CRS Report:
94% of Senate Bills Passed in Secret
CRS REPORT
July 23, 2008 - Washington D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) released a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) finding that 94 percent of bills the Senate has passed in the 110th Congress have been without a vote, debate or a single amendment. The 855 bills that have been secretly passed spend more than $9 billion, though a final total is not available because many of the bills were rushed through before a cost analysis could be performed.
Senator DeMint: “It would surprise many Americans to learn that the ‘World’s Greatest Deliberative Body’ passes the overwhelming majority of legislation without any debate at all. Democrats think they are entitled to pass bills without debate or votes, and they’ve tried to ram them through right before recess to pressure us to give up. But, Senators shouldn’t fear debate on these important bills. It’s in the best traditions of our republic to demand the Senate actually do its job and have a public debate on bills that expand government and increase the burden on taxpayers. Senator Reid can complain all he wants, but Republicans represent millions of Americans whose voices are being silenced by Democrat strong-arm tactics.”
Dr. Coburn: “The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability. This report shows that the reality is worse than the public’s fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I’m disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery. For instance, he has depicted my effort to reduce the number of bills that pass the Senate in secret by ten percent as ‘unprecedented obstruction.’ What is unprecedented and ahistorical, however, is the Majority Leader’s view that Senators should have a king-like right to pass massive spending bills in secret with no debate, no amendments and no recorded vote.”
The CRS report states, “[T]he vast majority of measures passed or agreed to by the Senate so far in the 110th Congress have not received formal parliamentary debate on the floor of the Senate.” This practice, known as “hotlining,” has traditionally been reserved for noncontroversial bills with little to no cost to the taxpayer, like the naming of post offices. However, the practice has been abused to sneak through large bills that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and have significant policy implications.
On March 3, 2008, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin stated on the Senate Floor:
“My good friend, the late Congressman from Oklahoma, Mike Synar, used to say: If you don’t want to fight fires, don’t be a firefighter. If you don’t want to stop crime, don’t be a policeman, and if you don’t want to vote on tough issues, don’t run for Congress.”
“I agree with him. I don’t like facing tough votes, but it is a part of the job. You ought to at least have enough confidence in your beliefs to cast that vote and go home and explain it.”
Highlights from the Congressional Research Service Memorandum – “The Clearance Process in the Senate and Measures Approved in the 110th Congress through June 30, 2008”:
“Nearly every day the Senate is in session, the majority and minority leaders consult to identify bills and resolutions that have been “cleared” by the Senators in both parties. A measure is considered cleared if no Senator has informed party leadership … that he or she is opposed to passage of the measure without debate.”
• Only 56 bills (6%) were passed by vote (53 by roll call vote, 3 by voice vote)
• 855 bills (94%) were passed by Unanimous Consent (no debate, no vote)
o 388 were passed by UC on the same day they were introduced
o 381 were passed by UC without debate
o 88 were passed by UC with some debate
o 9 were passed by UC without debate after debate on a Senate companion bill
• 35% of the bills passed by UC were agreed to in the week before a recess
• 52% of the bills passed by UC were agreed to during the two weeks before a recess
From Consortium.Com
Bush's Mass Pardons Predicted
By Brent Budowsky
July 26, 2008
Editor’s Note: As his presidency nears its end, George W. Bush will be faced with a tough choice: either run the risk, along with many of his top aides, of future prosecution for a variety of crimes from the “war on terror” -- or fashion a mass pardon for all those involved.
In this guest essay, former Democratic congressional aide Brent Budowsky predicts that Bush will take the latter course, even outdoing his father's lame-duck Iran-Contra pardons in 1992:
Before leaving office George W. Bush will issue a mass pardon, the largest collection of presidential pardons in American history.
Share this article
Bush will pardon himself, Vice President Cheney, and a long list of officials involved in torture, eavesdropping, destruction of evidence, the CIA leak case, and a range of other potential crimes.
As George Bush signs the pardons and boards the helicopter to depart Washington as his presidency finally ends, even then he and those pardoned will worry about the statute of limitations.
There is an important point to this, often not recognized in official Washington during the Bush years: When the unthinkable became a way of life, acts were committed that defied constitutional and legal principles in ways never done by an American president.
Torture alone violates international law, domestic law, criminal statutes, and American principles that date back to George Washington.
Eavesdropping without court order violates a statute, FISA, that includes severe criminal penalties. If the courts ultimately conclude that these laws were broken, as I predict they ultimately will, considering the number of individual violations, and the penalties for each violation, the potential sentencing liability for anyone convicted would be huge.
On the destruction of evidence, disappearing e-mails, claims of executive privilege that I predict will be clearly rejected by the Supreme Court after Bush has departed, arguably false testimony to Congress, attempts to cover up actions that violate the law, the list, again, goes on.
There will be a huge legal debate about the right of a President to issue pardons so sweeping in their language that they cover all these potential areas of legal liability, and very possibly, it cannot be done.
Congress should pursue every pending and possible legal challenge to claims of executive privilege so completely untenable under the law that even some conservative Supreme Court justices will refuse to uphold them, as conservative justices joined liberals ruling against Richard M. Nixon.
I predict a series of historic Supreme Court cases that will defeat most of the Bush executive privilege claims and permanently end attempts for royalist interpretations of the law that the Bush years embody.
The fact that Bush attempted to seize power in ways that negate the legislative and judicial branches of government, and the fact that Congress was not heroic in defending its rightful place in the separation of powers, do not change the fact that what is illegal is illegal.
But this is not merely a liberal issue.
There are many authentic conservatives, true Barry Goldwater Republicans, genuine libertarians, honorable strict constructionist conservative jurists and legal scholars who agree entirely that on occasions George Bush has attempted and at times executed seizures of executive power that violate the American Constitution and American statutes.
So, get ready for mass pardons.
Get ready for the long-held precedents of American law to be ultimately if belatedly upheld and spurious claims of executive privilege to be rejected.
Get ready for a long-overdue debate that has barely begun and will be triggered by the mass pardons that will be the last sorry act of the presidency of George W. Bush.
Brent Budowsky was an aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Rep. Bill Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House. A contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service, he can be read on The Hill newspaper where this essay first appeared. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.
Bush's Mass Pardons Predicted
By Brent Budowsky
July 26, 2008
Editor’s Note: As his presidency nears its end, George W. Bush will be faced with a tough choice: either run the risk, along with many of his top aides, of future prosecution for a variety of crimes from the “war on terror” -- or fashion a mass pardon for all those involved.
In this guest essay, former Democratic congressional aide Brent Budowsky predicts that Bush will take the latter course, even outdoing his father's lame-duck Iran-Contra pardons in 1992:
Before leaving office George W. Bush will issue a mass pardon, the largest collection of presidential pardons in American history.
Share this article
Bush will pardon himself, Vice President Cheney, and a long list of officials involved in torture, eavesdropping, destruction of evidence, the CIA leak case, and a range of other potential crimes.
As George Bush signs the pardons and boards the helicopter to depart Washington as his presidency finally ends, even then he and those pardoned will worry about the statute of limitations.
There is an important point to this, often not recognized in official Washington during the Bush years: When the unthinkable became a way of life, acts were committed that defied constitutional and legal principles in ways never done by an American president.
Torture alone violates international law, domestic law, criminal statutes, and American principles that date back to George Washington.
Eavesdropping without court order violates a statute, FISA, that includes severe criminal penalties. If the courts ultimately conclude that these laws were broken, as I predict they ultimately will, considering the number of individual violations, and the penalties for each violation, the potential sentencing liability for anyone convicted would be huge.
On the destruction of evidence, disappearing e-mails, claims of executive privilege that I predict will be clearly rejected by the Supreme Court after Bush has departed, arguably false testimony to Congress, attempts to cover up actions that violate the law, the list, again, goes on.
There will be a huge legal debate about the right of a President to issue pardons so sweeping in their language that they cover all these potential areas of legal liability, and very possibly, it cannot be done.
Congress should pursue every pending and possible legal challenge to claims of executive privilege so completely untenable under the law that even some conservative Supreme Court justices will refuse to uphold them, as conservative justices joined liberals ruling against Richard M. Nixon.
I predict a series of historic Supreme Court cases that will defeat most of the Bush executive privilege claims and permanently end attempts for royalist interpretations of the law that the Bush years embody.
The fact that Bush attempted to seize power in ways that negate the legislative and judicial branches of government, and the fact that Congress was not heroic in defending its rightful place in the separation of powers, do not change the fact that what is illegal is illegal.
But this is not merely a liberal issue.
There are many authentic conservatives, true Barry Goldwater Republicans, genuine libertarians, honorable strict constructionist conservative jurists and legal scholars who agree entirely that on occasions George Bush has attempted and at times executed seizures of executive power that violate the American Constitution and American statutes.
So, get ready for mass pardons.
Get ready for the long-held precedents of American law to be ultimately if belatedly upheld and spurious claims of executive privilege to be rejected.
Get ready for a long-overdue debate that has barely begun and will be triggered by the mass pardons that will be the last sorry act of the presidency of George W. Bush.
Brent Budowsky was an aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Rep. Bill Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House. A contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service, he can be read on The Hill newspaper where this essay first appeared. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.
From Unknown News.com
Court says Bush can order indefinite military detentions of US civilians
Excerpt: President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-4 decision.
But a second, overlapping 5-4 majority of the court, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., must be given an additional opportunity to challenge his detention in federal court there.
Comment: Someone explain to me why these alleged judges shouldn't be promptly impeached and disbarred. Angry Annie PERMANENT LINK
Have a little think about it, and you'll see that the
Fourth Circuit judges have just endorsed dictatorial powers
Excerpt: Wake up, America! On July 15, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled by 5 votes to 4 in the case of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [pdf] that the president can arrest US citizens and legal residents inside the United States and imprison them indefinitely, without charge or trial, based solely on his assertion that they are "enemy combatants."
Court says Bush can order indefinite military detentions of US civilians
Excerpt: President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-4 decision.
But a second, overlapping 5-4 majority of the court, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., must be given an additional opportunity to challenge his detention in federal court there.
Comment: Someone explain to me why these alleged judges shouldn't be promptly impeached and disbarred. Angry Annie PERMANENT LINK
Have a little think about it, and you'll see that the
Fourth Circuit judges have just endorsed dictatorial powers
Excerpt: Wake up, America! On July 15, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled by 5 votes to 4 in the case of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [pdf] that the president can arrest US citizens and legal residents inside the United States and imprison them indefinitely, without charge or trial, based solely on his assertion that they are "enemy combatants."
From www.roguegovernment.com
There Is No Fourth Amendment
07-11-2008 Lee Rogers
Skull and Bones member, war criminal and traitor George W. Bush recently signed HR 6304 or the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 into law that effectively makes the Fourth Amendment null and void. The new law disregards the protections guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment and allows the government to spy on people without a warrant so long as the government reasonably believes that they are gathering information on somebody from a foreign country. The government can reasonably believe whatever they want and not have to provide probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation to obtain a warrant before they engage in spying activities. It gives them a blank check to spy on whoever they please. It also eliminates any sort of oversight in the intelligence gathering process, and this is a dangerous proposition. The law also gives immunity to telecommunication companies from lawsuits pertaining to their prior cooperation in the unlawful spying programs implemented by the government. As expected, Bush and the supporters of this newly passed law are using the bogus excuse of the war on terror to undermine civil liberties. The terror war as has been documented time and time again is a fraud designed to setup a police state, justify illegal foreign wars and destroy the rule of law. The only reason there has been such a hurry to get this legislation passed into law is so Bush’s buddies in these Fortune 100 companies won’t get sued over their felonious activity.
The ACLU is already planning to challenge the legality of this new law. Here’s what the lead attorney from the ACLU had to say about this new law.
The law lets government "conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it's conducting the surveillance," said ACLU national security director Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney in the suit.
Let’s take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. This law gives the federal government power to conduct surveillance without a warrant which means that it is unconstitutional and should be immediately thrown out by the judiciary. Amazingly the law itself references the Fourth Amendment several times even though it contains language that directly contradicts it. It essentially says that the government can spy on people without a warrant so long as it is reasonably believed you aren’t spying on an American citizen. It also states that this sort of spying activity should be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment. This is ridiculous as the government cannot conduct the type of spying that is authorized in this law while conducting it in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment. It is a total contradiction.
Even though the ACLU is far from a perfect group, they do have the Constitution on their side. This new law is entirely unconstitutional and it should be thrown out. Hopefully the ACLU will succeed in accomplishing this. One thing is for sure, Bush and the gaggle of traitors in Congress that supported the passage of this bill into law should be thrown out of office immediately. If the war on terror is real, how come the nation’s borders are wide open and Bush does nothing about the terrorist attacks currently taking place on the U.S.-Mexico border? Why does the Bush administration need to spy on people without a warrant, when they are not concerned with dangerous activity taking place in our own backyard? It is entirely hypocritical for Bush to use the phony terror war to justify the passage of this unlawful legislation. If he really wanted to stop terrorism a good first step would be for him to order the CIA otherwise known as the Cocaine Importing Agency to stop staging terrorist attacks. This new law is a bunch of garbage. It does not help fight terrorism and it does not protect civil liberties as Bush claims. Quite frankly, this new law sucks.
There Is No Fourth Amendment
07-11-2008 Lee Rogers
Skull and Bones member, war criminal and traitor George W. Bush recently signed HR 6304 or the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 into law that effectively makes the Fourth Amendment null and void. The new law disregards the protections guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment and allows the government to spy on people without a warrant so long as the government reasonably believes that they are gathering information on somebody from a foreign country. The government can reasonably believe whatever they want and not have to provide probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation to obtain a warrant before they engage in spying activities. It gives them a blank check to spy on whoever they please. It also eliminates any sort of oversight in the intelligence gathering process, and this is a dangerous proposition. The law also gives immunity to telecommunication companies from lawsuits pertaining to their prior cooperation in the unlawful spying programs implemented by the government. As expected, Bush and the supporters of this newly passed law are using the bogus excuse of the war on terror to undermine civil liberties. The terror war as has been documented time and time again is a fraud designed to setup a police state, justify illegal foreign wars and destroy the rule of law. The only reason there has been such a hurry to get this legislation passed into law is so Bush’s buddies in these Fortune 100 companies won’t get sued over their felonious activity.
The ACLU is already planning to challenge the legality of this new law. Here’s what the lead attorney from the ACLU had to say about this new law.
The law lets government "conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it's conducting the surveillance," said ACLU national security director Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney in the suit.
Let’s take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. This law gives the federal government power to conduct surveillance without a warrant which means that it is unconstitutional and should be immediately thrown out by the judiciary. Amazingly the law itself references the Fourth Amendment several times even though it contains language that directly contradicts it. It essentially says that the government can spy on people without a warrant so long as it is reasonably believed you aren’t spying on an American citizen. It also states that this sort of spying activity should be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment. This is ridiculous as the government cannot conduct the type of spying that is authorized in this law while conducting it in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment. It is a total contradiction.
Even though the ACLU is far from a perfect group, they do have the Constitution on their side. This new law is entirely unconstitutional and it should be thrown out. Hopefully the ACLU will succeed in accomplishing this. One thing is for sure, Bush and the gaggle of traitors in Congress that supported the passage of this bill into law should be thrown out of office immediately. If the war on terror is real, how come the nation’s borders are wide open and Bush does nothing about the terrorist attacks currently taking place on the U.S.-Mexico border? Why does the Bush administration need to spy on people without a warrant, when they are not concerned with dangerous activity taking place in our own backyard? It is entirely hypocritical for Bush to use the phony terror war to justify the passage of this unlawful legislation. If he really wanted to stop terrorism a good first step would be for him to order the CIA otherwise known as the Cocaine Importing Agency to stop staging terrorist attacks. This new law is a bunch of garbage. It does not help fight terrorism and it does not protect civil liberties as Bush claims. Quite frankly, this new law sucks.
Kucinich Demands Congress Issue Subpoenas for Continuity of Government Plans
Published on 13-07-2008
Source: George Washington's Blog
Congressman Kucinich - who is leading the charge for impeachment - says that the American people must pressure Congress every day to get to find out about continuity of government (COG). If you don't know what COG is, read this.
Kucinich said Congress has tried to find out whether COG plans implemented on 9/11 are still in effect, and what those plans are, but the White House has stonewalled. He suggests that Americans demand that congress issue subpoenas to determine whether COG plans are currently in effect, and to find out what's in the documents. This is the only way we'll find out.
John Conyers has been issuing subpoenas on other issues, which may be important. However, what could be more important for Congress than determining whether or not the Constitution is still the controlling document for our country? What could be more important for Congress than determining whether COG planning documents strip Congress of its power, and give sole power to the executive branch?
Demand that congress issue subpoenas and -- more importantly -- hold everyone subpoenaed person -- including Buch, Cheney, Mukasey, Chertoff, etc. -- in contempt (and throw them in jail!) if they don't respond.
Published on 13-07-2008
Source: George Washington's Blog
Congressman Kucinich - who is leading the charge for impeachment - says that the American people must pressure Congress every day to get to find out about continuity of government (COG). If you don't know what COG is, read this.
Kucinich said Congress has tried to find out whether COG plans implemented on 9/11 are still in effect, and what those plans are, but the White House has stonewalled. He suggests that Americans demand that congress issue subpoenas to determine whether COG plans are currently in effect, and to find out what's in the documents. This is the only way we'll find out.
John Conyers has been issuing subpoenas on other issues, which may be important. However, what could be more important for Congress than determining whether or not the Constitution is still the controlling document for our country? What could be more important for Congress than determining whether COG planning documents strip Congress of its power, and give sole power to the executive branch?
Demand that congress issue subpoenas and -- more importantly -- hold everyone subpoenaed person -- including Buch, Cheney, Mukasey, Chertoff, etc. -- in contempt (and throw them in jail!) if they don't respond.
From Daily KOS
Cleaning Up After the Worst Presidency in History
by mcjoan Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:00:45 AM PDT
If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means 'to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal' would bring terrible retribution.
[From dissenting opinion in Olmstead vs. United States, in which the court upheld the use of wiretaps in a case involving an investigation of bootlegging. Brandeis strongly defended the individual right to privacy from government intrusion.]
-Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
That's what Congress is poised to do, "to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal" with passage of the FISA Amendments Act. Except, of course, that they haven't even secured any convictions through the warrantless surveillance, at least not that they've made public--and believe me, if they had any convictions to justify the program, we'd have heard about it.
The Congress is about to severely expand the already too-extensive authority of the president in surveilling the citizens of this nation. In doing so, it is ignoring the fact that the government has become a law breaker and made the telcos accessories to the crimes.
Which brings us to the next words of wisdom from Justice Brandeis:
Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.
-Louis D. Brandeis, quoted in Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It (What Publicity Can Do, Ch 5, p. 92) (Frederick A. Stokes Co. ed.)
For the nation to regain any trust in government and respect for the rule of law, we have to know what happened. We need to know what the administration was asking Qwest to do in February of 2001, well before 9/11. We need to know who was targeted in the illegal surveillance program, and we need to know why. "National security" is not an adequate excuse. If it were, the administration and so many in Congress would not be fighting so hard for immunity for the telcos. For one thing, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already protects private parties who get a certification from the government that their actions are lawful. This provision is utterly unnecessary, unless the information about Americans intercepted, stored, and turned over to the government doesn't fall under the provisions set out in the existing FISA statute.
It's hard to believe that Congress could actually be less curious and more secretive than than the Bush/Cheney administration in trying to keep this information from ever seeing the light of day. Can it really be that they're quaking in their shoes that the Republicans will call them names in the fall so they have no choice but to capitulate? Don't they get that they're going to be attacked anyway, and gutting the Constitution isn't going to be a preventive for that. That seems to be a lesson that they are just not catching on to, despite Democratic wins in 2006 and in special elections this year. If it hasn't occurred to Barack Obama, who's made it as far as securing the nomination for presidency, then I have little hope for the rest of the current crew.
However, there's a tiny glimmer of hope in the fact that not all--and in fact a majority--of Democratic representatives in Congress have opposed retroactive amnesty. Because of that opposition, a real compromise has arisen: Sen. Bingaman has one of the three amendments that will be considered on July 8 when the Senate brings this back up. EFF, who along with the ACLU is representing plaintiffs in these wiretapping cases, has endorsed the amendment:
The Bingaman amendment would prevent Congress from granting immunity in the dark, as described in the press yesterday, by "stay[ing] pending cases against the telecoms and delay[ing] the effective date of any immunity provisions until 90 days after Congress received a report from the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies on the warrantless surveillance program". By placing a temporary hold on immunity and on the litigation until 90 days after the IG Report is submitted to Congress, the simple amendment would give Congress and the American people an opportunity to revisit the issue of telco immunity next year, in light of the audit's findings.
The likelihood of an IG investigation or report by the Bush administration is so minimal as to mean that the decision on immunity would have to happen next year, under a new administration and Congress. It's a good idea. The bad part here is that this amendment has to meet a 60 vote threshold to pass. That threshold is going to be as hard to meet as the simple majority the amnesty stripping amendment will have to achieve. But it does hold out the possibility that these crimes will be examined, and that it can happen with a new president, a new Congress. It's the kind of amendment that could garner support from moderate and conservative Dems and those few moderate Republicans who are really hoping to hold onto their jobs this cycle.
Which is, of course, where we come in.
Again, Justice Brandeis:
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
-Louis D. Brandeis
That means us. Our job here is be the citizens that our elected representatives all too often fail to be. That means holding our representatives, and our nominee, to do their damn job of supporting and defending the Constitution.
One option for fulfilling your duty as a private citizen is Ben Masel's Operation Read the Bill. Print a copy of the bill, find your Senators while they are home during this recess--the 4th of July recess, no less--and ask them if they've done their duty of reading the bill. Ask them if they know that they're about to redefine the term "WMD" to possibly include many weapons that the U.S. military uses. Ask them if they know they are about to cede even more of their power--the power of protecting us, their constituents, from unlawful surveillance--to the executive.
When you're done quizzing them on the bill, ask them to support the Feingold/Dodd amendment to strip immunity from the bill and to support the Bingaman amendment. Ask them to do their job.
Cleaning Up After the Worst Presidency in History
by mcjoan Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:00:45 AM PDT
If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means 'to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal' would bring terrible retribution.
[From dissenting opinion in Olmstead vs. United States, in which the court upheld the use of wiretaps in a case involving an investigation of bootlegging. Brandeis strongly defended the individual right to privacy from government intrusion.]
-Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
That's what Congress is poised to do, "to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal" with passage of the FISA Amendments Act. Except, of course, that they haven't even secured any convictions through the warrantless surveillance, at least not that they've made public--and believe me, if they had any convictions to justify the program, we'd have heard about it.
The Congress is about to severely expand the already too-extensive authority of the president in surveilling the citizens of this nation. In doing so, it is ignoring the fact that the government has become a law breaker and made the telcos accessories to the crimes.
Which brings us to the next words of wisdom from Justice Brandeis:
Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.
-Louis D. Brandeis, quoted in Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It (What Publicity Can Do, Ch 5, p. 92) (Frederick A. Stokes Co. ed.)
For the nation to regain any trust in government and respect for the rule of law, we have to know what happened. We need to know what the administration was asking Qwest to do in February of 2001, well before 9/11. We need to know who was targeted in the illegal surveillance program, and we need to know why. "National security" is not an adequate excuse. If it were, the administration and so many in Congress would not be fighting so hard for immunity for the telcos. For one thing, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already protects private parties who get a certification from the government that their actions are lawful. This provision is utterly unnecessary, unless the information about Americans intercepted, stored, and turned over to the government doesn't fall under the provisions set out in the existing FISA statute.
It's hard to believe that Congress could actually be less curious and more secretive than than the Bush/Cheney administration in trying to keep this information from ever seeing the light of day. Can it really be that they're quaking in their shoes that the Republicans will call them names in the fall so they have no choice but to capitulate? Don't they get that they're going to be attacked anyway, and gutting the Constitution isn't going to be a preventive for that. That seems to be a lesson that they are just not catching on to, despite Democratic wins in 2006 and in special elections this year. If it hasn't occurred to Barack Obama, who's made it as far as securing the nomination for presidency, then I have little hope for the rest of the current crew.
However, there's a tiny glimmer of hope in the fact that not all--and in fact a majority--of Democratic representatives in Congress have opposed retroactive amnesty. Because of that opposition, a real compromise has arisen: Sen. Bingaman has one of the three amendments that will be considered on July 8 when the Senate brings this back up. EFF, who along with the ACLU is representing plaintiffs in these wiretapping cases, has endorsed the amendment:
The Bingaman amendment would prevent Congress from granting immunity in the dark, as described in the press yesterday, by "stay[ing] pending cases against the telecoms and delay[ing] the effective date of any immunity provisions until 90 days after Congress received a report from the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies on the warrantless surveillance program". By placing a temporary hold on immunity and on the litigation until 90 days after the IG Report is submitted to Congress, the simple amendment would give Congress and the American people an opportunity to revisit the issue of telco immunity next year, in light of the audit's findings.
The likelihood of an IG investigation or report by the Bush administration is so minimal as to mean that the decision on immunity would have to happen next year, under a new administration and Congress. It's a good idea. The bad part here is that this amendment has to meet a 60 vote threshold to pass. That threshold is going to be as hard to meet as the simple majority the amnesty stripping amendment will have to achieve. But it does hold out the possibility that these crimes will be examined, and that it can happen with a new president, a new Congress. It's the kind of amendment that could garner support from moderate and conservative Dems and those few moderate Republicans who are really hoping to hold onto their jobs this cycle.
Which is, of course, where we come in.
Again, Justice Brandeis:
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
-Louis D. Brandeis
That means us. Our job here is be the citizens that our elected representatives all too often fail to be. That means holding our representatives, and our nominee, to do their damn job of supporting and defending the Constitution.
One option for fulfilling your duty as a private citizen is Ben Masel's Operation Read the Bill. Print a copy of the bill, find your Senators while they are home during this recess--the 4th of July recess, no less--and ask them if they've done their duty of reading the bill. Ask them if they know that they're about to redefine the term "WMD" to possibly include many weapons that the U.S. military uses. Ask them if they know they are about to cede even more of their power--the power of protecting us, their constituents, from unlawful surveillance--to the executive.
When you're done quizzing them on the bill, ask them to support the Feingold/Dodd amendment to strip immunity from the bill and to support the Bingaman amendment. Ask them to do their job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)