Dodd and Feingold on FISA

Lets give Russ Feingold & Chris Dodd a call (0.00 / 0)

let them know we support a filibuster of the FISA law which is basically all about retro-active immunity for the telecom's warrant-less wiretapping requested by this current Corporatocracy.

Senator Russ Feingold (202) 224-5323

Senator Chris Dodd (202) 224-2823

It was our own moral failure and not any accident of chance, that while preserving the appearance of the Republic we lost its reality. - Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BC)

---

by: CTpeon @ Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM UTC

I called Dodd's Washington office yesterday (0.00 / 0)

I got through to an aide and asked him to ask Sen. Dodd to filibuster this bill.

Thank you Sen. Dodd for supporting Sen. Feingold in filibusting this awful bill.

---

by: Larkspur @ Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 13:25:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama fails the FISA test (0.00 / 0)

Today Obama made clear that he will vote for FISA with telcom immunity intact.

The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.

Let's clear up what telcom immunity says.

It says that the President of the United States can declare that any action he takes as President is legal, even if such action is illegal, it is legal and anyone who acts for him is protected because he has said it was legal.

Or, for those of you who have the memory.

FROST:   So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?

NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate.

Obama agrees with Nixon. "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

That is what telcom immunity in FISA is all about. It's all about the President deciding that his office is above the law and can violate the law at will and no one will be held responsible, until maybe the next election.

It's a reprehensible position.

Obama is wrong. Very wrong. National security is not a reason to throw out the Constitution and give the Office of the President and the Executive Branch dictatorial powers. No man, not person, is above the law. Obama's statement says that is no longer the case in his vision of America. In his vision it is better to give up a prime component of our foundations of liberty for a false sense of security. Obama clearly believes that the trade off of allowing the President to be above the law is well worth the cost.

So, if the President decides to assassinate political rivals (like Mugabe does) it's all okay because we have FISA as precedent that  "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 00:38:56 AM UTC

Not exactly, but getting there (0.00 / 0)

It says that the President of the United States can declare that any action he takes as President is legal, even if such action is illegal, it is legal and anyone who acts for him is protected because he has said it was legal.

I'm still not sure why Obama is doing this as it looks like blatant hypocrisy, a political expedience to help win the election. That such a decision comes from a constitutional scholar is just baffling.

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:38:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question (0.00 / 1)

Would the legislation allow lawsuits against the government instead of the telecoms?  I was always of the mindset that would be a fair compromise since the telecoms didn't just wake up one day and decide to start this program, they were acting at the behest of the government.  So allow the liability to follow back to the source of the program.  Otherwise you'll have an environment where business is hostile to any cooperation with the government.

---

by: adamjschmidt @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:07:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was an *actual* compromise proposal (0.00 / 0)

... which was shot down. I believe Whitehouse and Specter were the ones that put it together.

The purpose of the lawsuits that are on the table is not to collect damages, but rather to compel the production of documents.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:32:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

interesting (0.00 / 1)

I would find such a compromise to be perfectly acceptable.  

The question of the scope of the President's authority to conduct domestic surveillance is definitely something that the courts should rule on - so I'd have no problem with such a case proceeding.

I simply don't want to scapegoat telcom companies for acting in good faith in the aftermath of terrorist attacks.  That's where I'm coming from.

The fact that a large percentage of the world's internet / email / telecom traffic is routed through the US is a huge advantage that our intelligence agencies should be leveraging.  I'd be upset if the NSA weren't at least passively running filters to pick up on key words or phrases that might help us break in on vital enemy communications.

---

by: adamjschmidt @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:52:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The primary purpose (0.00 / 0)

of the lawsuits now is to expose what was done under court ordered discovery.

If the telcoms can show that they were ordered to violate the rights of Americans, then the documentation of such violations that would be exposed in the discovery process would permit class action suits against the United States government.

Again, these suits would not be to gain damages, but to create precedent that clearly establishes the rights of civil liberties in the future. Additionally, there is the potential that such cases, would also provide fodder for criminal proceedings for violations of individual civil liberties by those that ordered such violations.

But, with telcom immunity the courts will say that all they have to do is show a piece of paper to the court stating that the government had determined that they were not doing anything wrong and all suits will be dropped and discovery will be stopped. Thus any wrongdoing and any violations of civil liberties will be effectivly hidden. In addition, any continued violations will be permissible.

In effect, the fourth amendment will have been stricken from the Constitution as there will be no way to find out if your fourth amendment rights had been violated and therefore, with no evidence of wrongdoing, there will have been no wrongdoing. If you can not prove that rights were violated via discovery, then there were no rights violated by the secret operations. Or, to steal from a commercial, "What happens in secret stays in secret."

This makes the United States no different than any tin run dictatorship where the dictator can state that he wants his political opponents spied upon. Since there is no reason why those that have the technology can not offer it up to the dictator for their services, since there is no way to force them to tell what they did and who they did it to and they can not be held libel for violating the fourth, nor can the dictator, it makes the system ripe for abuse.

And as Nixon stated, the key way we can get rid of a President who is above the law is through the electoral process. But when you remove the method to expose their violations, then it makes it rather hard to expose the creep for the scum sucking dictator pig they are. Which is why, at least in this country, we hold that no man is above the rule of law, not even the President.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:01:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]