I am posting this again response to Bushes most recent announcement, just made.

As soon as he makes a threat about one thing, you can almost bet the opposite is true OR something else – unsaid altogether. No wonder he wants to delay his trip.

This from Eff.org:

January 24th, 2008
Congress Stand Firm: Surveillance Continues Even If PAA Expires

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/congress-stand-firm-surveillance-doesnt-go-dark-if-paa-expires
Posted by Cindy Cohn

The Administration has been in a full-court press to bully Congress

into making horrible permanent changes to FISA — including immunity for telecommunications carriers like AT&T — based on the argument that critical surveillance of terrorists will be cut short or degraded if the Protect America Act (PAA) expires on January 31, 2008.

But no surveillance started by the PAA will end when the PAA expires. All of the spying done under the PAA will continue until at least July 31, 2008 even if the law goes to the dustbin of history on January 31, as it should.

***

deeply worried 1, February 3, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Great post Patty C!

Those folks at the EFF are true heroes. I thought you might be very interested in this:

At issue is whether the proposed retroactive telco immunity before the Senate would represent if enacted an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause! And a departure from tradition in not providing the plaintiffs with some sort of compensation fund.*

Patty C 1, February 4, 2008 at 1:07 am

Thanks, DW, right back atchya! Interesting article indeed AND on point with Kelo.

How much is the Constitutional right to privacy worth these days,
ya think?

History will judge that it was precisely the “serious” people who rang the alarms on this administration early and it was precisely the adults who urged impeachment.

They simply brook no opposition, no restraint, no limits.

Lets be honest, they are criminals. But most people can’t wrap their minds around that stark truth.

One more item respecting your privacy question. Did you know that there exists a congressionally created Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board? From its mission statement:

The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important legal rights of all Americans.

In addition, the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005: Message to the Congress of the United States on Information Sharing; and Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.

In the course of performing these functions within
The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important legal rights of all Americans.”

Very laudable. No good act goes unpunished by this administration however and so now Mr Bush is killing off the board:

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2008/02/privacy_board

How much is the Constitutional right to privacy worth these days,
ya think?

Those folks at the EFF are true heroes. I thought you might be very interested in this:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20080129.html

At issue is whether the proposed retroactive telco immunity before the Senate would represent if enacted an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause! And a departure from tradition in not providing the plaintiffs with some sort of compensation fund.

I listened to Bushes final SOU, after I posted, about how PAA turns into a ‘Pumpkin’ on Friday, yaddayaddayadda. Not exactly…
Interesting week ahead!

This from Eff.org:

January 24th, 2008
Congress Stand Firm: Surveillance Continues Even If PAA Expires

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/congress-stand-firm-surveillance-doesnt-go-dark-if-paa-expires
Posted by Cindy Cohn

The Administration has been in a full-court press to bully Congress into making horrible permanent changes to FISA — including immunity for telecommunications carriers like AT&T — based on the argument that critical surveillance of terrorists will be cut short or degraded if the Protect America Act (PAA) expires on January 31, 2008.

But no surveillance started by the PAA will end when the PAA expires. All of the spying done under the PAA will continue until at least July 31, 2008 even if the law goes to the dustbin of history on January 31, as it should.

The PAA provides that any currently ongoing surveillance continues until the “date of expiration of such order,” even if PAA expires. “Orders” are what the PAA calls the demand for surveillance by the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence (there’s no court involved). These surveillance orders can be issued for up to a year at a time, and since the PAA is only 6 months old, every order issued under the PAA will still continue for at least six months, until July 31, 2008, even if the law expires. And a surveillance order issued on January 30, 2008 will allow continued surveillance until January 30, 2009.

Even immunity proponent Senator Rockefeller agrees on this point. In a press release he issued today (it’s not online yet) he said:

“Our government will continue to have authority under the law until at least August of this year, and can even extend that authority until January 2009.”

No surveillance will go dark on February 1 if PAA expires. None.

The Protect America Act is straightforward about this. First, the part where surveillance “orders” last a year:

Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States

Then the fact that these orders remain in effect until they expire even if PAA ends:

Section 6
(b) Transition Procedures- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of such order …

And even after that, the Administration can seek reauthorization for any order, and even seek new orders, if they just go the the FISA court. That’s here:

(continuation of section 6(b)
and, at the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable effective date of this Act. The Government also may file new applications, and the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.

The Administration’s time pressure on Congress is purely political theater. Congress should stand firm. http://www.stopthespying.org.

If Harry Reid has an iota of pride left, any scintilla of self-esteem left unsullied by his constant knuckling his forehead to the Republicans, perhaps he might take umbrage at allowing Mitch McConnell to keep speaking as if the latter were the “real” Leader. I can’t believe some of the things McConnell has said on the floor that were clearly breaches of senatorial courtesy and the at least token deference one is supposed to accord the Majority Leader.

For example, in re the judiciary committee’s version of the telco bill:

“That bill will not, I repeat, will not become law. Reconstructing the judiciary committee bill is a pointless exercise. It’s an exercise we do not have the luxury to engage in. We can get serious and pass the bipartisan Intelligence Committee product.”

One would think Reid was a potted plant, or worse, a Minority Leader.

The telco’s can’t invoke state secret privilege. The government can and will. That’s why Spector’s brainchild has to be defeated along with the immunity. Feinstein’s idea is equally bad. Removing the cases to some FISA court with the latter’s long tradition of deference to the Executive, stacks the deck against the litigants.

No, best is allow the the PAA to die a much deserved death and revert back to FISA and allow the litigation to go forward.

Dodd, by the way, is surprising everyone. A little like Lou Dobb’s conversion from get-along, go-along business conservative to table-thumping economic populist (and born-again nativist), Dodd has found his genuine voice and I wish him well.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/24/senate-blocks-removal-of-telecom-immunity-from-fisa/

Senate blocks removal of telecom immunity from FISA.

“In a 60-34 vote, the Senate today defeated an initial attempt “to strip immunity for telecommunications companies” out of FISA.Democratic senators “are planning at least two more amendments seeking to remove the immunity clause. If they both fail, then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has repeated his pledge to attempt to block a vote on the bill.”

Harry Reid purposely derailed moves to bring this discussion in the open without immunity as the beginning of JT’s article indicates. It is this type of old-fashioned quid pro quo, performed in the darkest corners of the conscience that distorts reality. By the time the press is done not reporting it understandably, our distracted electorate assumes they already know the story and weigh-in by everything from tuning in the latest episode of Survivor to washing, changing and getting to that second job. We’re a distracted electorate – while Congress and the President are getting sore backs bowing for their 650 dollar leveraged buy-out of the American conscience – our politicians are playing Texas Hold em’ and we’re the big blind.

While immunity may indeed be an outrage – it would be worse if we don’t examine in the open – how in fact a Constitutional demolition team took over our Government on our dime.

I disagree that immunity proposal serves no purpose. You in fact pointed out one of the major purposes. A back-brace for the feckless and diminutive Harry Reid. The other is obviously payback for all the protection money politicians have collected. As to its propriety, that’s a different matter.

I don’t think any reasonable American would be opposed to capping gains or rigging the system in terms of preventing the Tobacco industry feeding frenzy. On the other hand, I can’t imagine anyone being opposed to wiping out the abilities of these companies to pay dividends to stockholders by penalizing them severely. So much for letting the stakeholders deal with their own investments – not with the royalists in power.

Feingold is routinely on the most sensible side of issues. Dodd has become a pragmatist and of late, even a bit more dedicated. But Diane Feinstein, my ‘be-loathed’ Senator, is clearly not going to be running again and is playing her version of ’supermarket sweepstakes’, filling her wagon as she can with her remaining time.

Unfortunately, it is my opinion that we’ll be getting the dry heaves from this word immunity for a long time before any real reform gets underway in this country – and that won’t happen until there is a third party – not the spoiler party – a powerful third party.