Politics

Glenn Greenwald posted the most concise and apt synopsis of what's wrong with the Obama administration (see Update II) on his blog the other day. It's well worth repeating.

In accepting Chris Dodd's endorsement in February 2008, Obama said the following (with comment by Glenn Greenwald):

We know it’s time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry [GG: This was just four months before Obama would vote for a bill granting immunity to the telecoms]. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability [GG: This was roughly 11 months before the Obama DOJ began embracing the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" privilege to shield lawless programs from judicial review]. We must show our citizens -- and set an example to the world -- that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America -- no one is above the law [GG: This was about a year before he announced that no Bush officials should be prosecuted for crimes because we must Look Forward].

It’s time to reject torture without equivocation. It’s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus [GG: This was about a year before his administration began insisting that people we abduct and ship to Bagram have no right to habeas review]. It’s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom [GG: This was just four months before Obama would vote for a bill massively expanding warrantless eavesdropping]. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.

Perhaps our President should go back and review some of those lecture notes from the courses he taught. A refresher course in the espoused principles on which he rode into office might be just the thing now.

In 1960s South Africa, the apartheid regime resorted to 90 and 180 day detention schemes under which people were detained without charge. Any person could, at any time, be arrested and held in a prison cell without question. The regime wielded this power with impunity and used it to detain large numbers of people . . . including my uncle, Barry.

Not long ago, well, actually quite awhile ago, I blogged about the perverse incentives the privatization of incarceration creates. This week's news that Judges in Pennsylvania were involved in abusive sentencing for kick-backs from a private juvenile detention center (and here - nytimes) provides the latest and clearest case of such abuse.

I'm often frustrated by Lessig's tech policy, though (overall) he's only ever moved issues in the right direction.

When it comes to the presidential election however, he's given the most articulate argument for why I am supporting Barack Obama this election year. If you're undecided or even if you're convinced Clinton is the candidate to support, I implore you to listen to the arguments put forward in Lessig's video . . . I couldn't put it more plainly myself.

Lessig on Obama/Clinton (large MOV).

Google "network neutrality" and either of the major Democratic front-runners for Norm Coleman's Paul Wellstone's Senate seat (I mean Mike Ciresi and Al Franken) and see what you get . . . NADA. Zip. A big fat "0". Try "telecommunications" . . . similar result.

How are these candidates supposed to garner my support if they're unwilling to address national tech policy!? I honestly find it shocking. Just look at their respective lists of "issues":

Ciresi's list

1. Higher Education
2. Iraq
3. Healthcare
4. Renewable energy and rural development (gee, I wonder what he thinks about Ethanol or here or here)
5. Veterans
6. Immigration
7. Terrorism

Franken's list

1. Iraq
2. Healthcare
3. Education
4. Renewable energy (at least he doesn't lump this in with "rural development")
5. Immigration
6. Workers
7. Veterans
8. Accountability

Interesting lists. If you unbundle the rural dev and energy in Ciresi's list, that's 8 apiece. But what's most interesting is not what's IN their lists, but what's left OUT. Check out Obama's list:

Obama's list

1. Civil Rights
2. Disabilities
3. Economy
4. Education
5. Energy and Environment (that makes a LOT more sense to me than Ciresi's combo)
6. Ethics
7. Faith
8. Family
9. Fiscal
10. Foreign Policy
11. Healthcare
12. Homeland Security
13. Immigration
14. Iraq
15. Poverty
16. Rural (Hey MN contenders . . . look, Rural gets its own billing - WOW!)
17. Service
18. Seniors and Social Security
19. Technology
20. Veterans

Now . . . THAT'S A LIST!

Do the MN Democratic contenders think Minnesotans don't care about Poverty? about Foreign Policy? about TECHNOLOGY!?! What about Climate Change? Anyone? Anyone? . . . Buhler?

I understand that President and Senator are different offices, but the policy issues are essentially the same. C'mon guys, it doesn't cost any more to add some substantial policy positions on your friggin' websites. Pretend for just a second that people in Minnesota want to vote based on what policies you'll be supporting when and if you actually get to DC. Or - one has to ask - have you thought about these areas AT ALL? Do you even have policy positions? and if so, why aren't they available to your potential constituents on your websites?

Unbelievable.

If you want to catch a glimpse of what's wrong with telecommunications in this country, read the latest Wired magazine article, 10 Reasons To Hate Cellphone Carriers. The article makes a few nods to Senator Klobuchar's recent cell phone "empowerment" act (and the act does appear to address some bad telco practices). But take a moment to look at the gravity of the listed reasons and then compare Wired's list to what Klobuchar's act addresses . . . see a disparity?? I do.

Senator Klobuchar apparently thinks her bill is merely "some narrowly tailored rules that would even the playing field for consumers." (!?!) Yet, anyone who's paid even the slightest attention to the telco industry in the past . . . oh . . . century, can tell you that if she thinks her bill will "even the playing field," there's a bridge in Brooklyn she may be interested in buying.

Consider the second to last of Wired's reasons to hate cellphone carriers, "They Own Politicians." It does make one pause for a moment to reflect that Klobuchar's bill is co-sponsored by Senator Rockefeller (D-WV); the very same representative responsible for introducing the current Senate FISA bill granting these companies retroactive immunity for KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW.

Hmmmmmmmmm . . .

Which leads to the inevitable question, "Is it possible these Senators (Rockefeller and Klobuchar) are actually pandering to the telcos and merely presenting the appearance of public scrutiny and oversight?" YOU THINK??!! It's either that or sheer naivety.

Put in terms ex-Hennepin County Attorney Klobuchar might understand:

If a mugger j-walks from the scene, you don't chase them on the j-walk charge and ignore the mugging.

The "Consumer Cell-Phone Empowerment Act" is a j-walking charge . . . when will Klobuchar start doing her job and prosecute the mugging?.

While I'm at it . . . what the hell happened to journalism in Minnesota? Can the STRIB only do idiotic puff pieces like this!? We're in a bad way folks.

We the Congress of the United States, in Order to form a less perfect Union, discredit Justice, insure domestic Disparity, provide for the telcos' defence, promote the corporate Welfare, and censure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do disdain and impoverish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) took a stand against the illegal excesses of the Bush administration today. Thank God.

While our Senator Klobuchar was putting forward her Cell Phone bill (the "Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act") - which would bring the law into the '90s in terms of technology (there's nothing remotely up-to-date or forward thinking in this bill) and require more honesty and disclosure on the part of the telecommunications companies, but would do NOTHING to hold them responsible for breaking our laws - Chris Dodd said enough's enough.

Specifically, he said:

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

Gold Star for Senator Dodd . . . Klobuchar is still out to lunch on protecting our democracy; some nice soothing words to the lefty bloggers, but woefully short on action. Am I the only one that's aghast at her telecommunications effort? It's like chastising a mugger for j-walking from the scene. Where's the outrage? What's the problem with our Reps?!?

Senator Klobuchar, how about a little "empowerment" for the CITIZENS in your constituency?

Support Senator Dodd in his singular effort to stop the madness.

It seems the Senators are back from their August vacation.

MN Senator Klobuchar took . . . oh, about 5-minutes I'd guess, to repackage her press response into a form-email reply to all the outraged constituents that wrote to her regarding her shameful FISA vote.

A couple-three things struck me about the email.

First, she repeats the Administration's contrived threat in the email; namely, "if you don't pass the White House version of the FISA amendment, we'll blame any terrorist action on your failure to allow us to do our job." Klobuchar's (and by extension - though I know there are many exceptions - the Democratic leadership's) capitulation to this browbeating Executive stunt is - I'll say it again - shameful.

Second, she suggests there's a "balance" to be struck between "supporting civil rights" and "protecting safety." This is an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Genuine security experts like Bruce Schneier have long been pointing out that this is a false trade-off. In truth, if Senator Klobuchar had any genuine concern for "protecting our civil rights" she never, ever would've voted for this bill. Period. Her actions reek of equivocation and political expediency, NOT respect for civil rights or the rule of law more generally.

Third - and this is just plain bizarre - she's tacked on a little paragraph taking some credit for driving Gonzales from the DOJ. Truly, she began calling for his resignation in mid-March 2007. But that's nothing like the in-the-trenches work done by the likes of Senator Schumer (D-NY). His was a years-long struggle to bring Gonzales' atrocities to light and subject it to public and legal scrutiny. In the political scheme of things, Klobuchar's contributions were more "jump-on-the-band-wagon" than "gutsy-call-for-change." She did some good work, particularly defending the U.S. Attorney for MN, Tom Heffelfinger. But nothing that warrants crowing about it at the bottom of an email defending her FISA capitulation. I don't know Sen. Schumer personally. Nevertheless, it's plain to me that Amy Klobucher is NO Chuck Schumer . . . not even close. To my mind, trumpeting the Gonzales resignation at the end of her FISA reply merely demonstrates a lack of confidence in her excuses more than anything else. It is, at the end of the day, an incredibly weak justification . . . and I think she knows it.

Finally, I want to reiterate that characterizing the FISA bill as an "extension," as our representatives and (following their lead) the press have done, is a misrepresentation of the bill. It is NOT a mere extension.

In sum: I'm not impressed, Sen. Klobuchar. It's a poor effort. I expect better from my representative and if your re-election were held this November, I'd be working HARD to find an alternative candidate I could back.

You've let us (your constituents) down.

As promised, here's the content of her email:

Dear Mischa:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

You should first know that the FISA bill which passed both the House and Senate a few weeks ago is a temporary measure -- an interim fix extending for the next six months. I would have preferred the version offered by Senator Carl Levin, which I voted for. Unfortunately, that version did not pass, and I voted for the extension on a temporary basis only, because I couldn't allow there to be a gap in our intelligence gathering activity - our safety depends on our ability to continue tracking terrorist networks.

Please know that I will actively work during this temporary six month extension to ensure any permanent FISA extension strikes the right balance between protecting our safety and protecting our civil rights.

The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales is the first step in achieving that balance, and I hope that his departure lifts the cloud that has lingered over the Justice Department. He leaves a legacy of justice tarnished. I was among the first to call for his resignation, and I am hopeful that a new Attorney General will be a more independent voice for the people and uphold the principles of law and justice in this country.

Thank you again for your input, and please don’t hesitate to contact me again regarding this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator

If you don't like the fact that Sen. Klobuchar supported this atrocious bill in the first place, you're going to be over-the-top outraged at her pathetic and mealymouthed justification for the vote. In a statement provided to the tcdailyplanet, Klobuchar said:

The bill approved by the House and Senate this week provides a temporary six month extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While I supported the extension as a temporary measure, I remain concerned about whether there are adequate safeguards in the bill, and will work with my colleagues to address these concerns in the next six months while we enact a permanent extension of FISA.

While it's true that the FISA amendment contains a 6-month sunset provision, the bill Senator Klobuchar voted for "provides" a whole lot more than a mere "extension" of FISA. It's a major revision and amendment of the Act drafted by the White House to legalize their surveillance activities. Focusing her justification on the sunset provision is disingenuous, as there was no pressing need to "extend" FISA (either temporarily or "permanently") - as though FISA were expiring in some fashion, as her statement implies.

The truth of the matter lies in the simple fact that the Administration A) doesn't want to be subject to the judicial oversight required by the unamended FISA legislation and B) a FISA court judge ruled that the existing surveillance program was illegal; in response to which the Administration worked to change NOT ITS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, but rather the law that made it illegal - with the willing support of Senator Klobuchar.

On the bright side, I think the surveillance program may still be suceptible to challenge on Constitutional grounds - the UCLA v NSA case was done-in on appeal for lack of standing (damn FRCP! - I jest, the FRCP are great and good) but appeared to have traction on First and Fourth Amendment grounds (would a Separation of Powers argument still work? I don't know; though, with Klobuchar et al. kicking it for the Administration in the House and Senate why bother with separating powers . . . they're already consolidated in the legislative White House). The question here is, how on earth can a Constitutional case get it's foot in the door?!? Perhaps by suing an accomplice in the telecommunications industry (like . . . I don't know . . . AT&T) . . . good luck in the 9th Circuit EFF!!