White House Admits Telecoms Spied

Photo from source, Raw Story

I think the people at the Bush Administration are getting tired. This past week, it sorta slipped out that, yeah, we waterboarded. But only three times! And they were bad, bad guys! Honest! And now, on a day when the Senate laid down and died on the issue, we have this. . .

[Excerpt]

Oops: White House spokesman admits telecoms spied

On the eve of a vote to give telephone companies immunity for their alleged participation in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program, White House spokesperson Dana Perino admitted that the companies actually spied.

Because they were patriotic. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Hope in the House for Striking of Telecom Immunity

While the Senate let us down today, by not striking the immunity provisions for telecom companies, there may be hope in the House of Representatives. I've put my hopes on John Conyers before--and he's let me down before, particularly regarding impeachment--but I'm hoping he's serious this time.

[Excerpt]

Chairman Conyers Writes to White House Counsel Fielding on Amnesty

In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers indicated that the secret documents recently provided by the White House do not justify the Senate amnesty provision. In addition, Chairman Conyers reiterated previous requests for additional information that the White House has not yet provided and requested declassification so that more information on this crucial issue may be provided to the American public. . .



Read more, with Conyers' letter, at: The Gavel

Democrats Fail to Stop Telecom Immunity

While everyone's eyes are on the primary results, my eyes wandered over to the Senate, where the Democrats once again let us all down. They failed to remove telecom immunity from the FISA bill. They are in effect saying that if the big communications companies broke the law, they should be immune from any accountability.

Why? Why would this be the prevailing opinion in the Senate? Or in the Democratic half of the Senate? And why, why, WHY do the Democrats keep capitulating and giving the President everything he wants, even when it is clearly wrong?

I no longer buy the argument that they're just spineless, and terrified to be portrayed as "soft on terror." There simply must be more to it than that. My two pet theories: 1) The wiretapping and data mining the White House has already done has lead to a wealth of dirty secrets, and those secrets will be revealed if the Democrats don't capitulate; or 2) The Democrats are eager to have all of these expansive powers when they next are in a position of power. I would happily entertain a third theory. Anyone?

One thing is certain: Republicans stick together, and Democrats do not. Every single Republican voted against the removal of immunity. Slightly less than half of the Democrats voted with the Republicans. Again, why?

[Excerpt]

Dems Fall Well Short Of Stripping Immunity From Spy Bill

An attempt to strip lawsuit immunity for telecom firms which helped the government tap phone calls fell well short in the Senate, leaving liberal Democrats on the losing side of what they believe is a fundamental civil liberties debate.

Only 31 senators _ all Democrats _ voted to take away retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies facing lawsuits over wiretaps carried out under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Sixty-seven senators _ a mix of Republicans and Democrats _ voted against the amendment. . .

Read more at: CBS News

Big Brother is Watching, Listening, Taking & Copying

The story below is but one example of our government's overzealous behavior as it pertains to "security." We have really given up just about every civil right we have as it pertains to privacy. There is nothing the government/George W. Bush will not claim is necessary, and apparently nothing that any other governmental agency will do to prevent it.

A question that gets somewhat glossed over in all of this is, what exactly are they looking for? Sure, they say they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks. They say that al-Qaeda is hiding behind every rock. And conservatives, by and large, nod their heads vigorously, and support whatever the government says.

Did you notice that seismic shift? The anti-government party; the same folks who's extremist wing holes up in Wyoming or Idaho with arsenals and survivalist gear are enthusiastically supporting this behavior.

Does anybody think that once the government has been given this much rope, that they won't try to use their newfound abilities for other things? Do we think they aren't using data mining for the war on drugs? The war against Democrats? Really?

[Excerpt]

Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches

Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Story tip from Stupid Monkey Planet

Committee Delays Telecom Immunity

Greenlee Gazette's editor is on vacation from Nov. 8 - Nov. 12. Posting will be lighter than usual, and commentary will be too. I'll still try to post some newsworthy items, but they'll likely be mostly excerpts and links. Stupid Monkey Planet will be filling in the gaps. Thanks!

Photo from source, Raw Story

[Excerpt]

Committee delays consideration of telecom immunity

The Senate Judiciary Committee is delaying consideration of a controversial proposal to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated a warrantless wiretapping program. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

AT&T Whistleblower vs. Telecom Immunity

Photo from source, TPMMuckraker

I saw this guy earlier on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He is not a telegenic presence, but what he has to say is important. As an insider from AT&T, he was in a position to know exactly what the government was asking for, and what AT&T seemingly willingly provided.

[Excerpt]

AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up

"The president has not presented this truthfully," said Klein, a 62-year old retiree. "He said it was about a few people making calls to the Mideast. But I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything."

Read the rest at: TPMMuckraker

Will Clinton Support or Oppose FISA Bill?

Daily Kos has a great diary up regarding the FISA/Telecom Immunity bill. Their pointed question to Senator Clinton, is will she support or oppose the bill? Excellent question, which I will be waiting anxiously for.

[Excerpt]

Well, Senator Clinton?

Earlier today, Barack Obama's campaign released an unequivocal statement on telecom immunity:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

That is clear, and welcome.

Hillary Clinton is now the lone holdout among presidential candidates in the Senate, hedging on whether she will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity rather than just maybe one specific one. . .

Read on at: DailyKos.com

Action Alert: Do Something About FISA Bill

I received the following letter today, and urge anyone reading this to take action.

Tell Your Senators: No Amnesty for AT&T and Verizon Lawbreaking

Democrats in the Senate appear to have caved again to the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics. This time, they've negotiated a 'compromise' fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) sought by Bush that grants full retroactive amnesty to the telecom giants for participation in his illegal program to spy on Americans.

But why amnesty? Bush wants retroactive immunity for the telecom companies to thwart civil liberties lawsuits that threaten to expose his own violations of the original FISA law. If these lawsuits aren't allowed to go forward, we may never know the extent of the Bush administration's illegal efforts to spy on American citizens without the required warrants.

Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia -- flush with new contributions from telecom company executives -- has pushed a draft bill through the Senate Intelligence committee. But Senator Dodd of Connecticut has courageously stood up and requested a "hold" on this bill until the retroactive immunity is taken out.

Regrettably, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does not seem ready to respect the Senate's tradition of honoring another Senator's "hold," so Senator Dodd may be forced to actually filibuster the bill. To show support for Senator Dodd on this issue, all of our senators need to hear that we support him in resisting retroactive immunity for violations of our constitutional rights.

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton, Manager
ActForChange.com/Working Assets

White House Cut Deal on FISA

This story is getting interesting. So the White House cut a deal with the Senate Intelligence Committee to pass a FISA bill, along with immunity for the telecommunications companies? And they didn't let the Judiciary committee in on the details? Hmmm.

It will be interesting to see if the White House cuts the same deal with the Judiciary, or if they have to come up with a new strategy. I guess it depends on if that whole wire-tapping dealie had scooped up some intel on the Intelligence members, eh?

[Excerpt]

Senators Say White House Cut Deal With Panel on FISA

Senate Judiciary Committee members yesterday angrily accused the White House of allowing the Senate Intelligence Committee to review documents on its warrantless surveillance program in return for agreeing that telecommunications companies should get immunity from lawsuits.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican, said any such agreement would be "unacceptable," signaling that legislation granting immunity to certain telecom carriers could run into trouble. Leahy and Specter demanded that the documents, which were provided only to the Intelligence Committee, be turned over to the Judiciary Committee as well. . .

Read the whole story at: WashingtonPost.com

Verizon Supplied Data Without Court Order

Photo from source, RawStory.com

Yes, more on spying. You might find it boring, and easy to scroll past. Please don't. It is long past time for people to start feeling a little outrage. Not faux "flag pin" outrage. No silly "Petraeus/Betray Us" outrage. I'm talking, un-Constitutional, un-American, fundamentally wrong activity that should OUTRAGE any American.

[Excerpt]

Verizon provided data to Feds 720 times without court order or determining its legality

As Congress debates whether to shield phone and Internet companies from lawsuits alleging they mishandled customers' private records, Verizon, the nations second-largest telecommunications firm, said it has provided telephone and Internet records to federal investigators hundreds of times since 2005.

Verizon has provided data to federal authorities on an emergency basis without a court order -- and without determining the requests' legality -- 720 times between January 2005 and September of this year. The company's revelation came in a 13-page letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee released Monday. . .

Please read the rest at: RawStory.com

They're Listening to You Too

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog has a very alarming post up right now regarding the electronic surveillance the Bush Administration has been conducting. Basically, if the government can monitor communications between the US and a "terrorist state," they then claim the right to do the same with the US-based persons calls to others. And their calls to others. And so on, wash, rinse, repeat.

I happen to have a family member who is from Iran. So, if he calls his family, and the government taps him, they then claim the right to tap him when he calls me. And if you've talked to me, they can tap you. Doesn't seem very American, does it? But don't worry, they tell us. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. You can trust the Bush Administration. . . Oh, and I have emailed John Aravosis too.

[Excerpt]

If you've ever emailed me, the government has the right to your email records

TPMmuckraker asks the following question today: "Quick, has anyone you know emailed anyone who's called Pakistan lately?"

The question reflects the Bush administration's new standard for permitting the federal government to illegally spy on your phone records. If you have been in contact with Party X, and Party X has been in contact with Party Y, and Party Y has contacted anyone in Pakistan, then any conversations, email or phone or otherwise, that you've had with Party X can be turned over to the government by our friendly phone companies in violation of federal law. . .

Read on at: AmericaBlog.com

Corporations Helped Bush Spy on Us

OK, I know--for some reason--that Americans in general are somehow unfazed by illegal wiretaps. They yawn at the possibility that they're being watched, tracked, listened to. I don't know how that happened, or how Conservatives--people allegedly dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution--are seemingly all for it.

The spectre of terrorism is used as an excuse, but I don't buy it. Are we more threatened by terrorism than we were by Nazis? Is the war on terror scarier and more dangerous to our safety than the Cold War? Need I remind people that we were hours from nuclear annihilation at one point? So why now is it necessary to dismantle the bill of rights? I don't get it.

Here's a story that lays out in more detail than I've seen before, just what they've been up to, and who is helping them. See if it bothers you. Oh, and if you believe the figure (later in the story) that only 100 Americans are being monitored, you are much less cynical than I am.

[Excerpt]

Spy Chief Reveals Classified Details

WASHINGTON — National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell pulled the curtain back on previously classified details of government surveillance and of a secretive court whose recent rulings created new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to prevent terrorism.

McConnell's comments _ made in an interview with the El Paso (Texas) Times last week and posted as a transcript on the newspaper's Web site Wednesday _ raised eyebrows for their frank discussion of previously classified eavesdropping work conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. Among the disclosures:

• McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help. . .

See what else was disclosed at: HuffingtonPost.com

Update: More Info on FISA Changes

Photo from source, NewYorkTimes.com

The more I read about this, the more uneasy I get. And my "crossed fingers" that Democrats in Congress know what they're doing are past cramped, and turning gangrenous. When they come back in session, they'd better address this, because by then, I think they're going to have a firestorm on their hands.

NOTE: This is a revised version of the New York Times story I excerpted earlier, with updated information.

[Excerpt - emphasis mine]

Concerns Raised on Wider Spying Under New Law

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said. [snip]

The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought. [snip]

Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States. . .

Read the whole story at: NewYorkTimes.com

More on the ACLU vs. Bush Administration

This is the ad from the ACLU, trying to drum up support for it's action demanding accountability from the White House on warrentless wiretapping. This is for you, Lesto!

Click image for larger version.

Click here to go to the ACLU Home page.

Protect America Act, What's In it?

Image from source, TPMMuckraker.com

The majority of Democratic Senators and Congresspeople voted against it. ALL (I believe) of the Republicans voted for it. It passed, it's law, and for at least 6 months it will stay that way. As I've said, I'm growing steadily more leery of the thing, the more I read about it. Here's a bit of the why.

[Excerpt]

FISA: What Isn't Electronic Surveillance?
By Spencer Ackerman - August 6, 2007, 5:30 PM

Experts are still digesting the revision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act signed (pdf) by President Bush yesterday, known as the Protect America Act. It's a fairly safe bet, judging by the amount of expert disagreement about the act's provisions, that most members of Congress don't know what they've just passed.

What's clear is that now the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can now obtain the international communications of U.S. citizens or residents without a warrant provided that such surveillance is "reasonably believed" to be "directed at" persons outside the country. The FISA Court's new, restricted role here is to determine -- up to six months after the fact of the surveillance -- that the government's procedures in seeking the primarily-foreign data is not "clearly erroneous." If it isn't, the surveillance goes forward. . .

Read more at TPMMuckraker.com