Login HereHere it is.
Immunity
As Glenn says, the "immunity" provision here sucks ass. Here's the operative language:
[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that
[snip]
(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was --
(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and
(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
Contrary to what the WSJ suggested, this provision puts no restrictions on whether the directives were authorized by anyone but the President--all it takes to get off scott free, in this bill, is for the President to have said the program was legal, regardless of whether it was or the whether the telecoms should have questioned whether the directives were legal.
Minimization
The minimization rules on this still suck. FISC gets to review the procedures themselves, to make sure they will adequately protect US persons' data. But the FISC does not get to review whether the government is doing what it says it's doing with regards to minimization--the AG and the intelligence branch still get to do that.
Wiretapping Overseas
This bill provides significantly more protection for Americans traveling overseas, requiring an extra level of review before tapping an American traveling abroad.
Wiretapping in the US
This bill has slightly more protections for Americans in the US, prohibiting wiretaps if a communication is intended entirely for people within the US. That's a slight improvement, of course, because the bill still allows the collection of information on--say--an email in which one person is outside the US.
Use of Information
The bill addresses a problem that Russ Feingold identified--what happens to data collected in a program that the FISC subsequently finds improper. Feingold wanted the goverment to have to get rid of this data. This bill strikes a middle ground: it prohibits the government from using such data in a trial or other official hearing. But it still gets to keep the data improperly collected.
Exclusivity
The bill does contain a reasonable exclusivity provision, which virtually guarantees they'll get DiFi's support:
Except as provided in subsection (b), the procedures of chapters 119, 121, and 206 of title 18, United States Code, and this Act shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications may be conducted.
Only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance or the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications, other than as an amendment to this Act or chapters 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, United Staes Code, shall constitute an additional exclusive means for the purpose of subsection (a).
This would seem to prevent the John Yoos of the world from pretending that the AUMF constitued authorization to wiretap.
Review of the Illegal Program
The bill takes an idea included in the House bill--a review of the program to find out what really happened--and dumps that review into the lap of the Inspectors General of the various agencies (the House bill had called for a bipartisan commission). The OPR review of the authorization of the program is included in this. An IG picked by the President and approved by the Senate will, a year after the bill is passed, present an unclassified report on the program (with classified annex). That review cannot name anyone in the private sector involved in the illegal wiretapping.
I'll work on fleshing this out with the bill's language--let me know what you see in the bill in the thread...
Share This 
Spotlight
repost
I called the Obama campaign today and asked Obama to come out publicly against immunity. The person who I talked to said he’d had several calls on this and would pass it along. Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.
866-675-2008 option 6
No answer and no way to leave a message on the above number. When you ask to transfer to an attendant by pressing zero you go back to the original message. IT’s a circle with no way to leave a message. My guess is that his machine is full?? I am going to the web at www.BarackObama.com.
Just letting you know.
This is going to hurt the Dems so bad why would they roll over so many times and then beg?
This is moment where the reason for a two party system is on trial.
Dems cannot be permitted to be complicit in this. All that FISA money just collected won’t do any body any oggd if the vote is over before you can spend it.
This needs immediate action today.
As Christy said earlier
“TO THE PHONES”
so what does this mean for me?
I am a separated parent, but my ex and my son live In Quebec. I often talk about sensitive subjects related to our son over the phone.
How does Stainy’s bill affect me? Will the feds be listening in now?
http://www.barackobama.com/spl.....onate.html
Hopefully this link works.
Looks like we are a breath away from a full unitary executive status.
“(i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful. “
This will cover everything…torture too…
Also, check out what the DOJ said to the Judiciary Committee regarding oversight…they are going after power right and left:
“The House Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction over the White House, and therefore is not entitled to see the documents requested, Nelson goes on. “While we appreciate that the Committee has oversight authority over the Department of Justice,” he went on, “we do not understand how the Committee’s jurisdiction could extend to the alleged conduct at the White House. Nor do we understand how the Committee’s inquiry will cover areas not currently subject to the Oversight Committee’s lengthy investigation.” The Justice Department, not any branch of Congress, Nelson says, is responsible for investigating violations of criminal law.”
http://rawstory.com/news08/200.....ite-house/
What happenned to the “co-equal branches”?
“a breath away” ouch
Seems to me this is Executive Permission Slip legislation. If the president or his assigns gives you a piece of paper that says it is OK to do something that is against the law, then you did not violate the law.
That is not rule of law. That is executive rule as applied by the President through the Permission Slip.
OT Sorry, but for FDLr’s…
Donna Edwards was just sworn in….saw it on CSpan.
Woot Donna and everyone else who has supported her.
She looked really happy.
A good day for US.
Donna speaking to the House now.
If you supported Donna, you should be proud and grateful.
(Okay, there will probably be a whole thread about this….ya think?)
Still can’t get a message left on the number above. The website address does not work as listed in message on the voice machine. Was able to write an email off of his website at the contact us page.
Did the site just become very popular, is there a particularly badly timed backroom glitch, or is there a denial of service attack underway?
You bet they will be listening! Have family in France and Italy and have no doubt every conversation is monitored. Like the recipe for a cassoulet, vacation plans at Lago Maggiore, how the visit to the health spa was, you know those things that are vital to national security. Welcome to the brave new world.
By ’the site’, I mean emptywheel.com.
I just read your comment. So, it got through.
Did you get my comment about Donna Edwards?
wavpeac
Hey the Obama phone number works along with the press option 6. I think it rolls over without an ability to leave a message when the lines are full.
Obama:
866-675-2008 option 6
I would not press 6 until you’ve heard a few of the options. Otherwise, it loops without a pick-up or message repeat.
yes, that’s what it is saying that the lines are full.
I will keep trying.
My reading of the bill suggests that the minute you set foot outside of the U.S., the govt has the right to read all your emails, not just the ones sent while you abroad.
The L.A. Times reported today that Sweden just passed a similar law granting the government rights to electronic surveillance, and the natives are pissed.
Got through. They are getting many calls *g*
from the house rules committee:
my bold.
started 10 minutes ago.
Maybe a bunch of pissed off people tying up the phones?
His office Fax: 202-228-4260
Free online faxing: http://faxzero.com/
If they go ahead and pass FISA, what do we do then???? Eat it??
Calling Obama again. Have spread info to five different blogs
Calling our own Reps too too too! What else? Someone should call into the Diane Rehm show tomorrow ( I have gotten through to many times to count the last seven years) Someone else want to bring up FISA tomorrow during the round up. 10 a.m EST. 1800-433-8850. Also Talk of the Nation today at 2;00 p.m est. 1800- 989 talk. Way to let millions of listeners know what is going on and what to do. Be polite to screeners, clear and to the point. (Dorie at the Diane Rehm show is a real patriot)
LHP EW have all those in the know (you folks) posted all the questions they want congress to be asking Scottie tomorrow? Scottie is tomorrow right?
Can you cite language or section?
I like the way the statute uncouples the President’s ”authorization” of these multiple domestic spying programs from the passively voiced ”determined to be lawful”.
If John Yoo’s analysis is the gold standard for such determinations, ANYTHING the President chose to do he would determine was lawful. This legislation explicitly prevents federal courts from evaluating whether that ”determined to be lawful” was accurate or reasonable or a political flunky blowing smoke out of his ass. In other words, it is a legislative and judicial ”Hands Off!” this entire mess. That’s some pile of puke the Democratic Party is sweeping under the Constitutional rug.
This is craven legislation - and a more craven process - that will haunt the Democrats for a generation. We will no longer measure time ”before and after Shrub” or ”9/11”. It will be measured before and after the Democrats joined the Republicans to make the President a law unto himself.
What else do these law-avoiding Democrats have in store for the voters they think will swallow anything they come up with, so long as it’s not labeled ”GOP”?
CALL YOUR OWN REPS
Can’t someone filibuster?
No one can truly believe that the bypassing provisions of this new bill will be any different than the way they bypassed the old law? Our congress, to even consider such a bill when the sum total of this “war” is an attack by 20 guys is phenomenal.
The fact that this is even being considered is a testament to bribery of congress and our government after a mistake made by the telecoms. what a bailout.
Assuming that was directed at me:
may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
All through the bill, it talks about location at the time of the acquisition even though it clearly applies to stored communications.
I called Obama (my rep, pete stark is a sure NO vote) and got thru to a phone person. He assured me that obama is against immunity and wanted to read me his statement on it. I said, that’s great - but there is backroom backstabbing going on right now with Hoyer - and we need Obama (as presumtive Leader of the Democratic Party) to step in and STOP THIS BULLSHIT right now.
I think he got the message, and he said he would definitely pass it on and took my email for an email response. What else are people saying when they call?
PS:he said they are getting a TON of calls, please keep calling I am crying, I am so upset. I can’t believe they are such assholes…
I called that number….there was no operator available and they were unable to take messages (message system filled up?), so I pressed 0 and got a real person. She was polite and said he is strongly opposed…I said I’d like him to take a leadership position, she said she’d pass it on and that they are logging these calls.
I think the fix is in.
Don’t ever let the Republicans make you cry. They would like that. We need to get our Dems in DC to learn to give back exactly what the Repubs are doing to us. We need to stop all this politically correct and polite stuff and hit them hard right where it hurts the most. I am sick and tired of the comity. It’s just crap.
authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
Who makes the determination as to whether the president’s authorization was lawful?
that reminds me - I told the guy that Obama’s continued silence only told all of us that “THE FIX IS IN”
Sadly, I agree.
BTW, “Margaret”, EW, Pookie…. Thank you so much for all you do. I *cherish* you.
Was on hold for awhile as I called Harry Reid, I hope this means he’s getting lots of calls. I registered my strong disgust for Harry’s support of this abomination.
Just talked to a lovely British accented lady at option 6. I was near tears and told her that if he indeed represent Change we can Believe IN, he will hold a press conference today and tell America what Bush and teh Dem ‘leadership’ is doing behind their backs. I asked if she would give him that message and she said with emotion, “Absolutely. We are getting many calls and will pass this along.” She thanked me sincerely for taking the time to call. I thanked her sincerely for her time and efforts.
Are we sure it is in the Iraq supplemental? Because it is going to be voted on next…today. CSPAN reporting that FISA will be voted on tomorrow.
I know how we can solve the budget problems! Congress does not appear to do much of anything, so we can just get rid of it! After this becomes law, it will be a waste of money to maintain it…
Keep up the action.
Senator Barack Obama
Campaign: 866-675-2008 option 6 keep trying
His office Fax: 202-228-4260 I got through earlier
Nancy Pelosi: Her web page is down, Congress not Speaker. http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
FAX: 202-225-4188
Free online faxing: http://faxzero.com/ (two per day free per email address)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...../539/53848
Congressman Wexler makes a public stand against this travesty -
”I cannot in good conscience support the so-called FISA “compromise” bill, as the only thing that is really being compromised is our civil rights”
Senator Obama to the Authentic Leadership Courtesy Telephone please . . .Senator Obama . . .
Mukasey.
a) What happened on January 17, 2007? (I’ve asked my congresscritter’s staffer to find out and get back to me, but the odds of that are long…)
b) I love you Marcy, but ”This would seem to prevent the John Yoos of the world from pretending that the AUMF constitued authorization to wiretap”? I’ll bet you a Beamish the next time you’re in Beantown that this bill gets a signing statement saying the exclusivity clause ”will be interpreted in accordance with the President’s Constitutional prerogatives under Article I.” There’s an exclusivity clause in the original FISA bill. Why should I think that repeating it will make them pay attention?
I’m thinking that about the only way we are going to get anywhere with this is to start marching on Obama’s offices or on our phone company offices and do something that is going to get us on TV - lots of us, in lots of places all over the US. It is just about torch and pitchfork time, in all awful seriousness.
This country survived centuries of legalized slavery. After that it survived decades of legalized white supremacy. A lot of Americans, women, people of color have routinely been denied their civil rights. I don’t mean in any way to diminish the absolute seriousness of this, but it’s not an excuse to throw in the towel either.
IMHO, the telecoms are just willing stooges. bmaz and many others have pointed out that they have always had all the insulation they need from criminal prosecution. This is about Vichy Dems wanting to bury evidence of their complicity with
President ClusterfuckGeorge Boosh.”Exigent circumstances” that excuse the need to get authorization before starting to surveil a target do not seem to require getting one after the fact. A significant change from current law.
Slow loading, no formatting, except for the little Flash movie ads. Other FDL sites seem OK.
Well, I just told the poor soul at Hoyer’s office that we are going to do everything in our power to take him and the Blue Dogs down so that they will never have the opportunity to do this to America again.
I just received this email from Obama’s office:
Thank you for contacting Obama for America about proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. Senator Obama has opposed this legislation and stood with Senator Dodd, cosponsoring his amendment to remove this special interest provision from the bill that came before the Senate.
Senator Obama believes strongly in accountability, and when he is President, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, Senator Obama will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
Thank you again for contacting us.
The most charitable read I can give this execrable law is that Democrats think they are pulling a President Ford. They are ”pardoning” Bush and partners for the good of the country, to ”put all this behind us”.
I believe that’s a crudely mistaken belief. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was not better for anyone except Nixon, his cronies, and the GOP. It will not be better for anyone now except George Bush and his cronies and the GOP.
Bush has attempted to dress up his rabid expansion of executive power as a ”good faith” attempt to expand surveillance powers ”commensurate with the heightened threats posed by a 9/11 world.” Crap. Cheney wanted to build the strongest executive authority this country has ever seen, which it’s founding laws were explicitly designed to prevent. And Bush said, ”Sure. Can I finish my bike ride first, Uncle Dick?”
This legislation will not allow President Obama, this Congress or the Democrats to start off with a clean slate. It creates its own mess, an awful legacy, and makes it harder to clean out that sofa-sized lump already under the carpet.
Yeah, the Constitution works. It’s just our Legislative, Executive and Judical systems that don’t.
Nice canned response. I’ll deal when I’m Prez.. Do something now Dude!
Invisible Leadership.
Do.Not.Want.
The site is very slow today. I hope that’s a good sign.
Re my comment #50, it seems there is a requirement to submit a request to the FISA court for an authorization within (7) days of commencing a surveillance under the exigent circumstances exception, but it’s in a separate section that purportedly deals with ”minimization”.
So far, I’m not impressed with the drafting or organization of this statute.
I like the idea of groups standing outside the Obama offices around the country staging requests for his leadership on this issue.
I would also like to have our great minds come up with alternative language in this bill.
EOH,
Thank you for your assessment on the language of this bill.
Contact Code Pink they network quickly and are open to ideas
Oh, God NO!!! Having Code Pink involved trivializes an issue and turns more people against it than it converts.
Make no misake LHP your former department is the kernel, the heart and brain, and the facilitator of the vast majority of evil in the torture paradigm, this FISA paradigm, the US Attorney hijack paradigm, and a panoply of other issues frequently discussed here. I know you and Christy have campaigned eloquently and tirelessly particularly considering the many other areas that tug at your time for insight into the workings and to change/stop the malfunctioning and that’s admirable but one thing that is not happening is that outside Main Justice the rank and file AUSAs aren’t batting an eye at any of this. They’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
It that’s so, this “greater good” or good of the country model is a terrible facade and the type of thing that only someone who isn’t plugged into any of this would swallow.
I haven’t wondered before but I do now. I wonder where the legal standing of the signing statements never pushed as prolifically or ridiculously as during this eight years are addressed in code/caselaw or the Constitution.
OLC Memo to Bill Clinton’s Legal Counsel Bernie Nussbaum from OLC
Call Obama’s Senate office!
A human picked up the phone and took my message
202 224-2854
The whole thing makes you start wondering what a Bivens action against members of Congress acting in the capacity of agents of the Executive Branch might read like …
I’ve been on the phone with the office of one of those “freshman” members and wasn’t nearly as nice or calm as I should be. But I agree with EarlOH from below that, with creative lawyering, this legislation INVITES more litigation rather than resolving anything and also doesn’t even make a pretense at stopping Bivens actions (which will have a boatload of damage issues though) and I passed that on to both that office and Hoyer’s office. Couldn’t even get through to Pelosi’s office. Told Hoyer’s guy that what they were trying to slide through was atrocious and that freshman would bear a cost for it.
Oddly, the Freshman’s office confirmed to me that they had JUST JUST JUST this minute received a copy of the bill, so I asked them if it wouldn’t be their position, then, that it was way too fast to try to have it voted on tomorrow. Uh, hmmm,uh, well, we kinda knew things that might be in it, uh, kinda, but, well, we can’t answers questions bc we haven’t seen it, but, um, no, we can’t say it’s too soon to vote on it either.
Whatever.
I immediately got through to this Obama number (866-675-2008 option 6) and spoke to a volunteer named Ryan Weinstock.
The Steny Hoyer 202-225-4131 number worked the first time, too.
8 - ‘What happenned to the “co-equal branches”?’
What happened is that the Democrats in Congress decided to become a part of the criminal wing of the Executive Branch. So we have two co-conspiratorial branches of govt trying to force the third branch to rubber stamp and become a co-equal criminal with them.
I think this is a much larger immunity bill than it appears. In the definitions of ‘intelligence community’ the bill points one to the National Security Act of 1947 (noted on page 5 of the bill). which refers to:
(A) the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, which shall include the Office of the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, the National Intelligence Council (as provided for in section 105(b)(3)), and such other offices as the Director may designate;
(B) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(C) the National Security Agency;
(D) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(F) the National Reconnaissance Office;
(G) other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs;
(H) the intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Energy, and the Coast Guard;
(I) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State;
(J) the elements of the Department of Homeland Security concerned with the analyses of foreign intelligence information; and
(K) such other elements of any other department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community.
Is torture an ‘intelligence gathering technique’? Which the President said was ‘legal’?
All that bull from Obama’s offices about how, when he’s President he’ll be a better boy, is just nothing. Not even pablum.
Is he the party leader or not? Is he ANY KIND of leader or not? If he could find time to go cut ads for Barrows, can he find time to have call his pal Durbin and tell him this IS a caucus isssue and he WILL Whip it and Reid WILL NOT bring it to the floor if passed and they can register any complaints they have with Obama, but it will be done his way and the bill will be killed with immunity.
Or not.
70 - I think you are dead on sailmaker. I think there has been a lot of other crap going and, esp with DIA (D in your post) under the Yoopinions that the military has no rules.
This is to cover a LOT MORE than just the TSP.
And Congress is willing to codify, as law, the proposition that ‘if the President does it, it’s legal.’
Screw the Democrats. I’d rather have Republicans in and have honest fights with them than be stabbed in the back by invertebrate pond scum.
I agree.
Maybe we should take over the Republican party… ;>
If the House does pass this… measure, then what happens next at the Senate? Are the differences from the Senate bill such that it now goes to the Senate floor, or to committee first? Or would it be straight to conference committee?
Not impressed with Obama’s statement. It was all about how he will do better but nothing about holding this president accountable now!! And nothing about HOW he plans to defend the constitution NOW.
I told her that I want him to hold this president accountable and that this issue is so important that it deserves full sunshine and discussion. I told her that this is the ONLY way to fully defend our constitution and to prevent future breaches.
She said “thanks”. I think she was suprised that his statement was not good enough for me.
I was impressed with the unambiguousness of it: He won’t do anything now.
Nevertheless, I tried to make the point on the phone the that he’s not President yet, while it’s not enough to act like just another Senator on this — he has to act and speak as his party’s leader on this one.
866-675-2008 option 6 worked for me
I got through to Obama but his statement is crap. I told him i wanted him to hold this president accountable now and that if he wants to defend the constitution and provide accountability this is the only way to do it.
The volunteer I spoke to read me that statement too, and I said that it was all very well to prevent it in the future, but where the problem lies is in the past, from 9/11 to 1/17/07, and things have suddenly changed because of the capitulation by Hoyer. She was very receptive, and said that she would take what I was saying further immediately.
he’s supposed to the con lawyer. let’s ask him to read the fracking bill himself and explain to us what it means and why it’s ok to let this one slide through.
It really does make a person tired…seeing the constitution fall away in bits and peices.
I told my colleague what was going on…she’s a republican and I just laid out the “problem”…she said “Call McCain he would not want this bill to go through”. I just looked at her. okay, I’ll call McCain. (but not because I have any reason to believe he would lift a finger to stop it.)
People have no clue.
Not surprisingly, while this bill frequently mentions the mantra, ”in compliance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment”, it redefines those requirements away.
Like at p. 14, line 4, where the USG ”is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be
directed or conducted.”
Just for laughs, keep your insides in, the Fourth Amendment reads in its entirety as follows:
”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath. or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Sophistry. Bi-partisan sophistry.
I did like the snark on p. 15, lines 1-5, that require the communications services provider to maintain the secrecy of its cooperation with the government and the services provided to the target. Any concern about limiting interference with services to others caused by such cooperation? Nada.
Oh, and like the Social Security drugs provision that prohibited the USG from bargaining with drugs companies over price, the USG here is to pay communications services providers the ”prevailing rate”. I wonder where the rate for assisting the government in secretly spying on Americans is listed in their product brochures? I’d just like to check that’s it’s not more than I pay for a few bars on my mobile phone.
Joke of the day. From Cboldt:
This is amazing. An affiliate of Blackwater arguing to be judged under Sharia law, for a negligence case flowing from a charter flight that it operated, that killed three US servicemen. This is brass balls!
McMahon v. Presidential - (second) Motion to Dismiss - Doc 145.
“U.S. company: crash lawsuit governed by Islamic law” - newsobserver.com
To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Sharia.
The same defendant, Presidential Airlines, lost its “we’re the government, and are immune” argument before the 11th Circuit.
“U.S. company: crash lawsuit governed by Islamic law”
McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331, 1359 (11th Cir. 2007)
I just got through to Obama’s campaign line and spoke with a nice young man named Sam who assured me that I did not sound like a raving lunatic and that he agreed with me. I told him that Obama has to take a leadership position on this, otherwise he’s losing support.
I did! I feel as if they know that I will call, and I am not eloquent enough. If Glenn can really get a unified organization that would be some help. But the important thing is to have more average citizens aware of this. The people who have written this bill are aware of the pressure which will come from DFH bloggers.
(Leen at 22)
Also, I tried to point out that the kind of immunity which will come from such a scanty review is like agreeing to have immunity in advance. This was weak as I type it.
I have had no success on phone but redial is my friend.
I did send pointed e-mails to Obama and Pelosi.
When do these offices close for the night.
I lurk daily here, and I thank all of you most profoundly
Will calling the DNC help, finding their # now? (anyone)
the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful
What does this imply “determined to be lawful”? Determined By whom? Has to be constitutional to be lawful - Right?
OT — Is it just me, or is there a clear and definite correlation pattern between ew.fdl.com server issues and crucial Congressional activities, Unitary Exec-wise?
The best time line I can give you is from CBoldt:
CBoldt’s Senate Blog Scroll Down to get to the 19th
Just posted a call to help on Triangle Free Forum maybe we’ll get some help form there.
I hope I’m replying to eoh at 83 (I think — no formatting here).
I wasn’t going to say anything because I can’t help although I wish I could, but you brought tears to my eyes when you quoted the Fourth Amendment. I may be an alien, but I’m also a student of the C17-C18, and your Bill of Rights is to me so much the document that all my guys were working towards for so long. It is so noble. And so is your fight here today. Give ’em hell.
(Does anyone know whether some of us should be clearing cookies or just sitting tight until whatever clears up?)
It’s good to lean on Obama for leadership here. I worry that he now has enough support that the prospect of losing those of us who have been paying attention will not give his team much pause.
Anyone who thinks that SCOTUS will save the Constitution’s ass on this bear this in mind: four of the five justices in the majority on the Boumediene decision are over 70, starting with Stevens at 88 and Ginsburg (a cancer survivor, so far) at 75. The youngest, Souter, is coming up on 69. If anyone of them croaks it will almost certainly be a 4/4 split on a lower court ruling in favor of the law as written, in which case it is upheld.
If I’m wrong on this, I’m sure one of the lawyers here will not hesitate to correct me.
Pelosi statement quoted at Glenn’s place:
——————————–
Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. But I have to say this about it: it’s an improvement over the Senate bill and I say that as a strong statement. The Senate bill is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This bill improves upon the Senate bill.
But you probably know that. What you may not know is that it’s improvement over the original FISA bill as well. So it makes progress in the right direction. But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department. So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.
But I’m pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that’s the word I’d looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon. It makes an improvement over current law and the Senate bill in terms of how you can collect on Americans overseas.
It’s an improvement over the Senate bill in terms of – the Senate wanted to say, “Okay, we will agree to exclusivity,” which is, in my view, the biggest issue in the bill, that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the President of the United States. They said, “We will agree to exclusivity, but only a narrow collection of things will fall that that category. Under the rest, the President has inherent authority under the Constitution.” That’s out. That’s out, thank heavens.
And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.
So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I’m sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support.
I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way. On the supplemental, Mr. Obey, as usual his virtuoso self, and Chairman Rangel was masterful in his piece of the legislation. As much as I admire Mr. Murtha, I’m not as enthusiastic about the war part of the bill and will not be supporting it.
Probbly just sit tight because there is usually little you can do to optimize things on your end, and the web guy usually gets diligently onto it. You can always try clearing TIFs (temporary internet files). I doubt this is a cookie influenced issue.
Pelosi can argue it either way, isn’t a lawyer, and made sure the draft came out the evening before it is supposed to be voted on.
What a charlatan. How embarassing that the first woman Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.
From Pat Leahy’s email:
Ummm, Nancy, I know you’re “not a lawyer” but there’s one you could “consult.”
What a shill Nancy is!
46 “What happened on January 17, 2007″
That’s when DOJ found a way to bring the program “within” the FISA court. Then they started getting denials from the FISA court, so they now are asking Congress to make the FISA court give them things they couldn’t get before and keep quiet about it.
I have been away from the computer all day.. Did the House vote already occur?
thanks
yeah .. well try to send Steny Hoyer and email .. lol
Hmmm, during the House floor debate, can some friendly member introduce an amendment changing ’determined to be lawful’ to ’determined by a court of law to be lawful’? Because when that goes down in flames, it will highlight one of the cruxes for all the sleepy reporters.
Then the next friendly can introduce an amendment changing ’determined to be lawful’ to ’determined by the President of the United States to be lawful’ which will both doubly highlight the issue and (it is to be hoped) embarrass some members into voting against the amendment and/or against the bill. But the amendment and then the bill will pass.
Then we have a huge absurdity in the text of the passed bill, which could help trip it up at the Senate, or, in the alternative, help provide grounds for a court challenge after enactment.
Dancin’ as fast as I can, folks.