Search
Salon's New Revelations on Illegal Spying - Via EFF.org Updates:
Salon today published a new article in it's series of investigations into the Bush administration's illegal spying programs: Exposing Bush's History Abuse of Power (log-in may be required).
The article describes how some in Washington D.C. are discussing the idea of a new and sweeping investigation into the White House's surveillance programs, one inspired by the famous Church Committee investigations of the 1970s. The Church Committee uncovered the extent of illegal surveillance begun during the McCarthy era and expanded under President Nixon, and lead eventually to the FISA reforms which President Bush has so famously ignored.
The article also makes new claims about the extent of the current spying program, citing the use of a secret database with roots in programs begun under President Reagan in the 1980s: read more »
Bush For Sale - Via Crooks and Liars:
Download | Play 
Download | Play (excerpt courtesy of Bill W, full video available at Times Online)
Fundraising for a presidential library has always been controversial, in part because, unlike contributions to U.S. political campaigns, donations to libraries can come from foreign sources, and are easier to conceal.
But this kind of corruption is striking, even by the Bush administration’s standards. read more »
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law:
Group Also Asks Secret Intelligence Court Not To Exclude Public From Any Proceedings On New Law's Constitutionality
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires." read more »
Senate Begins Final Debate on Retroactive Immunity - Via EFF.org Updates:
The final Senate debate on the dangerously flawed FISA Amendments Act began this morning. Senator Feingold spoke at length in favor of Senator Dodd's amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the bill:
...Granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws that we pass regarding government surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to give them a "get out of jail free" card for allegedly ignoring the law in the past...
And that’s not all. Mr. President, this immunity provision doesn’t just allow telephone companies off the hook. It also will make it that much harder to get to the core issue that I’ve been raising since December 2005, which is that the President broke the law and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this illegal program.
On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when roughly 70 members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the President’s wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how any Senator can vote against this amendment without this information.
read more »
Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment - Via Slashdot: Your Rights Online:
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether.
Bush: Telecom Immunity More Important Than Surveillance Powers - Via EFF.org Updates:
Today the Bush Administration released a letter threatening to veto the upcoming FISA legislation if it included the Bingaman Amendment, which puts both telecom immunity and the court cases on hold until after the Inspector General reports about the warrantless wiretapping program. If given the choice between new surveillance powers without immunity for telcos on the one hand, or surveillance under the existing law on the other, the Bush Administration said its choice was clear: keep with the existing law.
Even though the White House "strongly support[s]" the FISA bill, and contends it is necessary to provide "our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep our Nation safe," and urges the Senate "to act as soon as it returns from its recess," the Bush Administration is willing to veto the legislation and forgo these tools unless the telecom immunity is given effect immediately. read more »
Rabble Rousers Post Subversive “Declaration” in NYT - Via Firedoglake :
A group of suspicious rabble rousers took out a half page ad in the New York Times Thursday, threatening to resist the normal workings of our government. I'm calling attention to this radical group, because if their subversive ideas ever catch on, our current system of government could be seriously threatened and dozens of officials run out of town.
Here's what the ad, which appeard on July 3, page A15, said, verbatim:
read more »
Judge: President's 'State Secrets' Privilege Can't Shield Wiretapping - Via Threat Level:
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled late Wednesday that the government cannot assert the so-called "state secrets" privilege to automatically dismiss a lawsuit challenging President Bush's secret spying program adopted in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.
But at the same time, the judge said (.pdf) the decision was not "user-friendly," and that it likely would have little real-world meaning. Here's why:
The chief judge of the Northern District of California wrote that rules of evidence required to get himself or other federal judges to entertain illegal eavesdropping allegations are likely "insurmountable."
At the same time, he said such lawsuits should not be routinely dismissed when the government declares a "state secret" is involved. read more »
Federal Court Rules That D.C. Police Unlawfully Arrested Anti-Bush Protesters On Inauguration Day - Via American Civil Liberties Union:
WASHINGTON — A federal court ruled yesterday that the District of Columbia had unlawfully arrested about 70 people during an anti-war and anti-Bush protest march on Inauguration Day 2005. The arrestees are now entitled to a trial to determine the amount of the District's monetary liability to them.
The protest march began at about 11 p.m. on January 20, 2005, after an Anti-Inaugural Concert held on Columbia Road, N.W. About 250 to 300 demonstrators were headed towards the Washington Hilton Hotel, where an Inaugural Ball was in progress, when D.C. police blocked the march and surrounded and arrested about 70 people in an alley, including at least one who had come out of a bar and mingled with the demonstrators as the march passed by.
While the demonstrators marched peacefully, some individuals in the area did commit crimes, such as spray-painting on buildings, pulling newspaper vending machines into the street, and breaking windows; rocks and bottles were thrown at police cars. But the police were unable to identify the people who committed those crimes. Instead, they arrested everyone in the alley for rioting, and subsequently charged them with parading without a permit, though they never had given any warning that the parade had to end or any opportunity for marchers to disperse peacefully. read more »
New Law Protects Employees from Health Related Discrimination - Via ACLU - Privacy:
Washington, DC – The ACLU today commended Congress and the president for enacting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which will stem a growing tide of employer and health insurer bias.
“We are heartened that a dark cloud has been lifted by enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “GINA will enable Americans to use genetic tests to illuminate their health care decisions without fear of workplace retribution.” read more »
John Yoo's war crimes - Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald:
(updated below)
Yet again, the ACLU has performed the function which Congress and the media are intended to perform but do not. As the result of a FOIA lawsuit the ACLU filed and then prosecuted for several years, numerous documents relating to the Bush administration's torture regime that have long been baselessly kept secret were released yesterday, including an 81-page memorandum (.pdf) issued in 2003 by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo (currently a Berkeley Law Professor) which asserted that the President's war powers entitle him to ignore multiple laws which criminalized the use of torture:
If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network. In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions. read more »
ACLU Commends Senator Feingold for Hearing on Secret Law - Via American Civil Liberties Union:
Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a Senate subcommittee for holding a hearing on the Bush administration’s use of secrecy to institute government policy. During the hearing, entitled "Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government," the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and its chairman, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), heard testimony from legal experts and open government advocates. The hearing focused on the administration’s broad interpretation of the law as it relates to government secrecy and counterterrorism policies – including a legal opinion written by former Justice Department Official John Yoo on the use of torture in interrogations. That memo was made public through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the ACLU.
"Government transparency is the cornerstone of democracy," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This administration has been rewriting the Constitution memo by memo. From what we’ve seen of the self-serving opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, we can only believe that those that remain secret must equally distort the law in favor of President Bush’s agenda. An agenda built on secrecy and overclassification is antithetical to our country’s ideals." read more »
Happy Law Day! - Via ACLU Blog - Government Spying:
As you might have heard, today is 50th anniversary of Law Day, and to show that President Bush is taking today seriously, he's even given Law Day a theme this year!
The theme of this year's Law Day, "The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity," recognizes the fundamental role that the rule of law plays in preserving liberty in our Nation and in all free societies. We pay tribute to the men and women in America's legal community. Through hard work and dedication to the rule of law, members of the judiciary and the legal profession help secure the rights of individuals, bring justice to our communities, and reinforce the proud traditions that make America a beacon of light for the world.
Not a bad sentiment, I know. I agree with it, actually. But when it comes from mouth of one George Walker Bush, the words, “Today, we are reminded of that past and look toward a hopeful future as we work to secure the liberty that is the natural right of every man, woman, and child” one cringes a bit. Securing liberty, he says, on a day where the U.S. prepared to conduct a trial against an empty chair at Guantánamo? Celebrate free society on a day that it’s announced that a secret court has more than doubled the number of secret warrants approved in the last seven years? read more »
NSA-Spied-On Lawyers Get Day in Court and New Yorker Profile - Via Threat Level:
First the Feds investigate a Saudi charity in Oregon, wiretap the director and two of the group's lawyers, try to designate it a terrorist group and accidentally give the group proof of the wiretapping. Then years later when Al Haramain's American lawyers sue, claiming they were wiretapped without warrants, the feds seek to bury the case with a nearly all powerful litigation tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege, raising profound questions about whether the president is accountable to the law.
In short, if lawyers with documents proving that government secretly wiretapped their conversations with a client can't get their day in court, is it even accurate to think that any law applies to the president during terror-time? read more »
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati