The Bush/Cheney GOP mantra: bully, bribe, blacklist and lie, lie and keep on lying. What a grand old party indeed.
The White House must be getting rather petrified of the potential outcome of the Senate Judicial Hearings on Illegal Wiretapping. Rove is tearing around Washington bullying and blacklisting GOP lawmakers.
ROVE IS BULLYING GOP LAWMAKERS, THREATENING TO BLACKLIST THEM AND CUT THEM OFF FROM GOP FUNDING IF THEY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PATRIOTIC DUTY AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY BY VOTING AGAINST BUSH IN THE SENATE JUDICIAL HEARINGS ON WIRETAPPING.
Story found via Raw Story.com
ROVE BULLIES AND BLACKLISTS GOP LAWMAKERS WHO WILL NOT OBEY HIM
BUSH'S BUDGET BALONEY
Ken sent this very interesting piece today by Matt cooper of TIME Magazine
BUSH'S BUDGET TRICKS
MORE ON BUSH'S BUDGET CHICANERY
BUSH OMITS IMPACT OF HIS WRETCHED AND DEVASTATING POLICIES ON THE DEFICIT
Another amazing piece found on Raw Story.com
BUSH OMITS THE IMPACT OF HIS DEVASTATING POLICIES ON THE DEFICIT
THE REV. DR. LOWERY SKEWERS BUSH AT CORETTA KING'S FUNERAL SERVICE TODAY
Found on ThinkProgress.org via The Huffington Post
Excerpt:
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor.
CALLING IT AS YOU SEE IT BY THE REV. DR. LOWERY
Here is another gem from The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
WHY THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THE MURTHA EFFECT
It seems that an archconservative newspaper publisher who was once dubbed the Funding Father of the Conservative Right has made a 360-degree turn by endorsing Murtha.
No wonder Rove is tearing around Washington like a mad man bullying, bribing and blacklisting Bush's disloyal subjects. The clock must be ticking. Run Karl run. Run, run, and run. Run straight into the hell of your making. Patrick Fitzgerald will get you in the end.
"THE MURTHA EFFECT: WHY REPUBLICANS ARE WORRIED
NOTED LEGAL SCHOLAR COMMENTS ON GONZALEZ'S FISA LIES TODAY
Another great find, Ken! Thanks as always, my friend.
It would be interesting to listen to the transcripts of the hearing today. According to Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio, Senator Leahy went into orbit over Gonzalez’s refusal to answer questions. A lot of information that is probably damning to the Bush Administration was most likely unveiled today in the hearings. I’ll do a search …LS
This is from someone named Marc Rotenberg, posting on the Interesting People email circle.
From his bio: Marc Rotenberg is Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. He teaches information privacy law at Georgetown University Law Center and has testified before Congress on many issues, including access to information, encryption policy, consumer protection, computer security, and communications privacy. (I put the whole bio at the bottom.) -K
I am amazed by some of the things that the Attorney General is saying. The FISA is a complex statute but there are provisions that are straightforward and not subject to serious dispute. Gonzalez said at one point that he did not think the 72 hr provision was workable because it would require the government to tip off Al Queda. Let me unpack the AG's statement and explain why it is wrong.
The FISA has provisions for the Attorney General to issue "Emergency Orders" and then go back to the FISA court for approval within 72 hours. This mirrors the legal concept of "exigency" which recognizes that police must often search or arrest without judicial approval if there is concern about destruction of evidence or the flight of a suspect. The key is that there must still be some means of judicial oversight to ensure that the search was valid.
There are two emergency order provisions in the FISA, one for electronic searches and a second for physical searches.
What happens if the AG issues the order and the FISA court subsequently decides he lacked probable cause for the search? First, the government is not allowed to use the evidence obtained in a criminal prosecution. That makes sense since the use of unlawfully obtained evidence in a criminal trial would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
But what about the notice requirement that typically accompanies both physical searches and electronic searches by the government? Is the government required to notify a possible target when the AG certifies that a search should go forward under the "Emergency Orders" provision and the FISA court subsequently says that the search was not permissible?
Here is what the FISA says:
(j) Notification of emergency employment of electronic surveillance; contents; postponement, suspension or elimination If an emergency employment of electronic surveillance is authorized under section 1805(e) (!1) of this title and a subsequent order approving the surveillance is not obtained, the judge shall cause to be served on any United States person named in the application and on such other United States persons subject to electronic surveillance as the judge may determine in his discretion it is in the interest of justice to serve, notice of -
(1) the fact of the application; (2) the period of the surveillance; and (3) the fact that during the period information was or was not obtained.
Looks like the AG could be right. Maybe Al Queda would be tipped off. But that is not end of the provision. It goes on to say that the government can delay notice for 90-day with "good cause", and then -- and this is an amazing provision -- the court can, on the same standard in which it granted the original delay, effectively allow the government to forego any notice.
On an ex parte showing of good cause to the judge the serving of the notice required by this subsection may be postponed or suspended for a period not to exceed ninety days. Thereafter, on a further ex parte showing of good cause, the court shall forego ordering the serving of the notice required under this subsection.
Knowing the history of the FISA court's approval rate for FISA warrants, it is impossible to imagine that the AG is not able to get the court to prevent permanently notice to the target of FISA surveillance *even when the AG lacked the authority to permit the search.* More disturbing is the high likelihood that many Americans with no connection to Al Queda have been the subject of FISA surveillance and have never been notified.
Marc Rotenberg is Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. He teaches information privacy law at Georgetown University Law Center and has testified before Congress on many issues, including access to information, encryption policy, consumer protection, computer security, and communications privacy. He recently testified before the 9-11 Commission on "Security and Liberty: Protecting Privacy, Preventing Terrorism." He has served on several national and international advisory panels, including the expert panels on Cryptography Policy and Computer Security for the OECD, the Legal Experts on Cyberspace Law for UNESCO, and the Countering Spam program of the ITU. He currently chairs the ABA Committee on Privacy and Information Protection, and is Secretary of the Public Interest Registry. He is editor of The Privacy Law Sourcebook and co-editor (with Daniel J. Solove) of Information Privacy Law (Aspen Publishing 2003). He is a graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Law School. He served as Counsel to Senator Patrick J. Leahy on the Senate Judiciary Committee after graduation from law school. He is the winner of the 2002 World Technology Award in Law
No comments:
Post a Comment