When we last sawour Republican Superfriends, the political outlook was grim, and the time to fateful Election Day was inexorably counting down! But fear not, dear reader, for the Republican Superfriends have the unlikeliest of allies at their side - Congressional Democrats!

This from the ACLU regarding the deal on FISA before the House:

Late Friday night, the ACLU caught wind of a dangerous backroom deal brewing. The "deal" would rush a House vote that would push through a dangerous sellout on government spying powers, possibly in the next few days.

Of course, nobody wants to be spied on, but we're talking about accountability. It's been too easy, too comfortable in the Bush Administration for government to employ American companies to do its dirty work and thus avoid oversight. Somebody has to pay to slow this down from an avalanche of police-state policies to at least a more manageable faucet. It's time to send a message to congress at the link (very long) in the body.

As many as 996,000 vehicles registered in the state of California are currently exempt from traffic citations for running red lights, speeding and other traffic violations usually monitored by cameras.

The vehicles in question are registered to owners employed by or affiliated with a long list of public safety agencies. The owners of these vehicles are able to keep home addresses shielded from public disclosure through a loophole under California’s Confidential Records Programs (CRP).

Critics of the program say it made sense at one time. Before 1990, anyone could use license plate numbers to obtain the home address of most state residents through California State Department of Motor Vehicles records. But the law was changed to make all address records off limits to the general public while at the same time allowing law enforcement agencies access to all home addresses with the exception of those that are protected by the CRP.

Very short story.

I've been reading the Constitution of the United States the other day. Remember such thing? The one the regulates the foundation of United States, the government and such? Yes, that one.

So, I was reading it, you know, just to refresh my memory, and one thing just called my attention:

ARTICLE I.
...
Sect. 9.
...
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed.

So, unless our Congress really wants to violate "the Supreme Law of the Land", I don't see any legal reasons to pass the retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies.

I may be wrong, of course. And I wonder why nobody even raised such objection to this immunity before...

After years of litigation, the infamous Department of Justice (DOJ) "torture memo" has been made public by the Bush regime.  The 81-page memo, written by John Yoo, then a deputy at the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), was sent to the Defense Department’s top lawyer, William J. Haynes, in March 14, 2003.  This memo asserted that the President has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations to extract information from detainees. According to Yoo, "[O]ur previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion."  Under the Bush regime, international law prohibiting torture was ignored.  Thousands of prisoners have been and continue to be routinely abused and tortured in U.S. run prisons around the world. This memo was used to legally "justify" these crimes.

The chump doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Several weeks ago I wrote to Senator McCaskill expressing my extreme dissapointment in her decision to vote against the Dodd FISA ammendament removing Retroactive Immunity for telecoms.

Below the fold is an e-mail response I just finally received today outlining her reasons for that vote and my personal reaction to it.

If Dubya prevails in providing immunity to the Telecoms, he has a plan for them to use the millions they'll save that they had earmarked for legal defense funds.

Is it possible that his sinister suggestion to them will violate the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment?

Coming to your neighborhood soon ... below the fold are photos that raise serious concerns of what Dubya has proposed:

Senator Obama should invite Senator Dodd to Wyoming and instead of giving his standard stump speech they should talk about FISA. Dodd begins by speaking against retroactive immunity and for exclusivity and then Obama integrates those specific aims into his themes of hope instead of fear and transparency in government.

At the same time Senator Obama should be lobbying those Congress members and Senators who have endorsed him, and even those who have not, to vote against immunity and for exclusivity. He makes a targeted request to volunteers in those Congressional districts/states to call their representatives and urge them to oppose any retroactive immunity and support the exclusivity provisions. Then he follows by spending a million dollars to run ads in Congressional districts to help swing votes.

Below the flip, there would be several immediate and long-term advantages for both the campaign and of course for the actual FISA bill that is passed.

Many of us have had these suspicions for a long time. Now a Tech. has confirmed some of our worse fears. The compilicity of the Telecoms is undeniable when you look at how it is being done. According to "Computer security analyst Babak Pasdar says that a major mobile telecommunications carrier has a built-in backdoor that provides an undisclosed third-party with unfettered access to its internal technical infrastructure, including the ability to eavesdrop on all calls through its network." http://arstechnica.com/...

A U.S. government office in Quantico, Virginia, has direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier's systems, exposing customers' voice calls, data packets and physical movements to uncontrolled surveillance, according to a computer security consultant who says he worked for the carrier in late 2003.

 Wired

Call me "Captain Obvious".  Tell me that it doesn’t matter – that what is said and what is done are two very different things.  Tell me that republicans don’t care about the Constitution.  Say "well, DUH" to what I am laying out here.

All of that is true.

But all of that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things if we can’t use this as a perfect example and reason to shatter and demolish the stupid code of "strict constructionist" that is used to eliminate privacy rights, minority rights, gay marriage rights or impose creationism in the public school system.

The point is a simple one:  strict constructionists or those who support strict constructionists can NOT justify giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies for their complicity in breaking the law.

Period.

This rant started out as a guideline for what I was going to say to my representative regarding the recent retroactive telecom immunity capitulation by Congress.  It didn't take long to warp itself into a rant regarding Congress' incompetence and inability to claim it's Constitutional place.  It is somewhat unfinished, but I don't have the time to write as long and as in depth as I'd like, there volumes to be written.

Hello, my name is Hiro and I'm a constituent of %representative%.  I'm calling to inform you that I am very disappointed with %representative% and Congress as a whole regarding their inability to fufill their constitutional obligations as a coequal branch of government.

Specifically regarding the multiple "compromises" that Congress has made with the Whitehouse which are nothing more than prettied up capitulation.  Over and over we see this trend: The Whitehouse makes demands, Congress hems and haws and makes a show at resistance, then completely gives in to whatever it is that the Whitehouse wishes.  

As the FISA battle has continued, I've found myself at a tipping point with respect to the Democrats and US politics more generally.  Now it looks like the House is going to split the legislation and give the President his telecom immunity.

That's it.  I'm done.  And I realized it as I was writing to Nancy Pelosi.

Yesterday I wrote a diary about telecom immunity and the suggestion that the telecoms might not help us again if they think they're going to be sued.  This is all just insinuated by people in the Bush administration like Mike McConnell.  It's always in the form of a vague suggestion, so in yesterday's diary I wrote this:

with all the uncertainty about whether or not the telecoms will help us in the next terrorist attack I propose an extremely radical idea:  let's ask them, and settle this thing once and for all.  Let's ask the telecoms whether or not they intend to let thousands of us die in the next terrorist attack because they don't want to get sued.  And let them look the American people in the eye when they give their answer.  Our very lives are at stake here.  I'd call that a Need To Know situation, wouldn't you?

The more I wondered why they didn't just ask the telecoms, the more I started to wonder if they already had.

We really must thank Senator Kennedy for getting the ball rolling with his "if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies" Senate speech last December.  It woke a lot of people up to the disingenuousness of the President's remarks.  Bush really screwed the pooch on this one.

Yes, it's about the telecom immunity, but why is it about the telecom immunity?  Sure, it's partly because the rich and the corporations always comes first with this administration.  The fact that the very act of asking for immunity is a tacit admission of guilt is completely lost on them.   (and you'll notice they've stopped trying to argue the issue on legal grounds).  The new argument is that when and if the next terrorist attack occurs the telecoms will not be willing to help us if they're afraid they'll get sued.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Elizabeth Dole, the people of North Carolina and our nation deserve to know my values and where I stand on the FISA bill before Congress.  

As a kid growing up in Greensboro, I was taught to believe in equality and fair play.  

That’s why I unequivocally oppose giving telephone companies amnesty for felony violations of the current FISA law.  

[Note to Daily Kos friends: We’ve been talking about FISA a lot. I’ve decided that I need to do more to get the conversation to friends and folks in my community who are not political junkies like me. I’m in debt to you for your insights and accurate reporting, especially McJoan, so you’re not likely to find anything new here. I’ll be posting this on my blog site and emailing the link to all of the friends I think might be open to talking to their family and friends. I will be grateful for any corrections that need to be made or for other talking points not mentioned. Thanks! Milo]

If you haven’t been talking to your friends about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already, you may have an opportunity over the next few days while Congress is in recess. If your friends don’t raise the issue, perhaps you should. As citizens of what we consider a free country, we need to be talking about this issue among ourselves and with our elected representatives in Washington.

Does it ever get old? Follow the money and pull a few things together.

[It's been said, but to be clear: FISA courts work well. They processed tens of thousands of spying requests since 1978 while denying only a handful. They allowed, and still allow, for spying to take place in emergencies by allowing the government to file papers after the fact. FISA was updated multiple times to keep up with the times, even in 2001, and praised by Bush who now says otherwise.]

Who makes out financially as FISA works as intended, protecting the rights of Americans? No one, as far as I know.

Who makes out financially if FISA is circumvented by illegal spying, and if telecoms and others receive full immunity?