Comments on: Trading our Constitution Away Based on the Word of Alberto Gonzales

By: libbyliberal

libbyliberal — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:16:54 +0000

Thanks for the consciousness raising!

By: Ron1

Ron1 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:40:28 +0000

Hi Mary, I just saw your comment. If you get this, please email me at rdlafond at gmail dot com if you have time and give me a little more info on where you’re coming from. I’d love to bounce ideas off you to see what I can get Chairman Conyers to discuss and maybe how to press him.

By: strider7

strider7 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:02:46 +0000

many thanx for the link

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:33:57 +0000

Why can’t they beam in his vote. Kennedy on the big screen. Why can’t he still vote?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:01:46 +0000

Plus you don’t need immunity from civil suits that can’t be filed

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:47:15 +0000

Yes–the immunity only protects the post 9/11 stuff.

But I think the pre-9/11 stuff is just the infrastructure capability–the ability to get right into the networks.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:45:30 +0000

True, but Kennedy was also a filibuster vote.

By: KestrelBrighteyes

KestrelBrighteyes — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:39:43 +0000

Entering the conversation WAAAAAAAY late, but I’m wondering about something:

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States” and

We know that Qwest had already refused to deal without a warrant as early as FEBRUARY - so does this mean that any spying done BEFORE September 11 is NOT covered by immunity? Is there any way we can use this to our advantage?

I sent something reminding Congress critters of this a couple of times since we started the fight - has ANYONE in the Senate or House even approached the issue of starting the spying BEFORE September 11? It just seems to me that leaves a bit of a hole in their reason for spying in the first place, and I’d like to see an explanation for that part of it - publicly, on the floor of the Senate, and as often as possible.

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:39:24 +0000

EW “That’s how cheap our laws have become”
Our children our watching … the whole world is watching

By: WilliamOckham

WilliamOckham — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:02:37 +0000

The telcos knew that what they were asked to do was a violation of FISA. Although I was harshing on David Kris a little earlier, he does make two incredibly important points that are often overlooked. FISA was absolutely clear that the NSA’s vacuum cleaner style surveillance of ‘domestic to foreign’ wire communications was illegal if done inside the U.S. Kris goes to a lot of effort to obscure the ‘why’ of the prohibition, but nobody in the Bush-Cheney administration and nobody at the telcos had any doubt that, under FISA, letting the NSA tap your switches was illegal. The second point that Kris proves is that the Administration’s claims to Congress that ‘When FISA was passed, almost all international telecommunications were in the air’ was completely false. Kris calls it an exaggeration, but he demonstrates that less than half of overseas communications traffic was carried via satellite when FISA was passed.