…

EW:

>Nancy Pelosi’s objection to the program is most troubling. When, on March 10, 2004, the Administration came to Congress and asked whether, in light of Comey’s refusal to reauthorize the program, Congress could do a quickie law making it legal, the Gang of Eight said legislation would be impossible on that short notice, but a majority of those present did not object to the continuation of the clearly illegal program. That’s critically important for the issue of immunity–Congress couldn’t very well advocate holding the telecoms responsible for accepting an authorization from the White House Counsel, could they, if they knew and approved that the program should continue even after Comey determined it legally problematic.

I don’t know about that… wns.

Aside from Comey’s objections, I’ve never heard or seen anything WRT WH statements/agreements/claims for cause in enrolling telecom participation. After Junior’s WMD claims (didn’t Powell try and weed out the unsubstantiated claims, and didn’t the remainder fall into same category?), how anyone could give WH benefit of the doubt wrt veracity is beyond me.

If Pelosi & crew screwed up, let ‘em say so.

If she was duped by GWB lies (recall ex. Sen Graham FL saying pre-Iraq invasion WH briefings informed SH could hit US east coast w/nukes), then we should know that.

Fool me once, shame on me… (etc etc).

Was Pelosi briefed on operational details? For ex., extent to which NSA allegedly exclusively operated/staffed AT&T (SBC) facilities?. One doesn’t have to be a tech guru to perceive the implications there-in.

Was she/BDs briefed on GWB’s legal rationale presented to telecos?

Congress could very well advocate holding these telecoms feet to the fire. If they were lied to by Bush, let’s find that out. Feingold’s statement seems straight-arrow enough to me.

I fully agree w/Selise’s suggestion… that we reward (w/support) lawmakers who stood tall, and punish those who caved.

I’d note, again from Selise, of her speculative reasons why dem leadership pulled this “Delay”, her # 1

Some possible explanations are:

1. They responded to heavy lobbying and money from the telcos who want the suits against them dropped

Indeed they did. And indeed the 2 previous reasonable HOUSE FISA incarnations did not include the provisions you suggest CONGRESS could not codify.

…

I’ve generally been much more supportive of Pelosi than blogosphere as a whole. I lived across the bay from her district for many years, and watched her operate closeup through that time. I very much agreed w/most of her important stands over the years, and never had reason to think she was taking them for reasons other than integrity. Aside from taking impeachment off the table, I’ve considered her performance as speaker considerable more able and effective than reflected in the grass roots.

This changes all that for me… unforgiveable.

As I said in response to WIGWAM, this looks more like K-Street than main street.

I support Selise’s suggestion to punish those who went along, and will commit to some action/hours to do so.

Unforgiveable.

Exclusivity has potential for becoming a significant issue for the voting public. No one who learns that blanket surveillance has been and is being conducted, and who becomes familiar with FISA exclusivity, would believe that blanket surveillance is lawful conduct under FISA. Some lawsuits, if allowed to proceed, may eventually have the effect of making more of the public aware of illegal electronic surveillance and interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications. But I’d like to think we won’t have to wait that long for the voices defending the rule of law to win credibility from their opponents.

That would have clued us in to there still being something afoot in regard to FISA legislation.

- Tom

Richard Clarke today put some emphasis on “outsourcing” as he does in his new book — but to really comprehend the meaning of for instance, 70% of CIA or NSA’s budget going out the door to private contractors, you have to read Shorrock’s work, where he describes the special “fairs” departments such as Homeland Security set up, which are little more than auctions, with lots of shrimp and crab cocktail laid on to give it all a bit of class. Clarke is quietly trying to say, a lot of this stuff is really government business, and it should be brought back in house, and done by accountable public servants. That can probably only happen once many more folk know the vast rape of private information that has been on offer in recent years, gets mad, and demands change. And that is why you need a totally eclectic coalition — not something that can be easily “typed.”

I will bet bottom dollar that the reason the Pentagon so fucked up the contracts for in air refueling tankers was because they wanted to look totally incompetent so that the procurement process could be privatized.