G’mornin!

Good Morning Christy!
love the graphic, now to read…

Good morning, Christy - it’s pouring and 40 degrees here - they tell us that we’ll see snow today.

I suppose the amendment that was supposedly going to be added to remove Telecom immunity from the bill has fallen through? Or is that what happens in the mark-up?

I swear the more I follow our government the less I understand it!

I was thrilled to see that the calls made yesterday seemed to make a difference. Will continued calling help? And how likely do you think it is that Feinstein cannot vote the way we would like…because of the personal cost to her. Translation…have they put the screws to her…do you think that she has been victimized by her husband’s dealings? I guess we’ll know by her vote today after all the calls, faxes and letters that have been sent to her regarding the immunity issue.

a very enjoyable read for the morning christy, thanx for the early morning post

I have a comment on one paragraph;

But here’s the rub: demanding the retroactive immunity for the telecoms is, in effect, an admission against interest by the Bush Administration that they, indeed, broke laws and thus need immunity for their corporate accomplices to cover their tracks. Because the Bush Administration knows that if the corporations get this payoff to cover their bottom line, they won’t be disclosing complicity any time soon.

the term “in effect”, I understand the legal necessity not to make blanket absolute terms but I am not a lawyer and most of us don’t plan on getting the chance to argue the point before a judge

I will therefore in my conversation and writing, eliminate the term “in effect” and I WILL be absolute when discussing “retro active immunity”

as far as my conversation, demanding this imunity IS an admission of guilt

if they didn’t do anything wrong they don’t need immunity

Good Morning Christy. I hope all in your house are well this AM.

Yesterday I received a missive from Verizon informing me that they had made (arbitrary) changes to my dsl agreement. Herewith the changes:

16.5 THE LIABILITY OF THE VERIZON ENTITES OR, SUBJECT TO ANY DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY IN THIRD PARTY LICENSE OR OTHER APPLICABLE AGREEMENTS, THEIR THIRD PARTYPROVIDERS, FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES SHALL NOT EXCEED A PRO RATA CREDIT FOR THE MONTHLY FEES (EXCLUDING ALL NONRECURRING CHARGES, REGULATORY FEES, SURCHARGES, FEES AND TAXES) YOU HAVE PAID TO VERIZON FOR THE SERVICE DURING THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO WHEN SUCH CLAIM AROSE, WHICH SHALL BE YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF CLAIM OR NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO ASSERT ANY LIMITATIONS OR DEFENSES WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. 16.6 ALL LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS STATED IN THIS SECTION 16 ALSO APPLY TO VERIZON’S THIRD PARTY LICENSORS, PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS, AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Sorry mods, their caps.

It would seem to me that they are attempting to limit liability prior to the expected illegal spying lawsuits?

something pretty ominous happened to me on the way to the coffee shop this morning

I saw what at first looked like some kind of private security automobile as I was driving

to my surprise, as I got close it had in BIG letters across the door

POLICE

I thought, …hmmmm…that’s a bigger sign then I am used to

and then on the front fender, in pretty big script read as so;

“providing homeland security”

that’s right, a vehicle that invoked the terms of the Nazi’s

was this a black water vehicle?

I don’t know but I was as appalled seeing “homeland” on a police car as I would have been seeing a swastika

VERY OMINOUS and it is a dark dreary day on top of it

not in a good mood this morning

I made calls all day yesterday to help our California friends with the DiFi censure and to push Reid to talk to her…..I don’t know if it will change her mind….but I plan on starting in again this morning. DiFi is an abomination, but let’s all keep up the pressure on her, maybe she will resign before her term is up…I KNOW more than wishful thinking., but I believe in miracles!

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

I am not finding any coverage of the hearing today, gang. C-Span’s schedule hasn’t changed as yet this morning, and the SJC website is not indicating that they plan on streaming (am waiting back on e-mails to confirm on this).

I know selise was working on finding a streaming radio connection yesterday — but if anyone finds a hearing source on this, let me know. Thanks!

Ross Holt on FISA right now on c-span 1.

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

c-span is scheduled to provide delayed video coverage of the SJC mark up meeting today on FISA legislation. if we want to follow along live, i think our only option is to use the room audio feed from c-span.

last week i spent a bunch of time on the phone with c-span while they tried to track down the problem. and they think they’ve got it fixed last week (if you recall our problems trying to listen last thursday - they also couldn’t get it to work on their end).

this week they think they’ve got it working, but for me it’s worse - i can’t even get the high pitched tone feed that is supposed to be indicative of the lines working when no hearing is currently underway.

but - the audio feeds are now working localing at the c-span offices…. is the problem me or somewhere between the c-span office and me?

so we’re doing a bit of trouble shooting down below in late late night’s epu-land.

will report back here with results…

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg - waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

g’ morning, all… coffee is ready (we’re gonna need it today).

OldCoastie @ 16

g’ morning, all… coffee is ready (we’re gonna need it today).

Along with the Tums, I’m afraid. :(

some big, red-faced blowhard is on Morning Joe sayin’ Hillary Clinton gets nothing (NOTHING!) but positive press…

I think I’m in bizarro land this morning.

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Even if those business entities intentionally break the law?

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Sorry LL
If the corporations would follow the law, then there would be no need for these kinds of law suits. It’s that simple.

The Law. it’s for everyone.

RevDeb @ 20

LibertyLee @ 13

Sorry LL
If the corporations would follow the law, then there would be no need for these kinds of law suits. It’s that simple.

The Law. it’s for everyone.

Not if the law is being abused by private parties for their personal political agendas. And against the National Security Interests of the country.

And if the law is not, in fact, for everyone, can someone tell me how to get on the “excused list”?

Good morning from L.A. Went back to the “Contact” post of yesterday for the phone & fax #s & I’m on it…

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

RevDeb @ 20

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Sorry LL
If the corporations would follow the law, then there would be no need for these kinds of law suits. It’s that simple.

The Law. it’s for everyone.

“litigation happy” is corporate marketing to try to get the American public to actually believe they shouldn’t be sued when they screw up

law suits SAVE us money, they keep our kids pajamas from igniting while they sleep, they keep our cars from blowing up if someone taps our bumper, they make sure trucks have bumpers that match car bumpers so in an accident the truck doesn’t go straight through the window

however corporations have done an excellent job selling to the masses that we are “litigation happy” and then people actually vote against their interest and against their family

this strategy is juvenile but it does seem to work on plenty of people

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

FUNNY THAT
you do know 90% of the litigation in this country is between one corporations DEEP POCKETS and another corporations DEEP POCKETS

Well, Chuck Schumer - guess what you lumbered us with:

“In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....retap-law/

that productivity argument is either a joke or a con, ll.

the retroactive immunity, christy, is as you say — the latest tactic of stall, avoid, ignore. remember when bush ran on the promise of being the m.b.a. president? this is one vow he made good on: corporate executives all operate on the same premise of doing what they want with a minimum of oversight and barely nodding acquaintance of what contstitutes legal behavior.
in every sphere of influence, from the energy task force on, this is the face of corporatism: your contemptuous government at work.

Toby Wollin @ 27

Well, Chuck Schumer - guess what you lumbered us with:

“In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it
if it is passed
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....retap-law/

JUST DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUM!

I am afraid that the Dems will cave. I think they are so afraid of this administration that they will continue to give them what they want until the end of their administration. All Bush has to say is: “If you do not give us what we want/need then you will be responsible for another 9/11 happening”. Boo! Dems fold and Bush gets what he demands.

Toby @ 27

That news shocked me too. I mean, who could have possibly seen that coming.

At least now that he is confirmed he can comment on these issues…

Good morning Christy and all
The way I see it when the telecoms did a wire tape it is with a court order and they have a legal staff to guide them,you know keep it legal.
Alberto? saw reviewing info stream as legal therefore taking judicial oversight unto themselves. The legal dept should have demanded a court order nullifying the court system which ,as they say, was in the mail.
Can congress give the administration and themselves immunity againest any and all war crimes and crimes againest humanity,using this logic?

from the LA Times, a tiny bit of good news:

The LAPD on Wednesday abruptly scrapped a program to map the city’s Muslim population, a major retreat for a department that said the system was needed to identify potential hotbeds of extremism.

The reversal comes after a week of protests from Muslim groups and civil libertarians, who equated the mapping with religious profiling. Others questioned whether it was possible for the LAPD to accurately map the city’s far-flung Muslim community.

somtimes complaining loudly works.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 23

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

I love the word “shat”

JF at 34 — I’m not even going to ask you about that one. *g* But am happy that you enjoyed the read nonetheless…

Mornin’ Christy et al

I am so happy to read your post, Christy. You have given the long view of the consequences retro immunity. It is the snowball at the top of the hill that in its rapid descent and growth will topple anything that stands in its way. Expect this and all future battles wrt FISA to be bloody.

OldCoastie @ 33

from the LA Times, a tiny bit of good news:

The LAPD on Wednesday abruptly scrapped a program to map the city’s Muslim population, a major retreat for a department that said the system was needed to identify potential hotbeds of extremism.

The reversal comes after a week of protests from Muslim groups and civil libertarians, who equated the mapping with religious profiling. Others questioned whether it was possible for the LAPD to accurately map the city’s far-flung Muslim community.

somtimes complaining loudly works.

And during the week of protests, the LAPD was quietly mapping Muslims in LA.

nomolos @ 7

Good Morning Christy. I hope all in your house are well this AM.

Yesterday I received a missive from Verizon informing me that they had made (arbitrary) changes to my dsl agreement. Herewith the changes:

16.5 THE LIABILITY OF THE VERIZON ENTITES OR, SUBJECT TO ANY DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY IN THIRD PARTY LICENSE OR OTHER APPLICABLE AGREEMENTS, THEIR THIRD PARTYPROVIDERS, FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES SHALL NOT EXCEED A PRO RATA CREDIT FOR THE MONTHLY FEES (EXCLUDING ALL NONRECURRING CHARGES, REGULATORY FEES, SURCHARGES, FEES AND TAXES) YOU HAVE PAID TO VERIZON FOR THE SERVICE DURING THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO WHEN SUCH CLAIM AROSE, WHICH SHALL BE YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF CLAIM OR NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO ASSERT ANY LIMITATIONS OR DEFENSES WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. 16.6 ALL LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS STATED IN THIS SECTION 16 ALSO APPLY TO VERIZON’S THIRD PARTY LICENSORS, PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS, AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Sorry mods, their caps.

It would seem to me that they are attempting to limit liability prior to the expected illegal spying lawsuits?

I was wondering what this was about. Your suggestion didn’t occur to me, and it doesn’t really make sense. Verizon can’t claim that 3rd parties put on the taps.

I thought they are trying to defend themselves from intellectual property suits, myself, fearing being the deep pocket in a suit involving a minor content provider.

Not so long ago, I seem to remember the Right chanting damn near in unison: “No one is above the law.”

With the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, packed with Bush toadies, its difficult to see how judicial scrutiny amounts to anything more than a rubber stamp for Bush Administration actions.

old gold @ 39

Not so long ago, I seem to remember the Right chanting damn near in unison: “No one is above the law.”

They were wrong. Bush and Cheney are above the law.

And during the week of protests, the LAPD was quietly mapping Muslims in LA.

really, kdh22? how do you know that?

jayackroyd @ 38

nomolos @ 7

G
It would seem to me that they are attempting to limit liability prior to the expected illegal spying lawsuits?

I was wondering what this was about. Your suggestion didn’t occur to me, and it doesn’t really make sense. Verizon can’t claim that 3rd parties put on the taps.

I thought they are trying to defend themselves from intellectual property suits, myself, fearing being the deep pocket in a suit involving a minor content provider.

Third parties are possibly the company that owns the lines? And why can it not be that they had “third parties” putting on the taps. Verizon does a lot of “out sourcing” to non-union workers.

Frankly I cannot see where the “intelectual property” reasoning would come in… explain?

One thing that baffles me is this compartmentalized ideology of the GOP. They have no qualms or issues backing legislation that clearly violates our 4th amendment rights, yet they would be rioting in the streets if the government or any private company were to infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights. I do not get this. How does one rationalize this?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 24

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

OldCoastie @ 42

And during the week of protests, the LAPD was quietly mapping Muslims in LA.

really, kdh22? how do you know that?

I don’t know anything, OC, but logically and tactically that would be the thing for anyone (LAPD, FBI, US MARSHALS, DOD, even CIA maybe) to do during diversionary protests. If I were in law enforcement, that’s what I would suggest doing at that particular time.

JF @ 34

Christy Hardin Smith @ 23

Lee at 13 — Most states have liability limitations for medmal and other types of suits these days. But when laws are clearly — and knowingly — broken, even with access to the advice of counsel who knows that the conduct is beyond the scope of what is allowable under the law, then your remedy would be jus to say “bygones” and let it go? That doesn’t exactly fit with the “do the crime, do the time” mentality, now does it?

Especially in a situation where the FISA laws were written by Congress with express provisions for civil redress and specifically written penalties therefor as a deterrent to that sort of behavior. Expressly written in a bi-partisan manner back in the days when it didn’t matter what side of the political fence you were on and the rule of law and enforcement of it was taken seriously and not dismissed as a political statement.

Frivolous suits can be — and often are — dealt with at summary judgment stage, on rule 11 sanction motions, and through self-policing by decent lawyers who refuse to take asinine cases to begin with…and all of the above occurs a lot. And it’s funny, but when someone is wronged, suddenly those trial lawyers suddenly seem like your best friend when you need a remedy from someone who has knowingly, deliberately and without any remorse or sorrow, shat upon you.

I love the word “shat”

Ditto!

selise, I tried the second link..which on my MAC reqired qucktime.. once open, it didn’t work.

update on the c-span audio feed for this morning’ sjc markup meeting. here is the feed:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

you can test it now - if it’s working for you, you will hear a high pitched tone until the hearing starts.

thanks to elliot for the help with trouble shooting (it doesn’t seem to be working for me, but it works for elliot - i’m hoping it only something on my end, and if i can’t get it to work on my end in the next 30 minutes, i’d be very grateful if one of you could rip the audio)

LibertyLee @ 45

I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

Oh dear have you been a “victim” of a restraining order by any chance?

Eureka Springs @ 47

selise, I tried the second link..which on my MAC reqired qucktime.. once open, it didn’t work.

which link?

and, if you are willing… could we take the trouble shooting to the previous thread? i don’t want to distract the conversation here - and it’s too much for me to try to follow along here while i’m troubleshooting my own feed problem… thank you!

It’s working for me I think, selise. Sometimes it sounds a bit like tuning bagpipes. Sometimes it sounds like lift-off. And then sometimes it goes silent. Well, we’ll try to hang in there.

selise @ 49

update on the c-span audio feed for this morning’ sjc markup meeting. here is the feed:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

you can test it now - if it’s working for you, you will hear a high pitched tone until the hearing starts.

thanks to elliot for the help with trouble shooting (it doesn’t seem to be working for me, but it works for elliot - i’m hoping it only something on my end, and if i can’t get it to work on my end in the next 30 minutes, i’d be very grateful if one of you could rip the audio)

Thanks selise. I just love that tone. Is the markup at 10:00?

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg - waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

Agreed - thanks once again to Christy for keeping the pressure on the SJC to do the right thing.

As always, the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you if you go to http://chrisdodd.com/immunity. It’s a really cool tool that’s let thousands of people call the SJC already - at no cost to them.

And Diane’s right: if the FISA legislation comes out of committee with retroactive immunity in it, Senator Dodd has a hold on it. If that hold is not honored, Dodd will filibuster it.

nomolos @ 49

Oh dear have you been a “victim” of a restraining order by any chance?

careful. please don’t mock. anyone who has spent any time in family courts knows just how unfounded claims for restraining orders can be.
if ll got hosed, he has my deepest sympathy.

nomolos @ 50

LibertyLee @ 45

I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

Oh dear have you been a “victim” of a restraining order by any chance?

Just victimized by looters as most successful Conservatives are.

LibertyLee @ 45
I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

I’m sure your wife and kids don’t.

dmg @ 55

nomolos @ 49

careful. please don’t mock. anyone who has spent any time in family courts knows just how unfounded claims for restraining orders can be.
if ll got hosed, he has my deepest sympathy.

thank you.

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 53

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg - waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

If this does make it out of committee, hope we can count on Dodd to fillibuster as promised.

I want to say thanks to Christy & all the pups for pushing our reps in the right direction. Hard to believe we have to force them to fight for our Constitution.

Agreed - thanks once again to Christy for keeping the pressure on the SJC to do the right thing.

As always, the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you if you go to http://chrisdodd.com/immunity. It’s a really cool tool that’s let thousands of people call the SJC already - at no cost to them.

And Diane’s right: if the FISA legislation comes out of committee with retroactive immunity in it, Senator Dodd has a hold on it. If that hold is not honored, Dodd will filibuster it.

matt -

has senator dodd been talking with representative holt on what good fisa legislation would look like holt is on the house intelligence committee and is playing the lead role in the house for the progressive caucus. he’s also very smart (phd in physics who ran a lab at princeton before going to congress).

if senator dodd is not already working with representative holt - would you please ask him to at least consult with him? i think we’re much more likely to get good legislation on this if the progressives in the house and senate are working together and supporting eachother’s efforts.

i have contact info, etc for holt’s chief of staff… email me at speakeasy dot net if you want details.

many thanks for all you and senator dodd are doing on this.

cinnamonape @ 56

LibertyLee @ 45I have recently been “shat upon” by a trial lawyer doing family law. Most of them use the law for a very political purpose. I have a lot more respect for National Security people than I do lawyers.

I’m sure your wife and kids don’t.

No kids. Just a looting ex.

Lee — Family law is a whole other level of practice, and I hated it because there is never a good answer in a contested domestic situation. There just isn’t. No one is ever happy…which, perhaps, is as it should be but it doesn’t make it any less crappy.

But a family law issue is not the same as civil litigation in a malpractice or liability context. Apples and oranges in terms of focus.

And as there are a large number of current and former national security and law enforcement professionals who all understand the need for security concerns to be taken seriously and yet balanced with a concommitant need for third-party oversight and following the laws as they are written, you should really reconsider on this. The FISA law is very clear, and allows for domestic surveillance when a warrant is obtained — the FISA court has only disallowed warrants in fewer than ten cases in its entire history. The court oversight has been done in accordance with national security considerations for decades, and the judges on the court take their duty very seriously — being available 24 hours a day for warrant issuance. There is a 72-hour window for emergency circumstances where the tap can be placed and the warrant obtained after the fact.

The Congress built in provisos for emergency situtations and for a 15-day window for national emergency as well. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to follow any of these requirements, thumbed its nose at a law, refused to comply with oversight provisions fully, and got major US corporations to go along with their conduct in contravention of the expressly written law ought to be of concern to all of us.

The Bush Administration could have access to any information about any American that it was entitled to obtain under the law by simply getting a warrant. That they have chosen not to do so speaks volumes about their disrespect of the laws, for the Congress and for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws, not Presidential fiat — and if “conservatives” are willing to throw that away on the altar of political expediency, then they no longer have the right to call themselves conservatives.

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

Surprisingly, I somewhat agree. I think monetary damages should be mostly “actual damages” and the punitive part should be criminal prosecution of the people responsible for the violation of the law. Why should management be able to get away with felonies and “corporate murder” by giving up assets from a “public company”?

I would prefer it if people didn’t get personal at each other in the comments. I’m balancing posting with a sick Peanut still this morning, and have been running on very little sleep all week. I’ve got enough to do without having to step in to an idiotic, name-calling squabble — so I’d appreciate it if we could stick to issues, please. Thanks.

selise @ 58

matt -

has senator dodd been talking with representative holt on what good fisa legislation would look like holt is on the house intelligence committee and is playing the lead role in the house for the progressive caucus. he’s also very smart (phd in physics who ran a lab at princeton before going to congress).

if senator dodd is not already working with representative holt - would you please ask him to at least consult with him? i think we’re much more likely to get good legislation on this if the progressives in the house and senate are working together and supporting eachother’s efforts.

i have contact info, etc for holt’s chief of staff… email me at speakeasy dot net if you want details.

many thanks for all you and senator dodd are doing on this.

Selise, I don’t know if Senator Dodd has specifically talked to Rep. Holt or not or what conversations the Dodd Senate staff are having with other Congressional offices (what with the campaign/senate firewall).

I do know that Senator Dodd has talked with his colleagues in the SJC. A lot of work is being done by Senator Leahy and others to improve the FISA legislation in committee. Sen. Feingold has introduced an amendment to strip retroactive immunity. We just don’t know yet where all the chips…er, votes…will land.

But, but, she looked at me first!

Steve-AR — the FISA law has an expressly written provision detailing the extent of civil penalties involved for violation of the law. Just FYI.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 60

I would prefer it if people didn’t get personal at each other in the comments. I’m balancing posting with a sick Peanut still this morning, and have been running on very little sleep all week. I’ve got enough to do without having to step in to an idiotic, name-calling squabble — so I’d appreciate it if we could stick to issues, please. Thanks.

I stand corrected, chastened and apologetic.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 61

Lee — Family law is a whole other level of practice, and I hated it because there is never a good answer in a contested domestic situation. There just isn’t. No one is ever happy…which, perhaps, is as it should be but it doesn’t make it any less crappy.

But a family law issue is not the same as civil litigation in a malpractice or liability context. Apples and oranges in terms of focus.

And as there are a large number of current and former national security and law enforcement professionals who all understand the need for security concerns to be taken seriously and yet balanced with a concommitant need for third-party oversight and following the laws as they are written, you should really reconsider on this. The FISA law is very clear, and allows for domestic surveillance when a warrant is obtained — the FISA court has only disallowed warrants in fewer than ten cases in its entire history. The court oversight has been done in accordance with national security considerations for decades, and the judges on the court take their duty very seriously — being available 24 hours a day for warrant issuance. There is a 72-hour window for emergency circumstances where the tap can be placed and the warrant obtained after the fact.

The Congress built in provisos for emergency situtations and for a 15-day window for national emergency as well. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to follow any of these requirements, thumbed its nose at a law, refused to comply with oversight provisions fully, and got major US corporations to go along with their conduct in contravention of the expressly written law ought to be of concern to all of us.

The Bush Administration could have access to any information about any American that it was entitled to obtain under the law by simply getting a warrant. That they have chosen not to do so speaks volumes about their disrespect of the laws, for the Congress and for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws, not Presidential fiat — and if “conservatives” are willing to throw that away on the altar of political expediency, then they no longer have the right to call themselves conservatives.

Christy, I respect your judgment. But I also work in IT and have some knowledge of the legal interfaces. I know the paperwork demands of FISA and the timing elements became too great for the overstretched staff of the National Security professionals, all of whom were deeply committed analysts who KNEW where the bodies were buried. There were simply too many leads which led to too many networks to handle each case one by one Because as you well know, any time you attach “accountability” rules, you have to have tracking apparatuses and auditing systems, and you didn’t have time to do all those updates and still do your jobs which were to protect the country. The elected leaders informed the Intelligence Committee leadership who basically understood the problems and gave tacit overhead. The corporations followed on request of the government. Maybe they did break the Letter of the law. But there are times, like the post 9/11 era in which exigent circumstances say “give a pass”. I wish you would see that side.

O/T but I was reading Broder and it pissed me off.

If Hillary wins and is President, will the character slurs and attacks from the wingnuts continue? Don’t they know that it is unpatriotic to criticize a President in a time of war? Don’t they know that it will weaken our country? Don’t they know it will harm the President’s ability to protect us? I’m expecting they’ll forget all about that.

LibertyLee @ 56

Just victimized by looters as most successful Conservatives are.

MBIA, Ambac Downgrades May Cost Market $200 Billion (Update1)

“Investors in guaranteed debt have never questioned the AAA guarantee from monolines,” said Toby Nangle, who helps oversee $37 billion at Baring Asset Management in London and avoids debt guaranteed by monolines. Given the rise in the perception of risk, they “may start to wonder if the emperor has no clothes,” he said.

Not these looters by chance…

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

msmolly @ 10

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

((((Peanut & Mom))))

james @ 68

msmolly @ 10

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

Is this a block from the board of a Russian version of “Monopoly”, perhaps?

pma @ 70

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

707!!

if the senate feed
for the FISA mark-up meet-
ing DOES go live — this
will be where it is — as
a real media stream. . .

click about twenty lines
down in the the notice. . .

gotta’ bounce — can’t stay
to watch the mark-up. . .

p e a c e

kdh22 @ 72

((((Peanut & Mom))))

((((Peanut & Mom))))

pma @ 67

LibertyLee @ 13

I personally hope there will be overall limitations of liability on the part of most business entities. This country has become litigation happy and the more we can limit access to “deep pockets” the more productive Americans can be.

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

udderly different?

selise — is the committee room link working for you now? And, if so, can someone tell me where to find it?

I’ve got a movie playing for The Peanut at the moment, so I’m going to have to listen in under the movie. Could be a bumpy ride of liveblogging for me this morning, gang, so I’m warning everyone up front that it won’t be the usual attention to detail liveblog from me today. Apologies, but I’ll see what I can do…

nomolos @ 78

pma @ 67

I’ve always wondered, when I see one cow grazing in a field with a number of horses, if it knows it is different. Just curious.

udderly different?

But if an udder falls in a forest….

I am shocked!!!

WASHINGTON (CNN) — In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.
(snip)

CNN

Matt Browner Hamlin @ 61

Selise, I don’t know if Senator Dodd has specifically talked to Rep. Holt or not or what conversations the Dodd Senate staff are having with other Congressional offices (what with the campaign/senate firewall).

I do know that Senator Dodd has talked with his colleagues in the SJC. A lot of work is being done by Senator Leahy and others to improve the FISA legislation in committee. Sen. Feingold has introduced an amendment to strip retroactive immunity. We just don’t know yet where all the chips…er, votes…will land.

thanks for the response. i understand about the firewall… retroactive immunity is not the only problem with the legislation (although i understand it’s a big one and one that is easy to understand and campaign on)… if there is someone you could recommend i talk with on the sentate side, could you send me the name via email? i haven’t had much luck figuring out who that person is on my own. thanks!

pma @ 76

nomolos @ 78

udderly different?

But if an udder falls in a forest….

milking this for all it’s worth?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 66

Steve-AR — the FISA law has an expressly written provision detailing the extent of civil penalties involved for violation of the law. Just FYI.

But the exec’s won’t be prosecuted. My comment was directed more at “product” liability where people are injured or killed and the people responsible just move to another job.

nomolos @ 83

pma @ 76

But if an udder falls in a forest….

milking this for all it’s worth?

No, just going tit for tat.

Diane @ 15

Morning Christy, stayed up til 3:00 watching the Waxman grilling of Kronberg - waiting for the coffee to brew. After first cup I will begin calling.

I’m absolutely flummoxed about how “Cookie” Krongard could not know brother Buzzy was workin’ for the Blackwater group that he was investigating!!!

Sounds like the old song “Cookie, Cookie! Fend off the Probe!”

Lemme see, even though the “dirty rumors” of his brother being in tight with Blackhawk were REVEALED in the NY Times, LA Times, Salon, Harpers and all sorts of other media months ago…Cookie failed to realize that there was any likelihod of the claims being real?

He didn’t bother to have an independent check done in a case where he was being charged with blatant nepotism? Instead he simply called his brother and trusted his statements.

But wait! “I am not my Brother’s keeper” he says…that’s how much loyalty he supposedly now has for his Bro? That sounds like a relationship of distrust and dislike to me? So why would he trust him explicitly? Without checking up?

I’d suggest that Cookie knew that Buzzy was working for Blackwater, and knew that he was acting to help Blackwater evade responsibility. I bet it will turn out that it was Cookie who asked that all those Blackwater employees be given immunity. And all that “I’m Not my Brothers Keeper” stuff is actually bogus. Cookie and Buzzy are probably in like thieves.

Somebody needs to subpoena their phone calls.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 76

selise — is the committee room link working for you now? And, if so, can someone tell me where to find it?

I’ve got a movie playing for The Peanut at the moment, so I’m going to have to listen in under the movie. Could be a bumpy ride of liveblogging for me this morning, gang, so I’m warning everyone up front that it won’t be the usual attention to detail liveblog from me today. Apologies, but I’ll see what I can do…

christy - i posted it above, but just so you don’t have to go looking for it while doing a gazillion other things, here it is again:

selise @ 48

update on the c-span audio feed for this morning’ sjc markup meeting. here is the feed:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen226.rm?mode=compact

you can test it now - if it’s working for you, you will hear a high pitched tone until the hearing starts.

thanks to elliot for the help with trouble shooting (it doesn’t seem to be working for me, but it works for elliot - i’m hoping it only something on my end, and if i can’t get it to work on my end in the next 30 minutes, i’d be very grateful if one of you could rip the audio)

not working for me - but working for elliot.

so, i think think the work c-span did to fix it might make it ok for today’s hearing.

but, i’ve got a problem on my end - so i won’t be able to record the audio - please, will somone else give it a try? thanks!

james @ 71

msmolly @ 10

What do the words on the photo say in English?

Great post, Christy!

The Russian translates to “Go to Jail.”

Thanks, James. I took a couple of Russian classes in college (early 60s) but couldn’t begin to decipher that.

I have emailed Feinstein every day for a while on this issue. I’m not especially hopeful given her history, but I’ve been hammering away at it nonetheless. Lately I’ve been emphasising the sort of legacy her voting will leave, since she’s already “Senater Torture” for the Mukasey vote. :-P