Dems who voted against public option got $19m from healthcare firms

Banning a book near you from Truthout

End of FCC censorship of the airwaves may come by Marjorie Heins

Inside look at how Goldman Sachs lobbies Senate by Matt Taibbi

Kirk Cameron combats Darwin in Bananaland by Jim Emerson

Read any banned books? Probably several from True/Slant

Bill introduced: Eliminate retroactive immunity for telecoms

Russian journalist in hiding after Soviet critique from Reuters

Glenn Beck satire site fights back from Ad Week

FCC will review media ownership rules in November

Dems to shield big banks from tougher state laws? from Raw Story

Princeton students, faculty not thrilled with Kindle

Mukasey gets so emotional over Retroactive Immunity that he reflects on the victims of 9/11 – and has to fight from breaking down in tears.  I am sure the victims (previous and ongoing) of 9/11 see Retroactive Immunity as Justice.

Previous to this remark, Mukasey mentions a call from an Afghanistan safehouse as a warning/alert to 9/11 (Truth).  Think About It.

9/11 Truth Chokes Up Mukasey:

Mukasey Admits 9/11 (Truth) Alert:

Gonzales Visited Ashcroft’s Hospital Bed Because:

Keith Olbermann:
“The government knew about some phone call from a safe house in Afghanistan into the U.S. about 9/11?   Before 9/11?  You didn’t do anything about it? Either the Attorney General just admitted that the government for which he works is guilty of malfeasant COMPLICITY in the 9/11 attacks, or he’s lying.”

WindHarps

Earlier this week, the Congress passed the so-called “FISA Update” legislation that the Bush Administration had been demanding for months. For those of you not familiar, FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The original bill, created some 30 years ago to curtail unconstitutional government spying, forced the Executive Branch to get court-approved warrants for surveillance. This oversight has been key in maintaining the Constitutional rights of Americans from unwarranted spying. It has just been gutted.

In addition to allowing the Executive branch to gather vast amounts of information without oversight, it also grants immunity from civil prosecution to major telecommunications firms who cooperated with illegal government spying programs over the last eight years. This means that Americans who were illegally spied on have no civil recourse to the courts.

There is much anger and outrage at this abrogation of 4th Amendment rights and the unconstitutional Retroactive Immunity for the corporations that illegally cooperated with the Bush Administrations pre-9/11 warrantless spying. Oftentimes, the media portray this outrage as coming solely from the far left, and suggest that there is much ado about nothing. This video of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Senator Russ Feingold explains, very clearly, exactly how much damage has just been done to the checks that rein in the power of the Executive Branch.

The senate is scheduled to start consideration of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 this morning at 9:30. There is still time to make some phone calls to your senators.

If you pay extra for long distance, this tool from Act Blue can help you make phone calls for free. You enter your zip code and phone number and the system calls you back at your own phone and auto dials the long distance numbers for you.

Typically, the way these autocall systems work is that you input your information and the system calls you back within a few seconds. It then chooses the numbers for you to call and dials them automatically.  You can’t see the number you are calling.  The person answering the phone cannot see your phone number either–they see a local phone number, or one with an appropriate area code.

If you check the summary page for H.R. 6304 , the FISA Amendments Bill of 2008, on the Library of Congress’ Thomas site, and go to the amendments page, you will see a number of amendments that have been introduced to the bill.  Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)  introduced one of them,  S.AMDT.5064. Sen. Dodd has been working on an amendment that would take retroactive immunity out of the FISA bill, but the text apparently is not yet available.

The amendment has 9 cosponsors:

Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] – 6/26/2008
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 6/26/2008
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] – 6/26/2008
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 6/26/2008
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 6/26/2008
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] – 6/26/2008
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 6/26/2008
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 6/26/2008
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 6/26/2008

Last week, in response to an email I sent the senator’s office asking for a copy of his FISA position, Sen. Barack Obama sent me an email saying:

However, I am disappointed that this bill, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and I will work with my colleagues to remove this provision.

…but Sen Obama’s name is not on this amendment as a cosponsor.

What’s with that?

Is Obama backtracking? Well, yes and no.

Mr. Obama was scrolling through news reports on his Blackberry – taking particular note of stories about his Iraq policy – when he told his advisers he wanted to better explain a statement he made earlier about continuing to “refine my policies” regarding a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

“We’re going to try this again,” Mr. Obama said, standing behind a lectern that was hastily set up on the lawn of a park here. “Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.”

Granted there is only a small difference between what Obama campaigned on and his recent statements yesterday — getting the troops home in 16 months compared to 11 months.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

His original On the Issues fact sheet notes quite clearly he would redeploy troops in 11 months (pdf via in case it changes). Five months difference may not be a lot, but it is enough for the McCain team to zero in as a flip-flopper, leaving Obama wide open to being “swiftboated.” Note, the only thing different between yesterday’s statements and his original fact sheet is the timeframe of 5 months. Nothing else has changed, as Taylor Marsh points out. What she does point out is that Obama’s timeframe for redeployment changed back at the Dartmouth Debate.

So, for all the squawking of flip-flopping, not on this issue. The timeframe change on redeployment happened a while ago, and everyone either missed it or dismissed it. On the other hand, changing the timeframe for redeployment by 5 months may not be construed as true backtracking, being that this is a constantly changing situation, and changing situations need to have flexible solutions — something the neocons and Bush the Lesser never understood (i.e. stay the course).

However, it is the FISA legislation, and retroactive immunity that is the real story of backtracking by Obama. Glenn Greenwald calls bullshit on Obama’s latest statement on his FISA support, while giving him kudos for allowing an open forum.

Barack Obama has issued a new statement on FISA in response to the growing number of his supporters objecting to his position. Genuine credit to him for being responsive this way and for having his site be a forum for disagreement among his supporters and himself. Providing a forum for those sorts of debates is a sign of a secure and healthy campaign.

Despite that, the statement contains many dubious claims and, in a couple cases, outright misleading statements. Worse, Obama’s statement only addressed the objections to the telecom immunity provisions of the bill, while ignoring the objections to the (at least) equally pernicious new warrantless eavesdropping powers the bill authorizes.

Read the entire post of Glenn’s to understand the full implications and falsehood’s of Obama’s claims.

Finally, we must note, as voiciferously as possible, that it is McShame that employs true flip-flopping. He flipped on his Iraq stance, taking the democrats stance after his disasterous 100-years statment.

Barack Obama’s own website is now the host to a group opposing the FISA bill, HR 6304, which would legalize wiretapping and searches of homes, offices, and personal information without a warrant .

Started on June 27 (last Friday) the group is growing astronomically and now boasts 9,937 members.

One comment from David from Swarthmore, Pennsylvania says it all:

I am reluctantly diverting all the money I had earmarked for the Obama campaign in order to address a more urgent matter: stopping the FISA bill…..Sorry Barack my money has to go to correct the deeply unpatriotic mess you are creating to get elected.

The FISA argument continues this week with a new twist. There have been rumbles that the real reason Obama changed his mind about supporting FISA was about possible criminal prosecution for individuals who broke the law in wiretapping without warrants. The FISA legislation, so the argument goes, only provides immunity from civil lawsuits, not criminal lawsuits.  So while the corporations’ bottom lines may be safe, the individuals who made the wiretapping decisions, including Bush administration officials, can still be prosecuted for criminal activity. Making the argument are MSNBC’s Keith Olberman and former counsel to the Nixon White House John Dean, writing today in Laidlaw.

While noting that Obama has not made any formal comment about impeachment proceedings surrounding warrantless wiretapping, Dean emphasizes that he has taken a stand against torture, indicating that he might be willing to have his justice department, in the event that he was elected, investigate any impeachable offenses in that area.

During the primaries, Senator Obama stated that, as President, he would not give his predecessors a pass for their crimes, which has recently become the informal custom. Obama was asked about this matter by a seasoned political reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News, Will Bunch.

Bunch wanted to know Obama whether his administration’s Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed” by the Bush Administration. The discussion arose in the context of the uses of torture and other illegal means to fight terrorism, but Obama’s response was general and unequivocal. Bunch reported that Obama said:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.

You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody[’s] above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it. (Emphasis added.)

Gosh, the Republicans must suddenly be all scared-like about that impeachment stuff, thinking how the Democratic congress might be willing to go after them. I mean, look at all the attention the Kucinich impeachment stuff got.

And how IS that Kucinich impeachment bill doing these days?

What the hell is wrong with the Fools on the Hill? There is overwhelming support to strip any FISA legislation of retroactive immunity for the telecoms that illegally tapped your phone/handed your information to the government without a warrant. Only 15 senators had the chutzpah to stand up for the people????

An effort to block a wide-ranging overhaul of U.S. wiretapping laws failed in the Senate on Wednesday, with opponents mustering only 15 votes against the bill in a procedural vote.

Which leads me to wonder how much these senators were paid by the telecoms for their vote. I’m sure we will find out in the next few days.

As for the great Hope and Change of Barack, as it relates to the FISA bill, and validated by the fact that this filibuster wasn’t important enough to be in Washington to vote. It’s a slogan, people.

Barack Obama’s support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.

Many progressives were disappointed, and thoroughly disgusted when Senate House democrats capitulated (this was NOT a copromise, unless someone has changed the definition of compromise) on the FISA bill last week, which included retroactive immunity for telecoms that subverted broke the law and turned over records to the government without warrants. Sen. Dodd and Feingold have the hutzpah to stand up for the millions of people that are outraged this administration would consider allowing illegal acts to occur under the guise of “national security.”

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.

“If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation.

But, wait. This isn’t just about filibusters and trying to protect the people’s civil liberties. It turns out that those dems that voted for the FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity, were bought.

On March 14 of this year the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants. Ninety-four House Democrats voted in favor of this measure–rejecting immunity–on March 14, then ‘changed’ to vote in favor of the June 20 House bill–approving immunity.

“Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart?” asked Daniel Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org, “Their constituents deserve answers.”

The average campaign contribution payoff is around $9000 for those dems that changed their vote to support retroactive immunity. Maplight has the list of who made how much.

What is Barack Obama’s position on FISA?

The blogosphere has been freaking out ever since an earlier report that Obama had switched his position on FISA and was ready to vote for the bill. Bloggers trying to contact his office have reported a busy signal all day.

Well, I just got off the phone with Obama’s DC office (yes, I have voted for Obama repeatedly, going back to his days as a state rep ) and here is what they said:

• They’re “not entirely sure” when the bill will come up for a vote.
• Senator Obama “has reservations” about “retroactive immunity”.
• Senator Obama is “working with Senator Feingold and Senator Dodd” to “strip retroactive immunity” provisions from the bill.
• Senator Obama is interested in whatever callers want to say about it.

=============================

OPPOSING FISA:

An aide from Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-Illinois) office earlier today said the senator does not yet have an official position on the “FISA compromise bill”, however, last time FISA came up for consideration he was against it, and does not foresee changing his position.

=============================

IN FAVOR OF FISA:

The offices of Nurse Rached, Snidely Whiplash, Darth Vader, and Cruella de Vil all reported to be in favor of the new FISA bill.

In addition, the office of Lord Sauron of Mordor gave the following analysis of the FISA bill:

No official translation was available, however Babelfish gives the following approximation: “One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.”

There is absolutely no truth whatsoever to the rumor that Senator Obama’s reaction to the Lord Sauron’s statement was “Preciousssssssssssssssssssss”….

Stop FISA. Call your senator now.

The senate switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. Ask for your senator by name and they will connect you.

Or you can look up your senator’s direct number |here|.

For up to the minute info on opposition to FISA, check Electronic Frontier Foundation. They were the first to publish the text of the secret FISA amendment compromise. Last week they had current info on every House member’s position on the bill. This week they will link you to your senator’s info as well as collecting information about what your senator’s office tells you when you do make that phone call.

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives hastily and quietly passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 without the text of the bill even being posted on Thomas. The bill was rammed through the House under special rules that only permitted one hour of debate.

The bill would allow unlimited wiretapping without a warrant, searches of homes and offices without a warrant, and retroactive immunity for telecom corporations that have already used wiretaps in defiance of the law.

While the blogosphere went ballistic, the mainstream media remained eerily quiet.

This week the bill is being moved to the senate. The bill was placed on the senate calendar Friday. Yesterday a closure motion was presented on the floor of the Senate.

The bill is now available to read, but for some reason there are now three versions. By the time the public can wade through this mess, it will be too late.

Are we ready for a KGB in America?

HR6304 – FISA AMENDMENTS ACT

On June 20, 2008 – 293 Representatives voted in favor to invalidate the 4th Amendment

But before they voted, this is what our leaders in Washington had to say about HR6304

(Assembled by the team at www.WashingtonYoureFired.com)

AMENDMENT IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It appears that the newest assault on our intelligence by the Obama campaign and his supporters is the claim that the FISA compromise isn’t as bad as we might think. It was really, really bad until Obama announced he would vote for the bill and then somehow it became ok.

In his June 20th statement supporting the Hoyer Fisa bill, he says:

“So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”

{snip}

Making matters worse still, what Obama did yesterday is in clear tension with an emphatic promise that he made just months ago. As the extremely pro-Obama MoveOn.org notes today, Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

Given the pledges he has already broken (see yesterdays entry “Don’t tell me words don’t matter) I think I’ll pass on believing his “pledge”.

I hope you will take the time to read this detailed article about Obama and his support for FISA: Obama’s support for the FISA “compromise”

By now everyone is talking about the big shocker. Senator Barack Obama has reversed his previous opposition to FISA from back in February and now supports the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Obama statement has echoed around and around the echo chamber that is the blogosphere and everyone is reprinting it along with expressions of shock and dismay. How could Obama support retroactive immunity for the telecoms, they say? How could Obama support warrantless wiretapping and searches of offices and homes?

Only one thing bothers me. Where did Obama say it? Was it part of a speech or a question and answer session? It sounds too formal and tightly written to be off the cuff. Was it an official press release? Then why can’t I find it posted on either the Obama election website or the Obama’s official senate website? The mainstream media isn’t reporting it, and there isn’t even one video out there. I’m on the Obama email listserve–nothing there, just another “contribute” button.

The first blogger to post the statement seems to be Glen Greenwald–most blogs point back to that one. But does Greenwald speak for Obama? Where did Greenwald get the information?

Why we need more Democrats:

188 Democrats voted against the FISA “compromise” while only 1 Republican voted against it.

Why we need better Democrats:

105 Democrats voted for the FISA bill.

Now granted, many of them are the so-called Blue Dog democrats which we aren’t going to really be able to replace except with Republicans.  The main way to fix these issues is to:

1) Elect enough moderate and liberal Democrats to counter-act the Blue Dogs, and/or

2) Elect a Democratic president so we don’t even have to vote on these bills to begin with.

At least Reid and Obama said they would try to strip immunity from the Senate bill. That would seem to be a tough challenge given that the Senate has tended to easily pass the FISA bills while the House is where they’ve always stalled.  I just hope they have enough votes to mount a filibuster at least.  Last time they they didn’t even have that many votes, I don’t think.