Phone Companies

As readers of this blog know, I’m helping CREDO Action run their campaign to stop warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity, which to this point has focused mostly on the legislative fight in the Senate. But CREDO Action is an arm of CREDO Mobile, a cell phone company, which is also connected to Working Assets, a telephone and credit card company. It’s all somewhat complicated and I can’t promise I’m accurately representing the breakdown.

Will Easton has a post up on the CREDO Blog comparing CREDO to the big telecoms AT&T and Verizon. Needless to say, CREDO comes out on looking pretty great compared to their Bush administration-partnering, illegal spying-enabling competitors.

Romney and Dolchstosslegende

Steven Benen notes that Mitt Romney’s justification for dropping out was that we are at war and if he didn’t drop out, he would continue to fracture the GOP, allowing the Democrats to win, and subsequently, the terrorists. Here’s Mitt Romney earlier today, quitting the race:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Benen writes:

In other words, Romney argued, with a straight face, that if he didn’t drop out, the terrorists win. And since he loves America, he can’t let that happen.

This gets directly to the narrative that we are already seeing from John McCain and will no doubt become the overarching theme embraced by the GOP in attacking our candidates and eventual nominee. “Democrats will surrender. Democrats will let the terrorists win. Democrats will stab the troops in the back.”

Dave Neiwert had a post up yesterday delving deep into the use of “Dolchstosslegende” by the right. It’s instructive given that Romney’s speech is probably a pretty close approximation to what we can expect to continue to see it coming from Republican candidates and pundits in attacking Democrats. They’ve been using this language extensively already and it’s only going to get worse and come from larger microphones afforded by the Presidential campaign, namely John McCain and his surrogates.

Update:

Right after hitting post, I see that Neiwert actually identified the same thing here as Benen and I, while agreeing that “Democrats had better brace themselves for a lot more of this.” Give Neiwert’s post a read.

First Feingold Amendment Fails

Russ Feingold’s amendment 3915 on use limits just failed, 40-56.

Next up is Feingold’s amendment 3913, which would ban reverse targeting of Americans.

Update:

Feingold’s reverse targeting amendment, 3913, has just failed as well. The vote was 38-57.

It’s my understanding that there will be no other roll call votes tonight, only voice votes. Up next appears to be Bond’s amendment 3941….and as I write this, Bond’s amendment 3941 passes by voice vote. It sets out the FISC standard of review and time limits for telecom objections to acquisition directives. I’m not quite sure what the content of this amendment was beyond that, but given it was offered by Bond & Rockefeller, you can safely guess that it doesn’t enhance oversight or curtail executive powers. [Small Update: Bond 3941 changes a review period from 30 to 90 days.]

Update II:

So far, in three roll call votes on FISA amendments agreed to late last week to set vote totals required for passage, each amendment to improve the underlying SSCI bill has failed. The Democratic caucus has not held in these votes (the Cardin amendment was best, but lacked Senator Clinton’s presence and fell 11 votes short of passing). What we saw today is most likely to be what we will see on other amendments that require 50 votes, with 40 votes being unlikely in most instances.

I’m sad to say that the way things are heading, we will be left with a very bad SSCI bill being voted on this coming Tuesday, as the amendment process will not achieve any notable improvements as things are proceeding now. In some regards, we just don’t have the Democratic votes to pass amendments needed to improve the underlying bill. But that’s a small-bore concern here – part of the problem, but in no way an adequate explanation in whole.

The blame must lie at the feet of Senator Harry Reid for failing to negotiate achievable vote standards on the amendments that he might be able to hold the caucus together for, for failing to hold the caucus together on votes like tonight that only required a majority to pass, and, most of all, for bringing the SSCI bill as the underlying bill and not the better alternatives from the Judiciary Committee and the House.

Update III:

The Senate will continue debating FISA amendments on Friday and Monday. All remaining amendments will be voted on this coming Tuesday. After the amendments are voted on, there will be a cloture vote, followed by a vote on final passage.

As we have a couple days before the next votes, now’s a great time to hit your Senators with emails asking them to support the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the underlying SSCI bill. Take action through CREDO’s email tool now and make sure the Senate hears us in the final days of this debate.

Update IV:

The roll call for Feingold 3915 is up; the final tally was 40-56. Voting “no,” with the GOP, were Democrats Bayh, Carper, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, and Pryor. Joe Lieberman also voted with the GOP. Senators Clinton, Obama, Ben Nelson, and McCain did not vote. McCain was in DC for CPAC today, so I’m not sure what his excuse for not voting is.

Update V:

The roll call for Feigold 3913, on reverse targeting, is up. The amendment failed 38-57. Voting “no” with the Republicans were Democrats Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Salazar. Once again, Joe Lieberman voted with the GOP. Absent from the vote were Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain, Ben Nelson, and Dorgan. Senator Clinton has missed all three roll call votes on FISA amendments thus far, while Senator Obama has missed two out of the three votes.

Some FISA Amendments Getting Votes Tonight

It looks like, after another day spent mostly debating the economic stimulus package, the Senate will be voting on four amendments to the FISA legislation tonight. Senator Reid said that there will be two roll call votes and two voice votes tonight. That would leave six more amendments that need votes, which would happen tomorrow and Monday if necessary. There is also at least six hours of FISA debate that remains outstanding. Senator Reid seems like he’d like to get a vote on final passage by Tuesday.

I’m not fully clear yet what four amendments will be voted on, but it looks like at least two of them will pertain to use limits and reverse targeting.

The first up is Feingold’s “use limits” amendment.

This amendment, which was part of the Senate Judiciary Committee version of the FISA bill, gives the FISA Court discretion to impose restrictions on the use of information about Americans that is acquired through procedures later determined to be illegal by the FISA court. This enforcement mechanism is needed because the government can implement its procedures before it has to submit them to the FISA Court for review to determine whether they are reasonably designed to target people overseas rather in the United States.

It looks like it will be followed by Feingold’s “significant purpose” amendment. I don’t have a good description for it, but will pass along when I do.

The Rule of Men

David Kravitz at Talking Points Memo is following the testimony of Attorney General Mukasey before the House today. He passes along a note that should go down as the day in which the Bush administration formalizes its position that the United States should be a country that is subject to the rule of men and not the rule of law.

So far, [Mukasey’s] dropped two big bombshells. DOJ will not be investigating:

(1) whether the waterboarding, now admitted to by the White House, was a crime; or

(2) whether the Administration’s warrantless wiretapping was illegal.

His rationale? Both programs had been signed off on in advance as legal by the Justice Department.

Cynics may argue that those aren’t bombshells at all, that the Bush Administration would never investigate itself in these matters. Perhaps so. But this is a case where cynicism is itself dangerous.

We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it’s not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it’s not.

It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales (Thanks to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for caving on the Mukasey nomination.).

President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.

For those not clear on the concept of the rule of law, Jack Balkin relays it well here:

the rule of law is not simply a formal legal requirement that like cases be treated alike, but rather a set of political values that must be realized in institutions of law. They include the principle that laws should be designed to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power, that no one should be be a judge in their own case, that executive officials should be accountable for their acts, and that laws should be public and applied fairly and impartially. These political values, which legal institutions should seek to implement, are principles and not rules; they do not determine the scope of their own extension and application, and therefore how best to implement them can be controversial. Nevertheless, they are central to having a government under law.

Here are some words the Founders used to describe actions that struck against the rule of law and established tyranny over the American colonies.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Those charges are written into our Declaration of Independence. They are not small. They are not incidental. They were so offensive to our Founders that it lead to revolution against British rule. And here we are today. Attorney General Mukasey is stating in plain terms is that he and his colleagues in the Bush administration are content to precipitate a massive constitutional crisis.

The question now stands, what will the Congress do about it? What will the media tell the public about it? If I had to guess, the  answer to both questions will be, “Nothing.”

I think Mr. Mukasey should be challenge on his positions today and if he does not reverse course, he should be impeached. If that fails to make the executive branch comply with Congressional subpoenas and oversight actions, then the President should be impeached. I have never been a supporter of impeachment. But these are the tools available to us through our Constitution and I think the best way to avert this constitutional crisis is to continue to try to exercise the powers granted to the Congress by the Founders. We cannot let America become a nation subject to the rule of men, especially men like Michael Mukasey and George W. Bush.

“Always Wrong and Always Illegal”

Senator Chris Dodd hits back hard against the White House statements that waterboarding is legal and has been used to torture multiple prisoners. Here’s Dodd’s statement, via press release:

“The statement by a White House spokesperson yesterday asserting that waterboarding is legal and President Bush could authorize the CIA to continue using this technique demonstrates a staggering disregard for the rule of law. Let me be clear: there is no such thing as “simulated” drowning. When a person is strapped to a board and water is poured into their mouth and nose with no way to get air, that is drowning; that is torture. The President must repudiate this statement and make clear that all forms of torture—including waterboarding—are always wrong and always illegal.” [emphasis added]

I think the inclusion of the point about waterboarding and drowning is important. The media has bought the GOP talking point that waterboarding only “simulates” drowning and therefore it’s somehow OK. Push back on this by key Democrats like Dodd is the only way we can change that narrative and get people to recognize that the admissions of waterboarding constitute admissions of torture, which, as Dodd says, is “always wrong and always illegal.”

The Beast is Red

Last year I went to CPAC and had a hell of a time monitoring the atrocities. I’m not going this year, but fortunately for me Mister Leonard Pierce of Sadly, No! is there and doing a better recreation of Hunter S. Thompson’s gonzo journalism than Matt Taibbi could ever dream to achieve. In his latest update, he writes about Cheney’s arrival into CPAC:

People are clapping rhythmically – well, as rhythmically as this crowd is ever going to get – for Cheney. For Cheney! I keep expecting them to start chanting “WE WANT THE SHOW” like they’re waiting for the Blues Brothers, the presence of whom would color up the crowd considerably. Wyoming senator John Barrasso introduces the fiend of the hour: “The C in CPAC should stand for Cheney!” The C in CPAC should stand for cocksucker, how about that?, I think, as the combination of drugs and fear turn me into a surly 15-year-old. Cheney is damned lucky I don’t have a roll of toilet paper, that’s all I can say. The crowd gives Dick a standing o, and, as a gang of bull-veined dudes in front of me start chanting “FOUR MORE YEARS!”, I get the sensation for the first time all day that I’m at something that could easily turn into a fascist rally. When the applause finally quells, Dick chuckles evilly. Can that be done? Is a chuckle even feasible as the delivery vector for evil? If it is, Dick Cheney is the man capable of pulling it off with finesse. I have to admit, the guy has a certain degree of charm, but it’s the same kind of charm that you might find in Stalin or Dracula: the easy charisma of a man who knows he can, with a wave of his hand, have you ground into paste.

Cheney goes on to discuss national security issues:

National security, though, that’s another matter: he gets another standing ovation for “The absence of another 9/11 is not an accident, it’s an achievement”. (The presence of the first 9/11, apparently, was and accident.) A laundry list of constitutional butt-wipes get standing ovations from about half of the crowd: an expansion of FISA, the torture of terror suspects, and the financial protection of any big corporation who might theoretically have allowed illegal wiretapping to take place. The telecoms, says Cheney, shouldn’t be “hassled” for acting in “good faith”, which usage of the phrase is unfamiliar to me. Terror, terror, terror: it’s the Dick Cheney boilerplate. (Bonus homosexual innuendo, Dick Cheney edition: describing the President’s term in office, he says “We’ve done hard things and done them well.”) Weirdly enough – or maybe not so much – his defense of torture gets a standing ovation, but his praising of our fighting men in uniform does not. It takes a man to fight, but it takes a train to waterboard.

He has four posts up so far, two from today, two from his travels to DC. Here are the links to Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3. I can’t wait for more updates…

Oh and for those interested, you can read my posts from CPAC last year here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

State of Affairs

My angst over the impending failures of Democrats to win the FISA fight is compared positively to the angst Republicans at the National Review Online feel about the impending victory of John McCain as their party’s nominee. T Rex writes:

Okay, you guys know we’re probably going to lose the FISA fight, right? I was talking to a fellow blogger on the phone last night after it was announced that Obama had swept Georgia and I couldn’t help but be just a little excited, you know?

Well, my friend (who has been plunged up to his earlobes in FISA issues, tracking the tiniest movements between committees and members of Congress on the issue for months) was less than enthused. “Great,” he said, “I hope you enjoy tonight.” Although, his tone of voice was more, “Well, if you must believe the hype, I hope it brings you some small measure of comfort, since neither of these two candidates has so much as lifted a finger to protect your privacy from the prying eyes of the Bush administration…”.

I maturely shouted down the phone, “Phooey on you, Mr. Gloomy Sad-Sack McMiseryguts! Barack Obama is the BLACK KENNEDY! And he’s going to make EVERYTHING BETTER. He’s going to bring me a brand new Red Rider BB gun with a scope and a compass on the stock and a giant bag of candy, right after he parts the Red Sea for the Democrats, which he’s doing just to be nice because that man can just walk right on the water! Nyah, nyah, nyah!! LA LA LA LA LA! I can’t hear yooooou!”

Well, bleak as some aspects of our current situation may be, they’re still not as bad as they are for the Republicans, and far be it from me to refrain from laughing at their pain. And there’s no better place to do that than at the NRO’s blog, The Corner.

I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. I do feel good that the GOP is in such disarray, even as their nomination gets locked up. Comparatively, our nomination is a far more confusing situation, but hey, we all seem to like it. At the same time, though, my enthusiasm about our candidates has undoubtedly been tempered by their refusal to prioritize defending the Constitution and the rule of law in their campaigns and as Senators employed by the American people. Going far beyond the presidential candidates, the failure of Senate Democrats to set a stage that allows us to win is far more disheartening than the relative absence of Obama and Clinton. At least from an ideological standpoint, I trust that the presidential candidates are with me. I can’t say the same thing about Mr. Reid.

But hey, at least the GOP base is going to despise their nominee!

Lieberman’s Not A Super Delegate

There’s been a lot of traffic in the last 24 hours on the fact that Joe Lieberman has been stripped of his status as a super delegate in the Democratic Party. Mark Pazniokas reports:

Lieberman’s endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.

I’ll be honest – I had thought this was decided a while back, though I can’t find the link to back that up. Maybe it’s just being widely reported now because these strange super delegate creatures are suddenly important. I know there was a lot of talk of this happening on the CT blogs back in December, when Lieberman endorsed McCain for President. State Chair Nancy DiNardo had condemned Lieberman for campaigning in CT with McCain earlier this month.
The real question now for me is if and when Lieberman will make it official and caucus with the Republican Party? If I had to guess, I’d say post November, when the Democratic majority grows and he is no longer relevant to our majority.