HEY, BABY, IT’S THE 4TH OF JULY
Hey, Baby, It’s the 4th of July
This holiday isn’t this holiday without Dave Alvin:
His friends and sometimes Knitters bandmates in X have a great version of it, too, but it’s Dave’s song, so he gets the honors of the video.
That song and mcmom’s tater salad are pretty much my exclusive requirements for this holiday, since I don’t get every that much discover of explosions.
What makes your 4th?
Source: feeds.dailykos.com
Betting it every on malefactor wiretapping prosecutions.
Rep. Mark Udall, streaming for senate in Colorado, is among the House Dems who fresh voted for the FISA bill.
That by itself isn’t specially remarkable. It’s symptomatic of streaming for higher office, just as the votes of Bob Menendez and Sherrod emancipationist for the heinous Military Commissions Act was. They both voted for it, and nearly immediately after winning declared how deeply they regretted it and that they’d be employed to cancellation it as soon as possible.
The MCA, of course, relic on the books. Its cancellation never stood a quantity so long as George W. Dubya held his veto crayon. And both emancipationist and Menendez knew that when they said it.
But that’s (political) life. It is what it is, and we feature so discover loud even though it’s digit of those dirty-but-open little secrets that Serious PeopleTM don’t talk about. Actually, that’s belike why we feature so discover loud.
So today Mark Udall finds himself in the aforementioned position. And just as emancipationist and Menendez look it every on their promises to repeal, Udall today bets it every on committing the incoming brass — still to be elected, by the way — to extensive malefactor investigations sharp into the very heart of eld and eld of executive operations.
Well, he’s not rattling sporting it every on it. There are literally hundreds of another grave issues and as many equally grave reasons why you absolutely staleness vote for him if you’re a river voter, despite anything that could mayhap be said about FISA. And he’s just digit of dozens of Democrats streaming for higher duty or for reelection to their current offices in Nov about whom I’d feature the exact aforementioned thing. But FISA and the set issues underlying it are getting the aforementioned exact aforementioned glossing over from those another candidates as we’re about to feature from Udall. And every of the grouping locution it are actually kinda hoping you won’t attending if they eventually garner up their chips and drop the wager entirely.
So this is not important because Mark Udall said it. Mark Udall is just the vector we have under the microscope at the moment, and just as with Menendez and Brown, we are meliorate soured by far agreeing to live with the dirty little info and electing him. What’s important is that this letter or digit like it is going discover to millions of afraid constituents, in hundreds of districts around the country. You may be expecting one, yourself. I think you deserve a fuller discussion of the answers you’re existence offered. Then I think you should go discover and vote for Udall and/or your local Democrat, anyway.
But here, via email to a essential that was mutual with us, is just digit example of what we get when we’re confused enough to actually communicate why they voted for this thing:
This calculate is designed to update FISA while swing an end to abusive domestic spying, and I voted for it in visit to preclude a future information of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch. The calculate is explicit that compliant with FISA is the exclusive way for the government to circularize surveillance. At the aforementioned time, it updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities. I fully understand why there is fault and even emotion that the legislation does not do more to order some telecommunications companies to move to lawsuits for questionable concealment abuses in their actions to implement the Dubya Administration’s warrantless surveillance after 9-11. But it does order a broad analyse of that surveillance information by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a inform to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress. This will mean that time abuses by the Dubya Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the calculate does not wage absolute or malefactor immunity for these companies, and no government authorised will obtain subject or malefactor immunity for time abuses.
This portion line of salutation is today in wide circulation, doubtless disseminated by the House Democratic Caucus to help Members deal with essential inquiries. And it does its job well. It sounds like a nuanced and intelligent response, and in most cases is likely enough to dispel absent follow-ups and lingering doubts. But it’s got earnest holes in it — earnest enough to intercommunicate the whole thing worthless, actually — and they deserve examination.
Regarding the verify that this calculate crapper “prevent a future information of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch,” I feature you’re living in a dream world:
The “administration’s” lawyers — grouping like John Yoo — wise Dubya that the chair had the “inherent power” to ignore the FISA viands in the study of “national security.” So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.
In fact, Yoo’s memo insisted that FISA’s exclusivity viands meant exactly the oppositeness of what they do mean:
Unless legislature made a country statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to limit statesmanly dominance to circularize warrantless searches in the domestic section Atlantic — which it has not — then the statute staleness be construed to refrain [such] a reading.
Just days ago, of course, the federal suite in the Al-Haramain housing said Yoo did indeed have it exactly backwards:
Congress squarely challenged and explicitly sought to veto warrantless wiretapping by the executive division by means of FISA, as FISA’s legislative history amply documented.
Congress appears understandably to have intended to — and did — establish as the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted.
Now, we’ve got a newborn exclusivity supplying that also purports to preclude the chair from exclusive ignoring the law, and it’s existence presented as something newborn and improved, and good enough by itself to justify a vote for the bill.
But the truth of the matter, as the court’s decision makes clearer than ever, is exactly as Glenn Greenwald puts it:
They’re presenting as a “gift” something you already have, and telling you that you should give up grave protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have — namely, a responsibility that the President obey with eavesdropping laws. What they’re doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes every the money out, gives the empty wallet backwards to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.
There rattling is no way to indite a law such that it prevents someone from ignoring it, of course. If you ignore the law, you ignore the viands preventing you from ignoring it. That, it turns out, is actually what “ignoring” means.
Regarding the verify that the calculate “updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities,” it’s arguably true that the calculate does “update” FISA, but it is decidedly misleading to follow that up by exclusive stating that FISA was originally passed in 1978. If “updating” is the issue, Udall might have taken tending to mention that FISA has actually been updated dozens of times over the years, and several times just since 9/11.
It might also have been helpful to explain that while some of the updates were arguably needed (debatable, but arguable), retrospective immunity for the telecom companies is neither an update to FISA, nor a necessity. Udall might have taken the possibleness to explain that George W. Dubya would not accept the updates that were arguably needed and comely unless he also won his saucer on immunity, and that he had in fact threatened to veto these “important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities” if he didn’t get his way.
Some actualised grown-ups among his constituents might like to know that.
Regarding the verify that the calculate will “require a broad analyse of that surveillance information by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a inform to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress,” I substance this attending mutual with me via email, by emptywheel:
The IG report, by law, cannot name a clannish citizen or entity that participated in the warrantless wiretap program. In another words, while a lot of grouping are pointing to the IG investigation as a great invention of transparency (though, without the Bingaman amendment [about which, wager here], we have no way to force the Administration to circularize discover the investigation in good faith), but the IG investigation by design will move to armour the telecoms that poor the law in assisting the Administration.
Sounds pretty “comprehensive,” eh? Can’t study names. That, I think, is going to be kinda important when it comes to Udall’s last and most undignified claim, that:
This will mean that time abuses by the Dubya Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the calculate does not wage absolute or malefactor immunity for these companies, and no government authorised will obtain subject or malefactor immunity for time abuses.
This last verify has already been addressed thoroughly by bmaz, composition on emptywheel’s journal at Firedoglake. And the issues with it utterly destroy the point. Just a few such issues:
WHAT CRIMES? - Neither Olbermann, Dean, Obama, nor anybody else discussing this hypothetical tube dream has indicated exactly what crimes they think might be charged. Let us be country on digit thing, exclusive because a proscribed state is unconstitutional does NOT make it criminal. For a evildoing to be charged, there needs to be a specific supplying of the US Code (USC), or another statutory provision, making said circularize a crime. It is crystal clear, from the agglomerated achievement to date, that the involved telcos were compelled by the Dubya Administration to support and were given cursive assurances that their cooperation was needed for domestic security, legal and commissioned by the President of the United States in a supposed time of war. That pretty much eliminates some evildoing that requires malefactor intent by the perpetrator, and leaves exclusive what, in malefactor law, are known as strict liability crimes, of which hour become to mind. The exclusive influential existence is the malefactor choler defined under the FISA law (18 USC 1809) which, you guessed it, requires specific intent. How are you going to establish that here?
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: - Even if you could identify specific crimes to calculate telcos and/or their owners, directors and organisation with, the evildoing staleness be viable and ripened for prosecution. The first discourse some malefactor defense professional is going to communicate is “Gee, is this evildoing within the statute of limitations”? FISA is subject to the Federal general statute of limitation contained in 18 USC 3282, which is five years. And, remember, the statute starts to separate when the evildoing is sworn and/or when the government becomes alive of the conduct; in this housing the Department of Justice knew about the circularize as, or before, it was existence committed. When we, as citizens learned about it is not the germane test. Obama, forward he is indeed elected, will not be issuing indictments at the end of his inaugural address. The FISA Amendment Act provides for an investigation and inform of the Bush/telco wiretapping/datamining and snooping to be complete by practical Inspectors General within digit assemblage of passage; forward Dubya signs the FAA in mid-July, that would be mid-July 2009 for the report. The Dubya Administration will not be employed diligently to effect this while they are still in office; some meaningful impact will have to be reviewed and/or performed under the newborn administration. It is unrealistic to expect that some charges could mayhap be filed before said said inform is due, so some behave occurring preceding to about July 15, 2004 will not be within the statute of limitations and will be obstructed from prosecution.
To these, I have still more to add.
- Why, if you conceive there are or may be grounds for malefactor prosecution, would you immunize against subject liability? What significance does that make, exactly? Why make life easier for grouping you’re telling us should be or could be subject to malefactor liability?
- Going the line in #1 says, “Don’t advise your rights by yourselves, Mr. or Ms. Citizen. Let the government that just finished stripping you of them take tending of that for you. Maybe.
- Who are these Congressmen commiting the Barack Obama brass to a major malefactor investigation spanning eight eld of the Dubya White House’s most secretive and most deeply shrouded abuses as its first authorised act, and have some of them asked Obama where he stands on this commitment?
- The grouping auspicious you malefactor prosecutions after ‘08 if you’ll just closed up and trust them to feature the law and take tending of things after the election are the aforementioned grouping who promised you effective “subpoena power” after ‘06 if you’d just closed up and trust them to feature the law and take tending of things after the election.
Well, when they said it in ‘06, I feature the law myself and saw very clearly (and dead accurately, I might add) what would happen to “subpoena power”. Now we’re backwards to trusting their datum of the law, their prophetic powers, and their assumptions that Dubya won’t exclusive mercy everyone, discover of some kind if clean shame, it is suggested, even though he hasn’t exhibited such dishonor at some saucer in his life, much less during his “administration.”
Absent the fact that Udall is hoping we’ll every go away, this would be an intentionally stupid function to take at this point, 7 1/2 eld into the Dubya “administration.” And if it weren’t for the fact that we’re every going to be hit with this telegraphed punch, I’d be more than happy to let those who subscribe to it take in on the lineament while I laugh from ringside.
Too intense it’s not that simple.
Source: feeds.dailykos.com
Late Afternoon/Early Evening Open Thread
Coming Up on Sunday Kos ….
- georgia10 will explore the newborn face of activism and what it looks like for the millennial generation.
- DemFromCT will analyse past polling on health tending as it relates to the 2008 campaign, and the chances for health improve after the election.
- DevilsTower will take a look backwards at Freedomnomics, sockpuppetry and misleading economics.
- Think the Cold War ended? Think again. Plutonium Page will take us on a tour of digit of the most septic thermonuclear sites on Earth… correct here in the United States.
- DarkSyde will give a lyrical recognize to digit of the most bonny places on earth.
Source: feeds.dailykos.com
Tags: benazir bhutto politics, australian persuasion and democracy, what is a left wing politic, politics \\\’jane bennett\\\’, importance of politics