A Few Thoughts on FISA

This diary began as a response to a comment posted to a really great diary; entitled Barack-Iraq-Gate: Anatomy of a Media Smear by The Jed Report.

Let me begin by stating that I am not an attorney. I don't pretend to be an expert on the law. But I am an avid reader with an analytical mind and a detail oriented approach to problem solving.

There are three reasons why I'm posting this diary. The first is that it was simply becoming too long to be considered a comment. The second is that it pertains to a subject that I and many others are very interested in. Lastly, I'm posting it because I believe and hope it will add yet another perspective to the current political dialogue.

For the sake of honoring the right of privacy of the person to whom I was originally responding I will use a fictitious user name when referencing him or her.  

IamLiberaltoo. I appreciate the tact and effort you put into your explanation. However, if you will permit me, I'd like to offer a rebuttal to your assertions.

First:

Excusing illegal behaviour by the executive and the phone companies does not help.

Let's look at the second part of your assertion first.

You assert that one consequence of the FISA Bill is that phone companies are being excused for illegal behavior.

The illegal behavior you are referring to, I assume, is the failure of telecom companies to uphold common laws and federal statutes that protect the right of individuals to the confidentiality of their information.  
There are a number of legal arguments against your assertion. But since Sen. Russ Feingold is the most referenced source that most people involved in the current so-called netroots protest use, I think that its important to review what he's said about the issue of reverse immunity and why he feels it is unnecessary.

For starters, current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government’s request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the government’s request, and subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate. This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that act at the request of the government while also protecting the privacy of Americans’ communications.

Some supporters of retroactively expanding this already existing immunity provision argue that the telephone companies should not be penalized if they relied on a high-level government assurance that the requested assistance was lawful. Mr. President, as superficially appealing as that argument may sound, it utterly ignores the history of FISA.

You see IamLiberaltoo, the issue is not that the telecom companies were breaking the law by cooperating with government requests for the confidential information of their clients.

There is no dispute about whether the telecom companies broke the law by cooperating with requests by the Bush Administration for confidential information on its clients.

IamLiberaltoo. You may be aware that current and FISA statute provided that before the government could legally obtain otherwise confidential information from the telecoms, two and sometimes three things had to occur:

1. The government had to serve the telecom with either a court order (warrant) or a written request for access accompanied by a certification from the AG that the request is lawful;

2. The telecom had to make sure that the warrant or request had all the proper information and authorizations. If it did not, they were required to refuse access; if it did, they were required to permit access.

3. If the government had not gotten a warrant ahead of time but used an AG certification instead in #1, then it had to go to the FISA court within a certain number of days to get a warrant issued after the fact.

Both Senators Feingold and Barack Obama agree that the problem with the FISA amendments is not that the telecom companies broke the law by non-compliance with federal statutes. In fact, the telecom companies participated at level two of the above procedures.

Again, there is substantial evidence that the telecom companies broke no laws by cooperating with the government's requests for confidential information on their clients.

On the first part of your argument, IamLiberaltoo,  your assertions are accurate. Indeed the government overreached the limits of its power in its efforts to collect confidential information of individual citizens. In requesting information the Bush Administration ignored and abused existing laws and for that they should be held accountable.

Again, here is what Russ Feingold says on this issue:

But Mr. President, this immunity provision doesn’t just allow telephone companies off the hook for breaking the law. It also will make it that much harder to get to the core issue that I’ve been raising since December 2005, which is that the President ran an illegal program and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this program.

Senators Feingold and Obama believe, as I do, that the 2008 Amendments to FISA contain significant improvements to the previous version.

"Mr. President, I don’t mean to suggest that this bill does not contain some improvements over the bill that the Senate passed early this year. Clearly it does, and I appreciate that. Certainly, it is a good thing that this bill includes language making clear, once and for all, that Congress considers FISA and the criminal wiretap laws to be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance can be conducted in this country – a provision that Senator Feinstein fought so hard for. And it is a good thing that Congress is directing the relevant Inspectors General to do a comprehensive report on the President’s illegal wiretapping program – a report whose contents I hope will be made public to the greatest degree possible. And it is a good thing that the bill no longer redefines the critical FISA term "electronic surveillance," which could have led to a great deal of confusion and unintended consequences.
All of those provisions are positive developments, and I am glad that the ultimate product seemingly destined to become law contains these improvements." Russ Feingold

"But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited." Barack Obama

Here are the concerns that I and others including Sen. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama have regarding the 2008 Amendments to FISA.

"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.

And Mr. President, we have other alternatives. We have options. We do not have to pass this law in the midst of a presidential election year, while George Bush remains President, in the worst possible political climate for constructive legislating in this area.

All supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy believe in the right of dissent. We believe that the supporters of our candidate and of John McCain have the right to express their disagreements with their positions on the issues.

However, I and others like me, are mutually concerned that the current uproar over FISA, which I might add, involves many people who are actively engaging in promoting misinformation and some who are literally espousing anti-Obama rhetoric will dampen our chances of winning the 2008 Presidential election.

And before you respond with what so many others opposing this Bill have said, namely that; Barack Obama is happy with the protest because it is evidence of our democracy at work, please allow me to point out how he really feels and, for that matter, how anyone else would feel in this situation.

 

"... and whether politicians like to admit it or not, the constant vitriol can wear on the spirit."

Lastly, IamLiberaltoo, I am concerned that when the dissent reaches the point where it embarrasses our candidate, provides fodder for his political opponents to disparage his integrity and veracity, and diminishes his chances of winning the GE it crosses the proverbial line and endangers everything we have put our political and activist muscle into these past 18 months.

•  Tip to get Obama elected and to help

  Obama, Feingold and others restore our Constitutional rights.

  by Jezreel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:42:14 PM PDT

•  Integrity

  We can't do squat about the candidate's integrity if he demonstrates little of it.

  by Arun on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM PDT

  •  Which candidate are you referring to Arun?

    by Jezreel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:14:03 PM PDT

•  Why do we want these trials?

  Some writers on this site seem to simply want the vicarious thrill of seeing BushCo skewered. Frankly, I think that would be grand...but can think of 1000 reasons why that can still happen.

  But for thinking commenters, it seems to be not the trial but the communications. The real "gold" here is

  written request for access accompanied by a certification from the AG that the request is lawful;

  I'd bet my bottom dollar it exists--and I'd bet that there's absolutely nothing in this bill to prevent President Obama and his AG (Edwards, I hope) from getting it.

  Bush can't pardon himself and his henchmen for EVERYTHING that they've done. (My own bet: The voter caging that Rove coordinated is going to make him poorer than OJ in the end.)

  by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM PDT

  •  The question isn't whether it exists.

    It does.

    The question is whether what exists is legally sufficient to meet the necessary threshold.

    This bill prevents that question from being asked, and instead limits the courts to asking what you did: whether it exists.

    In other words, if it's written on Mickey Mouse stationery and says, "I, teh Aturnee Genril, sez u can totalee do this, cuz teh preznit is awesome," the cases are dismissed.

    Is that a compromise you can live with?

    by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM PDT

    •  Well... wait...

      Not "live with." We'll all have to "live with" it.

      My real question should have been, is this a compromise you'd approve of if you were negotiating it?

      by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM PDT

    •  My guess, it existed but expired

      in the Ashcroft/Comey hospital caper, so that there was a window in which the datamining incurred massive liability. $100 per day times every phone.

      by ben masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM PDT

      •  What an interesting thought!

        Is the $100 a day a civil or criminal penalty? If penalty, it's still there.

        Times every phone? You are talking the entire country--NOT the terrorists.

        by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:09:57 PM PDT

        •  Civil, under the Wiretap Act.

          by ben masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:05:48 PM PDT

    •  Criminal charges are not excluded.

      And I keep asking myself, why would we want civil charges? A civil penalty would only go back to the consumer. A criminal penalty would put a marker on the constitution forever.

      by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:09:04 PM PDT

      •  What an interesting question.

        Because I keep asking why, if you think someone ought to be criminally liable, you would go out of your way to have the United States Congress make their lives easier by dismissing their civil liability.

        No one has answered that yet. They just keep saying there could be criminal liability, which is not actually an answer to my question.

        by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM PDT

        •  Kargro X.

          Perhaps a better question would be: what are the implications of civil vs. criminal liability for the  government officials, corporate executives, and American citizens at-large.  

          In the matter of civil liability the plaintiff would have a duty to prove that the telecom company - the defendant violated the law and caused injury to the plantiff as a result.

          With telecom companies it would be impossible for the plaintiff to meet that standard of proof because telecom companies, like insurance companies, hospitals, Dr.'s offices, employers, governmental agencies, public transportation facilities, etc. are protected under federal statutes and are duty bound to comply with appropriate requests for confidential information.

          On the other hand, however, telecom companies, government agents and agencies are not protected against criminal liability, even retroactively, if they did, in fact, broke the law.

          Here is what former Special Counsel for the President, John Dean said:

          In addition, I spoke with the Washington office of the ACLU, which has been following the legislation closely while trying to limit its further rollback of prior protections of civil liberties. The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.

          The implications of civil vs. criminal laws are that very little if anything would ever come of civil law suits against telecom companies should they be pursued because the companies are protected under federal statutes.

          On the other hand, criminal charges could result in the revocation of licenses, loss of revenue, and possibly but not likely, jail time for the offenders.

          Government officials could end up facing jail time if it is determined that they deliberately broke the law.

          The end result of criminal prosecution, in my judgment is that it would serve as a deterrent for the commission of crimes of this nature in the future.

          Again, I am not a law expert. But in reviewing what the law experts have written, including Sen. Obama and Feingold, that is my understanding.

          by Jezreel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM PDT

          •  This is a very long non-answer.

            I don't want to insult you, but you haven't answered the question. Might civil suits be a long shot? Yes, if your assessment of the case is correct. (It is not, however. Yes, current law protects the telecom companies if they were given proper and legally sufficient authorization, but this bill prohibits an examination of the propriety and sufficiency of the purported authorizations given -- which is exactly why it is immunity by another name.)

            But even if you were correct, there would be both no need for immunity from civil suit (because immunity would be assured by virtue of the written authorizations that the court is to be prohibited from reviewing), and no harm in permitting civil suits from going forward.

            That brings us back to the original question, still unanswered. What is the reason for protecting defendants you believe to be criminally liable from civil suits? The answer that you think civil suits would fail is not only not an answer, but a situation that your belief would dictate would resolve itself perfectly WITHOUT any legislation at all.

            Why SHOULDN'T criminal defendants be subject to lesser penalties as well? Shouldn't the breaks, if any, be granted to the aggrieved party and not the perpetrators?

            If they can prove they got sufficient authorization, let them do it. It'll take one morning's work. And what has Congress already sunk into this?

            Make sense out of this for us, if you can.

            by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM PDT

            •  No offense taken. As mentioned in my diary, I am

              an analytical and detail oriented person, sometimes to a fault.  

              But even if you were correct, there would be both no need for immunity from civil suit (because immunity would be assured by virtue of the written authorizations that the court is to be prohibited from reviewing), and no harm in permitting civil suits from going forward.

              Nevertheless, the point you raised was discussed both in the diary and in my earlier response to you.  

              I agree with you. So does Senators Feingold and Obama.

              Immunity from civil liability is really a non-starter in this debate. That's why I rephrased the question.

              And as was implied in my earlier response, civil suits can be filed however that's probably as far as they would go because the companies are immune to liability in this situation.

              by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:09:22 AM PDT

          •  You have enlightened me this evening.

            This is a very long, and true answer I believe.  And you've confirmed my suspicion; the legal experts know what they are doing. There is no point in civil lawsuits, other than making the casual observer feel good. No civil penalties would ever hurt Bush, or Ashcroft, or Gonzalez.

            But criminal penalties would hurt. And even if abrogated by some sort of pardon, they'd put a "marker in the sand" reminding our children that yes, Virginia (and Connecticut, and Rhode Island) we have a constitution here.

            As I write I'm sitting on a seventh floor balcony, watching fireworks from two communities. We celebrate the spirit of those rebels.

            We need to celebrate the spirit of this community too. I'm going to write that check for $17.76 right now.

            by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:08:55 PM PDT

            •  The civil penalties aren't aimed at Bush.

              They're aimed at his co-conspirators.

              And, like the previous observation, this one too refuses to address the question: while the preservation of criminal liability is all well and good (assuming any charges are ever brought, which is a one-in-a-million shot), there's still no answer as to what the benefit of precluding civil liability is.

              Why won't anyone even try to take a stab at that answer?

              by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:52:26 PM PDT

            •  Thank you for the affirmation.

              I hope you enjoyed the remainder of the holiday.

              by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:12:31 AM PDT

    •  These certifications do NOT exist yet.

      The new compromise (HR 6304) requires that the AG certify to the District Court that the president auhorized it and deemed it legal.  Nothing that already exists can give the telecoms immunity under the new bill.

      by legalarray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM PDT

      •  And how will they do that?

        By producing the papers that they've already testified to the Congress do exist. That's how.

        The AG will certify that the president authorized it by producing the previous authorizations. This is undisputed.

        So what you have is this bill adding a meaningless step: having the AG say, "Here are those papers I told you about but you are not allowed to review the legal sufficiency of. I hereby certify that that us what you are looking at but not permitted to evaluate."

        What a great safeguard of freedom!

        by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:41:54 PM PDT

        •  HR 6304

          SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.
          (a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--
          (1) [warrant]
          (2) [other provisions of law]
          (3) [oher provisions of law]
          (4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--
          (A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--
          (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and
          (ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and
          (B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such
          person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
          (i) authorized by the President; and
          (ii) determined to be lawful; or
          (5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

          It's a legal technicality, but a crucial and intentional one.  The section doesn't just require proof that the president authorized it, but specifies the  exclusive mode of proof -- a new certification to the court by the AG.  Anybody disagree?

          by legalarray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:20:54 PM PDT

          •  I agree it's intentional.

            But I disagree that it means what you think it means.

            The AG need only now certify that assistance was provided that was authorized by the President.

            So he says, "Yes, the president once authorized this."

            What is it that you think it requires beyond that?

            What else could the AG provide in such a certification? The only federal judges who've ever ruled on the authorizations have found them illegal and unconstitutional. So what would the AG possibly show?

            All the certification referenced above is is signing a paper that says, "Yeah, we once showed some paper."

            There's no actual legal authority on the subject except adverse rulings. The only other writing that exists on the subject is John Yoo's, and the Al-Haramain court just explicitly rejected that the other day, joining two previous federal courts in their rejections. No court has ever upheld this type of authorization.

            But starting next week after the bill is signed, no court will ever be allowed to evaluate such an authorization ever again. They'll only be asked whether the AG has certified to them that one of these illegal authorizations was previously issued on the president's say-so.

            by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:30:09 PM PDT

            •  I think we agree, but

              my emphasis has been on the fact that it forces the administration to come forward and affirmatively admit they authorized it.  Under the original Senate version, all that was required was that the telecoms provide "substantial evidence" that the President authorized it.  This would have allowed the administration to adopt a position of denial, claiming that some unknown "rogue elements" told the telecoms it was legal.  The new bill pins the administration down in a way that, in the end, they may be reluctant to comply with.  

              I've never been impressed with the cases against the telecoms anyway.  In my opinion, a good faith, though mistaken, belief that it was authorized by the president as legal, evidenced by facially credible documents, should be a good defense to civil liability under existing law.  I don't care about telecom liability.  I just wanted to see the discovery process used to expose the real bad guys.  Mission accomplished.  Now they have to expose themselves to give the telecoms immunity.

              by legalarray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:23:18 PM PDT

              •  They've already admitted it.

                In Congressional testimony. And it underlies the whole argument for immunity and always has. They've always said immunity was necessary because it would be unfair for the telecoms to be held liable for something they were asked to do in the name of "national security."

                This has never been hidden or denied.

                I've never been impressed with whether or not anyone's been impressed with any case. It's not of any interest whether anyone but the judge is impressed. So you let Article III do its job, and get Articles I and II out of their hair.

                by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM PDT

              •  Legal, your interpretation is shared by nearly

                everyone who has studied this case, including the Bush administration. That's why no blanket immunity or declarations of executive privilege have been offered because it would put the administration in a much tighter spot than they already are.

                That's why Senator Feingold characterized that part of the debate as "superficially appealing.

                by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:23:38 AM PDT

          •  Thanks Legal for doing the research and providing

            us with more facts.

            by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:16:30 AM PDT

  •  Blanket pardon

    > Bush can't pardon himself and his
    > henchmen for EVERYTHING that they've done.

    "I hearby grant a full, comprehensive, and indivisable pardon to Richard Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, Irving "Scooter" Libby, and Karl "Turdblossom" Rove for any technical violations of state, federal, local, and common law that they may have inadvertently committed while vigorously participating in the War on Terror(tm) from 2001 through 2009, and I prohibit any future prosecution that is a direct result of their upholding the principle of Executive Privilege during my Administration."  s George W. Bush, PRESIDENT.

    I am sure Addington and Yoo can and will come up with something better and more ironclad, but that is what it is going to amount to.  And no Democrat or Democratically-appointed Attorney General will dare challenge it.

    sPh

    by sphealey on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:16:05 PM PDT

    •  I thought...

      pardons could only occur (according to guidelines, I guess, not laws) when the perpetrators have admitted guilt.

      Such a blanket pardon for something they deny ever happening? Oh, my...that ought to spark a constitutional amendment!

      by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:10:42 PM PDT

      •  They do not.

        You thought wrong.

        Ford granted one to Nixon without even so much as an indictment.

        It's in your history books. It's not like it's being made up.

        by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM PDT

        •  Kagro, you are only partially right on this.

          While Nixon was not indicted in the conventional sense by a regular court he was in fact found guilty and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the U.S. House of Representatives.

          During Impeachment hearings, the case is presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since impeachment hearings are conducted by the House Judiciary Committee the actual process is equivalent to an indictment.

          The indictment must then be followed by a trial at which point the president is sentenced, if determined to be guilty of the crimes.

          Ford's pardon of Nixon came after Nixon's conviction (indictment) and thereby satisfied the demands of the law. But only marginally. Because no one had been pardoned before or since then without first being sentenced during a trial.

          by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:50:07 AM PDT

          •  Jezreel, you are entirely wrong on this.

            Nixon was not found guilty and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the U.S. House of Representatives.

            He was not even "charged."

            Look it up.

            There was no impeachment. This is basic historical fact. You are 1000% wrong here.

            The House Judiciary Committee recommended adopting articles of impeachment, but there was never any House vote.

            I just can't put it any plainer that that. You are a million miles from right, and frankly, it's pretty astounding.

            by Kagro X on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:49:46 AM PDT

          •  One more thing.

            I feel compelled to point out that the Constitution explicitly prohibits presidential pardons  in cases of impeachment. So that's another reason that your recounting is wrong.

            by Kagro X on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM PDT

      •  Mr. Michael your answer is on track with the

        truth. Pardons can only be issued after a person has been convicted and sentenced.

        by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:25:57 AM PDT

    •  And can pardons

      eliminate civil suits? Didn't think that was possible.

      As I wrote above, my best bet for impoverishing Rove is a civil rights lawsuit for caging. I'd bet it was not only practical but inevitable.

      by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:11:41 PM PDT

      •  No.

        Pardons cannot eliminate civil suits. Which is why Bush is having the Congress do it. It's the only part of his program that the president doesn't have a colorable claim of direct executive power to accomplish.

        He can pardon for the criminal liability. And he can order the wiretaps on his own authority (or so he claims). But he has no mechanism for dealing with the civil liability. Hence his insistence that even if the PAA were extended and all of his concerns about the expiration of current authorizations for intelligence gathering were taken care of in a bill that didn't have immunity in it, he would still veto it.

        What other explanation could there be? Why would he veto a bill that gives him all the power he claims he has, and all the power he claims he wants, but didn't include immunity?

        Because it's the only part of the scheme he can't effect by executive order.

        by Kagro X on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM PDT

        •  Actually a veto would be grand

          Because it would draw the line in the sand, and make the issue clear for the future debate.

          by MrMichaelMT on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:36:16 AM PDT

          •  Precisely Mr. Michael.

            by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:53:16 AM PDT

      •  Actually, I don't believe that a person

        who has been pardoned after committing a criminal offense is automatically immune from civil liability.

        by Jezreel on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:52:05 AM PDT

•  Nice diary...

  Actually, I have stopped reading most of the FISA diary's.  

  Regarding FISA, I go by how much of my red neck brothers think.  And if I brought up the issue of FISA, their response would be "huh?"....

  They are worried about the price of gas.  They are worried about keeping their jobs until they can retire in a few years.  They are worried about lots of stuff, but FISA is not on the list.  Both tend to vote Republican.  One of them is leaning Obama - but anxious about him.  The other thinks that DKos is that big orange monster, and we had one of our few fights ever over me going to the convention last year.  

  We need to do what is necessary to get him elected.  

  by JWC on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM PDT

  •  Agreed. In real life, most of the people

    I know don't know about FISA, Gen. Clark or Feingold's efforts.

    I suppose then that I should admit that one motivation was and is not only to counter some of the anti-Obama rhetoric that is enshrouded in the FISA controversy but also to provide factual data for those who might have a desire to be informed but were unwittingly drawn into the controversy by believing the misinformation and in some cases the outright lies.

    by Jezreel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM PDT

  •  Thanks you.

    by Jezreel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM PDT

•  "the constant vitriol can wear on the spirit."

  I know it sometimes wears on mine.

  by GeeBee on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM PDT

  •  Mine too.

    by Jezreel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:27:35 PM PDT

•  Feingold recently urged opponents of Govt. spying

  to join the MyBOFISA group.

  by ben masel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM PDT