Guest Blogged by Stephen Heller of VelvetRevolution.us
House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, (D-MD), one of the new FISA bill’s strongest champions, spoke about the bill’s new “exclusivity provision” on the floor of the House on March 14, 2008. He proclaimed that “It clarifies that FISA is the exclusive means of conducting surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.”
On June 20, Hoyer optimistically echoed his previous comment: “This legislation makes clear that FISA is the exclusive means by which the government may conduct surveillance.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), in an email sent to some constituents, including myself, wrote that the new FISA bill: “Includes provisions I authored that make clear that FISA is the exclusive (or only) authority for conducting surveillance inside the United States…FISA would be the only legal authority for conducting surveillance on Americans for intelligence purposes…”
But the old FISA bill, which was the law when Bush began to spy on us without warrants, also had an “exclusivity” provision that stated:
Since the “President” ignored the old FISA law, despite its existing exclusivity provision, what makes Hoyer or Feinstein or any of the other Dems think he’ll bother to obey the new version of the law?
The existing law didn’t keep Bush from breaking it last time, so it’s beyond me what makes law makers think he won’t do the same this time around. I decided to contact three different Democratic officials, all in favor of the new law, to try and find out why they believe they won’t be fooled again…
Regular readers of The BRAD BLOG, being smarter and better informed than the average person — 😉 — likely already know that the House recently passed the new FISA bill which includes a simple path to retroactive immunity (amnesty!) for the big telephone companies, indemnifying them for agreeing with the Bush administration to break the law and illegally wiretap American citizens.
The House bill had bi-partisan support, with 105 Democrats joining 188 Republicans in voting “yea.” The same version of the bill now awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate, which, as of this writing, is likely scheduled to occur on July 7th. It’s widely expected that the bill will pass in that chamber as well, and Bush has indicated he will sign it into law. I’m not surprised he’s going to sign it, because as Sen. Kit Bond, (R-MO) said, “I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get.”
Ugh.
In this post, I’m not going to deal with the maddening and terrible decision to have the courts decide not if the Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was illegal, and not whether the telecoms who helped him spy on Americans without a warrant broke the law. The new bill gives the courts only the power to determine whether or not the telecoms received assurances from the “President” that the program was legal, whether it was or not. If so, the telecoms, and the Bush administration, will be given amnesty for any violation of the law. This is retroactive immunity, although the bill’s supporters won’t call it that. And of course, perhaps most importantly, it also means retroactive immunity (amnesty!) for George W. Bush.
But I’ll save my ranting and raving about the idiotic and horrible immunity provision (as well as some other horrible provisions of this bill) for another post. This post is about the exclusivity provision in the new FISA bill, and the assurances we’re getting from some in Congress that this provision will somehow prevent the executive branch from doing any more illegal, warrantless spying on Americans.
Fooled Once…
Bush claimed that legal opinions from the Department of Justice determined that the 1978 FISA bill, the one in force when he began his warrantless spying on Americans, did not apply to surveillance done in the name of national security.
He also claimed that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) allows for warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans.
Bush also insisted that Article II of the Constitution gives him the power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on American citizens as part of his War on Terrorâ„¢, and that Congress does not have the power to stop him.
So much for the co-equal branches of government, eh?
I spoke with staffers at Feinstein’s office, and they were very helpful. They told me that the Senator rejects the “President’s” legal arguments. Feinstein, they said, believes that the new FISA bill’s exclusivity provisions do “as much as is possible in legislation” to prevent this “President” or future Presidents from engaging in warrantless spying on Americans by restating the 1978 FISA law’s exclusivity provision, and then making it clear that the new FISA law has criminal penalties for surveillance conducted outside of FISA, so the “President” can’t claim that ignoring FISA is not a crime.
Also, Feinstein’s office insists that the new bill makes it clear to the DoJ, as well as the telecoms, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and any other private companies that, should the government ask for help in domestic surveillance, FISA is the only avenue through which domestic surveillance may be legally conducted.
Another reason the Senator is comfortable with the exclusivity language of the new bill is because of a letter received from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the Director of National Intelligence agreeing that the new FISA exclusivity provision goes beyond the 1978 statute, and that the new law will not interfere with or constrain intelligence activities that they deem necessary to protect the United States from attack.
Feinstein’s spokesman Scott Gerber sent me an email stating:
Okay. But…
Fooled Again…and Again…and Again…
I agree that the new FISA statute contains a provision that makes it clear FISA is, as Feinstein wrote in the email she sent to constituents, “the exclusive (or only) authority for conducting surveillance inside the United States.” Just like the old FISA law.
And I agree that the new exclusivity provision is stronger than the old one.
But will Bush actually obey the new law?
He ignored the old law, and I can’t see why anyone believes he will follow the law this time.
Bush has decided previously that the law did not apply to him. He knowingly broke the law and violated the Fourth Amendment. That’s called a “crime.” Perhaps even a “high crime”, since he did, twice, publicly swear to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.”
He has not, and it seems likely that he will not, be held accountable for either that crime or any of his other crimes, high and otherwise.
The Democrats seem to lack the spine to do anything more than issue subpoenas they won’t enforce or write Sternly Worded Lettersâ„¢.
This is a “President” who not only ignored the FISA law, he’s also ignored the Geneva Conventions and authorized the torture of prisoners. He’s created secret laws. He’s imprisoned children, detained American citizens without charges, kidnapped people through a “secret rendition” program, falsified details about U.S. troop deaths for political purposes, and engaged in a conspiracy to violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I could go on, but that’s enough for now.
Is there any crime this guy won’t commit?
This kind of Executive branch behavior is unprecedented in our history and is so far off the rails of the Constitution and the law that it’s a threat to the very foundations of our Republic.
Bush is, quite simply, a man out of control.
So I asked Feinstein, Hoyer, and my own House representative, Brad Sherman, who voted for the bill, what makes them believe that Bush, or any future President, will follow the law when there has been and apparently will be no punishment or accountability for not following the law?
Their answers left me less than satisfied.
Feinstein’s office told me that they are essentially informing Bush that what he did was illegal, and they’re going to close every loophole they can so that he, along with future Presidents, can’t do it again.
I can’t imagine why she thinks this legislation will keep King George in check any better than the old legislation did.
Hoyer’s office said… well, they didn’t say anything, because his press secretary, Stephanie Lundberg, wouldn’t return the two voicemail messages I left her. Maybe readers of The BRAD BLOG, especially those in Maryland’s 5th district, should give Rep. Hoyer a call at (202) 225-4131 and ask him why he thinks Bush will obey the new FISA law when he didn’t bother to obey the old one. And tell ’em The BRAD BLOG sent you. 😉 If you get any response from him or his office, post it in the comments section below.
My own House representative, Brad Sherman (D-CA), voted in favor of the bill as well, which surprised me; he’s usually a very reliable Progressive. His spokesman told me that “The decision to vote for the [FISA] legislation was a difficult compromise he [Sherman] felt he had to make.” But there was no comment from his office on why Sherman felt he had to make that decision, whether or not he thinks Bush will actually obey the new FISA bill when it becomes law, and, if he does believe Bush will obey the new law, why he believes it.
Color me unimpressed.
I do believe that these three members of Congress are sincere in their efforts to reign in Executive branch abuses of power and to stop this “President” and all future Presidents from spying on Americans without warrants.
But I absolutely do not share their confidence that the new FISA law will accomplish this, unless Bush is actually held accountable for his past crimes.
Bush broke the law using flimsy legal “reasoning” that any first year law student could have cut to ribbons. (By the way, if the “Just Us” Department had made it a point to hire good lawyers, instead of hiring only rightwingers who also happened to have legal degrees, this might not have happened.)
And Bush is going to get away with it.
I believe that since Congress continues to be supine to Executive branch bullying and disregard for the rule of law, Bush will again violate the FISA law. And so will future Presidents.
Once someone is allowed to criminally abuse his authority and power — a President, a governor, a mayor, a cop, a teacher, whatever — he will almost certainly continue to abuse that power unless and until he is punished for his crime.
And when those who abuse their power and authority aren’t held accountable, those who later assume power and authority are also likely to abuse it. “Hey, the other guy did it and got away with it, so I can too.”
Bush is a dry drunk who has never had to face accountability for anything in his life, either before or after he was appointed President, and he’s not been taught that doing naughty things like spying on Americans without warrants, or authorizing the torture of prisoners, or creating secret laws without approval of Congress or the courts, is illegal and wrong.
And because the opposition party — if you can call the Democrats “opposition” — won’t punish Bush for his crimes, he’ll continue to break the law. Bet on it.
Bye-bye, Fourth Amendment. We hardly knew ye.
I also wrote Feinstein after she expressed dismay at the Supreme’s gun ruling stating that Alito and Roberts had stated to her that they would follow ‘stare decisis’ (and didn’t) asking why, given that she had been lied too but yet again, why she doesn’t think she would be lied to about the ‘exclusivity’ (and yes ,such was in the original FISA but no one seems to want to acknowledge that) but have not received a response.
Her take essentially is that it is the government who should be held liable, yet she has no answer when the idea of ‘state secrets’ comes up.
If I’m correct, Sherman is one of the congress critters that got twice as much in telecom campaign contributions as those who voted against the House FISA bill.
It may also be possible that the House bill was a trade off for the vets, Unemployment extension,etc. in the supplemental; Bush says give me this and I’ll sign for that.
Pelosi used the same ‘exclusivity’ crap in her support; contribute/work for Cindy Sheehan and get Pelosi out of there.
Please sign this petition by Senator Dodd to be presented after the July 4th recess:
http://advomatic.bm23.com/publi...#038;ssid=9531
The Supreme Court has already ruled in United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), also known as the Keith case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.
I come from Nixon’s old congressional district and as God is my Fuhrer believe that once again: We are in a state of constitutional crisis. For Rumsfeld to lobby on intelligence reform and now have military acts off the books means that the “linchpin” of the constitution, the taxing and spending powers of Congress, for the raising of standing armies, has now been violated by circumvention. My Congressman David Dreier now has no way to effect neither my Liberty nor my Republic.
Our constitution was specifically designed to avoid this combination of the President’s office with the Defense Department; that the King shall not have his own standing army to send willy-nilly to wherever he thinks he has the pleasure too. The appointment of a sitting General to an executive position – the CIA – only consolidates this dangerous process that is under play.
The basis for this power grab, the claim of inherent power of the president, has already been settled under Nixon’s attempt during the so-called Vietnam War. As Nixon’s assistant attorney general Rehnquist made the argument of inherent power to wiretap the White Panther Party without a warrant ““ during a war. This power, which was claimed to be held, under the President’s Oath of Office, was rejected by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision against suspending all or parts of the Constitution. Because this was Rehnquist’s argument as assistant attorney general he had to recuse himself from his very first decision after being appointed to the Supreme Court and rightly so. And guess what? America was still standing in the morning after this and Nixon’s resignation avoiding his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia. Not to mention the response and statistics to the the duration of the Vietnam war.
That is why I can never believe McCain and the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war. Was not Nixon’s claim during a war? And did not the Supreme Court rule absolutely not? It is the same Oath of Office is it not? Unfortunately, old Rehnquist(and now McCain), conveniently ignored this when he reviewed his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his “inherent” argument on presidential power was slapped down by the Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War. This is bald face intellectual dishonesty, if not outright historical revisionism, that completely belies the important decision on the necessity of War – not to mention the young lives thrown willy-nilly into harm’s way.
This missing history is more reason why I completely reject McCain’s medieval thesis that constitutional government is too weak to survive in a difficult world and that we should defer to a sole sovereign power since 9/11. It is a FALSE claim of sovereignty! In all we have become weaker since taking on this post 9/11 repeat of Rehnquist’s “in terrorem” position. (I would like to read his memo on the subject of presidential power and the invasion of Cambodia but alas that memo has disappeared, nowhere to be found on the Internet. The persuasive force of his ideas no longer count I can only suppose).
I only fear that if our new Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito accept and reverse this court decision and take what was a tragedy we survived and turn a repeated claim of 17th century inherent power into a farce that destroys the sheet anchor of our Republic – our precious Constitution ““ along with the Bill of Rights. I would rather throw Bush and McCain overboard than our Fundamental Constitutional Rights.
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan.
Live Free or Die!
Michael, now that is the kind of long comment that I like! Thank you. Everyone should read it twice.
HR 3604 roll call #437 has documented who changed their (D) to the (T) the traitor party and (O) oath of office breaker party.
I hope you all get it.
I think back on Pelosi, and Feinstein. they did some cool stuff, but, when the IMPORTANT STUFF comes they’re off powdering their noses. I am sick of Democrats tripping over their fucking shoelaces every time something critical comes up. They give us a little, then they act like greedy fucking retards. (not to be confused with the disabled or handicapped, I am redefining the word.)
Well fuck that.
I won’t vote for them again.
I won’t vote for the (R) either.
Maybe I won’t vote!?
That will leave all of you as the cause of the problem, keep playing party-line politics, business as usual. Go ahead, I dare you. My life is already fucked, the sooner your’s is too, the better. Maybe then you’ll get it. Maybe when you haven’t seen a doctor for 20 years, you’ll get it. Maybe when your family has a crisis, or your bank (who your already bailing out in taxes) is shown to be insolvent and tells you your broke.
Fucking snooping on Americans, it’s high time for countermeasures if you ask me. Don’t use email, don’t use the web, don’t use a phone, don’t use the Post Office. Setup our own networks, our own communications, setup our own defense.
Then wait for them.
First one that breaks the constitution, bury their ass. Gone, disappear. Vanish. If you swore an oath, and break that oath, I GOT THE RIGHT TO MAKE YOU DISAPPEAR!
To be brutally honest, that’s my END GAME PLAN. (e.g. after these unconstitutional laws kick in and they start fucking people)
Hopefully http://rawstory.com/news/2008/L...p_in_0701.html will give them a kick in the ass.
I am more than willing to shut the fuck up a little longer, and let our system sort this corruption out.
The end game alternative won’t be good. But at least I never broke MY SWORN OATH.
They want to make confusion, and re-write over things that were written crisp and clean in our constitution.
From July 4th to July 8th, that such unacceptable behavior as the BIRTH AND DEATH of our Republic behind the public’s back (thanks to the fascist media) won’t be swallowed.
1776-2008
It won’t be. Mark my words.
Sure the corporate FASCIST media will play their nonsense and blacklist this topic, enabling the fascists.
But when the truth gets out..
They better be the ones that hide. (INCLUDING THE FASCIST MEDIA)
I still don’t understand why the fascist corporate media isn’t challenged by the people on a daily basis.
GET YOUR FUCKING ASS’S INTO THEIR STATIONS AND FILL OUT A COMMENT ON THEIR FUCKING PUBLIC FILE.
GET THEM OFF THE AIR. it’s YOUR air.
If you sit there on your ASS, watching the latest shiny object on TV. They are going to turn YOU into a terrorist next:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress...vote=h2007-993
I hope you remember it.
Mark my words.
You might not done nothing wrong, but they will get your ass with thought crime.
The only “CALL TO ACTION” here. is get off your ass and contact your fucking senators, and hit your local stations public file.
Nothing more.
JUST DO IT!
I think we need a list of the futures traders and then drag them out in the street and let the masses have their way with them. Then the politicians then the mega rich.
I knew a guy once that worked as a case manager for the homeless with substance and mental problems. His solution was to take some of the asshole rich and put one of their heads on a spike to send a message.
A comment from boston legal: William Shatner says to his buddy, I don’t feel sorry for the poor they have all the opportunities that the rich have. To which is replied when the poor people have no money who do you think they will go after.
Let me re itereate I am not for violence, but you put an animal in a corner it will fight back.
Even though I live within distance of where the dems will hold their convention there is no way in hell I am going to go see that bullshit. There have been all kinds of black helicopters flying around denver not to mention the military jumbo jets that were seen by several neighbors flying wayyy to low for a large plane of that size. The ones that I saw were 3 in a row unmarked, with the space of a jetliner in between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd, flying over the mountians towards the plains way lower then any of those single engine planes.
I know that I have talked to several neighbors about this and though I am un armed and do not own a gun I guarantee that If those blackwater scum come into my neighborhood they will be shot on sight with out a thought, by my repub neighbors of all things.
Am I angry, HELL YES, I have a right to be and If you’re not then you must not care about your country, your neighbors and your family
Oh and by the way so far I have seen 2 neighbors building their own hho generators. One has take his f150 truck from 12 mpg to 17.5 with such a device. Look up the claims of the 100 mpg car on youtube. Fuck oil we don’t need it, thats the first step. And FUCK the politicians they are not on our side.
Thank you Michael Keenan. just watch as Bush will sign another executive order that will render any laws(new or old) null and void and the attitudes of other civil servants jut like the FBI counsel, who said she doesnt have to follow a court order because she didnt agree with it. Yet this FBI agents along with other of her colleagues who got paid by tax payer’s money, did willfully show contempt for the law(we are above the law). after all we enforce federal laws(the hatch Act)
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON “” A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.
The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/...zkDUIUNsyrm9Mw
NOTE that the AP reports on this by saying that Judge Walker dismissed the suit; it appears, when viewed in conjunction of the AP’s reporting re McCain and Obama that it is defintiely biased to the Republican pov.
{Ed. Note: Bruce, please read the commenting rules. Don’t copy and paste whole articles. Thank you. –99}
No problem, all the stuff re ‘copyright infringement’ has gotten to me and I wanted to be sure that I didn’t cause Bradblog issues re ‘copyright infringment(see viacom/you tube/ap/bloggers).
Start vetting and organising for our own candidates beyond this list:
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs —32
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
THE FUCKING NAY NAZIS —66… an one more 6 and whad u know…666!
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting – 2
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Some names on that nay list like feinstein, hagel, webb…hmmmmmmmmmmm, are u f-ing surprized? And of coarse…. mcsame a no-show, but what’s up with kennedy?
An guess what I don’t like? raw story won’t print my comment about fisa…the dems just want their chance to spy too!