Let’s talk politics

July 8th, 2008

We need to call our Congressional reps today, in support of the Dodd/Feingold portion of the FISA issue. The vote will likely come tomorrow. You’ll find info below; open articles for links. The politics of this is that the American people do not see the FISA problem AS a problem — and see those of us to whom such a compromise of Constitutional principal is anathema as “radicals.”

If MSM had done a better job, the nation would know more about this — we’d know that the spying began PRIOR to 9/11 and was calculated by the Bushies from day one; we’d know that even now, as Congress prepares to allow the telecomm companies a pass, most of the politico’s have NO IDEA what those companies actually did for the Bush minions, what information was given in defiance of the law.

Woe unto the Republic — yet, that’s where we are.

Politics is nasty stuff — I have no aptitude for it; people who have encouraged me to get actively involved are always disappointed by my laughter. As a friend affirmed, “You’re too honest for it,” … and stubborn, let me add. I have no compromise whatsoever in me when it comes to things I passionately support; and that’s not what politics is all about [... it's probably what Lefty blogging is about, though.]

If you have … say … five people in a room, and every one of them gets a vote — you need politics. It’s a give/take thing, a compromise-thing; I don’t think we’ve figured out how to make it a collaboration-thing yet, but we’re working on it.

Let me give you an illustration of what “politics” is, from before the Declaration was signed. Jefferson was put in charge of writing the first draft, and held moral concerns about slavery. He included a section regarding slave-holding in his original draft and it was never even sent up to the totality of representatives for review, removed early by the pragmatic Adams and Franklin who saw it as a deal-breaker. There it is there — politics.

Here are a couple of important things to remember, looking at the larger political landscape:

National politics is leaning Left, but that is not because they’ve suddenly given up on pro-life or embraced social liberalism … that’s because they’ve seen what the Republicans have done and want no more. The reason there are Blue Dog Democrats holding up progressive legislation to vote with Pubs, is that they reflect the demographics they represent — moderate demographics. I don’t have ONE genuine Lefty in my collection of Missouri elected Dems. The Blue Dogs are not a progressives friend … they’re blue, but they pull the nation to the center. I found an interesting Huffy op/ed that speaks to this — bonus, if you’re interested.

Still, the country as a whole is, I believe and sociological surveys suggest, farther Left than the demographics indicate — but that would require politicians, sensitive to individual polls, to take more risk than they can justify. And Obama insists he hasn’t moved to the middle; I think the Lefty’s just didn’t read his book … or examine his style. I’ll give him this — I think his positions are more his own conscience than a political calculation. Still, Obama is a professional politician; them’s the facts. He is, as well, a very pragmatic man; one given to realism, which should be a very attractive attribute at this point. To expect him to run to the far left — we’re about a 15% minority, Lefty’s … is naive. I know he said he would — but he’s being pounded by intellectual midgets on security, Neanderthals with swift-boat machinery … he is not going to go uber-Left on a security issue while the rest of the country efforts to come to the middle. [If you don't think it's uber-Left, look at the rest of the Congress.]

Obama’s not Kucinich. He’s not even Edwards, who would probably oppose this FISA compromise, although I can’t guarantee that — Edwards is an establishment politician as well. We’re going to have to make peace with this, and capitalize on the foothold we have in this candidate.

So — although there seems little hope that we can stop the FISA bill from going forward, if you want your voice heard, there are avenues available. Sadly, we are still an evenly divided Senate, with two Independents … and one of them is … gag … Joe Lieberman. We are still an establishment government, being run by lobby’s and political compromise … but even that’s a bit of progress, since we’ve only been talking “compromise” for about six months; before that it was us moaning and wringing our hands over round after round of Stepford Votes.

The handwriting is on the wall, here — and we will have to hope that the future will give us other opportunities to restore Constitutional oversight with the kind of principled passion the Lefty’s must CONTINUE to insist upon, moving the center left … one battle at a time. Remember — as regards surveillance, FISA is just the tip of the iceberg.

In other news, the Iraqi’s have decided they want us out — now we’ll get a little reality on the Dubby’s promise to leave if they ask us; the last article here has the details. That’s BIG, dearhearts!

And here’s a link to spit in the wind — the G8 has agreed to cut global emissions by 50% … by 2050. Whaddya think? A little too lethargic? Or … just par for the course from a group that discussed the global food emergency over a lavish 18-course dinner?

Keep faith with Chris and Russ … with Jefferson … and yourself — give a call, won’t you? FireDog always has the links you need; you’ll find Christy’s piece, below.

Jude

Our Full Page Ad in the Washington Post Against FISA Bill
Jane Hamsher, FireDogLake
Tuesday July 8, 2008

Compromising the Constitution
New York Times Editorial
July 8, 2008

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America.

The FISA law created a court to issue those warrants quickly, and over 30 years, the court has approved nearly 20,000 while rejecting perhaps a half-dozen. In any case, the government can wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

Supporters will argue that the new bill still requires a warrant for eavesdropping that “targets” an American. That’s a smokescreen. There is no requirement that the government name any target. The purpose of warrantless eavesdropping could be as vague as listening to all calls to a particular area code in any other country.

The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year.

Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Christopher Dodd and Jeff Bingaman plan to offer amendments to do that, but there is little chance they will pass. The Senate should reject this bill and start over with modest legislation that makes the small needed changes and preserves Americans’ fundamental protections.

Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA. Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins. Sound familiar?

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise. It is a failure of leadership. ++

FISA: Stand And Deliver
Christy Hardin Smith, FireDogLake
Tuesday July 8, 2008

Tomorrow is the vote on the FISA bill.

This morning as I sat here watching the US Senate laud the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence and the founding documents and principles of the American government, I could not reconcile it with the impending votes on the FISA amendments.

These Senators began debate on the FISA amendment bill at 11:30 am ET. And the contrast between the reverential language for the Declaration of Independence and the disrespect for the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law contained in the FISA bill is far too much cognitive dissonance this morning.

Thank goodness for Sen. Russ Feingold this morning or I may have abandoned all hope.

Last week, Blue America launched a call tool to help you get in touch with Senators regarding the FISA bill. We’d like you to put it to some serious use today. We are asking Senators to vote IN FAVOR of the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy Amendment (S.A. 5064 to H.R. 6304). We’re asking for a NO vote on cloture, and a NO vote on the final bill as well.

Every one of these Senators has had an opportunity to read both the FISA law, the proposed FISA bill and amendments thereto, and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no excuse for any Senator not to have done so…since December of 2005. That so many of them seem to have little understanding or faulty information about the bill and it’s long-term legal and policy implications is bad enough. That they are intent on voting on this bill knowing that their understanding is faulty is shameful.

The job of Congress is not to provide the president with absolution for the deliberate and direct violation of written law — it is to uphold their oath to protect the constitution and the rule of law.

So, let’s not make these votes easy for anyone, shall we? Stand up for liberty. Call your Senators. You can use our tool to make calls or find direct dial and FAX information for every Senator linked here.

Because patriotism isn’t just the words you spew in front of the camera for a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. It’s what you do, each and every vote, each and every day, to actually uphold the principles contained therein.

Now, let’s get to work…

UPDATE: Ars Technica has a great bit of analysis on the entire bill as well that deserves serious thought. Don’t miss Marcy’s analysis of the Mike and Mike bait and switch, either.

August 8, 1974 v. July 9, 2008
Glenn Greenwald, Salon via CommonDreams
Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Iraqis Demand Timetable For Withdrawal
Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, Benjamin Armbruster, and Matt Duss, ProgressReport
July 8, 2008

On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki raised the prospect of “setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.” During an official visit to Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates, Maliki told a gathering of Arab ambassadors, “Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty.” The new emphasis on sovereignty may reflect Maliki’s growing confidence in the Iraqi army, which some analysts suggest is unfounded, after recent victories against al Qaeda in Iraq. It also reflects the pressure that Maliki is feeling from members of his parliamentary coalition, as well as from Iraqis themselves, many of whom oppose the continued U.S. presence. Since President Bush has consistently opposed any timetable for withdrawal, claiming that it would “embolden our enemies,” Maliki’s statement setting the stage for a possible conflict between the demands of the Iraq people and Bush’s plans for basing troops in Iraq. The U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of 2008.

IRAQIS STRESS RETURN OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY: The Bush administration has pushed hard to get a long-term agreement signed by the end of July, but this prospect seems increasingly unlikely. Many Iraqi parliamentarians have resisted supporting an agreement that they say is being negotiated in secret, with an American administration that is on its way out. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. The temperature was raised again several weeks ago, when a U.S. special forces unit shot and killed a cousin of the Prime Minister in a raid in Maliki’s hometown of Janaja, in Karbala province, an area supposedly “under full Iraqi control.” “Iraqi authorities say the raid was conducted without their knowledge or coordination.” Last week, Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stressed that recognition of sovereignty should be the central concern of any agreement, declaring that there will not be “another colonization of Iraq.” Zebari also announced on Monday that “security contractors working in Iraq will no longer receive immunity from prosecution,” voicing a major Iraqi demand. Acknowledging the approaching deadline, Zebari cited three options: “Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.” Late on Monday, Maliki’s office released a statement indicating his support for the second of those options, a U.S.-Iraqi “memorandum of understanding” that would extend the presence of American troops for a short period of time.

BUSH STRESSES AMERICAN SECURITY IMPERATIVES: Consistent with his tendency to maximally assert executive branch prerogatives, Bush has attempted to freeze Congress out of the security agreement negotiating process. In November 2007, Bush and Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” that set out parameters for negotiating an “enduring” political, economic, cultural, and security relationship between the United States and Iraq. Because the agreement would commit U.S. forces to continued combat operations in Iraq, Congress has repeatedly tried to assert its proper constitutional oversight role. In June, Congress heard testimony from several Iraqi parliamentarians opposing the security agreement. Congress also received a letter signed by “31 Iraqi lawmakers [saying] they will insist on ratifying the agreement as is required by [Iraq's] constitution.” Iraqis and Americans responded negatively to reports last month that Bush intended to establish some 50 U.S. military bases in Iraq. This would ensure a continued U.S. presence and the use of the country as a base of operations for future military adventures in the region, a central element of Bush administration’s plan for transforming the Middle East. Bush denied that he seeks “permanent bases” in Iraq but also stressed that “a strategic relationship with Iraq is important…for Iraq, it’s important for the United States, and it’s important for the region.”

REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS FINALLY STEPPING UP?: Regional governments have been slow to work with the new Iraq. Currently, there are five Arab embassies in Baghdad: Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon, and Tunisia. However, “the diplomatic representation at these embassies is at the level of charge d’affaires, and there is no Arab ambassador in Baghdad to date.” Last month, Zebari reported that Kuwait and Bahrain had committed to sending ambassadors to Iraq. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that it was forgiving $7 billion in Iraqi debt and would also post an ambassador to Baghdad. George Washington University professor Marc Lynch noted the significance of Maliki’s choosing “the venue of a meeting with Arab ambassadors” to raise the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. “Not only would such a withdrawal please most Arabs,” Lynch wrote, “depending on how it is handled, but it would also increase their perceived need to do something.” Iraq continues to seek debt forgiveness from other Arab states for debts incurred during the reign of Saddam Hussein. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves