In a MSNBC appearance moments ago, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) gave a strong denial that she in any way intervened in the AIPAC case or sought to make a deal to intervene in return for support for her becoming chair of the intel committee.
--David Kurtz
Trying to turn yourself into a victim of illegal spying is not going to change the fact that you are busted.
Also, AIPAC is not an advocacy group. They are a faux political arm spying on our country and helping American neoconservative traitors in a coordinated effort to spread propaganda for a foreign countries' interests.
The indictment of the two senior AIPAC staffers follows the indictment in may of Feith's footpad Larry Franklin. Franklin worked in the Office of Special Plans, run by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who reported to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The OSP functioned as a "shadow" intelligence service on Iraq, and provided much of the information to the White House that was used to justify the American invasion of Iraq. Some wags have called it "Feith-based intelligence", since much of that intelligence and information has now been proven to be utterly false. At the beginning of May, Franklin was arrested by the FBI for the passing of classified documents to two AIPAC staffers, who were then to pass them to Israel. The documents in question concerned Iran.
One of the two newly-indicted AIPACers isn't just anybody. Steve Rosen, 63, is the man who built AIPAC into the $40 million dollar Capitol Hill powerhouse it is today. Buried in a Washington Post profile of AIPAC from May 19 is the skinny on Rosen as the power behind the scenes at AIPAC. Said the Post:
"For more than two decades, Rosen has been a mainstay of AIPAC and the architect of the group's ever-increasing clout. Though Rosen was listed below Executive Director Howard Kohr on AIPAC's organizational chart, people familiar with AIPAC's history say that Kohr is a protege of Rosen's and got that job with his help. Kohr declined to be interviewed about Rosen. 'He [Rosen] is a quiet guy,' said M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, another pro-Israel group, and a former AIPAC employee. 'But everyone knows he's the brains behind the outfit.'"
Now, just what is AIPAC, you may well ask? AIPAC is the enforcer of the knee-jerk support for the Israeli government which characterizes the political and governing classes in this country, -- Israel is the real third rail of American politics: touch it with criticism, no matter how carefully couched, and you die. Both the Democratic and Republican parties fall all over themselves to kiss AIPAC's boots -- because AIPAC and its well-filled war-chest helps make sure they toe the line on Israel, and has been responsible for the defeat of a significant number of politicians over the years who dared to criticize Israeli policies. Earlier this year, AIPAC played a major role in destroying the candidacy of Tim Roemer for chairman of the DNC. There's an in-depth, critical profile of AIPAC by RightWeb's Michael Flynn that gives an in-depth look at AIPAC's arm-and-leg-breaking political style. And the newly indicted Rosen is The Man Behind the Curtain. Even though he formally resigned from AIPAC, the organization is paying his legal bills, and Rosen is still pulling the strings.
The reason for putting some daylight between Rosen and AIPAC is that the puissant political arm-twister is deathly afraid it will be forced to register as a foreign lobby, as the Jewish weeily The Forward reported earlier this year. Americans don't like the sight of their elected officials pocketing campaign cash from foreign governments, and AIPAC fears being forced to register formally as a lobbyist for Israel would thus diminish their clout on Capitol Hill. Bush won't make AIPAC register, and the spinless Democratic Congressional leadership won't lead the charge to make them do so either. But today's indictments of string-puller Rosen and his AIPAC colleague for spying on the U.S. gives progressives who want to see a peaceful, two-state, land-for-peace solution between Israel and Palestine a strategic opening to press loudly for AIPAC's formal shil registration as a shil for the government that built the Israeli Wall of Shame. It's a measure long past due.
Yesterday, the Blogosphere erupted with Jeff Stein's CQ article suggesting that Jane Harman may have interfered in the prosecution of alleged Israeli spies in exchange for a committee chairmanship in the 2006 congress. The information was based upon leaks from wiretaps, according to the CQ article, of a "suspected Israeli agent". Today the NY Times adds new information that should send a chill down everyone's spine. The wiretapped "suspected Israeli agent" was working closely with California Billionaire, Haim Saban, a Major Democratic Donor. This whole affair is starting to smell rotten....
[update] I think that this Think Progress headline says a lot about the stupidity of Harman's position:
Yes... They were spying on journalists, as many people speculated.
More to come tomorrow on Countdown.
Expect this to be the first in a long line of whistle blowers to come forward with information on specific crimes committed by the criminal Bush administrations. They no longer have worry about retribution from the most corrupt administration to ever seize power in the USA.
Earlier today, President Obama issued his first set of executive orders. One of these orders instructs “federal agencies to handle requests for information from the public and press under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] with an eye toward disclosure, not refusal.” The order reportedly returns to “pre-Bush administration policies” regarding FOIA.
In response to the “new standard of openness,” conservative talker Rush Limbaugh said that he fears that the more open FOIA rules will make it easier for Bush to be held to account for any misdeeds he committed as president:
LIMBAUGH: What I’m afraid of is that what Obama did with this executive order is actually make it easier for the media to go get Bush documents. Because you know Pelosi and some of the guys over in congress are talking about war crimes trials and charges and so forth. […]
What I’m afraid of is what Obama’s done here is made the gathering of the information for this kind of stuff– This is not American. This is not America. This is not what America does. We don’t– This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.
Oxy-Rush can't handle the truth getting out and I really think he may be smoking bananas.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann interviewed a former National Security Agency analyst tonight. The analyst says that, under the ruse of making sure that the NSA did NOT target American media and journalists, they actually collected information on every communication those journalists and media organizations had 24/7.
This is extremely complicated stuff, and appears to be a rather significant story. Ironically, we had reported back in 2005 on this very issue, asking whether the Bush administration was spying on American journalists. At the time, there was a specific question as to whether CNN's Christiane Amanpour was a subject of inquiry. At the time, CNN's David Ensor dismissed the story, saying that he had a contact in the intelligence agency who "looked into it" and said, nah, it's not happening, don't worry. Yes, because I'm sure the NSA would tell David Ensor if they were spying on him. Anyway, seems Mr. Ensor may get to do a follow-up story.
"The response quotes and expands upon an existing legal opinion to help frame the response," he said. "It should not be interpreted as a blanket statement on our views towards privacy."
He added: "Google respects an individual's right to privacy. We have privacy protections built into all of our products.
Google's comments to the court irked the NLPC which it said came as the search giant asserted a robust defence of its privacy policies to Joel Anderson, a Republican member of California State Assembly.
Mr Anderson aired his worries about the effect a search advertising tie-up between Yahoo and Google would have on personal privacy in a letter to Jerry Brown, California's attorney general.
In an effort to turn the tables on Google the NLPC compiled a comprehensive amount of personal information on an unnamed Google executive in less than 30 minutes
It included the licence plates of cars outside the individual's home, the landscaping company the exec uses and even the name of the next door neighbour's security company.
What a useful tool to entrust to everyone on earth, eh?
But the government would never invade your Privacy like this right?
Google has been recruited by US intelligence agencies to help them better process and share information they gather about suspects.
Agencies such as the National Security Agency have bought servers on which Google-supplied search technology is used to process information gathered by networks of spies around the world.
Google is also providing the search features for a Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia, on which agents post information about their targets that can be accessed and appended by colleagues, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The contracts are just a number that have been entered into by Google's 'federal government sales team', that aims to expand the company's reach beyond its core consumer and enterprise operations.
And remember that this information will only be shared with a select few people:
Depending on their clearance, agents can log on to Intellipedia and gain access to three levels of info - top secret, secret and sensitive, and sensitive but unclassified. So far 37,000 users have established accounts on the service, and the database now extends to 35,000 articles, according to Sean Dennehy, chief of Intellipedia development for the CIA.
...snip...
Often, the contract is for something as simple as conducting earch within an organisation's own database, but in the case of the Coast Guard, Google also provides a more advanced version of its satellite mapping tool Google Earth, which ships use to navigate more safely.
While I am certain the Coast Guard wouldn't ever use their more advanced tools to, say, stare into your backyard to watch you , your family and friends skinny dipping in your pool, I wonder how many of those 37,000 articles in Intellipedia include tracking information on the millions of Americans on no fly lists:
The Liberal Journal said that "Yesterday, the USA Today reported that the terrorist watch list has grown to over 755,000 names. It has grown at about 200,000 a year since 2004. Now, the TSA is proposing that we get Big Brother's permission 3 days before we are to fly."
No word yet from the TSA about whether or not Blackwater mercenaries that have committed minor errors, like murder and massacre, will be on that list...
I know this story has grown quite a bit since this was originally posted... But today is the day that Ken Krayeske (and freedom of speech, political association, THE LIST, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, and other privacy issues) gets a day in court.
OK. He has worked on the Green party campaign for the Governor, the Lamont campaign for Senate, and does a lot of Blogging and work as an indie Journalist. Apparently he is perceived as a serious enough threat to our paranoid Governor Jodi Rell that he was arrested at her innaugural prade.
"HARTFORD, Conn. -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell's security detail only watched when a woman left the sidewalk and quickly walked toward Rell during the inaugural parade Wednesday. The woman shook Rell's hand and melted into the crowd.
But a slightly built man who jumped off a mountain bike and ran into the parade route ahead of Rell was intercepted by a state trooper and arrested by a Hartford police officer.
One difference in the way the two incursions were handled: A state police intelligence unit had previously identified the man, Ken Krayeske, as a political activist and potential threat.
A potential threat? What was so threatening about Krayeske that the Trooper had to step in and grab him? And why, and how, had they identified him?(MUCH more below)
Hartford Det. Jeff Antuna wrote in his report that Krayeske hp/2007/01/0drew his attention by rapidly riding up to the parade route near Bushnell Park, dumping his bike and running to a position in front of Rell.
"I immediately recognized the accused as Kenneth Krayeske from the photograph provided by the state police," Antuna wrote.
A state police detective intercepted Krayeske. When Antuna grabbed his arm, police said, Krayeske pulled away.
Photograph provided by State Police? Huh??? According to the Hartford police officers report the State had given the local Hartford police photographs of activists that might be considered threats to "Her Excellency" Governor Jodi Rell.
His lawyer says Krayeske apparently came to the attention of state police by heckling Rell during a campaign stop in Glastonbury last year over her refusal to debate his candidate, Clifford Thornton.
"Are there little circles of law-enforcement officers who have lists of who is naughty and who is nice?" asked Krayeske's lawyer, Norm Pattis. "What is the criteria for inclusion?"
Speaking on behalf of the state police, Lt. J. Paul Vance had nothing to say about how Kreyeske came to the State Police intelligence unit's OR the Connecticut Intelligence Centers attention. He did admit that these unit's do share information and intelligence. Speaking on behalf of Nutmeggers... I knew they shared information, but I had no clue so many agencies were watching all of us?
As for the list:
Nancy Mulroy, a Hartford police spokeswoman, played down the list, saying Krayeske was arrested for his actions.
Pay no attention to the McCarthy inspired list! Just move along to the dangerous actions of Krayeske... OK, Let's do that for the moment. Situation, according to the Hartford police:
"List or no list, if you rush off a bike and start charging toward the governor during a processional parade, you are going to be arrested," Mulroy said. "In this day and age, when security is a very serious matter, you cannot expect to act like that and not have to face the consequences. Our job was to protect the governor, and we took it seriously."
According to The Courant article there was a witness to back up the police version of the arrest. Eliot Streim:
Streim, a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said.
Well? He did back them up against the wall. Straim's version seems to leave a lot of doubt about the police version of the arrest.
OK... Someone is lying, and the only one I can see with nothing to gain or lose here is the Lawyer/witness. Can Krayeske shed any light on what he was doing at the parade? Take a look:
He was taking pictures! That was a photo taken by Krayeske shortly before he was arrested. Does that look like a photo that someone charging at Granny Paranoia might be able to take? Half of my pictures come out blurry even when I am standing as still as I can. That is a damned good picture considering the subject. (FYI: Krayeske is having a caption contest for the photo to poke fun at inauguRellgate, and celebrate the glorious circumstances of his arrest and 13 hours in jail)
It is bad enough that this guy got arrested for taking pictures, but what is a really scary thought is that Connecticut now has a "LIST" of potential dangegerously threatening people that seems to include peaceful activists like Bloggers, Journalists, campaign volunteers, and obviously photographers.
So now we have a "List", an apparently ginned up arrest, spying on peaceful political activists... And yes he is your typical peaceful activist. Ctnewsjunkie fills in some of Kreyeske's info:
Krayeske was working as a freelance photojournalist at the time of the arrest Wednesday. He also runs a Web site The 40 Year Plan. He was previously arrested in 2003 for demonstrating against the war. In 2004 Krayeske worked on Ralph Nader's presidential campaign and in 2005 he traveled to Syria to report on the war. He has also contributed stories and photos to ctnewsjunkie.com
Atalbot at MLN can give you a little more background on Krayeske.
Now to the last little part in this story: What helped to get all of Connectucut's various secret and not so secret policing efforts and attention and put him on the "LIST". According to Maura at MLN:
Whose going to protest the inaugural ball Jan. 3 with me? No need to make nice after watching this documentary about CJTS
Paz hasn't yet connected this comment to the aspect of this whole outrage that I think is nearly as interesting as the revelation that CTIC has a list of political activists deemed troublesome to Rell -- the fact that the bond for Krayeske was set at the absurdly high level of $75,000.
Since Ken couldn't make this bond, he was kept in lockup all afternoon and night...and then mysteriously sprung without having to make bond at all, simply on promise to appear, at 1:00 AM.
Rell's inaugural ball, which Ken commented at CLP that he'd like to protest, ended at 1:00 AM.
Krayeske is a freelance writer and photographer and his only intention was to photograph "Her Excellency" Governor Jodi Rell. They arrested him on ginned up charges, and held him until after that Rell's ball ended. You have seen most of the the evidence. Do I raelly need to tell you what to make of this?
Pattis called the police department's version "ridiculous," accusing them of "lying and making it up as they go along."
Equally important, he said, is the question of the surveillance and whether Krayeske and other political activists and freelance journalists are being investigated and monitored.
The number of other people on the list and their identities were not available Friday.
"It's not a crime in this country to be a political activist, at least not yet," Pattis said. "It's not apparent that Mr. Krayeske broke any law, it's not apparent that he did anything that any of the rest of us are not allowed to do. This is sort of, police state run riot."
A spokesman for the governor's office declined to comment Friday.
CT police and not so secret police (not secret anymore) have stepped in it big time, and all for the benefit of our paranoid GOP Governor Jodi Rell. They have crossed way over the line of what their stated purposes are. Just check Colin McEnroe's site to see the proof of that:
I am trying to stay with this story as I do the show. I now have the police report on the arrest of Ken Krayeske. The information about him seems to have come, at least partly, from the Connecticut Intelligence Center, a creature of Homeland Security.
Here is its stated purpose. I fail to see how it includes monitoring members of the Green Party:
* Connecticut Intelligence Center
The DEMHS Statewide Anti-Terrorism Task Force is now co-located with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, in an effort to streamline investigations and response to terrorism-related allegations and incidents. A key component of this investigative and law enforcement asset created in 2005 is the Connecticut Intelligence Center ("CTIC"), a multi-agency collaborative operation that includes representatives of the FBI, DEMHS, Connecticut State Police, municipal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard.
CTIC collects, analyzes and disseminates both criminal and terrorism related intelligence to all law enforcement agencies in Connecticut. Serving as a statewide central resource to affect intelligence sharing, CTIC also acts to identify emerging threats and trends. CTIC produces a number of intelligence reports and bulletins, including the CTIC Weekly Briefing and has conducted three seminars for state and local law enforcement professionals. The seminars have helped increase the knowledge of local law enforcement professionals in dealing with terrorist prevention and incidents.
And like the typical GOP low-life she personifies Jodi Rell will likely do nothing and say nothing about this until everyone dogpiles on her. She would prefer to just try and sweep it under the rug. What she didn't count on was that not only has the Blogosphere latched on to this, BUT the MSM has grabbed this one early and has done a lot of digging as well.
Rep. Mike Lawlor (D-East Haven) and CO-Chair of the Judiciary Committee had this to say (Courtesy of Spazeboy.net) at a Capitol briefing: Part 1 (Length 09:00):
Lawlor is correct:
"This type of conduct, which I guess you could categorize as "bushist" for a want of a better expression in this day and age will not be tolerated in this state."
Part 2 (Length (09:54):
"That, to me, reeks of secret police..."
Part 3 (Length (08:50):
"This is clearly an attempt to intimidate a journalist"..."This is the result of the emergence Bloggers on the political scene"..."This not traditional journalism, its different, slightly more in your face, and appropriately so, because a lot of people can't get away with what they used to in the good old days, not the politicians, not the police, and a lot of other people, and I think this is healthy for the process."..."I think this motivated more by politics than law enforcement"
"It begs the question: "Who else is on that list?"" And also a reference to this snippet from a post as supposed reasoning for Krayeske's outrageous treatment:
I scoped the area because I hoped to snap some photos of Rell during the inaug. I want file shots so when I report on her governance, I can have fresh images for the loyal viewing audience. Unfortunately, according to Mr. Harris, I won't have much access:
Shocking! He was planning to take Photographs!
Part 4 (Length 09:12):
Q: "Are you going to ask for copies of thet list and are you going to make it public?"
A: "Absolutely. We will get to the bottom of this and we will do it publicly."
Also, there is a reference to The letter (Via ctblogger) from Jodi Rell that is about a dollar short and a few days too late for me to believe that she is doing anything but spinning:
Colin McEnroe just posted this on his blog. Seems like the events surrounding the arrest of Ken Krayeske is going to turn into a full-scale investigation. McEnroe just posted this letter Gov. Rell sent to
Department of Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle.
January 8, 2007
Commissioner Leonard Boyle
Department of Public Safety
1111 Country Club Road Middletown, Connecticut 06457
Dear Commissioner Boyle:
I am writing with regard to the incident last week involving Kenneth Krayeske which led to his arrest by the Hartford Police Department.
I recognize that security assessments are by necessity comprehensive, and I understand that our State and local law enforcement agencies must work together and share information. Law enforcement agencies also have the difficult job of assessing the information they receive. Nonetheless, I was disturbed to read in media reports allegations regarding the existence of a “list� of individuals.
It is my expectation that all State Police information is maintained in strict compliance with federal law. In this environment of heightened security, the use of information must be balanced with the individual rights of our citizens. In providing security and protection, we cannot permit the rights of individuals to be trampled.
The parade was a public event, and moreover an event at which public participation was invited. People also have a right to protest â€" and that right is one of the fundamental freedoms of our state and nation.
Most importantly, security procedures must be uniform and consistent in order to safeguard both the people and places of Connecticut as well as our basic freedoms.
Accordingly, I am requesting that you review the circumstances of this incident. Specifically, I would like to know how this individual came to the attention of State Police and the circumstances under which his name and photo were provided to the Hartford Police Department.
In addition, I am requesting that you evaluate existing procedures to ensure that information gathered by the State Police is reliable and reported to other law enforcement agencies in a responsible manner.
Sincerely,
M Jodi Rell
GOVERNOR
The events surrounding freelance journalist Ken Krayeske's arrest is getting stranger by the second as the outrage mounts.
The letter came out shortly before the planned press conference by Lawlor. Can you get any more "spin reactionary" than that?
As you can see... Lawlor and the other members of the press conference are truly shocked about this and are taking this all very seriously as far as it being a serious abuse of Krayeske's rights and the rights of any other "innocent victims" of the list.
I'll close this out with a humoorous interview by Ct Bob (with Maura) of Krayeske at the Branford BRRRoadwater "polar bear swim": (length 05:18)
You don't know who I am BUT you are welcome! :) There are many people that will do what we can to support you.
There is an appeal for funds to help cover his legal costs if you want to help a fellow Blogger/Activist/Journalist/Photographer/Citizen!
There is an appeal for funds to help cover his legal costs if you want to help a fellow Blogger/Activist/Journalist/Photographer/Citizen!
Update II: This one's major. It turns out that Krayeske's application for a grant from the SPJ's Legal Defense Fund was published without his knowledge or consent. I feel like a rube for re-posting an excerpt, but I did so only because I know that many of us are interested in contributing toward the payment of his legal bills. All that's left of this post is the info below, which is the only legit way to contribute to Ken Krayeske's legal defense.
if you wish to promote liberty, protect freedom of speech and stop false arrests of journalists and/or political activists, please help me out. You can make out checks to "Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis," and in the memo line write "Ken Krayeske Legal Defense Fund." Send the checks to
Ken Krayeske Legal Defense Fund c/o Law Offices of Norman Pattis 649 Amity Road Bethany, CT 06524
I repeat that this is the one and only certified way to contribute to my legal defense at this point and time. Thank you all in advance for your assistance, and I am humbled by the amount of emotional support I have received to this point.
This morning brought good news for Ken Krayeske, reports Jon Lender at the Courant:
Prosecutors at first offered only to nolle the charges of breach of peace and interfering with police -- that is, to not prosecute them but reserve the right to reopen the case for about a year -- on the grounds that Hartford police were in a "no-win" situation because they would have been strongly criticized if something happened to Rell.
But Krayeske's lawyer, Norman Pattis, pushed for an outright dismissal, saying it was Krayeske who was in the "no-win" situation because he was a nonviolent citizen exercising his First Amendment right by taking pictures of Rell for his website, www.the40yearplan.com.
[...]
Prosecutors then agreed to the dismissal, which did not involve any waiving by Krayeske of his right to bring a wrongful arrest suit in federal court.
Norm Pattis did a tremendous job with this case. Congratulations, Ken!
We still don't know how many of us Nutmeggers are on the lists kept by the local police, FBI, Connecticut state Homeland Security representatives and numerous other agencies entrusted with the task of spying on Americans.
Given the electoral importance of these states, one cannot help but wonder aloud how tax money that pays for federal bureaucracies can be so cynically and shamelessly targeted toward the unethical influencing of federal election sentiments.
Given the politicization of so many arms of the government this is just more proof that the reckless pattern of politicization is SOP for the GOP SOBs, showing a complete disregard for what is actually good for the country.
A sampling of the GOP's partisan politicization of government, effectively putting their political party over the needs of the country, via Think Progress:
Partisan campaign or electoral activities on federal government property are illegal. This prohibition, however, has not stopped the Bush administration from politicizing virtually every agency under its control. Below is a quick review of the extent of the White House’s efforts to politicize the federal agencies:
Office of Faith Based Initiatives: The office was “used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities. The office’s primary mission, providing financial support to charities that serve the poor, never got the presidential support it needed to succeed.” [MSNBC, 10/13/06]
General Services Administration: After a GSA meeting during which White House deputy director of political affairs Scott Jennings gave a PowerPoint presentation that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy, GSA Administrator Lurita Doan asked how GSA could help “our candidates.” Special Counsel Scott Bloch has since advised the President that Doan should “be disciplined to the fullest extent for her serious violation of the Hatch Act.” [Congress Daily, 6/12/07]
Department of Justice:
“Unlike federal judges, immigration judges are civil service employees, to be appointed by the attorney general based on professional qualifications, not their politics. [During Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s aide Monica Goodling’s] tenure, vacancies were apparently not always posted and she selected lawyers to be considered for interviews based in part on their loyalty to the Republican Party and the Bush administration.” [New York Times, 5/25/07]
Department of Justice: “After the 2004 election, administration officials quietly began drawing up a list of US attorneys to replace. Considerations included their perceived loyalty to Bush and a desire by White House political adviser Karl Rove to increase voter fraud prosecutions, documents and testimony have shown. Most of the proposed firings were for US attorneys in states with closely divided elections. Among those later fired was David Iglesias, from the battleground state of New Mexico, where many of his fellow Republicans had demanded more aggressive voter fraud probes.” [Boston Globe, 5/6/07]
Interior Department: “A midlevel Interior Department official” received a “phone call from [Vice President Dick] Cheney in 2001, setting in motion a secret move to undermine the science of federal biologists who had said diverting water from the Klamath would violate the Endangered Species Act and devastate two imperiled species of fish.” [The Oregonian, 6/30/07]
Interior Department: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald has consistently “rejected staff scientists’ recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act.” A civil engineer with no training in biology, she has “overruled and disparaged” the findings of her staff, instead relying on the recommendations of political and industry groups. [Washington Post, 10/30/06]
Defense Department: “[T]he Pentagon’s public affairs division has become a dumping ground for administration cronies…seek[ing] to bypass the traditional media and work directly with talk radio and bloggers, mostly those with a heavily conservative tilt.” [Harper’s Magazine, 7/16/07]
Defense Department: “The Defense Department…has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.” [MSNBC, 9/14/05]
NASA: “The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming…officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard [Institute for Space Studies] Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.” [New York Times, 1/29/06]
Food and Drug Administration: “The top Food and Drug Administration official in charge of women’s health issues…resigned in protest against the agency’s decision to further delay a final ruling on whether the ‘morning-after pill’ should be made more easily accessible. ‘I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled,’ she wrote in an e-mail to her staff and FDA colleagues.” [Washington Post, 9/1/05]
Health and Human Services: “An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program’s chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.” [New York Times, 7/7/04]
Health and Human Services: “The Department of Health and Human Services recently revised its website, 4Parents.gov, and replaced factual data designed to help parents talk about preventing teen pregnancy with biased and misleading claims” reflecting administration policy. [NARAL, 7/10/07]
Office of the Surgeon General: “The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.” [Reuters, 7/10/07]
Environmental Protection Agency: In a government report on the state of the environment, strong language that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment” was stricken by the White House, as was government research that suggests recent climate change is “likely mostly due to human activities.” The changes were protested by EPA staffers, who wrote in a confidential memo that the report “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.” [CBS, 6/19/03]
Office of National Drug Control Policy: “At the request of Sara Taylor, the former White House Director of Political Affairs, John Walters, the nation’s drug czar, and his deputies traveled to 20 events with vulnerable Republican members of Congress in the months prior to the 2006 elections. The trips were paid for by federal taxpayers and several were combined with the announcement of federal grants or actions that benefited the districts of the Republican members.” [House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, 6/17/07]
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: During his tenure, former CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson “moved to address what he contend[ed was] the left-leaning lineup of news programs at PBS by advocating the addition of new shows with a conservative outlook.” He “failed to strike a proper balance by infusing politics into so many decisions at CPB” and by “in essence, allowing the White House to help direct plans of the CPB.” According to Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, this extreme politicization was “unprecedented.” [National Public Radio, 6/20/05]
Bear in mind that these are just some of the examples and does not include some of the major propaganda campaigns illegally used to disseminate partisan GOP talking points like the lies and deceptions used against us in the run up to the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation.
These are the GOP's WMDs. Weapons of Mass Dissembling...
We already knew that he Rep. Chris Murphy opposes immunity for the telecoms but just to be on the safe side, and with another vote in the House coming up that includes immunity in it, I had to give a call. The gentleman that answered Rep. Murphy's phone (Call NOW! 202-225-4476) assured me that Chris Murphy would not support any legislation that included immunity.
The only reason I am posting on this is the fact that we need to remain vigilant on this issue. You know for a fact that there are a few in the right wing noise machine that are cranking out phone calls, Emails and faxes (never mind the GOP's failed fearmongering campaign) trying to persuade Representatives across the country to toss the Constitution in the garbage.
Fortunately the majority of Americans are against immunity for telecoms for the obvious reasons that it is illegal and unconstitutional, and I made certain to point that out in my phone call. Make sure that your voice is heard loud and clear.
Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says. The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.
Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.
However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileak from its servers.
The following release has not been proofed due to time constraints.
Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?
When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch. And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site. But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown:
BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD, a Swiss entity; and JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD, a Cayman Island ORDER GRANTING entity, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WIKILEAKS, an entity of unknown form; WIKILEAKS.ORG, an entity of unknown form; DYNADOT, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
[..]
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
[..]
Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.
The Cayman Islands is located between Cuba and Honduras. In July 2000, the United States Department of the Treasure Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an advisory states stating that there were "serious deficiencies in the counter-money laundering systems of the Cayman Islands", "Cayman Islands law makes it impossible for the supervisory and regulatory authority to obtain information held by financial institutions regarding their client's identity", "Failure of financial institutions in the Cayman Islands to report suspicious transactions is not subject to penalty" and that "These deficiencies, among others, have caused the Cayman Islands to be identified by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (The 'FATF') as non-cooperative in the fight against money laundering". As of 2006 the U.S. State Department listed the Cayman Islands in its money laundering "Countries of Primary Concern".
The Cayman's case is not the first time Wikileaks has tackled bad banks. In the second half of last year Wikileaks exposed over $4,500,000,000's worth of money laundering including by the former president of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi (see http://wikileaks.be/wiki/The_looting_of_Kenya_under_President_moi which became the Guardian's front page story in September 2007 and swung the Kenyan vote by 10% leading into the December 2007 election and http://wikileaks.be/wiki/A_Charter_House_of_horrors reported in the Nairobi paper The Standard and now the subject of a High Court Case in Kenya).
To find an injunction similar to the Cayman's case, we need to go back to Monday June 15, 1971 when the New York Times published excepts of of Daniel Ellsberg's leaked "Pentagon Papers" and found itself enjoined the following day. The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times' printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power. The supreme court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.
The Wikileaks.org injunction is ex-parte, engages in prior restraint and is clearly unconstitutional. It was granted on Thursday afternoon by California district court judge White, Bush appointee and former prosecutor.
The order was written by Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer lawyers and was accepted by judge White without amendment, or representations by Wikileaks or amicus. The case is over several Wikileaks articles, public commentary and documents dating prior to 2003. The documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion. The bank alleges the documents were disclosed to Wikileaks by offshore banking whistleblower and former Vice President the Cayman Island's operation, Rudolf Elmer. Unable to lawfully attack Wikileaks servers which are based in several countries, the order was served on the intermediary Wikileaks purchased the 'Wikileaks.org' name through -- California registrar Dynadot, who then used its access to the internet website name registration system to delete the records for 'Wikileaks.org'. The order also enjoins every person who has heard about the order from from even linking to the documents.
In order to deal with Chinese censorship, Wikileaks has many backup sites such as wikileaks.be (Belgium) and wikileaks.de (Germany) which remain active. Wikileaks never expected to be using the alternative servers to deal with censorship attacks, from, of all places, the United States.
The order is clearly unconstitutional and exceeds its jurisdiction.
Wikileaks will keep on publishing, in-fact, given the level of suppression involved in this case, Wikileaks will step up publication of documents pertaining to illegal or unethical banking practices.
Wikileaks has six pro-bono attorney's in S.F on roster to deal with a legal assault, however Wikileaks was given only hours notice "by email" prior to the hearing. Wikileaks was NOT represented. Wikileaks pre-litigation California council Julie Turner attended the start of hearing in a personal capacity but was then asked to leave the court room.
White signed the order, drafted by the Cayman Islands bank's lawyers without a single amendment.
The injunction claims to be permanent, although the case is only preliminary.
As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. Today I received a message explaining that a California court has granted an injunction written and requested by lawyers for the Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer. It seems that the bank is trying to keep the public from accessing documents that may reveal shady dealings.
... could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.
„
— Time Magazine
Important enough as a journalistic tool that some, with shady dealings, seem to see a need to shut it down. Welcome to the bush and GOP created and corporate owned America.
This is just another chapter in a bigger battle, IMHO:
One challenge in any reconstruction, though, would be balancing the interests of various constituencies. The first time around, researchers were able to toil away in their labs quietly. Industry is playing a bigger role this time, and law enforcement is bound to make its needs for wiretapping known.
There's no evidence they are meddling yet, but once any research looks promising, "a number of people [will] want to be in the drawing room," said Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor affiliated with Oxford and Harvard universities. "They'll be wearing coats and ties and spilling out of the venue."
The big telcoms have already shown a willingness to try and take control of the internet AND will sell out your right to privacy at the drop of an FBI letter.
Yeah... Ya gotta sleep with one effin' eye open at all times in this modern America. Freedom ain't Free, it'll cost ya a lot of sleep.
A little something you can do about this, as well as helping spread the word for Wikileaks, via Save the Internet:
You can help make the internet faster, more open and accessible to all. Tell Congress to preserve Net Neutrality and help ensure that the benefits and promise of the Internet are available to all Americans.
The rest of Congress could learn a thing or two about leadership from Senator Dodd, and we thank him for his efforts in protecting our freedoms. Keep up the good work!
In December 2005, the New York Times reported that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans have had their phones wiretapped by the National Security Agency (NSA) without any judicial review. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, prohibits domestic spying unless a warrant is first issued by the FISA Court. By authorizing government spies to bypass the process mandated by FISA, President Bush authorized them to break the law.
The so-called “Protect America Act,” which passed in August, made the situation worse by sanctioning a legal infrastructure under which American citizens might unwittingly be subject to daily, repeated invasions of privacy or violations of other constitutional rights. These liberties are not abstract or optional. Freedom from government spying on our private lives is at the core of what it means to be an American – the kind of personal liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect.
All parties involved must be held accountable for any illegal activity, including telecommunications companies (telecoms) that satisfied government requests for information about private communications. FISA currently provides sufficient mechanisms to allow telecoms to proceed lawfully with such requests. Every American should have the confidence that our judicial system will ensure that telecoms will not be permitted to circumvent this established process and undermine our fundamental right to privacy.
It is unacceptable that the FISA reform being debated now seeks blanket immunity for the telecoms’ alleged complicity in the Administration’s actions. If the telecoms never have to testify, Americans may never know the true extent to which they have been targeted for surveillance. We have a right to know what’s been done and how far the overreaching went.
In protecting the telecoms, the Administration is protecting itself. At a minimum, the Administration should not be given the power to bury the secrets of its domestic spying program by keeping the telecoms out of court. Telecom immunity not only has the potential to excuse illegal activity, it also precludes the public from getting access to information and prevents Congress from conducting effective oversight.
Immunity compromises will not serve the interests of the American people. Substituting the government as the defendant in telecom lawsuits will only further rob Americans of their day in court by forcing them to sue a government that may use the power of the executive, state secrets, and other “privileges” to withhold information. Reimbursing the telecoms for their legal costs through indemnification rests financial burden on the taxpayers – essentially Americans paying for spying to which they object.
Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity. Americans deserve nothing less.
There is no reason to immunize the telecom corporations because they are already immunized if they had a good faith reason to believe they were following the law. The only reason to immunize them is to prevent the truth about the extent of the lawbreaking from coming to light.
The Bush team argue impending financial doom for the telecom industry should lawsuits be permitted to continue. However, at this time, the financial impact is speculative (pdf file) with a market that “seems unconcerned” about the lawsuits filed against telecoms:
For example, when the complaint in Hepting v. AT&T Corp. was filed and when AT&T’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, AT&T’s stock price remained essentially unaffected. The entirety of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory system requiring public filings and disclosures is premised on the idea that, when the relevant information is available publicly, the market is the most effective indicator of the value of a corporation. That the stock price of AT&T was unaffected by the suit indicates the market’s determination that the company’s financial footing remains sound, despite the potential liability.
Moreover, telecommunications carriers have survived enormous payouts in class action suits in the past. For example, in September of this year, Sprint received preliminary approval from the court for a $30 million class-action settlement. And in 1994, AT&T agreed to pay a $100 million settlement. Just as they have for the other risks incumbent in their business, telecommunications carriers have liability insurance to protect them in the event of an adverse civil judgment. And if, at some point in the future, a series of judgments comes to present a threat of widespread bankruptcy in the telecommunications industry, the government may take action at that time. But any preemptive liability shield is premature and unneeded.
Thus, should the telecom lawsuits proceed and if damages are awarded by the courts and if the damages are not covered by telecom liability insurance, and if Congress then determines that a bailout is needed for the industry, then Congress has the authority to legislate funding to the industry, thus preserving the plaintiffs’ right to a judicial remedy and the public’s right to a transparent government. As Sen. Feingold notes:
If the companies engaged in such widespread illegal conduct that the damages would be enormous, Congress can intervene to limit the damages. That’s a far more appropriate response than simply giving the companies a free pass for any illegal conduct.
Moreover, if the concern is financial liability, why is the immunity so broad that “cases will be dismissed even if they do not seek money damages but only declaratory and injunctive relief.”
The lawsuit distraction is just that... A distraction from the real issue of the bush illegally spying on Americans.
A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a "data-mining" operation, which might eventually cull "millions" of individual calls and e-mails.
Like the pressure applied to ITT a half-century ago, our source says the government was insistent, arguing that his competitors had already shown their patriotism by signing on. The NSA would not comment on the issue, saying that, "We do not discuss details of actual or alleged operational issues."
Although the president told the nation that his NSA eavesdropping program was limited to known Al Qaeda agents or supporters abroad making calls into the U.S., comments of other administration officials and intelligence veterans indicate that the NSA cast its net far more widely. AT&T technician Mark Klein inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the NSA, a charge indirectly substantiated by John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the official legal memos legitimizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Yoo told FRONTLINE: "The government needs to have access to international communications so that it can try to find communications that are coming into the country where Al Qaeda's trying to send messages to cell members in the country. In order to do that, it does have to have access to communication networks."
Conventional wisdom has long been that the bulk of the surveillance operations -- groundbreaking because they lacked judicial oversight -- involved primarily telephone calls. However, officials say the Bush administration's program frequently went after e-mail and other Internet traffic.
These actions by the bush administration go far beyond being simply criminal. They are an attack on the The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What part of these oaths do the politicians that swear to them fail to understand here?
Presidential Oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
For Congress Members:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
Many of these politicians' actions are not simply impeachable offenses for a failure to uphold their oaths of office, but exhibit a heretical acceptance of criminal actions and contempt for the founding documents that could only be described as treason.
In December 2005, the New York Times reported that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans have had their phones wiretapped by the National Security Agency (NSA) without any judicial review. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, prohibits domestic spying unless a warrant is first issued by the FISA Court. By authorizing government spies to bypass the process mandated by FISA, President Bush authorized them to break the law.
The so-called “Protect America Act,” which passed in August, made the situation worse by sanctioning a legal infrastructure under which American citizens might unwittingly be subject to daily, repeated invasions of privacy or violations of other constitutional rights. These liberties are not abstract or optional. Freedom from government spying on our private lives is at the core of what it means to be an American – the kind of personal liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect.
All parties involved must be held accountable for any illegal activity, including telecommunications companies (telecoms) that satisfied government requests for information about private communications. FISA currently provides sufficient mechanisms to allow telecoms to proceed lawfully with such requests. Every American should have the confidence that our judicial system will ensure that telecoms will not be permitted to circumvent this established process and undermine our fundamental right to privacy.
It is unacceptable that the FISA reform being debated now seeks blanket immunity for the telecoms’ alleged complicity in the Administration’s actions. If the telecoms never have to testify, Americans may never know the true extent to which they have been targeted for surveillance. We have a right to know what’s been done and how far the overreaching went.
In protecting the telecoms, the Administration is protecting itself. At a minimum, the Administration should not be given the power to bury the secrets of its domestic spying program by keeping the telecoms out of court. Telecom immunity not only has the potential to excuse illegal activity, it also precludes the public from getting access to information and prevents Congress from conducting effective oversight.
Immunity compromises will not serve the interests of the American people. Substituting the government as the defendant in telecom lawsuits will only further rob Americans of their day in court by forcing them to sue a government that may use the power of the executive, state secrets, and other “privileges” to withhold information. Reimbursing the telecoms for their legal costs through indemnification rests financial burden on the taxpayers – essentially Americans paying for spying to which they object.
Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity. Americans deserve nothing less.
There is no reason to immunize the telecom corporations because they are already immunized if they had a good faith reason to believe they were following the law. The only reason to immunize them is to prevent the truth about the extent of the lawbreaking from coming to light.
The Bush team argue impending financial doom for the telecom industry should lawsuits be permitted to continue. However, at this time, the financial impact is speculative (pdf file) with a market that “seems unconcerned” about the lawsuits filed against telecoms:
For example, when the complaint in Hepting v. AT&T Corp. was filed and when AT&T’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, AT&T’s stock price remained essentially unaffected. The entirety of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory system requiring public filings and disclosures is premised on the idea that, when the relevant information is available publicly, the market is the most effective indicator of the value of a corporation. That the stock price of AT&T was unaffected by the suit indicates the market’s determination that the company’s financial footing remains sound, despite the potential liability.
Moreover, telecommunications carriers have survived enormous payouts in class action suits in the past. For example, in September of this year, Sprint received preliminary approval from the court for a $30 million class-action settlement. And in 1994, AT&T agreed to pay a $100 million settlement. Just as they have for the other risks incumbent in their business, telecommunications carriers have liability insurance to protect them in the event of an adverse civil judgment. And if, at some point in the future, a series of judgments comes to present a threat of widespread bankruptcy in the telecommunications industry, the government may take action at that time. But any preemptive liability shield is premature and unneeded.
Thus, should the telecom lawsuits proceed and if damages are awarded by the courts and if the damages are not covered by telecom liability insurance, and if Congress then determines that a bailout is needed for the industry, then Congress has the authority to legislate funding to the industry, thus preserving the plaintiffs’ right to a judicial remedy and the public’s right to a transparent government. As Sen. Feingold notes:
If the companies engaged in such widespread illegal conduct that the damages would be enormous, Congress can intervene to limit the damages. That’s a far more appropriate response than simply giving the companies a free pass for any illegal conduct.
Moreover, if the concern is financial liability, why is the immunity so broad that “cases will be dismissed even if they do not seek money damages but only declaratory and injunctive relief.”
The lawsuit distraction is just that... A distraction from the real issue of the bush illegally spying on Americans.
A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a "data-mining" operation, which might eventually cull "millions" of individual calls and e-mails.
Like the pressure applied to ITT a half-century ago, our source says the government was insistent, arguing that his competitors had already shown their patriotism by signing on. The NSA would not comment on the issue, saying that, "We do not discuss details of actual or alleged operational issues."
Although the president told the nation that his NSA eavesdropping program was limited to known Al Qaeda agents or supporters abroad making calls into the U.S., comments of other administration officials and intelligence veterans indicate that the NSA cast its net far more widely. AT&T technician Mark Klein inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the NSA, a charge indirectly substantiated by John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the official legal memos legitimizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Yoo told FRONTLINE: "The government needs to have access to international communications so that it can try to find communications that are coming into the country where Al Qaeda's trying to send messages to cell members in the country. In order to do that, it does have to have access to communication networks."
Conventional wisdom has long been that the bulk of the surveillance operations -- groundbreaking because they lacked judicial oversight -- involved primarily telephone calls. However, officials say the Bush administration's program frequently went after e-mail and other Internet traffic.
These actions by the bush administration go far beyond being simply criminal. They are an attack on the The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What part of these oaths do the politicians that swear to them fail to understand here?
Presidential Oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
For Congress Members:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
Many of these politicians' actions are not simply impeachable offenses for a failure to uphold their oaths of office, but exhibit a heretical acceptance of criminal actions and contempt for the founding documents that could only be described as treason.
Well played, ACLU. Majority Leader Reid might not have felt a sufficient amount of heat as Americans with computers (the netroots) attempt to intervene on FISA, but I can promise you that articles like this in hometown papers get staffs and Senators to pay attention.
Sen. Harry Reid angered liberals in his party last month as he sought to shield telecom companies from liability for their role in the Bush administration's domestic spying program.
As the Senate debates the surveillance issue this week, the criticism of Reid shows that his role is putting him at odds with his party's base.
Kudos to the ACLU for their efforts to attack this odious legislation on another PR front! As another point of attack, "Stop the Spying!" wants you to get out your webcam and participate in a PFAW video effort to get your message out:
Shoot a Video Today!
Fire up your video cameras and webcams.
In 60 seconds or less, give your city and state and tell your members of Congress why you want them to oppose telecom immunity.
Read the Terms of Video Submission, and send your video clips to fisa@pfaw.org, or use the file-sending site YouSendIt to upload your video to the web -- no registration required. YouSendIt will then send your video to us.
PFAW and partner organizations will send your videos to key decision-makers in Congress, especially those who may be able to use activist video testimonials in hearings or other procedures.
You make the video, and PFAW will do whatever they can to distribute to the powers that be and to the wankers that are fighting against your freedom!
With Congress back in session this week and the Presidential season in full swing, the fight to prevent the Bush administration from granting immuniy to the telecoms for illegal spying is heating up once again. Activists and bloggers alike are keeping the heat on.
First, Credo Mobile (formerly Working Assets) urged its members to write to Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, the three presidential candidates who are still in the Senate and who have said they'd oppose immunity.
Dick Cheney doesn't rear his ugly head often, but when he does it's always on a topic of critical importance to the Bush agenda. Today, Dick came out "firing" on FISA:
Vice President Dick Cheney prodded Congress on Wednesday to extend and broaden an expiring surveillance law, saying "fighting the war on terror is a long-term enterprise" that should not come with an expiration date.
"This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians," Cheney said. "And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt."
Administration allies in Congress not only want the expiring law made permanent but amended to give telephone companies and other communications providers immunity from being sued for helping the government eavesdropping and other intelligence-gathering efforts.
Cheney said such providers "face dozens of lawsuits."
"The intelligence community doesn't have the facilities to carry out the kind of international surveillance needed to defend this country since 9-11. In some situations, there is no alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector. This is entirely appropriate," Cheney said.
Cheney's comments can be summed up as: Don't sue companies that help us expand Big Brother, which will be around forever because the War on Terra is never ending.
The Bush team argue impending financial doom for the telecom industry should lawsuits be permitted to continue. However, at this time, the financial impact is speculative (pdf file) with a market that “seems unconcerned” about the lawsuits filed against telecoms:
For example, when the complaint in Hepting v. AT&T Corp. was filed and when AT&T’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, AT&T’s stock price remained essentially unaffected. The entirety of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory system requiring public filings and disclosures is premised on the idea that, when the relevant information is available publicly, the market is the most effective indicator of the value of a corporation. That the stock price of AT&T was unaffected by the suit indicates the market’s determination that the company’s financial footing remains sound, despite the potential liability.
Moreover, telecommunications carriers have survived enormous payouts in class action suits in the past. For example, in September of this year, Sprint received preliminary approval from the court for a $30 million class-action settlement. And in 1994, AT&T agreed to pay a $100 million settlement. Just as they have for the other risks incumbent in their business, telecommunications carriers have liability insurance to protect them in the event of an adverse civil judgment. And if, at some point in the future, a series of judgments comes to present a threat of widespread bankruptcy in the telecommunications industry, the government may take action at that time. But any preemptive liability shield is premature and unneeded.
Thus, should the telecom lawsuits proceed and if damages are awarded by the courts and if the damages are not covered by telecom liability insurance, and if Congress then determines that a bailout is needed for the industry, then Congress has the authority to legislate funding to the industry, thus preserving the plaintiffs’ right to a judicial remedy and the public’s right to a transparent government. As Sen. Feingold notes:
If the companies engaged in such widespread illegal conduct that the damages would be enormous, Congress can intervene to limit the damages. That’s a far more appropriate response than simply giving the companies a free pass for any illegal conduct.
Moreover, if the concern is financial liability, why is the immunity so broad that “cases will be dismissed even if they do not seek money damages but only declaratory and injunctive relief.”
"If Senator Reid wanted to win, he would have put the judiciary vote on the floor first,” Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “It seems as if he wants to lose.”
A recent poll found that 57 percent of Americans oppose amnesty for telecoms. If you agree, there's still time to sign our FISA petition, which we'll deliver to Senator Harry Reid tomorrow.
Those of us in the left are not alone on this issue...
