Domestic spying began BEFORE 9/11

Yeah, I got a shock when I read that. I figured the Bush Administration, for all its dictatorial hubris, had at least waited until after 9/11 to start assaulting civil liberties.

Nope.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. [link]

How to write your senator about the wiretap debate

Here's a copy of the letter I wrote to my two senators about the current wiretap debate in the U.S. Senate. Please feel free to copy and paste:

Dear Senator XXX,

I'm writing to you about the wiretapping legislation currently being debated in the Senate. I'm extremely disappointed in the course of the debate. There are two provisions that I strongly urge you to support:

1) Exclusivity. Without this provision, the legislation is meaningless. It would allow a president to simply ignore the civil liberties protections supposedly guaranteed by the act. It was part of the original FISA law for a good reason and its violation by President Bush shows that it is just as important now.

2) No immunity for violators. Telecommunications companies who willfully violated FISA are using the Nuremberg defense and it's tragic that the Senate is accepting it. President Bush acted illegally. Whether or not he is brought to account should have no impact on the guilt of these private companies who were fully aware of the illegality of their behavior. I strongly encourage you to oppose immunity for lawbreakers.

Sincerely,

Think wiretapping is over? Think again

If you haven't heard much on illegal wiretapping since a judge struck down the program, the big decisions about it are being made in the U.S. Senate today. And the decisions aren't positive for rule of law and liberty:

• The Senate rejected amendments that would have held telecommunications companies responsible for their participation in illegal wiretapping. Basically, the Senate is saying, "you broke the law, but because Bush told you to, you're forgiven." Nuremberg defense, anyone?
• The Senate rejected "exclusivity," a provision from the original FISA law that would say that this wiretap law covers ALL wiretapping done by the U.S. government. To leave it out says, "this law covers wiretapping, except if the President decides to do some other kinds of wiretapping and says it's not covered under this law. Basically, he can do whatever he wants."

Dailykos has several ongoing threads about the FISA debate. Call your Senator and tell them to protect civil liberties and punish those who break laws about illegally spying on Americans!

For more on the wiretap legislatio, read up on what provisions SHOULD be included.

Wiretapping update: The Senate debates FISA

I don't have time to provide much summary, but the U.S. Senate is embroiled in a debate about wiretapping and other domestic surveillance. They passed a stopgap bill that expires in February and there are two key issues:

• Will phone companies that broke the wiretap law at the behest of the Bush administration be given immunity for their illegal activities?
• Will Congress give Bush a de facto censure by stripping his efforts to legalize the warrantless wiretapping after the fact?

Read more on it here.

Legislation: wiretapping must following FISA

If the bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives today is made law, warrantless wiretapping will become one of those tales-of-lawlessness-under-Republicans we tell the grandchildren about. The bill makes it explicit that the only wiretapping the government may do must be under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), requiring a warrant from a court.

Congress restoring the balance of powers and judicial oversight over wiretaps? It's a great day.

Tip of the hat to Slashdot for the story.

Once again, kill the messenger

The big news this week is that a federal judge struck down the NSA's domestic wiretapping program, calling for its immediate cessation. While the President responded with arguments about the need to combat terrorism, the Republican Party immediately set out to discredit the judge's opinion, rather than dispute the legal facts: "Republicans said the decision was the work of a liberal judge advancing a partisan agenda."

You have your appeal, use it. Losers are so much uglier when they throw a tantrum on the way down.