Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

ROSS: Kinne says she listened to hundreds of Americans simply calling their families …
KINNE: Personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything having anything to do with terrorism. It was just personal conversations that nobody else should have been listening to.
ROSS: President Bush has reassured Americans again and again:
GEORGE BUSH: It’s phone calls of known Al Qaeda suspects making a phone call into the United States.
KINNE: I would say that that is completely a lie — I would call it a lie — because we were definitely listening to Americans who had nothing to do with terrorism…
ROSS: Kinne says she intercepted, recorded, and transcribed conversations with the military, journalists, and Red Cross and aid workers.

What a shock! Bush and his cronies in the NSA, CIA and Justice Department lied to us about what they were really doing.

Glenn Greenwald has the first salvo that one can only hope will lead to a criminal investigation of the most corrupt, lawless Administration in history.

“Alaskans deserve transparency and accountability from their leaders. It’s a philosophy
I will promote as Governor.”
-Sarah Palin

Hmm… She has now refused be deposed in the independent investigation (approved by 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats) looking into the unethical pressure she put on members of Alaska’s Department of Public Safety to fire Mike Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law in the middle of a custody dispute. And she filed an ethics complaint against herself in an effort to avoid the investigation. Clearly “Ms. Smith Goes To Washington” won’t be the title of the movie script written about her. Scoffing at the rule of law seem just like someone we all know: the Worst. President. Ever. – George W. Bush. She’s tested the corrupt Republican waters, and they feel just fine.

Remember, on July 29th, 2008, Palin’s spokesperson said:

“The governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well,” Leighow said.

Not anymore. More of the same.

“We’re considering granting immunity when roughly 70 members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the president’s wiretapping program,” he said. “The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we’re being asked to grant immunity for.” – Senator Russ Feingold 7/8/2008

Why all the fuss? Besides legalizing massive Hoovering of data generated by innocent people without a warrant, the following text within HR 6304 is the Telecommunications Immunity section of the bill, “TITLE II–PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS”.

‘(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that–

‘(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

‘(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

‘(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was–

‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was–

‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was–

‘(i) authorized by the President; and

‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or

‘(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

‘(b) Judicial Review-

‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

‘(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall–

‘(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

‘(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

‘(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court’s written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

‘(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

‘(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

‘(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

‘(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

‘(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

So let’s review this in some detail with my paraphrase of the bill’s text:

The Attorney General must certify that the surveillance was authorized by the president and determined to be legal.

Hmm. So surveillance that broke multiple federal laws, including the 1978 FISA law, must be certified to be “legal”. Given the inherent nature of the President giving an order and expecting it to be followed is inherently “illegal”, I guess will get some rationale about how the unitary executive theory justifies anything the president does. No matter though. Providing this reasoning is not required to get civil cases dismissed.

the activities must have been designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack; or detect or prevent activities in preparation for a terrorist attack

It seems strange that they left off the phrase “detect or prevent” when mentioning “activities in preparation for a terrorist attack.” Why is that? What exactly could the NSA be doing to prevent activities from happening? And could the words here be any more broad? Any amount of surveillance, and I mean ANY, could be justified by a politician as falling within the umbrella of detecting activities in preparation for a terrorist attack.

How about these activities? The Bush Administration requests AT&T to redesign their cell phones so they transmit all ambient sound to the NSA at all times. Surely someone could claim that this may help detect an attack. How about a request to have AT&T transmit continuous GPS location data about every cell phone customer to the NSA. Literally the E911 system could give the NSA a bead on every single American who has an AT&T cell phone. Under this bill, both of those unconstitutional and illegal requests would be immunized under this act.

Mark Klein, the whistleblower, provided documentation on unfiltered, unmonitored taps being installed in AT&T’s data hub in San Francisco. How exactly, if monitoring under a specific warrant, would AT&T have any idea which customers the NSA is monitoring and whether they are monitoring within the limits of the warrant? The answer: they don’t because there was no warrant and there are no limits because these requests broke the law.

limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.

What would such a disclosure reveal that it needs to be so protected by statute? This leaves us never to know whether AT&T DID conduct surveillance on behalf of the Administration or DID NOT. We already believe that the Administration has been Hoovering up massive amounts of data in order to data-mine it (without a warrant). The Bush Administration has admitted this publicly.

Here’s the disclosure we could have without this clause:

Dear American Citizens:
In the matter of the EFF vs. Big Telecom A, the Attorney General sent the court a letter. Here’s the text of the complete letter:

Dear Judge,
The President authorized Big Telecom A to do something secret that I'm not required to tell you. We determined that action to be legal.
Sincerely,
Attorney General Mukasey


Since the AG says this was authorized by the President and was determined to be legal, I must, by statute, dismiss this action.

Sincerely,

The Judge

Here’s the letter we’ll get instead.

Dear Public, Subsection A has been met. Case dismissed. Sincerely, The Judge.

So the Attorney General’s letter to the judge could be as brief as that. The bill would not even require the Attorney General to specify what was actions were done. This proposed statute says nothing about:

• a burden of proof that the Attorney General must meet;
• does not allow the judge to assess the basis upon which the “legality” was determined
• require that the judge must concur that such assurances of legality and presidential order meet a good faith test.

The judge must simply dismiss the case and state only that Subsection A requirements have been met, if the Attorney General claims that release of the long version of his letter would damage national security.

A great tragedy has occurred today. Of my California senators, only Boxer voted against, but Feinstein and my chosen presidential candidate, Obama, (despite his vociferous opposition to Telco Immunity) voted for this sick, horrible bill under the cynical notion that Americans don’t care and that somehow ensconcing in law the ability for the President to spy on Americans without a warrant was a positive. You should see all the “great” stuff Feinstein pointed out to me in her form letter response to a letter I sent. Then, they made the window-dressing effort to seem like they were opposed to this bill by voting for pathetically weak Bingaman Amendment (as if the vaunted IG’s report would ever be completed or have any ability to root out the truth). Both the House and the Senate Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. For the Republicans, I expect this kind of behavior from you now, though real conservatives should be as sick about this travesty as anyone.

[update]
Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh – Carper – Casey – Conrad – Dorgan – Feinstein – Innuoye – Kohl – Landrieu – Lincoln – McCaskill – Mukulski – Nelson (Neb.) – Nelson (Fla.) – Obama – Pryor – Rockefeller – Salazar – Webb – Whitehouse.

The most egregious element of the FISA legislation offers Telecommunications companies almost automatic immunity from prosecution for violating the law. With the mere certification from the Attorney General (both of those in the past few years of the administration have shown themselves to have more allegiance to the President than the Constitution that they are charged with defending), the court MUST toss out the cases.

It should be obvious when Republicans are gloating over their victory, AT&T and Verizon are popping champagne, and the House allows only a single hour for debate, that this bill is a scam.

Finally, where the hell is Barack Obama on this issue? What the hell is going on?

Here’s the text of my email to Speaker Pelosi yesterday:

Madam Speaker:

I’m writing you today to voice my extreme concern about the supposed FISA “Compromise” that Steny Hoyer has put forward and your House is considering. This legislation is no compromise. It is complete capitulation to the Bush administration and its lawless unitary executive branch. Besides allowing the government to continue to wiretap Americans without a warrant, this legislation would allow these huge telecommunications companies to receive immunity for CLEARLY breaking the law of the land if the Attorney General says it’s OK.

It’s never going to be ok to pass legislation like this. Our courts MUST have full power to review what these companies did under the existing laws of the United States. At this point, we don’t even know everything that they did…and you would immunize them for everything on the Attorney General’s say so?

As Senator Feingold describes this “compromise”:
“Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power.”

Based on the duplicity of Attorney General Mukasey and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in front of your committees, do you really believe that a certification those who claim sole allegiance to the President (even above the Constitution) should be effectively deciding a court case (and in complete secrecy, no less). This legislation provides NO judicial review and is frankly a complete disgrace.

The fact that this legislation was drafted in secrecy, nearly came to the floor without the review of the people, gives the President everything that he has been requesting, and might be bundled with the War Funding bill (on a Friday) is extremely dishonest and suspect. And why would the legislation sunset in 2012? Should we tie the next president to this?

I expect more from my Democratic representatives when we are in the clear majority in the House.

There is no reason this legislation needs to move forward now and I’m getting tired of seeing the Constitution continue to get kicked around and dishonest corporations get a free pass from those who we elected to stand for us, the people.

Hear your constituent clearly, “Immunity is not acceptable.” Please take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this travesty never sees the floor.

As I’ve watched Hillary flail around during the Pennsylvania primary race trying to ruin Barrack Obama’s rep among the electorate, I can’t help but think that we’ve truly reached the end of both her and her husband’s legacy. Between the two of them over the last couple months, they both need to go. I’m a long-time Bill Clinton supporter, but as a TV commentator said the other night, watching Bill Clinton stumble around the stage on the campaign trail is like watching an aging boxer get back in the ring.

Now how bitter is Hillary? Very. Just watch how she talks and what she’s been talking about. Anyone who takes time in a presidential debate to chide questioners about how she always gets the first question is bitter. Clinton is bitter about her campaign the way the Worst President Ever, George W. Bush, looks back at his idiocy of a presidency and puzzles at how it all turned out this way.

So Hillary channeled her bitterness into her campaign and she, along with her husband, basically became mini-Karl Roves out there on the campaign trail in the hopes she could bring down Obama. We’ll see as the returns come in whether her efforts to sling some mud had her desired effect.

As we await the Pennsylvania returns tonight, Hillary Clinton is also bitter about the fact that despite all her fight and all her conniving, she won’t be any closer to winning the nomination after tonight. And yet, despite all that, Hillary will claim victory and again use the most tired trick in her book: claim that since she won the Democratic Primary, Obama can’t win in the general election. It shockingly looks like, in exit polls taken by CBS today, 25% of Clinton’s supporters voting today claim they would vote for McCain over Obama, but that hardly signals any likelihood of McCain winning there–especially after these petulant voters come to their friggin’ senses.

When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters. [source]

So sad. So pathetic.

And how concerned is Bush about Bin Laden? From March 13th, 2002:

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.

So I don’t know where he is, nor[*]… You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

* he almost said, “Nor do I care.” at the end. An element that the White House official transcript removed.

Watching that video, all I could think was, “What a smug, condescending, arrogant idiot.”

They [the source's institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this–they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.” [source: Informed Comment Global Affairs]

The psy-ops campaign on Iran has been in full gear from George “Worst. President. Ever.” Bush for all of August and their strategy must be to now have others chime in supporting the administration’s claims. Good luck.

As I’ve noted many times, America should not be willing to trust these clowns in the White House with anything of substance anymore.

Like clockwork, with the Petraeus/Crocker “report” looming and his staff leaving his sinking ship of a presidency, Bush and his cronies are cranking up the fear factor. We’ve seen this all before.

While I believe that the United States must act to prevent nuclear proliferation and assure the safety of our nation and others in the world, we’re done listening to you, Mr. Bush. Every strategy you’ve had in pursuing our safety through action in the Middle East has resulted in exactly the opposite result.

It’s getting rather sad how transparent their propaganda has become. Stability over there requires significant political progress in Iraq, not threats against Iran. If he was really serious, he’d actually be working hard instead of taking time off and letting the Iraqis do the same.