Dems in Congress Moving Now to Spy on Americans, Reward Telecoms

The Democratic-led Congress, with the support of key House leaders, is moving quickly to expand unconstitutional spying authority on Americans and reward telecoms for breaking the law. As the ACLU's chief lobbyist, Caroline Fredrickson, points out in an email alert:

A sham spying "compromise" similar to the one we warned you about last week could be rammed through both the Senate and House this week. It's moving that fast.

Will you write today and let your elected officials know Americans want them to stand up for our privacy?

In a proposal that makes a mockery of the rule of law, telecom companies that broke the law by supplying mountains of personal information to the government without a warrant will be let off the hook.

Here's what Senators Feingold and Dodd had to say about Senator Bond's proposal, which is very similar to what we expect in the coming days:

"Under the Bond proposal, the result of the FISA Court's evaluation would be predetermined... the FISA court would be required to grant immunity."

Tell your members of Congress to reject a sham immunity "compromise."

There's a deeply disturbing premise behind this dangerous FISA legislation: The president simply had to claim his request was legal for immunity to be granted to telecom companies that illegally handed over personal information.

No matter how illegal, offensive or intrusive a company's invasion of your privacy has been, it won't make a difference, because if the president gave the company a note claiming their behavior was legal, they're completely off the hook.

Congress needs to reject this sham for what it is and insist on real accountability for telecommunications companies that broke the law.

Tell your members of Congress you demand accountability, not immunity!

Throughout the extended FISA debate, you and the ACLU have worked tirelessly to protect personal privacy and the rule of law. Together, we've given the Bush administration a run for their money, defeating a number of freedom-stealing proposals. Don't let Congress cave in now.

Thanks for all you do in defense of freedom.

The Web's most aggressive journalist covering civil liberties abuses, Glenn Greenwald of Salon, is also working with a coalition of organizations and activists to raise money for broadcast ads targeting those members of Congress who are accomplices to this apparent hijacking of the Constitution. Greenwald writes:

Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

It is now definitively clear that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is the driving force behind a bill -- written by GOP Sen. Kit Bond -- to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to vest lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty. Even as his office dishonestly denies that he is doing so, still more reports yesterday -- this one from the NYT and this one from Roll Call (sub req'd) -- confirm that a so-called "compromise" is being spearheaded by Hoyer and the House Democratic leadership. The ACLU and EFF are holding a joint call tomorrow to denounce Hoyer's "compromise" as nothing more than disguised guaranteed immunity for telecoms and, further, because "the proposed deal could be used to authorize dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

As a result, there is a major new campaign beginning today aimed at Hoyer and a handful of other key members of Congress who enable telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping. In order to raise as much money as possible for this campaign -- far more than the $85,000 raised (and still being spent) in Chris Carney's district as a result of his support for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- we are working to create an alliance with numerous organizations and factions across the ideological spectrum which oppose civil liberties erosions, as well as with as many blogs as possible (modeled vaguely after the ideologically diverse alliance that has arisen in Britain in opposition to the sprawling and lawless surveillance state there).

We hope to announce details about the participating individuals and groups very shortly, as well as the exact details of what we're doing. But given the time pressures, it's vital to be able to have as many resources as possible, as quickly as possible, for this campaign. The more money raised, the greater the disruptive impact will be.

For the moment, contributions can be made here. All the money raised will be spent exclusively on ad campaigns aimed at the short-term vulnerabilities of those in Congress responsible for delivering this indescribably tyrannical package of surveillance powers to the President and the accompanying corrupt gift to lawbreaking telecoms.

Last year, I wrote about the way the civil liberties community and progressive bloggers were hoodwinked into a slow response to the Congressional cave-in on FISA and warantless spying on Americans. They've learned their lessons, but the question is: will the rest of the progressive community care enough to respond during this constitutional crisis?

UPDATE: The New York Times offers a strongly-worded editorial opposing this legislation today:

This week, the White House and Democratic and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill hope to announce a "compromise" on a domestic spying bill. If they do, it will be presented as an indispensable tool for protecting the nation's security that still safeguards our civil liberties. The White House will paint opponents as weak-kneed liberals who do not understand and cannot stand up to the threat of terrorism.

The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.

Comments

[bgregs]

@Michale32086

"That's 132 people (give or take) that would be privy to information that, if revealed, could mean the deaths of hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of innocent people."

And for what it's worth, when I was in the US Navy I was a member of the groups that had a clearance. Between all the groups on the ship there were more people than this who had access to information from Confidential to above Top Secret. If any one of those people had said something to even a family member, the ship could have been successfully attacked, and since there were more than 6,000 men and women on that ship.......

[Michale32086]

What's your point??

Are you saying it is completely and 100% impossible for info sent to FISA to be compromised??

Michale....

[bgregs]

No, I'm saying that since there was no one on that ship who was compromised, and I haven't heard of ANY Navy ship in recent times who had compromised security. There are a lot more people in the Navy with a lot of sensitive information than there are in the FISC, and that the FBI and other agencies signing off on the clearances focus MUCH more on making sure that something like FISC is secure!

[Michale32086]

By the bi.... Did you notice the headline at the top of the HUFFPO page??

"House Dems Capitulate On FISA, Telecom Immunity"

Everyone in your government is telling you that these new rules are needed to prosecute the war on terror..

What part of that do you not understand???

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Just because the democrats have caved doesn't mean that it's right! It just means that they are weak!

[Michale32086]

All these people are "caving". People who know INFINITELY more about the situation and the issues than you do..

And you are claiming that ALL OF THEM are wrong and YOU are right???

Jeesh.. And they call ME arrogant... :^/

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

>That's one tiny portion of the constitution,
>and it specifically lists the times that the
>writ may be suspended. Since NEITHER
>of those scenarios is happening NOW,
>however, I would say that the writ is in
>FULL EFFECT!!!

While it can be argued as to whether we are in a national emergency or not, the simple fact is you made the claim that the US CONSTITUTION can "NEVER" be suspended..

I have just proved you wrong...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

>That's one tiny portion of the constitution,
>and it specifically lists the times that the
>writ may be suspended. Since NEITHER
>of those scenarios is happening NOW,
>however, I would say that the writ is in
>FULL EFFECT!!!

While it can be argued as to whether we are in a national emergency or not, the simple fact is you made the claim that the US CONSTITUTION can "NEVER" be suspended..

So let's look at this, shall we? In my statement I point out how the suspension clause applies only to the writ of Habeas Corpus, since in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2) it specifically states that the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED, UNLESS.....

In YOUR statement we see that you have confused the difference between a single clause, from a single section, from a single article of the constitution, and the WHOLE DAMN THING!!!

So you see, you have failed to prove anything, since I never said that a portion of the Constitution could not be suspended, because I KNEW that Habeas Corpus could be suspended during times of rebellion and times of invasion. Since NOWHERE in the suspension clause does it say the words "National Emergency", but it DOES mention the words "INVASION", and "REBELLION", that would mean that we can ONLY suspend Habeas Corpus (NOT the Constitution) during times of INVASION, or times of REBELLION. Which, if you go back to my original statement, you will see that I said!!

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

>Oh, OKAY, if it's from a TEXTBOOK, well then I
>guess that WE'RE all out of our league here!!

Yea, pretty much..

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Yeah, cause we all know that textbooks (especially ones written recently!) are NEVER wrong!

Oh, wait, I'm looking at my son's math book, and it says that 2+2=5..... Oh well, I guess that textbooks can be fallible...

[Michale32086]

"Oh, wait, I'm looking at my son's math book, and it says that 2+2=5....."

I suggest you get your son to a new school.. :^/

Tell ya what...

Let's approach this from a different angle..

With calm and logic, explain to me what you would do with the hundreds of potential terrorists in Gitmo.

Michale.....

[hhkeller]

What the difference between and Democrat or Republican?
Nothing. No difference at all. And most voters are dopes.
Except that the Democrats are liers and the Republicans are true to their treasonous words.
Even Obama supports spying on Americans.

[Michale32086]

So, what does that tell you??

If nearly your entire government supports something as necessary for the security of this country, is it SLIGHTLY possible that ALL of them are right and you are wrong??

Hmmmmm??? Slightly possible???

Michale.....

[bgregs]

If nearly your entire government supports something like this, is it slightly possible that ALL of them are in collusion and wrong, and that you are right????

Hmmmmmmm????? Slightly possible?

[bgregs]

By the way, I'm also being told by the ENTIRE oil industry that there's nothing to be done about the high price of gasoline, since the price of oil is so high, and never mind the record profits that they are making with flat sales, it's just necessary. Are you saying that I should just trust THEM, too???? I'm just wondering, because I tend not to believe anybody when they tell me something is some way in a way which will benefit them......

[charon]

>Michale32086: Actually, I know from first hand and second hand experience that coercive >interrogations is effective in producing actionable intel..

So, Mchale32086 is an experienced torturer? Of whom, the girls walking the streets for him, or ones he picks up? What a morally bankrupt person, trying to pass himself off as a good American. In fact, he is just another good ol' American torturer.

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

>NO! The constitution may not, under any
>circumstances, EVER be suspended.

I have already proven you wrong in this regard..

Check "Suspension Clause" of the US Constitution.

Relevant portions of the US Constitution CAN and HAVE been suspended in times of national emergency.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Funny, I don't find a "suspension clause" in my reading of the constitution! Imagine that!

[MichaIe32086]

@bgregs

It is right there in President Bush's signing statement @ the bottom right of our constitution and also in the Patriot Act.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Oh, and I just read the rest of this. Yo point out that "relevant portions" can be and have been suspended. What you are talking about, I assume, is the same point you brought up earlier about Habeas Corpus. And yet, when I read the relevant portion of the Constitution, it reads something like this:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Which I find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_Clause (BTW, I did find the suspension clause, which ONLY applies to the writ of habeas corpus!!!)

Now then, since we are not being invaded, NOR are we in the middle of a rebellion, that kind of NEGATES your entire argument, doesn't it??????

[Michale32086]

No... Your argument is that the US Constitution cannot be suspended under ANY conditions..

I simply proved you wrong..

Michale

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

>The fact that they haven't hit us yet since
>then doesn't mean that bush has succeeded,
>it means that they simply haven't TRIED yet!

And you base that totally ludicrous bit of information on....What???

If you honestly think that terrorists haven't tried again, then you are really really REALLY uninformed..

My guess would be intentionally so...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

I base that information on the fact that we not only haven't been hit, but that I haven't heard any credible attempts to hit us. You and I both know that bush would be crowing about it to the WHOLE world if they stopped a credible attack! Hell, they were crowing to the whole world when the British stopped an attack which had NO chance of succeeding (and that's why we can't carry more than 3 oz of liquids in our carryons!) Therefore, I can assume that, since they OBVIOUSLY have not been destroyed, and they still don't like us, that they simply haven't come up with a plan which they think will succeed, plus gotten it through all the planning and preparation stages.

And to assume that they HAVE tried, with no evidence of it, INCLUDING bush, is even MORE idiotic than you claim I'm being!

[Michale32086]

I know for a fact that terrorists HAVE tried other attacks.

The simple fact that you don't even acknowledge those indicates to me the depth of your knowledge over the issue...

Or should I say the LACK of your knowledge..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@egal

>The U.S. Military finds torture to be too
>unreliable to use for any purpose save
>fishing for information from others.

The US Military's mission is considerably different than the mission CT ops.

What may not be feasible for purely military matters does not necessarily transfer over to counter terrorist operations.

You are comparing apples and Eskimos..

Michale.....

[bgregs]

And yet when CT ops torture, they cause problems not only for the military, but for themselves, civilians, ambassadors, corporations, etc.... This is why we haven't done it in a long freaking time!

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

>Once again, it DOESN'T MATTER!
>The original intent of FISA was a
>foreign GOVERNMENT,

Ahhh I see..

So, you go on and on about how FISA was originally designed for terrorism.

Once I prove you wrong, all of the sudden it "DOESN'T MATTER"...

Gotcha..

Suffice it to say that FISA, even in it's modified form as a result of 9/11, is not up to snuff when it comes to dealing with what we face today in the war against terrorism..

It's really as simple as that.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

I'm saying that FISA can work equally well for ANY foreign power or ANY agents of a foreign power, and therefore to simply throw it out because george w doesn't want judicial oversight of his breaking the law is WRONG!!!

[Michale32086]

And I am saying you are wrong..

And, since you have demonstrated your complete and utter ignorance of the issue and the facts, I think it's obvious to all who is right and who isn't..

Don't get me wrong.. There is no insult in being ignorant.

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
-SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK

But there IS dishonor when one pretends to know what you are talking about, when it is obvious from the postings that they do not..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

>That tells me that we've had a complicit
>republican led congress, and a SCOTUS
>which has ignored its own constitutional
>DUTIES!

Don't forget all the Democrats that have supported these measures as well.

So, your argument boils down to "EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG AND I AM RIGHT!!"

Gotcha.. {wink, wink}

Michale.....

[bgregs]

No, my argument boils down to "Everyone who's a lawbreaker in the government is wrong". Perhaps that includes you, since you seem so happy to abandon the constitution so that you can "feel safe"

[MichaIe32086]

Please to those it may concern on this thread, I am sorry for going on and on ranting without thinking, I can after reading much of what I've wrote is not well thoughtout, many time I get quite confused and don't think clearly, sorry for my foolishness.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Ahhhh The impersonations and frogeries are now among us.. :D

I couldn't ask for a better confirmation that my arguments are dead on ballz accurate.. :D

Michale.....

[pmorlan]

I hope everyone also calls the Obama campaign. This is a perfect issue for him to LEAD on.

[phone]

[PioneerKing]

ART:

The democratic members of congress member just don't get it - the democratic members of congress and other democratic politicians at local and state levels, democrats at the DNC and their supporters have been the ones who have been spied upon. That is the reason for the urgency and protecting the telecom industry will not prevent the information that has been gleaned from being used on the democrats.

[lvdragonlady]

Congress better understand, even if there is a democrat as president OUR jobs are not guaranteed. Keep standing down when you should be standing up for the American people is going to cost you your jobs. Yes, Nancy even you. If you do not have the cajones to stand up to shrubie then we will just replace your butt with someone who has some.