Ron Wyden MoJo Interview

Sen. Ron Wyden has an interesting interview with Mother Jones. You should read the whole interview. The portion where Gen. James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is amazing. Wyden asked Clapper is the NSA data collecting spying on American citizens. Clapper was caught lying by saying no. Clapper and his people were then going to maintain this charade.

RW: I've taken the view that I personally believe I can make the best contribution by complying with the rules and having the opportunity to try to be a watchdog inside the committee. For example, the questions I asked [Director of National Intelligence] Gen. [James] Clapper at the open hearing with respect to whether the government collects any data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, that was an example of an area where we felt strongly we were complying with the rules and doing vigorous oversight.

That stemmed from a situation where the head the National Security Agency said that they were not holding any data at all on millions of Americans. And I was very, very troubled by that and another statement that no dossiers were being kept, and we couldn't get straight answers. So I sent Gen. Clapper the question in advance that I was going to ask. And in effect when you have a cleared official making a statement like that in public, that they don't hold any data at all, I thought it was important to get the record straight.

MJ: Then he had to basically admit that he was not telling the truth.

RW: After the hearing, one of my staff went to a secure room and said that this was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Gen. Clapper's people said they knew it was inaccurate and they still wouldn't correct it. At that point it never, or at least for quite some time, would never have been known. Then there were the [Snowden leaks] and Gen. Clapper started offering one answer after another with respect to why he did it.

This is an administration that admits it lies to a U.S. Senator and is completely shameless abiyt it.

Glenn Greenwald on This Week

Glenn Greenwald appeared on This Week With George Stephanopoulos to tell Martha Raddatz about the lack of oversight on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

"We keep hearing that there's all kinds of robust oversight by Congress," Greenwald said, adding that lawmakers had provided "very detailed letters trying to get this information and they're being blocked from getting it and they've said, and other members have said that they are forced to learn about what the NSA is doing from what they're reading in our reporting."

"I think the most amazing thing, one of the most amazing things in this whole episode, Martha, there is a 2011 opinion, 86 pages long from the FISA court, that ruled that much of what the NSA is doing which is spying on American citizens is both unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment and illegal, a violation of the statute," he continued. "This opinion remains a complete secret. The FISA court has said they have no objection to having it released, but the Obama administration insists it has to be secret."

"Both members of Congress and others have been requesting simply to read that court opinion. And the intelligence committee that is led in the House by Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), who represents the NSA district, receives all kinds cash from the defense and intelligence agencies, industries, have refused to allow them access."

Greenwald has documented proof members of Congress are being denied information into the NSA program.

The Pettiness of Louie Gohmert

Huffington Post report Sabrina Siddiqui asked Rep. Louie Gohmert about the Justice Department wiretapping of Associated Press.

"I'm not a big fan of the AP, and I can tell from their writing they're not a big fan of me."

Translation: Gohmert doesn't care about the intrusive wiretapping into the reporters of the AP. Gohmert won't defend the freedom of the press because he has a personal basis against AP. What a petty man.

Why the Netroots Shouldn't Defend Obama's FISA Vote

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law."

Barack Obama, promising on February 12, 2008 not to give immunity to telecommunication companies that paticipated in warrantless wiretapping. Obama voted this month to give telecom companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits. A true profile in courage.

David Sirota wrote about how Obama willingly using the progressive movement to promote his candidacy and ignores the netroots policy concerns.

However, what Obama has also done is taken over key pieces of outside progressive infrastructure and ignored other pieces. Moveon.org, for instance, spends much of its time echoing Obama's message and attacking John McCain rather than using the election as an instrument of leverage to exert pressure on both Obama and McCain on major issues. In other words, Obama has effectively taken over Moveon - or at least its strategic focus. As evidenced by his FISA vote, Obama is also ignoring the Netroots.

I'm not a fan of MoveOn, but Sirota point is something that I have been thinking about for a while. Presidents come and go. The policies they make are matters we have to deal with for generations. Sirota told NPR that progressives using Obama's own website to try to make the Senator change his vote is hope that the Netroots is waking up.

There are progressives willing to ignore Obama's disregard for civil liberties. Kenneth Quinnell talked about how progressives should not call Obama a flip flopper. Quinnell went as far to say that Obama's FISA position has been consistent. Obama's office said the Senator "unequivocally opposes" immunity and "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Quinnell's podcast is as laughable as Glenn Reynolds' posts about how well Bush has run the Iraq war.

I didn't get into blogging to become an unofficial campaign staffer for Barack Obama. I won't use the excuse that he is better than John McCain. I will freely disagree with Obama or any other candidate.

A Ford Pinto will get a person from point A to B faster than walking. That doesn't mean the Pinto suddenly became a great car. Just because Obama isn't John McCain doesn't mean he didn't flip flop on FISA. Citizens should question candidates positions on policy. Not worship them as if they were royalty.

Bush Signs FISA Bill

It's no surprised that Bush signed the FISA bill. I was struck by Bush statement. The devil is in the details.

This law will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will themselves be protected from lawsuits from past or future cooperation with the government. This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence. This law will play a critical role in helping to prevent another attack on our soil.

During the 2008 State of the Union address, Bush demanded immunity for telecom companies. Bush refused to admit that telecom companies were involved in warrantless wiretapping. By simple logic, why would corporations not involved in United States intelligence gathering need immunity.

Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.

Why must we pass immunity for people "believed" to be involved in criminal activity. Aren't people innocent until proven guilty? Mr. President, maybe you believed these telecom companies were involved in illegal matters. Maybe you believed it would be embarrassing if telecom CEOs told grand juries about the White House's role in the matter. Mr. President, if you believed that then it is easy to understand why the FISA bill was so important to you.

ACLU To Sue Over FISA Bill

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero sent out this email about the Senate's FISA vote.

****

Today elected officials in Washington sold out the Constitution -- again.

Cowed by the Bush administration's pre-election scare tactics, the Senate passed privacy-stealing FISA legislation undermining your Fourth Amendment rights.

It's outrageous, unconstitutional and un-American. That's why the ACLU is prepared to challenge this law the moment George Bush signs it -- and you can rest assured, they'll be meeting our lawyers in court.

Our lawsuit will send a powerful message to those in Congress who played it safe when they had the opportunity to defend the Constitution. You can join the ACLU in sending that message by signing on to our ad letting Congress know that if they won't stand up for freedom, you and the ACLU will.

We'll be taking out a full-page ad in a major national newspaper announcing our lawsuit and expressing our outrage at this abandonment of Constitutional principles. Our goal is to run an ad that contains the names of tens of thousands of Americans who believe in the Constitution and want Congress to hear us loud and clear: next time, stand up for our rights.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

The bill that Congress passed and George Bush is about to sign codifies a Nixonian view on executive power that states, "if a president does it, it is not illegal." The ACLU doesn't believe that, and I'm guessing you don't either.

There has never been a more important moment to demonstrate to our leaders that we believe in freedom - not fear. Our ad will carry that simple message.

The more voices we add, the more powerful our message will be. We need tens of thousands of Americans, who are committed to defending the Constitution, to speak up and stand with us right now.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

The bottom line is that no president should have the power to monitor the phones and emails of Americans without a warrant. And no president should have the power to pardon companies that broke the law. This bill was not a "compromise," as some in Congress would like you to believe. The only thing they compromised was your freedom.

George Bush will sign the FISA bill into law in a few short days, but that does not mean our fight is over.

Our lawyers are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging this unconstitutional legislation as soon as the ink dries on George Bush's signature. This is why it is so important that all of us add our names to the ACLU's newspaper ad.

Let our leaders know that you are standing up for freedom and standing with the ACLU.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

It's up to each of us to defend the Constitution. Thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Anthony Romero
Executive Director, ACLU

FISA Bill On Hold

Harry Reid pulled the FISA bill at the last moment. Reid denies Christopher Dodd and the blogosphere had anything to do with his decision.

"He blinked," Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said of Reid. "It's clear that this was not going to be easy. On the one hand he wanted to rush this process and think he could strong-arm everybody to giving up their rights as senators. They threw sand in the gears."

There is no other logical reason. The Senate voted 76 to 10 to vote on the bill. It would have passed easily with bipartisan support.

Matt Yglesias misses the point. It has less to do with the will of the Senate body than the lobbying power of the telecommunications industry. Notice how the other Democratic presidential candidates have failed to take the initiative on the FISA bill. Money makes the world and presidential campaigns go.

Dodd thanks his supporters.

FISA In Wonderland

Only the Bush administration would have the audacity to admit to warrantless wiretapping and then back a Senate bill granting immunity to telecommunication companies.

WASHINGTON —An intelligence bill the Senate is scheduled to take up after it returns Dec. 3 would block Americans from learning details of any warrantless surveillance program the federal government conducted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the American Civil Liberties Union says.

The bill would grant immunity from lawsuits to communications companies for any "intelligence activity involving communications" that was "designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack" or attack preparations. Telecoms would need to show they received a "written request or directive" from the administration vouching that the programs were "lawful" to stop lawsuits.

Liz Rose, spokeswoman for the Washington office of the ACLU, says the language is a "blank check" that would cover not only a warrantless wiretapping program the Bush administration has acknowledged but any unconfirmed or previously unknown program. Last year, USA TODAY and other media reported that some U.S. telecoms also shared customer calling information with the National Security Agency as part of an anti-terrorism program that the administration has not confirmed.

Many of the illegally monitored calls were domestic. The White House has not explained why it is necessary to listen to the calls of American citizens. What is clear is the Bush administration has used the NSA to violate the Fourth Amendment.

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.

Christopher Dodd has been outspoken against the FISA bill. Qwest admitted they were approached by the Bush administration to paticipate in warrantless wiretapping. They declined because of legal concerns. Verizon and AT&T have been silent on the matter.

We know that the Bush administration has admitted to warrantless wiretapping. Quest told the media they were asked to paticipate. Why haven't members of the administration being brought up on criminal charges?

Another matter is how can lawmakers consider legislation that clearly goes against the Constitution? The federal government has become as surrealistic as Alice In Wonderland.

Chris Dodd Speech

Christopher Dodd spoke on the Senate floor on the FISA bill.

The President’s wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq and has made our nation less secure and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated in the world.

Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib – where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane and humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them.

Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the nation, the prisons at Guantanamo Bay have instead become the very symbol for our weakened moral standing in the world.

Consider the secret prisons run by the CIA and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture.

Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions – who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than the laws he had sworn to uphold.

Sign the petition.

Update: Dodd will appear on Meet the Press this Sunday. It's a good platform for him to raise awareness about the questionable language in the FISA bill.

Fred Thompson on the Power of the Presidency

Fred Thompson surprised me with his stance on end of life issues. Now he says he disagrees with Dick Cheney about the power of the presidency.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it’s divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Thompson described checks and balances as "a constant tug and pull. Controversy and differences of opinion over legitimate national security concerns is not a bad thing. Every branch needs to stand up for itself. And I saw that as, in effect, an attorney for the executive branch, and then as a legislator."

Thompson said he sides with the Bush administration in its struggle with Congress over "issues of surveillance," but he suggested in some of the cases on detainees that have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court he sides with the Congress.

I don't think Thompson would make a good President. I am happy to see a conservative have respect for the checks and balances in the Constitution.

Petition to Harry Reid

Sign this petition telling Harry Reid that lawbreaking telecommunications companies should not be given retroactive immunity. Check out the lefty bloggers behind the petition.

Glenn Greenwald, Salon
Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Dailykos
Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake
Matt Stoller, OpenLeft
Digby, Hullabaloo
Taylor Marsh, TaylorMarsh.com
Duncan Black, Atrios
John Aravosis, Americablog
Chris Bowers, OpenLeft
John Amato, Crooks and Liars
Howie Klein, DownWithTyranny
Jonathan Singer, MyDD
Joan McCarter, Dailykos

Sign the petition.

Senators Respond to Dodd's FISA Filibuster

Christopher Dodd's live chat on putting a hold on the FISA bill has caused a stir in the netroots. The candidates' aides have been paying attention. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been forced to take a stance.

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton issued this statement.

"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

Hillary Clinton was directly asked about the FISA bill.

Q: Can you discuss your position on the reauthorization of the FISA bill?

Hillary Clinton: I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it. But I don't trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I'm going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.

Joe Biden has come out against the bill. That's three Senators. How this hurts the Bush administration is Dodd, Clinton, Obama, and Biden are presidential candidates and can give increased media attention to how awful an idea giving retroactive immunity to telephone companies that illegally released private information.

Biden serves on the Judiciary Committee. Arlen Specter has already expressed reservations the bill. Specter and Patrick Leahy couldn't hide their frustration of the White House's refusal to release documents relating to warrantless wiretapping.

You have now had more than ample time to collect and process the relevant documents. Responsive information to those subpoenas is long overdue. You have made commitments to provide responsive information over the last several months and even recently, but no such information has yet been provided.

Instead, we read that a White House spokesperson has now conditioned the production of information on prior Senate agreement to provide retroactive immunity from liability for communications carriers. That is unacceptable and would turn the legislative process upside down. If the Administration wants our support for immunity, it should comply with the subpoenas, provide the information, and justify its request. As we have both said, it is wrongheaded to ask Senators to consider immunity without their being informed about the legal justifications purportedly excusing the conduct being immunized. Although the two of us have been briefed on certain aspects of the President's program, this cannot substitute for access to the documents and legal analysis needed to inform the legislative decisions of the Committee as a whole.

One Senator and bloggers started an avalanche against BushCo. This FISA bill would have been a done deal before the age of blogging an online chats. This is grassroots mobilization that has potential longterm consequences oon civil liberties. If Dodd defeats this bill, this will be proof that political apathy is inexcusable.

I have never seen apathy as a justifiable excuse in politics or one's personal affairs. Every person, I have known whom is apathetic has serious issues in believing in themselves. There is the cynical saying that you can't fight city hall. Right now Chris Dodd and bloggers are fighting the White House an winning.

Quote of the Day

“If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards were elected president, they would take a sharp left turn because as they see the problems, they say, well, we’re going to change, we need a bigger government, Big Brother watching us, bigger taxes. I’m convinced that’s not where the American public is going to.”

Mitt Romney

Romney has been silent on the FISA bill. He is all for wiretapping without probable cause.

Governor Mitt Romney raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques and conducting surveillance of foreign students in Massachusetts, as he issued a broad call yesterday for the federal government to devote far more money and attention to domestic intelligence gathering.

In remarks that caused alarm among civil libertarians and advocates for immigrants rights, Romney said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that the United States needs to radically rethink how it guards itself against terrorism.

''How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who have come from terrorist-sponsored states?" he said, referring to foreign students who attend universities in Massachusetts. ''Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them?"

Let's waste federal and state resources wiretapping what people might be doing. How is Clinton, Edwards and Obama Big Brother and he is a champion of civil liberties? Romney really needs to explain it to voters. As of now, it doesn't pass the laugh test.

The Missingmen

I was surprised to learn that Amanda Marcotte is a Mike Watt fan. I have been listening to Watt for a long time. I saw him when fIREHOSE was still together. In all that time, I never met a female Watt fan.

Amanda found a great video of Watt's side project the Missingmen performing the Wire songs Three Girl Rhumba and Ex-Lion Tamer.

Senate Ducks Wiretap Controversy

The Senate Intelligence Committee will not investigate the warrantless NSA wiretaps. This just proves that Pat Roberts never fails to disappoint. Robert told the Washington Post, "The administration is now committed to legislation and has agreed to brief more intelligence committee members on the nature of the surveillance program. The details of this agreement will take some time to work out." Roberts fails to go into the details of what those details are.

I will give some details. The Huffington Post reports on rumors that Karl Rove threatened to black ball any Republican Senator who votes to curtail the President's power to illegally wiretap. Sen. John D. Rockefeller said, "It is more than apparent to me that the White House has applied heavy pressure in recent days, in recent weeks, to prevent the committee from doing its job." Rockefeller is speaking of Dick Cheney's behind closed door meetings with Republican Congress members.

A Zogby poll finds that 52% of Americans favor impeaching the President over the illegal wiretaps. An Ipso poll is 50% think the wiretaps are illegal to 48% believing they're just. 2% are undecided. Given time, the polls will creep towards the White House's disadvantage. This administration is fresh out of political capital.

Necessary and Proper Clause

Here is the U. S. Department of Justice's letter about the President authorizing the NSA warrantless wiretaps to members of congress.

The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." § 2(a). The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, see also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

Apparently, no member of DoJ has heard of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The President can not disobey the law the suit his whims. Cogress decides what the executive powers through legislation. George Will explains.

Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers . Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The reason the White House doesn't want to go through the FISA warrant process is because they have been spying on political opponents.

Rich Lowry of the National Review wrote a comedy masterpiece on the NSA wiretaps.

The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

Rich, Congress has to make both acts legal. There are public defenders who barely got through law school who have better legal minds. Has this man ever heard of the War Powers Resolution?

Mister Roberts

Here is some good news.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Thursday to release documents about its warrantless surveillance program or spell out what it is withholding, a setback to efforts to keep the program under wraps.

The bad news is it looks like Senator Pat Roberts is going to provide cover for the anministration. I give some examples.

Roberts on the Valerie Plame leak.

ROBERTS: There's a five-year period, OK? And whether or not that five-year period had been reached or not is still questionable. And I must say from a common sense standpoint, driving back and forth to work to the CIA headquarters, I don't know if that really qualifies as being, you know, covert.

That is quite a statement from the Senate Intelligence Chairman. Is Roberts saying that people who work undercover for the CIA should never report to the CIA offices? Using an automobile to go "back and forth" from the same office disqualifies an operative of covert status. How?

Raw Story has a long list of instances where Roberts carried water for the administration.

Roberts statements about a Senate investigation on warrantless wiretaps.

"I believe that such an investigation at this point ... would be detrimental to this highly classified program and efforts to reach some accommodation with the administration," Roberts said.

I can't say I'm surprised.

Update: Spokewoman Sarah Little on Pat Roberts views of the legality of the NSA program.

The Bush administration found a key ally on Capitol Hill Monday as it broadened its aggressive defense of a recently revealed domestic spying program that used warrantless surveillance.

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “believes the program is consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution,” Sarah Little, Roberts’ spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.