This is probably the most important piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act. If Congress confers broad new powers to the Executive however, it will be a civil rights erosion of historic and enormous proportions. Furthermore, granting retroactive immunity for multiple felonies proves that anyone with enough lobbying clout and Village bona fides among the "polite society" there can flout the rule of law.

This is the most important and least reported story not in the news now. We really have to get rid of this legislation pronto, and punish those on either side of the aisle for even considering it. Ron Paul's people are against it too. I suggest you call your congress critter and/or Senator, and consider contributing to the Act Blue FISA fund (or PAC of your choice), to ensure this gets killed.

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa Accountability doesn't come cheap these days ;)

for posting and updating this. It's the kind of thing that people should be boiling mad over, but aren't yet.

BBC, June 19

Sweden's parliament has approved controversial new laws allowing authorities to spy on cross-border e-mail and telephone traffic.

The country's intelligence bureau will be able to scan international calls, faxes and e-mails.

The measure was passed by a narrow majority after a heated debate in the Stockholm parliament.

Critics say it threatens civil liberties and represents Europe's most far-reaching eavesdropping plan.

"By introducing these new measures, the Swedish government is following the examples set by governments ranging from China and Saudi Arabia to the US government's highly criticised eavesdropping programme," said Peter Fleischer, of Google.

Obama, telecoms and the Beltway system

Under a wiretapping bill set to be approved by the House, U.S. phone companies would receive immunity and “be shielded from potentially billions of dollars in lawsuits.” As a “compromise,” the bill would also “allow a federal district court to dismiss a suit if the company was provided written assurances that Bush authorized their participation in the spy program and that it was legal.”

Think Progress

Reuter link

George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress

CQ reports (sub. req.) that "a final deal has been reached" on FISA and telecom amnesty and "the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday." I've now just read a copy of the final "compromise" bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is:

more at Unclaimed Territory

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html

The ACLU's Caroline Fredrickson calls this "disastrous surveillance legislation" and said this about the new warrantless eavesdroppping provisions in the bill:

This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans' communications. The court review is mere window-dressing –- all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole –- "exigent" circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all.

I'd like to underscore the fact that in 2006, when the Congress was controlled by Bill Frist and Denny Hastert, the administration tried to get a bill passed legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, but was unable. They had to wait until the Congress was controlled by Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to accomplish that.

FISA Compromise Breaks From House Dems Stance From Four Months Ago

Washington Independent | Mike Lillis | 06/20/2008

In February, as the law authorizing the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretapping program was set to lapse, House Democrats brushed aside GOP threats and let the clock run out. Politically, the move was a gamble: White House officials had claimed the law -- including retroactive legal immunity for the phone companies that participated -- was necessary to protect the country from terrorist attacks. The administration pushed its message relentlessly.

To the delight of privacy and civil-liberties groups, however, the Democrats stood their ground.

"We must not fall prey to fear-mongers who claim that our intelligence community could 'go dark,'" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on the chamber floor at the time. "That is simply not true." ...

If Pelosi could say this with a straight face must prove she is full of bulltox;)

What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by "bipartisanship"

(updated below)

It's bad enough watching the likes of Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and a disturbingly disoriented Nancy Pelosi eviscerate the Fourth Amendment, exempt their largest corporate contributors from the rule of law, and endorse the most radical aspects of the Bush lawbreaking regime. But it's downright pathetic to see try to depict their behavior as some sort of bipartisan "compromise" whereby they won meaningful concessions:

"When they saw that we were unified in sending that bill rather than falling for their scare tactics, I think it sent them a message," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "So our leverage was increased because of our Democratic unity in both cases."

Not even the media establishment and the GOP can refrain from mocking this pretense they're trying to peddle. What's amazing is that they're actually as devoid of dignity as they are integrity.

As I noted yesterday, the GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get. To The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a "formality" which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: "I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."

much much more

“FISA Debate In The House”

Obama on the FISA 'Compromise' ...

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Atrios' wanker of the day. Indeed.

stop paying that phone bill
Get back to nature and off the electronic surveillance grid.

I tell you, I'm disgusted with the lot of them. Obama, Pelosi, and all of the other "high and mighty" Dems who *claim* to care about the rule of law, but only in so far as it caters to big business and their elections coffers. We've been robbed. I want a do over with a REAL candidate for president someone like Feingold -- or perhaps another pass at Kucinich who at least had the strength of character to introduce 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.

And we wonder why gas is $4.29 a gallon? Or why a gallon of milk costs $4.99? Or why men are being tortured and murdered EVERYDAY in our name? They are nothing more than proverbial Quisling's -- the lot of them.

Saturday June 21, 2008 09:53 EDT
Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"

(updated below)

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

....

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

Making matters worse still, what Obama did yesterday is in clear tension with an emphatic promise that he made just months ago. As the extremely pro-Obama MoveOn.org notes today, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." MoveOn believes Obama should be held to his word and is thus conducting a campaign urging Obama to do what he promised -- support a filibuster to stop the enactment of telecom amnesty. You can email Burton here to demand that Obama comply with his commitment not just to vote against, but to filibuster, telecom amnesty:

bburton@barackobama.com

Incidentally, Chris Dodd made an identical promise when he was running for President, prompting the support of hundreds of thousands of new contributors, and he ought to be held to his promise as well.

tons more

Behind the Compromise on Spying
Friday, Jun. 20, 2008 By MASSIMO CALABRESI

A compromise deal to extend the federal government's domestic spying powers, passed by the House on Friday and expected to sail through the Senate next week, has drawn attacks from both sides of the political spectrum. The right is unhappy at concessions made to protect civil liberties; the left is furious that the Democrats allowed the domestic spying powers to be extended in any form. Much of the latter's rage has been directed against Nancy Pelosi, the liberal House Speaker who was instrumental in negotiating the deal — attacking her on the internet and virtually shutting down her switchboard with complaints. One blogger called Pelosi "disturbingly disoriented" and said the deal she and her allies have cut will "eviscerate the Fourth Amendment, exempt their largest corporate contributors from the rule of law, and endorse the most radical aspects of the Bush lawbreaking regime."

What motivated Pelosi and the Democrats to incur the wrath of their liberal base and allow one of the Administration's most controversial anti-terror policies to be extended? A mix of politics, pragmatism and some significant concessions.

...

Pelosi had another reason for backing the compromise: unlike some on the left, she actually believes domestic surveillance laws needs updating in light of the new terror threats. "We can't go without a bill," she said on the House floor Friday, "That's simply just not an option." Existing U.S. surveillance law, passed in 1978, needs to be improved, she believes, not just to protect Americans at home but to protect U.S. troops in the field. "Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence," she said.

Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."

read more on the weaseling

Many Democrats are at odds with their own leadership over extending domestic surveillance.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the June 23, 2008 edition

Washington - Congress is on the verge of ending a year-long struggle with the White House over a contentious intelligence surveillance bill.

In one of the toughest votes of the 110th Congress, the House on Friday backed a compromise that expands the government's capacity to eavesdrop without a warrant. The Senate this week is expected to do the same.

Most House Democrats did not back the compromise. But in a break with previous statements, their leaders did.

"So again, a difficult decision for all of us," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a floor statement before the vote. "If not good enough for some," the bill is "certainly preferable to the alternative that we have, which is the Senate bill, which must be rejected," she said.

At issue between the Senate and House versions is whether to grant legal immunity to telecommunication companies for their role in the secret surveillance program after the 9/11 attacks – a key White House demand. The Senate version of the bill includes immunity for telecoms.

Under the terms of the House bill, a federal district court will decide whether immunity is granted. Only companies, not government officials, could be shielded.

"The issue really was whether we would have a compromise that would involve the court in determining whether or not the telecom companies had received justification ... or simply a bill that gave them immunity," said House majority leader Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland after Friday's vote.

The bill would protect companies that can show they had received assurances from the executive branch that the program was legal and authorized by the president.

The bill passed by a vote of 293 to 129, with 105 House Democrats joining all but one Republican in favor of the bill and 128 Democrats, including most committee chairs, opposing it.

"This bill is a fig leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for possibly illegal acts without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D) of New York, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, in a statement after the vote.

Trolling the aisles during the vote. Rep. José Serrano (D) of New York, who opposed the bill, told colleagues voting for it: "Don't worry, government will give us back our freedoms later."

more

Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"

Ian at FDL

The FISA Cloture vote just passed. The Senate will now consider the motion to proceed with the bill, then they'll head to the bill itself (corrected procedural details, h/t and thanks to CBolt). Various motions will be put forward to strip immunity, odds are they will fail. Then a number of the 80 who voted to restrict debate will vote against FISA so they can say they were against the bill. However this was the real vote, and the rest is almost certainly nothing but kabuki for the rubes more

Obama lets down again... BTD at Talkleft

Obama campaign during the primaries:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

This is Obama now:

My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Thursday June 26, 2008 07:22 EDT
Keith Olbermann: Then and now

(updated below)

On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immnity is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."

Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:

This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.

Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:

There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.

Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that immunity and revising FISA are necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.

Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:

much more with link love at Unclaimed Territory

Someone should tell Obama supporting the immunity is not a show of strenght but a glaring show of weakness. me