Buck Naked Politics

Three Reasons Cited In Support of Telecom Amnesty that Aren't

by Damozel | I happen to think the FISA bill is a terrible piece of legislation -- and not just because of the telecom issue --- but I am pretty sure it's going to pass.  That's not what this is about.

What's bothering me are the reasons I'm hearing from various highly-placed public officials why I and America need this so-called compromise. Do they take me for a fool?  Yes, they take me for a fool.  Either that, or they are banking on the entire American public being as civics-impaired as rumored.  In any case, we're being played, possibly in the hope that if they say enough soothing things about why America needs FISA because national security requires it we'll get bored with the whole thing or frightened and drop it.  (I mean, who really believes anymore that we have any privacy?  Not me.) 

The Flip-Flop Effect: A Blogger Offers Good Advice to the Obama Campaign

by Damozel | At Democrats.com, Bob Fertik finds it 'worrisome' that that Obama needed 'two press conferences today to clarify his position on Iraq.'  However:  he agrees that everything Obama has said is consistent with his previous position.  He makes a good point about Obama's campaign, Republican tactics, and the general laziness of the media: 

  I hope Obama understands the powerful dynamic that's at work: when he flip-flops on one issue [FISA], Republicans and their Corporate Media allies will try to portray every policy "clarification" as another flip-flop, so they can paint him as another John Kerry.    

The Corporate Media doesn't care that John McCain holds the Guiness World Record in flip-flops, including Bush's tax cuts, immigration, torture, and off-shore drilling.

Olbermann Tries but Doesn't Quite Re-Reverse Himself

by D. Cupples |   Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann dropped his pompoms and attempted to re-reverse himself by doing a "special comment" about Barack Obama's recent reversal on FISA (Crooks & Liars has the video and transcript).  Mr. Olbermann made two major mistakes:

1) He said that Sen. Obama has a second chance to fight FISA

2) He indicated that he still believes that Obama has a secret plan to criminally prosecute Telecom folks even if they get immunity from civil suits.

First, there is no second chance to fight the new FISA bill, which the House has already passed and the Senate will likely vote on next week.  The numbers needed to defeat the bill just aren't in the Senate: we've known this for some time.

Obama and MoveOn.org (and FISA and NAFTA): Does the "Center" Include Repudiation & Reversal?

by D. Cupples |   Last fall -- fearing the label "unpatriotic" -- Congress voted on a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's New York Times ad that questioned whether General David Petraeus would "betray us" (i.e., color the facts of his Iraq war report in a Bush-friendly way).  Last year, Sen. Barack Obama did not vote either way on the resolution that chastised MoveOn (see roll call).

Yesterday, The Hill reported that Sen. Obama slighted MoveOn.org when bringing up the ad that MoveOn ran nearly a year ago. This is bizarre, given that MoveOn has 3+ million members and endorsed Obama over Clinton in the primaries.

Moving to the Center (Part 2); Dodd Bitter-Enders

by Damozel | I wrote at some length on this issue.  But you can skip the whole thing and just refer to Brad at Sadly, No!:

Candidates have traditionally moved toward the center after winning their primaries to attract more undecided voters. Except that that isn’t happening with John McCain, who has if anything gotten crazier in recent months....How does this happen? How has wingnuttery so poisoned our elections that both candidates are striving to show the rest of the country just how stupid and crazy they are? Don’t we need, to coin a phrase, a choice not an echo?.

The Dread 'Move to the Center' & Obama's Campaign

by Damozel | Paul Krugman made the same point months ago as Greenwald does in this piece arguing that Obama's run rightward to meet McCain the so-called 'center' is in fact not the winning strategy his advisers must think.  Why is there an assumption that Americans want some sort of compromise between Bush and the principles expressed by the Democratic candidates?

With the Republicans still mechanically spouting policies consistent with Bush-era neoconservatism, what's needed to achieve balance again isn't compromise action, but corrective action.  What most Democrats I know want is a different choice.  Sadly, Obama lately seems intent on ensuring that there is no distinction between his policies and McCain's:

Olbermann's O-Reilly-ish Stance on FISA: Greenwald Delivers Knock-Out Punch

by D. Cupples |   It's just not smart to raise boxing gloves against Salon's Glenn Greenwald when one doesn't have actual facts and events on his or her side.  As my co-blogger Damozel put it, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald went into a room over Olbermann's handling of the FISA issue, and only one of them came back out -- Greenwald.

Mr. Olbermann has been railing against FISA, Telecom Amnesty and President Bush for months -- complete with intense huffing and puffing and nostril flaring.  He even called Telecom Amnesty a fascist plot (video available here).  On those points, Greenwald agrees with Olbermann's original stance (which has, apparently, changed).

Senate Delays FISA Bill

The Senate decided to postpone voting on the new FISA bill (passed by the House last week) that would 1) expand the Bush Administration's domestic spying powers, and 2) give retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the Administration illegally spy on Americans.

Other legislation was also postponed until the Senate comes back from its recess.  The Hill has the rest of the story (via memeorandum).

Links to background info are after the jump.

Greenwald Takes Olbermann's Defense of the new FISA Bill into a Back Room; Only Greenwald Comes Out

by Damozel | My colleague Deb Cupples has recently commented trenchantly on Olbermann's reversal of his position on FISA to match Obama's.  Now Glenn Greenwald has administered a swift and deadly kick to Olbermann's credibility on the issue and to any lingering hope that Olbermann might recover sufficient detachment to be considered a reliable commenter on any issue relating to his Hero, Barack Obama.

Now that Obama has made his position on FISA crystal clear, Olbermann has apparently decided how he is going to spin the issue:  by being as disingenuous as Obama man.  When W was fighting for FISA, Olbermann called it '"an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."' (Salon; emphasis added)

A Tribute to Senator Chris Dodd & 15 Who Stood Up for the Constitution in the Crucial Vote on Cloture

by Damozel | At Crooks and Liars, SilentPatriot writes:

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), who along with Russ Feingold has been the fiercest defender of Constitutional rights, took to the floor last night to deliver a two-hour impassioned speech in defense of the rule of law, and offered a scathing critique of the sham FISA bill about to become law....

Dodd’s sincere respect and concern for this country’s sacred principles and his passionate defense last night of those principles was the most uplifting yet depressing thing I have ever seen; uplifting because it proved to me that there are leaders out there who still give a damn, but depressing because, with rare exceptions, he is alone. When the history of the Bush years is written and future generations look back and wonder how we sank so low, how an abject failure like George W. Bush successfully transformed our national character, at least we can look back to times like these and know that there were some true patriots sounding the alarm.

Obama Weighs in Again on Telecom Amnesty...

by Damozel | And what he says isn’t going to cheer you up if you oppose it. 

It had crossed my mind that perhaps Dodd’s and Feingold’s repudiation of the bill was at least partly motivated by a wish to mitigate the disappointment many Democrats feel in Obama’s stance on FISA. I don’t really know how these things work. But after all, Obama did suggest, didn’t he, that he wasn’t happy with this part of the bill and would fight to see it removed?  Yep, that’s what he said, in the midst of explaining all the things about it he did like.

It does….grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Dodd was pretty specific in the statement he made on the Senate floor concerning his reasons for opposing FISA (discussed here). He and the many Dems House Dems who opposed the ‘compromise’ bill, so-called, don’t really seem to see a crucial connection between legalizing the past actions of the telecoms and national security.

So, anyway, now that some Senators have pubicly opposed this provision, what’s Obama got to say?

Open letter to Sen. Salazar on FISA

by Adam |  Good morning all. This is the first of what will hopefully be an occasional series of guest posts of mine. Those who read Deb and Damozel's posts regularly know that I've been spending time here commenting since early February.

What follows is the text of an e-mail I sent my lone Democratic senator, Ken Salazar, yesterday. Salazar voted for the previous Rockefeller FISA bill which had contained retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, and he voted against the Dodd Ammendment (along with 16 of his fellow Democratic senators). The actual bill passed the senate with essentially the same set of senators crossing the aisle.

Vertebrate Senators Gear Up to Resist Telecom Amnesty

by Damozel | Apparently, some Democrats in Congress can apparently still find their spines.  That's cheering.

Senator Harry Reid is supportive of efforts to strip the retro-active immunity from the new FISA bill.  This won't keep it from shredding the fourth amendment, but it's a step in the right direction.   Senators Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd have promised to do all they can to block it, including a filibuster.  They released a statement explaining their opposition to the current bill.  Via HuffPost:

This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called 'compromise' legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

But Why DID 94 House Dems Change Their FISA Votes?

by Damozel | In March, the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for telecoms that assisted the NSA in illegal wiretapping.  Most of us have wondered what happened to change the minds of 94 Democrats.  What happened between June 20 and March 14 to change 94 Democratic hearts and minds?

The answer might well be simple:  money. 

MAPLight.org has published a breakdown of contributions received from Telco PACS by the 94 Dems who experienced the change of heart.  [Maplight.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in Berkeley, California. Its search engine at MAPLight.org illuminates the connection between Money And Politics (MAP) via an unprecedented database of campaign contributions and legislative outcomes.']

Action Alert: Call & Ask Your Senator to Vote AGAINST Telecom Amnesty

by Deb Cupples |   Last week, the House passed a FISA bill that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies (Telecom Amnesty) that had violated federal laws while helping the Bush Administration spy on Americans. 

Whatever I may generally think of Keith Olbermann, he did give a good explanation of why Telecom Amnesty would be bad public policy.  I embedded the video clip after the jump for those who are interested.

Please call your senator and ask him/her to vote against immunity for telecom companies.  A phone list is below (thanks to Firedoglake for compiling it), with local numbers through which Floridians can reach Sen. Bill Nelson.

Law Prof Challenges the Spin and Tells Why FISA Bill is Frightening

by Deb Cupples |  Below is a good interview of George Washington University Professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley re: FISA facts and spin.  The first minute (or so) is devoted to background info, and the next four minutes (or so)  are largely devoted to Prof. Turley.  Here's a snippet:

"It is reverse engineering, the type of thing the Bush Administration's famous for and now the Democrats are doing.  That is to change the law to conform to past conduct.  It's what any criminal would love to do.  You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful...."

"People need to be very, very much aware of this bill.  What you're seeing in this bill is an evisceration of the fourth amendment of the constitution.  It is something that allows the president and the government to go into law-abiding homes on their word alone, their suspicion alone and engage in warrantless surveillance.  That's what the framers who drafted the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent."

Notice how incisive Keith Olbermann is toward congressional Democrats who were caving into the White House on FISA.  The day after interviewing Prof. Turley, Mr. Olbermann did a piece on Sen. Obama's surprising support for the FISA bill -- and Mr. Olbermann wasn't nearly as incisive. 

I'm not sure if Mr. Olbermann was in shock or if he was trying to figure out a credible way to give Sen. Obama immunity on this issue.

Olbermann (and Others) Construct Rickety Defenses over FISA

by Deb Cupples |  I've been troubled by certain media's use of false (or selective) reporting to shape public opinion ever since Rush Limbaugh and Fox began convinced millions of Americans that President Bush could do no wrong -- and that his supporters should respond with verbal brutality when fellow Americans dared to question the policies of certain politicians.

My concerns intensified when even non-right-wing media failed (or refused) to accurately inform Americans before the Iraq war, thereby helping the Bush Administration falsely sell a costly war that will likely go on for years.

My concerns further intensified as I watched big media personalities abandon journalistic pursuits in favor of acting as unofficial campaign volunteers during this year's primaries. 

Warning flags are flapping again as I watch some media fail to inform the public about the new FISA bill, which includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.

Bloggers Consider Obama's Failure to Take a Stand Against FISA

by Damozel | Certainly he's disappointed the liberal blogosphere.  As I said, while I sort of expected it, I felt a distinct thrill of disappointment when I read his statement.  I actually thought he'd try to avoid the issue.  Would that have been better?   While I realize that liberal Dems tend to tack to the right once they know they've got the nod, it seems a bit...previous.  We haven't even had the convention yet, for Christ's sake.

Atrios named him Wanker of the Day; at TPM Greg Sargent called it a 'downer.'  Yep.

The problem for Obama's campaign is that he can't win if he looks 'soft' on terrorism because the Dems have let the Republicans own the whole national security issue and define the requirements.  I guess it's too much to hope that the Dems would wrest the issue away from the right and challenge the Bush administration's (and the nation's) assumptions about the most effective way to fight it.    

Obama Issues Statement in Support of FISA 'Compromise'

by Damozel | While I pretty much expected it, I still felt a frisson of disappointment. I admit it. It’s not a piece of legislation I could ever support. Greenwald has it right, I think.

At TPM, Greg Sargent says tersely, ‘Obama’s statement on the FISA “compromise” is in, and suffice it to say that it won’t make opponents of the Dem cave-in very happy. He’s supporting it.’ He’s set out Obama’s statement. Sargent finds it a ‘downer.’

 

Democratic House Gives in to White House on FISA

by Deb Cupples |   I saw it on C-Span's live streaming of the session, and the vote is over, so I can't link to it.  The U.S. House just passed the FISA bill by  293 - 128 votes, meaning a whole lot of Democrats voted for the bill.  As discussed here earlier, the FISA bill was not a compromise.

The bill will give the Bush Administration and law-breaking telecommunications companies exactly what they wanted:  1) broader ability to tap Americans' phone calls and emails and 2) retroactive immunity for telecoms that had broken the law while helping the Administration's domestic-surveillance programs.

The upshot: lawsuits against law-breaking telecoms will likely be dropped and we taxpayers will likely never see evidence of just how egregiously the Bush Administration (and its  allies in the telecom industry) had broken our nation's laws.

Next, the Senate will vote on the bill.