed off to make the legal rule that reconstruction of a mental image is also violative of state secret, and the evidence remains precluded.
.
But I’m not sure the FISA-preemption route is much help. It’s going to have a similar boot strapping problem. How does al Haramain get the right to discovery under FISA? Isn’t this already cut-off by the running of the course in the criminal case? The government hasn’t relied on any surveillance that amounts to an admission it surveilled al Haramain, so what’s the basis for obtaining discovery?
.
I see the same “standing” dead end, just with a different name.

I must say that If I were Al Gore, I wouldn’t attend,

Al Gore goes to the White House. White House spokesman Tony Fratto announced today that “on Monday, November 26th, the President will host the 2007 U.S. recipients of Nobel Prizes, the Nobel Laureates.” As the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore will be in attendance. AJC’s Ken Herman writes, “Should be an interesting reunion of a couple of buddies from the 2000 presidential campaign and its historic aftermath.” 3:55 pm | Comment (1)

-from thinkprogress

JulieWaters @ 73

selise @ 62

NO!!!

still testing… there’s a lot of different mail programs out there – the last thing i want to do is put up something that doesn’t work for people.

Fair enough :)

Anyway, it works on my Powerbook. Very spiffy.

excellent! thanks for the feed back….

its just that i’m hoping for some testing first.

72 -
I think the report probably goes more than out of its way to whitewash a lot of things, yet per Horton (link @ 11) it still seems:

IG investigators were astonished particularly by what transpired in the first ten days of Arar’s detention. Well-defined procedures were not followed. The State Department was consciously kept out of the loop. Steps were taken to circumvent Arar’s rights, and particularly to guard against the prospect that a lawyer for Arar would challenge his highly dubious treatment through a habeas corpus proceeding. Who was at fault in this process? A group of very senior figures, mostly in the U.S. Department of Justice.

Justice Department figures, and particularly those who are fingered and criticized in the early drafts of the IG Report, have been frantic in their efforts to quash it. And they’re succeeding. That, I am told, is why the IG Report has not been finalized and transmitted to Congress

There was a lot of the story told in the pleadings Arar filed and even in the summary judgement rendered.

If I’d filed any affidavits or made in any in court representations in connection with that case for Gov, once up on a time I’d have been spinning wheels, wondered about my duties to inform the tribunal with candor, my duties to make diligent inquiry, and my remaining duties to advise the tribunal of any updates to facts on which my claims were based.

I keep thinking of his kid’s faces and the fact that he had a tough wife, resources and a decent government behind him – all the others who have been just flat disappeared at DOJ solicitation from third world countries and with abandoned children (or having their children disappeared too, like KSM’s) and abandoned spouses and years of unchecked abuse and torture – it can all happen any time, but it thrives in a democracy only when those with the veneer of respectability lend themselves to it.

BTW – Mary Jo White had an interesting pro-waterboarding op ed. Hey, how’s a person supposed to know not to waterboard – aka Chinese Water Torture – without a law. Horton’s got a piece up on that too – seems maybe precedent might be a clue if you completely failed the moral compass test.

A couple of people have asked about Whitehouse’s vote in the Intelligence Committee on telecom immunity. During the FISA hearing on C-Span which I watched last night, I learned that Senator Whitehouse is not satisfied with either option: retroactive telecom immunity or the Feingold Amendment stripping it from the bill. I got the impression he wants to see what develops when the bill is debated on the floor. So, he’s actually “soft” on telecom immunity.

In the same hearing, there was also an interesting back and forth between Whitehouse and Kyl on the question of whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens abroad.

Mary @ 78
Yeah, Mary Jo white & Mukasey both. They used to be in my “solid citizen” category stemming from WTC I prosecution. They are now both officially moved into “flake” category.

BTW – by once upon a time I meant before it became clear that apparently if you work at DOJ, you have no duty to tell the courts the truth.

79 – I can see Whitehouse being, on the one had, concerned that if someone really did reasonably rely on what DOJ was telling them, they perhaps should be protected and I’m sure that’s the end all and be all slant of what he has heard to date. I’m guessing there hasn’t been much from the “here’s what they actually knew, should have known, etc.” front that has been tendered by anyone to give him the counterpoint to why they couldn’t reasonably have relied on DOJ to be truthful.

80 – Mary Jo White is who Scheuer went to for advice on how to start up the Clinton administration program to kidnap and deliver to torture countries – not to bring back here for trial.

It gives a bit of a vested interest in saying what kind of consequences you think should attach to the commission of torture or conspiracy to render to torture. IMO, FWIW.

Mary @ 82

80 – Mary Jo White is who Scheuer went to for advice on how to start up the Clinton administration program to kidnap and deliver to torture countries – not to bring back here for trial.

It gives a bit of a vested interest in saying what kind of consequences you think should attach to the commission of torture or conspiracy to render to torture. IMO, FWIW.

Very interesting. For years I tuned out whenever Rs said, “But Cliton did it.” However, the more I learn about what he was actually up to, that flew much below my radar screen, the more I am coming to loath him. And his wife will do it in spades. I hae been saying that she’s W-lite, but thinking of taking off the “lite.”

P.S. Mary
I don’t hold Scheuer in very high esteem either.

Seems like they were serious about dealing with terrorism, just not very smart about it, and certainly not within any rule of law tradition that might make U.S. proud.

Thank you very much, Steve @ 51 for that CQ link:

The Judiciary Committee ostensibly voted to send its version to the Senate on a 10-9 party-line vote Thursday, with several committee members voting by proxy. But committee rules dictate that a majority of members actually present must vote in favor for a question to carry. It was unclear Thursday night whether a majority of senators actually in the room had done so.

To avoid potential challenges going forward, Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., scheduled a quick meeting off the Senate floor Friday morning to take a second vote. The committee ratified its decision by voice vote.

That explains what Harry Reid meant when he said the SJC “finished” the bill “this morning.” I was a bit concerned about that oblique reference. But in fact they just ratified Thursday’s action, and this time I saw the close of yesterday’s meeting on C-SPAN – they had definitely adjourned without action on Specter’s rather useless (because State Secrets-friendly) substitute amendment. Specter voted against the final vote out of committee by saying “No to the railroad” because no vote was held on his proposal. Ironically, the reason for that seemed to be that Feinstein announced she had to leave for a meeting with Chertoff re the SF oil spill, and so Leahy took the opportunity before she left (with 10 Senators present) to call for a vote on final passage of Title I alone as a substitute for the Intelligence Committee bill, and then quickly shut down the meeting.

selise @ 14

a few days ago when christy asked us to fax the members of the senate judiciary committee, i though it would be useful to make a file of congress contact info to share.

I’ve done the senate… It’s in the form of a vCard file that can be imported into most (I think) email/address book programs on pcs and macs – but so far only ann in az (pc) and newtonusr (mac) have tested the file for me. With newtonusr’s help I now have it posted for download (many tech difficulties because of the file type).

if any firepups think it might be useful to them and want to test it – that would be great. you can download it from here. after downloading it, you’ll have to double click on it to convert it to vCard (it’s a zip file) and import it into your addressbook. feed back, suggestions, corrections welcomed. i don’t want to go through the effort of doing the same thing for the house of representatives until i know the senate data is correct and in a useful format.

Anyway, I though it would be especially useful for faxing or mailing our congress critters when christy asks us to contact more than one or two.

Thanks for this lots. ((((Selise))))

85 – interesting. I think Leahy and Dodd and Feingold can’t get enough credit for what they are at least trying. Remains to be seen on pretty much everyone else.

eCAHNomics, I do respect Scheuer although not all the decisions made. He at least is willing to put the problems out there and tried to get them addressed and people to take action to give them approaches other than disappearing into torture. We need to be having that discussion and focus (it’s part of what I had way back on the first FISA thread yesterday about how you can’t graft everything you might conceivably want to do for some illdefined “GWOT” onto things that were meant for something else – like FISA.

In the Clinton admin, they did go pick up someone like Yousef and actually bring him back here for trial – that’s a more normal “rendition” A replacement for extradition, but for the same purpose, using different mechanics. At least, IMO that’s how it defines out.

What they also did during the Clinton administration was to cut a deal with Egypt (which spawns a lot of terrorists) that they would go get people and Egypt would take them, at least the Egyptians. And Egypt would paper it up with charges and things before they were turned over, if there were not any already out there. So based on that deal (which, if Egypt was doing the pick up directly of suspects against whom it had warrants but who were in other countries, would have been somekind of a more normal rendition) the CIA picked up a few suspects and shipped them to Egypt to be permanently jailed or executed.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlinewo…..dates.html

Covert extraordinary rendition began as a systematic tactic on September 22, 1995, with the capture of terrorist Abu Talal al-Qasimi in Croatia; he was later transferred to Egypt for execution. The largest pre-9/11 CIA rendition occurred in 1998, when five suspects in Albania and Bulgaria were captured and rendered to Egypt. Two were hanged without trial; all were brutally tortured.

White, Scheuer and anyone involved whould have known that conspiring to send someone to Egypt for torture and taking steps to make that happen would have been a violation of the Torture Conventions and open up the Torture Victims Act avenue as well.

More importantly, it was no secret in the ME or among the Egyptian dissidents, who had been more focused on overthrowing the Egyptian gov than on the US, about the US involvement and right before the Embassy bombings (right after the rendtion to Egypt), Zawahiri sent out a message to an arab paper in London, saying that his group had received the message the US sent when it engaged in that kidnapping with the subsequent tortures and executions – - and that he was sending a message back in a language we would understand.

The bombings may well have taken place anyway (they seemed to have being planned well before the renditions), but the motivation for someone to be a suicide bomber comes from a lot of different sources, but one has to be some fervent reaction to perceived injustice and the Albanians and their treatment were high profile in the ME. And then there’s the shipping of al-Libi to be tortured to order so that he would say what Cheney wanted. YOu can’t really say this country has been well served by the results of either of those renditions to torture.

What the Bush adminsitration tacked on was the concept of kidnapping and sending people simply where they could be disappeared into torture and where there were no legal proceedings/warrants issued and no trials contemplated. Whether it was our black sites, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, etc. – there were no warrant, no trials contemplated, just torture.

That’s why, IMO, you can’t really call them renditions at all (not even extraordinary renditions) bc the so-called “rendition” is not standing in to do what extradition would have done. No trial anywhere is contemplated. Instead, it’s just a Pinochet type disappearing of people into abuse.

The Arar IG report is interesting, too, bc Arar indicated that while he was being held in Syria (which had no warrant for him and was just torturing him as a favor to the US) a big chunk of the population in his torture wing were there courtesy of the US. Not just Arar – but others.

BlueStateRedHead @ 86

selise @ 14

a few days ago when christy asked us to fax the members of the senate judiciary committee, i though it would be useful to make a file of congress contact info to share.

I’ve done the senate… It’s in the form of a vCard file that can be imported into most (I think) email/address book programs on pcs and macs – but so far only ann in az (pc) and newtonusr (mac) have tested the file for me. With newtonusr’s help I now have it posted for download (many tech difficulties because of the file type).

if any firepups think it might be useful to them and want to test it – that would be great. you can download it from here. after downloading it, you’ll have to double click on it to convert it to vCard (it’s a zip file) and import it into your addressbook. feed back, suggestions, corrections welcomed. i don’t want to go through the effort of doing the same thing for the house of representatives until i know the senate data is correct and in a useful format.

Anyway, I though it would be especially useful for faxing or mailing our congress critters when christy asks us to contact more than one or two.

Thanks for this lots. ((((Selise))))

you are most welcome! i’m still making a few changes and trying to make it compatible to programs other than mine (addressbook and entourage)… it hope it will be ready for primetime by tomorrow.

thanks to everyone who was willing to test it out. much appreciated.

“79 – I can see Whitehouse being, on the one had, concerned that if someone really did reasonably rely on what DOJ was telling them, they perhaps should be protected and I’m sure that’s the end all and be all slant of what he has heard to date. I’m guessing there hasn’t been much from the “here’s what they actually knew, should have known, etc.” front that has been tendered by anyone to give him the counterpoint to why they couldn’t reasonably have relied on DOJ to be truthful.” Mary

Mary – I emailed Whitehouse the AT&T Mark Klein interview for that very reason, and then called his office about it. Mark Klein was on Capitol Hill last week and met with some of the senators but I don’t know who exactly.

Sheuer is a nasty guy with a crew cut and a smile who thinks the world is out to get us and we gotta do what we gotta do. Basically a lawless thug like so many in the CIA who think the laws are for others.

He’s scum.

Selise,

I use gmail and palm desktop for an address book. Can I play?

SanderO @ 91

Selise,

I use gmail and palm desktop for an address book. Can I play?

i think so…newtonusr tried the first file with palm desktop and he said it worked.

… but you’ll have to tell me! i’m hoping that people with different systems will give it a try and let me know if they have any problems.

mary, pow wow, eCAHNomics et al.,

even though i’m not commenting (i just don’t have anything to add), i’m appreciating all there is to learn from the conversation you-all are having. thanks!

bmaz @ 43

Hugh @ 33

… Via wiki, he studied Japanese, was in the Peace Corps, and was friends with Bobby Kennedy.

…

Hugh – I met Rockefeller at a in the early 80s at a function for Mo Udall, who I worked with a bit at the time. Rockefeller was Governor of WV at the time, and this appearance with Udall, Robert Redford, Ted Kennedy and some other notables was the national rollout of his campaign for the 1984 Senate seat he eventually won. He was very shy and almost uncomfortable with the power and limelight; but seemed very bright and very committed to the RFK type of agenda. My thought at the time was that he was a decent and intelligent chap, but a total wuss that needed to toughen up a whole lot. I don’t think he is a bad guy, he just never outgrew the “wuss factor” and got steamrolled into the village and away fro the legacy of RFK.

I agree with that assessment and would like to add that I met him briefly at a social function in 1968 and he was exactly the same then as you describe and as he seems to be today. Also, he studied economics at the London School of Economics (the best money can buy).

Being from a wealthy family, but having some liberal tendencies makes him more complicated. But, I do think he’s genuine and sincere and not a Bush tool.

Can’t have Schoolhouse Rock without The Simpsons’ response:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOlrHfgfUGw

pow wow @ 70

Thanks for that analysis, lhp @ 45. I’ve been hoping the Ninth Circuit would come down with its pending ruling on these spying cases in time to affect the FISA debate in Congress, although I could see it impacting negatively as well as positively.

Dianne Feinstein was just worriedly mouthing “common law” and concerns about state secrets in the SJC meeting, while hesitating about whether the telecom companies should have obeyed the “highest levels” (of the Executive Branch alone, which Feinstein calls “the government”), in connection with how she might compromise on the immunity provisions via a Specter “substitute” (we, the people in place of the ‘innocent, patriotic’ corporations as defendants) amendment, or with some other “out” for the corporations short of full immunity. She hasn’t done “due diligence” yet on those alternatives, she said, and I hope this Ninth Circuit Opinion helps her (and others) come down on the side of FISA and equal justice under the law (FISA) that was written and passed in the 1970s (when AT&T was our only phone company) to clarify the exact concerns she was expressing yesterday.

Rockefeller, on the other hand, seems to be absolutely a lost cause, and the Democrats will have to resist his efforts to sabotage any unity in the caucus (and to undercut Harry Reid’s honoring of Chris Dodd’s hold) to have a chance at a no-immunity FISA bill.

I think their tendency, and maybe Jay has more of this than other Dems, is to protect the telecoms who were doing what their government asked just after 9/11. However, with our help and perhaps some of their own work, they’ve come to realize the problem of how to structure this law is thornier than they’d originally thought. I have to admit I would be in a quandary myself, trying to justify ‘no immunity’ while still saying the government doesn’t have to have a court order before getting the spying going.

Just how should it work?