senate leaders

Glenn Greenwald has all the disguising details. I think most important is this part:

Let's just describe very factually and dispassionately what has happened here. Congress -- led by Senators, such as Jay Rockefeller, who have received huge payments from the telecom industry, and by privatized intelligence pioneer Mike McConnell, former Chairman of the secretive intelligence industry association that has been demanding telecom amnesty -- is going to intervene directly in the pending lawsuits against AT&T and other telecoms and declare them the winners on the ground that they did nothing wrong. Because of their vast ties to the telecoms, neither Rockefeller nor McConnell could ever appropriately serve as an actual judge in those lawsuits.

The telecom companies have been losing their court battles over this, so the Senate is willing to hamper our judicial system by intervening. Is Rockefeller going forward with this to protect his checkbook? If that is the case then his ass needs rode out of Senate faster than Duke Cunningham and Tom Delay.

If this country wants any hope of surviving then it is time for our elected leaders to listen to the people and not the corporations. It is sad to watch these Republicans and Democrats destroy what was once the greatest country this planet has seen.

All the arguments last year over the warrentless wiretapping, and all the spin by wingnuts to say it is legal has now come to an end:

President George W. Bush has decided not to reauthorize the controversial domestic warrantless surveillance program for terrorism suspects and to put it under the authority of a secret special court, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to Senate leaders.

"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales said.

The only possible reason I can see for such a drastic about face on this is the question of legality. I suspect that someone in the administration told Bush that he was really walking a tight rope on this and the Democrats are ready to push him over. Of course this doesn't absolve him from any previous wrong doings on this, and the Democrats still must investigate the past incidents and take appropriate actions against Bush for them.

Since the Voting Rights Act has been hijacked by a handful of Republicans, can it be considered a racist move? Well let’s start by looking at who exactly hijacked this very important piece of legislation:

The postponed vote is the latest example of divisions within the GOP that have complicated House and Senate leaders' efforts to move legislation backed by President Bush. Social Security revisions died in 2005, and a proposed overhaul of immigration laws is in peril despite the backing of Bush, who also supports extension of the Voting Rights Act.

The immigration debate, which has preoccupied Congress for much of the year, included complaints that too many immigrants fail to learn English; the Senate version of the legislation declared English the "national language." House GOP leaders said the issues are unrelated, because only those immigrants who have become U.S. citizens are allowed to vote, while the immigration debate focuses on illegal immigrants.

But nearly 80 House Republicans signed a letter by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) objecting to the Voting Rights Act's provisions that require state and local governments to print ballots in foreign languages -- or provide interpreters -- in precincts showing a need for such services. The requirement is a costly unfunded mandate for many counties and municipalities, the letter said, adding: "The multilingual ballot mandate encourages the linguistic division of our nation and contradicts the 'Melting Pot' ideal that has made us the most successful multi-ethnic nation on earth."

First off – it is interesting that the Republicans, who constantly chant for a “fair up or down vote” has now decided that they will hide from their “principals” in order to block this. We also know that the immigration debate is basically dead, in a big part because Republican leaders from the House and Senate can not agree on the language.

Senate leaders have reached an agreement to extend the Patriot Act for 6
months so it can be examined more and possible have further protections of civil
liberties added in. The extension is twice as long as Democrats were asking for
but it is a Democrat victory none the less. It is also a victory for our civil
rights.

An interesting exchange happened during today's press briefing when Scott
McClellan was asked about the three month extension:

Q Scott, would the President veto a three-month extension of the Patriot
Act? Is that something you can accept?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to talk about what's going on here.
What's going on here is pure obstructionist politics. A minority in the
Senate, led by Senate Democrats, are putting politics above our nation's
security. This bill has been thoroughly debated. It enjoys majority support.
They need to give it an up or down vote and quit playing politics with our
nation's security.

Q So would the President veto a three-month extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has already made his views known on
that -- I expressed his views last week -- and nothing has changed in terms
of our views. That's why it's important for them to go ahead and get this
passed now.

Q So you would veto a three-month extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed.

Q Can you tell me what that was again?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well
what it was.

Q Sounds like you're backing down from that.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week.

Q So just say it. Just say --

Q Will you use the word "veto"? Why are you not using the word "veto"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week --

Bush acknowledges secret order for
domestic spying

President George W. Bush on Saturday acknowledged he signed a secret
order after the September 11, 2001, attacks to allow the surveillance of
people in the United States.

In a rare live radio address, Bush defended the practice as a "vital
tool" in defending the United States against another such attack.

That story is fresh from
Reuters.
I have heard some people trying to defend this action by saying he is protecting
us from other attacks. I have a different take on it.

After 9/11 Bush told us that they attacked us because they "hate our
freedoms". Those freedoms are guaranteed in the Constitution and more
importantly in the Bill of Rights. What Bush has done is crippled those freedoms
and did so illegally. You can basically say that Osama won against us because of
it.

The problem I have is this. It is not that hard to get a warrant. One phone
call and they can have it. Why does our President feel he has to remove this
step of the process. This single step is what changes the action from being
legal to being illegal and unconstitutional. If they have enough reason to
believe someone is planning an attack then call a judge and get the warrant.

Republican Senator John Sununu said it best yesterday by quoting Benjamin
Franklin - "Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little
temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." We can not give up our
rights and liberties in this war. If we do then we have nothing left to fight
for.