Action Alert: FISA Debate Continues - Call Your Senators
By Logan Murphy Tuesday Feb 05, 2008 2:01pm Emptywheel has been live blogging the FISA debate in the Senate today, covering the Senators speeches and fact checking the liars:
Jello Jay on bulk collection (time from opponents, this is a Feingold amendment).
Feingold argues amendment will prevent bulk collection by requiring govt to have some foreign intell interest in bulk info. I believe will interfere with legitimate intelligence activities. I do not believe it provides additional protections. There important classified reasons underlying that concern.
Why it's unnecessary: Bulk collection would be unreasonable by Fourth Amendment. Bill provides that collections have to be in accordance with 4th Amendment. Minimization. Cannot primarily target a US person.
Feingold only requires that it certify that bulk intelligence has foreign intelligence interest. But it already requires that the collection is targeted at people outside of the US. Remedy does not improve upon protection in bill. I thus oppose.
More from mcjoan at Daily Kos:
But again, getting every vote possible for the basic amendments, including no telco amnesty, in the Senate will make the House's defense of their version of the bill easier when it comes to conference. Keep the pressure up on those Dems. Contact your own Senators and also this list of Senators likely to be persuadable. Tell them (1) NO on telco amnesty, (2) NO basket warrants or reverse targeting, (3) sequestration of illegally harvested evidence, (4) make FISA the exclusive means of surveillance, and (5) vote for a 4 year sunset. Read on...
Contact your Senators and tell them to uphold the Constitution, stand up for our civil liberties and say no to telecom immunity.
Login or Register to post comments.
All the abbreviations in this post make it incomprehensible.
That's because this issue has been getting very little attention on this blog, so you're not used to them.
It's about time they started calling it what it is. POLICE STATE.
The Dems want this passed just as much as the Reps do.
ConcernedCanuck @ 4:
Care to explain that? (You might also specify if "this" refers only to the sunset or the entire bill.)
JTM @ 5:
The bill. Why else would anyone have to "pressure" them to vote against it? Come on. They aren't little children. They know what they are doing.
If the telcos need to be protected from lawsuit then GW should have followed the original law in the first place and gotten the subpeonas. Since he didn't follow the established rules he should be held responsible for the Telcos or he should come clean and get the paperwork now!
Also are they asking for immunity from 9/11 on or for the tapping that was done BEFORE 9/11 as well? If they got immunity from 9/11 on would GW veto that bill? If so then that would be an addmission of guilt on his part.
I foresee a time when, the worst abuses discovered, a new government tries to strip the telcoms of their immunity. "Oh no!" the Republicans will cry as one, "You can't make a law retroactive - that's unconstitutional." (Article I, Section 9, BTW)
They're all for law and order as long as it's one set of rules for themselves and another much harsher set for everyone else.
When we have to call our Senators to tell them to uphold the Constitution, our government is broken.
It is their oath of office and they are breaking it.
I hoping for a bit more than that as way of explanation. Most of all, I was curious to hear whether you think that really (honestly) want the PAA or if they merely want it in order to appear to be in favor of catching terrorists.
Of course they know what they're doing. That's why they voted to authorize force against Iraq and then were surprised when a war started. That's why the other house wrote a stimulus package that omits DAVs but allows illegal residents to get a stimulus check. They are all-seeing and all-knowing. They are particularly good at seeing the unintended consequences of bills they write quickly with the help of the White House.
My senator, Debbie Stabenow, keeps sending me the following notes:
Well, you twit! Just tell me where you stand, huh... Given her history, it's probably not on the same side that I'm on...
I justed tuned in to c-span. Anyone know what they are voting on now? One of the ammendments I'd guess but not sure which one.
JTM @ 10:
I agree totally. This is all just smoke and mirrors. There really is no objection to any of the bill put forward by Bush and his cronies. These people are professional politicians and could care less about the average American's rights, or the Constitution. They don't need phoned to tell them to vote against something that is against the Constitution. If they do, then all the phoning in the world isn't gonna fix what is wrong with Washington. As far as I'm concerned, history already shows that the US government and it's agencies already have, and will in the future, do whatever the hell they want regardless of laws or Constitution.
They are voting on reducing the sunset from 6 to 4 years. It's one of the 60-vote amendments, so it has no effing chance, really. And it really isn't that important, IMHO. The critical votes are later and some only require a majority of those present. That's when the doo-doo hits the impeller.
49 yeas.
As I just wrote, DOA.
PinkyLeftBrain @ 11:
DINOs should be buried and then drilled in a few million years. Energy independence, baby!
I'm not the least bit gay, but I may just be in love with Senator Feingold.
None of the amendments will pass.
They will ram it through at the last minute before they take off like they usually do.
Dems will vote with the gop to give w his amnesty.
Joe Socks @ 17:
In that case, you'd probably switch "sides" (as it were) if you ever met this guy. Windmills!!!
That said, I like him, too. How he keeps his cool, letting through just the right amount of emotion, is beyond me.
Ron @ 3:
The phrase you're looking for is surveillance state.
This is not a police state. The courts are open, and you are free to sue the police all you want. Your free speech rights are intact -- you can condemn the gov't in public, or on the internet.
If trends continued, it might become a police state, but it is a long, long ways from that, though a surveillance state goes in that general direction.
ConcernedCanuck @ 4:
Ah, your lies smell as sweet this week as last.
25 Dem Senators are DINOs, and will vote for this. The House rejected any offer or immunity this whole time -- that's a much larger caucus of Dems.
But any slander will do when you're repeating rebutted generalities without any regard to the facts.
They are now moving on to 3927 (Specter/Whitehouse).
Paul in LA @ 20:
Try telling that to Sibel Edmonds.
ConcernedCanuck @ 6:
Yes, you just sit back and feed your sense of angry resentment, do absolutely nothing, and blame the wrong people.
It's not like being little children, except you have no political responsibility to influence gov't. No! If they were saints, you wouldn't have to counter the influence of lobbyists with the public will.
Shit, if they were Stalin, you wouldn't have to do anything.
JTM @ 23:
Sibel Edmonds, in a police state, is already DEAD.
But you agree that she doesn't have free speech, right?
SadButTrue @ 8:
There is no rule against retroactive law. The Congress cannot INCREASE penalties retroactively. They can retroactively decrease penalties anytime they want.
JTM @ 26:
And so what? Plenty of people with clearances don't have free speech.
I'm know she's your pet piece of litmus paper, but my point was relative to the nonsense about this being a police state -- something people say to AVOID political work.
JTM @ 10:
Not only is that an absurd generalization, completely ignoring the logic of voting for the IR (as expressed by Clinton, for instance), but in the House, Nancy Pelosi rose to Minority Leader as a result of the SIXTY PERCENT NAY VOTE among Dems.
getalife @ 9:
You're living with an illegal gov't in the White House, with the full complicity of one of the major parties, that was installed with massive vote-fraud. That's a COUP. So wow, what an amazing observation, that the gov't is broken. Do tell.
Paul in LA @ 20:
If Russ Feingold refers to the practice of illegal surveilance as a police state procedure, I tend to agree with him.
ConcernedCanuck @ 13:
So the 25 loyal Dem Senators who have voted against Bushco all down the line are just there to give the appearance of credibility, is that it?
Then what are you? Isn't your sense of anguish just window-dressing so the human race can pretend to oppose evil? What do you actually accomplish politically, living as you do in the Ontario onion fields? Aren't YOU just a place-holder for a real political activist?
Ron @ 31:
An adjective is not a noun.
Paul in LA @ 33:
Um, hello? Maybe Ron omitted some quotation marks and a hyphen, but there are no part-of-speech errors in his post.
You're a tad anal, no?
Paul in LA @ 20:
Ron @ 31:
Surveillance cameras are allll over, America. The minute they come INTO your house, and off the public street...it's a police state.
JTM @ 34:
Um, hello? Maybe Ron omitted some quotation marks and a hyphen, but there are no part-of-speech errors in his post.
The adjective "police state procedure" is not the noun "this is a police state."
This is NOT a police state. They would like to set one up. Maybe people have nothing more to say, in their general hapless condition, but the fox is afoot, and this is a time for ACTION, not post mortems. I am SICK of everyone's post mortem immediate doom USELESS leftist shoe-fucking.
Political work is needed. I protest today. Activate. Lively up yourself, and don't be no drag.
Tapping my phone without probable cause (screw what the Patriot Act says...THAT document is at the root of all of this mess) and without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. PERIOD.
What's next...strip searching me on Broadway cause I have a very unRepublican bulge in my trousers? Don't threaten me with a good time.
Liberal AND Proud @ 36:
No, that's a surveillance state.
If you need to understand what a police state is, look at Stalin's purges.
Bushco is a proto-fascist, proto-police state operation. They definitely would like a police state. This is NOT a police state, so they are shit out of luck. Either they will convert our gov't into a dictatorship at the end of the year, or these people are in BIG trouble, because they have broken just about every law they could find.
Paul in LA @ 37:
The adjective "police state procedure" is not the noun "this is a police state."
This is NOT a police state. They would like to set one up. Maybe people have nothing more to say, in their general hapless condition, but the fox is afoot, and this is a time for ACTION, not post mortems. I am SICK of everyone's post mortem immediate doom USELESS leftist shoe-fucking.
Political work is needed. I protest today. Activate. Lively up yourself, and don't be no drag.
If the act of illegal surveilance is a police state procedure and they are currently doing it, we have become a police state.
Paul in LA @ 37:
Sorry, dude, but "police state procedure" is not an adjective. Yes, the compound (which ought to be hyphenated) "police-state" is modifying the noun "procedure," but the entire package of "police-state procedure" is not an adjective.
(See, I can play silly, pedantic, word-games, too.)
Paul in LA @ 39:
No it's not, Paul. You want to play semantic games feel free. If I'm not free in my own home, then I llive in a police state, cause the next logical step is they can break down my freakin' door whenever the hell they damn well please.
What? It's a police state AFTER it happens. We're well on our way there.
Ron @ 40:
That's idiotic. The courts are open, and you are free to protest. The Congress is in session. We just had an election yesterday. In a police state you have none of that.
Clearly you do not understand that an adjective is not a noun.
Please don't feed the troll.
I will now abide by my own rule.
Liberal AND Proud @ 44:
Agreed.
Liberal AND Proud @ 42:
So what you're saying is that hysteria is equivalent to political work.
You are wrong.
Paul in LA @ 43:
So, in your opinion, Iraq under Saddam was not a police state. He had elections.
JTM @ 41:
You cannot quote Feingold's adjectival usage as a noun.
So fine, you live in a police state procedure.
Back on topic, they're done with FISA/PAA for today. They stated on substitution, but then hit 4:30 Eastern. We know that this one has Specter (obviously), but doesn't have Rockefeller. So it's close. If Clinton and Obama show up and vote "yes," then it has an even better shot. Even more, the House would go for it and Bush would have to veto the whole thing. Et voila, the end of the PAA.
As suggested in the leader to this thread, calls and emails might help (a little).
Ron @ 47:
We had legal elections.
Paul in LA @ 50:
Sure we did. Florida 2000, Ohio 2004. Wake up.
ACLU has a good blogpost up
Ron -
See @44
We're a torture state. "We do not torture" - George W. Bush...oh...I guess because we don't see it happening in the streets, then we don't...by Paul and GWB's logic.
"We have never tapped innocent Americans". No? Then what's the fuss over amnesty about.
"We never thought they'd fly planes into buildings". - No? Then why not release all the emails.
None of this is "politics". All of this is serious. We are not talking about some politician lying about some affair, or some bullshit stock deal that went south...we are talking about issues that strike at the very core of our country, our institutions, our laws...at the very foundation of what makes America...America.
Paul in LA @ 46:
I guess Karl Rove got a new talking points fax phone number.
Yo, Liberal and Proud. Go back and read post #44.
JTM @ 56:
LOL! Ok ok...point taken. ;)
Ron @ 51:
Woke up, and have been fighting the vote-fraud actively for five years. You?
With a new SecState in CA, we had a legal election yesterday. The Diebolders with their fraud are on their way to jail or the poorhouse. Ohio SecState Blackwell is going to be subpoenaed to the HJC, and is in real danger of being PROSECUTED for RICO conspiracies next year when we have control of the Justice Dept. again.
I'm curious to why you think calling our retards in the senate will actually do anything.
Bush has yet to actually obey a law beyond that of gravity no matter how many Congresscritters sign on. Yet he still warms the seat in the oval office and impeachment is still off the table ( FUCK YOU KUCINICH! ). Even if it did pass he'll veto it, or he'll sign it and put in a signing statement that says "Neener neerer, My buddies are protected because I won't allow the Justice Department to Investigate" or some other such bullshit.
Liberal AND Proud @ 38:
Tiffany!
E in MD @ 59:
Without immunity, the suits by citizens against telecoms can go forward. This process would either reveal things (which could well be illegal) or force more drastic action by the Administration. Either of these could actually be enough to wake up Pelosi.
It's not about using the law to control the Administration, even if that is what it should be about. It's more about getting enough crap into the open to force action by the House.
Now, it's a bit more complicated, because a new PAA without immunity would probably be vetoed. But that doesn't change the above, since it would also mean no immunity.
JTM @ 61:
If that's what you think, you are really losing it.
ANY suit against the telecoms would take five-ten years to go to court.
Bushco will be long gone when the results of those suits hit. As for Speaker Pelosi, impeachment is not off the table because there is no case. It's off the table because the Senate WILL NOT convict.
Sorry. I never really answered E in MD's question.
There are a few Democrats who are on the fence. Rockefeller is a waste of time. (It will just get your name put on some list. tee hee). Same probably goes for Landrieu. But you might get Lincoln, Nelson (NE), or Pryor. And it's important to keep Stabenow.
Just sent:
Dear Senator Inouye:
I appreciate all of the hard work that you have done to keep our state well taken care of.
However, when it comes to the telecom immunity bill which will soon come up again, I and many others believe that you should vote no on telecom immunity/amnesty, basket warrants or reverse targeting, and sequestration of illegally harvested evidence.
I feel strongly that you should instead vote to make FISA the exclusive means of surveillance with a 4 year sunset provision. It is the law, sir; and it was created to stop the very abuses that are being perpetrated possibly at this very moment.
Don't let the telecom industry defile our laws and our country!
Sincerely,
[x174]
I apologize for leaving Inouye off my list. Thanks for writing. He's crucial. He was one of the Dems that voted against the SJC version. It would be cool to pull him back.
My Senator Mikulski flip-flopped and voted to avoid cloture because enough people called her. However she supports amnesty for these criminal assholes.
I already called her and told her that I vote. I have a long memory, I do not appreciate the fact that she is willing to let criminals get off scott free in the crimes, and I am not afraid to run against her based on the fact that she refuses to protect her constituents or uphold the constitution.
However, much like the other things I have called, written and emailed her about I am certain that it will mean bubkiss until 2011 when she is next up for election.
JTM @ 63:
If you're in their state, it's worth a try, but unlikely.
Yea Votes on PAA:
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
mahalo nui loa! (thank you very much!)
x174 @ 64:
You may wish to recall that Inouye is the former chair of the SIC (Rockefeller is the current chair). He's pretty damn rightwing.
I actually worked on her campaign when I was a student at Hopkins in the 80s. F her. I think that she's a lost cause on this.
US has recently been classified as an endemic surveillance society/state:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597
My Senators have been written.
"Contact your own Senators and also this list of Senators likely to be persuadable. Tell them (1) NO on telco amnesty,..."
Extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation
When President Bush maintains that the FISA bill will decrease the chance of Americans being murdered, and then says he'll veto it if immunity isn't granted to his co-conspirators for criminal wrongdoing, that is extortion. Tell your Senator to not submit to the President's extortion attempt.
Feingold: "That's a police state, mr. president! not the united states of america!"
Why not just post the very short transcript and make this post far more interesting and eye-catching? I'd also like to see C&L put some weight behind true statements like that when it happens that politicians mention such "radical", "upsetting" things.
Anti-liberal, anti-civil rights laws are making their way into Europe and here in Norway too under the excuse of fighting terrorism. New laws that circumvent the need for suspicion and warrants are coming. Data collection and surveillence are increasing. We are only slightly behind America.
After all, America leads the way, right?
In the future, we are all seen as potential terrorists and criminals. It's all along the doctrine of preemption.
The world is so much more scary these days, right?
Most of our top leaders are only helping creating a global environment that will be sure to create actual terrorism. In fact, as much as they play on fear, they themselves
Never let yourselves be fooled. We, the general population, are the targets for these psychological and physical means of discouraging, disillusioning, threatning and controlling us. It's always handy to have actual terrorists too around to create the environment of fear and paranoia so we get to see some actual red blood once in a while.
Maybe an idea to finish the sentence before I post. That should read:
Most of our top leaders are only helping creating a global environment that will be sure to create actual terrorism. In fact, as much as they play on fear to advance their own agendas in opposition to the will and the good of the people, they themselves can easily be branded terrorists by any clear thinking individual.
Login or Register to post comments.