A sign of the times

As a new American, I feel I can ask this question, is this the American we want to live in? This person was ticketed for trespassing on government property because of a sign in her hand. Aside from the very legitimate question she asks at the end of the video, a better question occurs to me: doesn't the first amendment protect things like this?

Thank You Senator Dodd

Image via WikipediaA while ago, I gave money to Senator Chris Dodd. It was, and remains, the only time I've ever given money to a politician that wasn't my mum.

I gave him money because he stood up and said enough. It's alleged that for five years (beginning before 9.11), major telecom companies like our former cell phone provider Verizon spied on Americans. Again, it's alleged.

For the last couple of years, instead of letting the courts sort out whether or not phone companies did spy on Americans at the request of the President, the President has sought to give them retroactive immunity. In their argument for immunity, they often suggest that nobody did anything wrong, but they still want immunity anyway.

Anyway, Senator Dodd, during his run for President, stood up and said enough. So i gave him some money. Well, it appears that the democratic majority in the house of representatives habven't had enough. They passed a bill that gives telecoms immunity.

(Side note: I was so frustrated with this mess that I left Verizon for CREDO. I am but one person, but when the woman on the phone asked me why I was leaving Verizon, I told her because of FISA and immunity, and she never said another word. Check out CREDO if you can.)

Anyway, this is a link to the speech Dodd gave last night. Early in the week I sent him an e-mail asking him to do this. I suspect many people did. Well, he did it.

If you want to understand what's at stake, watch it. This isn't a guy running for President anymore. This isn't a guy grandstanding. This is a Senator standing up for the constitution.

This is about time.

Related articles

• Ask your Senators to filibuster the warrantless spying/telecom immunity bill [via Zemanta]
• FISA still up in the air in the Senate [via Zemanta]

Dueling quotes

"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker…. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another."
--Robert M. La Follette

John McCain quotes:

September 2002: "Success in Iraq will be fairly easy."

March 20, 2003: “But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.”

April 9, 2003: “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.”

April 23, 2003: “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.”

December 12, 2003: “This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.”

March 7, 2004: “I’m confident we’re on the right course.”

October 31, 2004: "I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.”

December 8, 2005: “I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.”

January 4, 2007: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that he knew the Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough,” and that he was “sorry” for those who voted for the war believing it would be “some kind of an easy task.”

August 18, 2007: It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.

January 4, 2008: We'll stay 100 years.

January 4, 2008 (later): Make it a thousand, no... A MILLION!

May 15, 2008: Okay, okay, make me President and we'll be leaving by 2013, when have I ever been wrong before?

May 27, 2008: "I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends, I will never surrender in Iraq." (to protesters demanding "End this War!") So ending the war means "surrender"...at least until 2013.

Link

Timeless interview

This is a great interview with a publication and the late Frank Sinatra.

Q:
All right, let's start with the most basic question there is: Are you a religious man? Do you believe in God?

Frank Sinatra:
Well, that'll do for openers. I think I can sum up my religious feelings in a couple of paragraphs. First: I believe in you and me. I'm like Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein in that I have a respect for life -- in any form. I believe in nature, in the birds, the sea, the sky, in everything I can see or that there is real evidence for. If these things are what you mean by God, then I believe in God. But I don't believe in a personal God to whom I look for comfort or for a natural on the next roll of the dice. I'm not unmindful of man's seeming need for faith; I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniel's. But to me religion is a deeply personal thing in which man and God go it alone together, without the witch doctor in the middle. The witch doctor tries to convince us that we have to ask God for help, to spell out to him what we need, even to bribe him with prayer or cash on the line. Well, I believe that God knows what each of us wants and needs. It's not necessary for us to make it to church on Sunday to reach Him. You can find Him anyplace. And if that sounds heretical, my source is pretty good: Matthew, Five to Seven, The Sermon on the Mount.

Q:
You haven't found any answers for yourself in organized religion?

Sinatra:
There are things about organized religion which I resent. Christ is revered as the Prince of Peace, but more blood has been shed in His name than any other figure in history. You show me one step forward in the name of religion and I'll show you a hundred retrogressions. Remember, they were men of God who destroyed the educational treasures at Alexandria, who perpetrated the Inquisition in Spain, who burned the witches at Salem. Over 25,000 organized religions flourish on this planet, but the followers of each think all the others are miserably misguided and probably evil as well. In India they worship white cows, monkeys and a dip in the Ganges. The Moslems accept slavery and prepare for Allah, who promises wine and revirginated women. And witch doctors aren't just in Africa. If you look in the L.A. papers of a Sunday morning, you'll see the local variety advertising their wares like suits with two pairs of pants.

Q: Hasn't religious faith just as often served as a civilizing influence?
Sinatra:
Remember that leering, cursing lynch mob in Little Rock reviling a meek, innocent little 12-year-old Negro girl as she tried to enroll in public school? Weren't they -- or most of them -- devout churchgoers? I detest the two-faced who pretend liberality but are practiced bigots in their own mean little spheres. I didn't tell my daughter whom to marry, but I'd have broken her back if she had had big eyes for a bigot. As I see it, man is a product of his conditioning, and the social forces which mold his morality and conduct -- including racial prejudice -- are influenced more by material things like food and economic necessities than by the fear and awe and bigotry generated by the high priests of commercialized superstition. Now don't get me wrong. I'm for decency -- period. I'm for anything and everything that bodes love and consideration for my fellow man. But when lip service to some mysterious deity permits bestiality on Wednesday and absolution on Sunday -- cash me out.

Q:
But aren't such spiritual hypocrites in a minority? Aren't most Americans fairly consistent in their conduct within the precepts of religious doctrine?

Sinatra:
I've got no quarrel with men of decency at any level. But I can't believe that decency stems only from religion. And I can't help wondering how many public figures make avowals of religious faith to maintain an aura of respectability. Our civilization, such as it is, was shaped by religion, and the men who aspire to public office anyplace in the free world must make obeisance to God or risk immediate opprobrium. Our press accurately reflects the religious nature of our society, but you'll notice that it also carries the articles and advertisements of astrology and hokey Elmer Gantry revivalists. We in America pride ourselves on freedom of the press, but every day I see, and so do you, this kind of dishonesty and distortion not only in this area but in reporting -- about guys like me, for instance, which is of minor importance except to me; but also in reporting world news. How can a free people make decisions without facts? If the press reports world news as they report about me, we're in trouble.

This was from an interview in 1963 in Playboy magazine, back when people really did read it for the articles.

Now that I'm a citizen, this is good news

A reporter on the campaign trail asked John McCain about torturing terrorism detainees. here's his response:

"I’ve made it very clear, I’ve made it very clear in my statements and in my support of the Detainee Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions, etc., that there may be some additional techniques to be used, but none of those would violate the Geneva Conventions, the Detainee Treatment Act…And we cannot ever, in my view, torture any American, that includes waterboarding."

My first thought, good thing I got my US citizenship. Because doesn't he seem to be saying that everyone else is fair game to be tortured?

Or did he simply misspeak.

A letter from Chuck

I write to senators and congressmen a lot. Only two have written back. I once wrote to Senator Inhofe telling him to start taking global warming seriously. His response was to say that since China didn't, then why should we.

A sitting US Senator essentially used the grade school kid excuse of "he did it too" in his response to me. Well, at least he responded. But since Senator Inhofe is from Oklahoma, and I'm now a voting citizen of the State of New York, it matters more to me that Senator Schumer has responded to an e-mail I sent him about FISA.

I basically asked Chuck to not allow retroactive immunity to telecoms. His response:

Dear Mr. Hames:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the Senate bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I share your concerns about expanding wiretapping authority without providing adequate safeguards as well as granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies.

With the rise of mobile phones and other technological changes, there is widespread agreement within the intelligence community that FISA needs to be updated. I believe that we must give the intelligence community the tools necessary to protect our country. However, I also believe that the rules for intelligence collection must be clear and fair, and that we need independent oversight to ensure that these rules are not abused. This is why I voted in favor of several amendments that would have improved the FISA Amendments Act by clarifying surveillance rules, adding better safeguards, and requiring more independent oversight. Unfortunately, these amendments failed.

I also think that it would be unwise to grant blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies facing lawsuits based on their alleged assistance with government surveillance. I have reviewed classified information pertinent to the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, and have consistently opposed retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. I voted against granting immunity both in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I believe that it should be up to the courts, not Congress, to decide whether any telecommunications company that assisted the government was acting legally. The existing lawsuits raise serious constitutional questions, and our federal courts are traditionally the final arbiters of such questions. If Congress steps in to grant immunity now, the country may never know whether President Bush overstepped his authority. If the courts are allowed to exercise their judgment, we will be better prepared to resolve similar controversies in the future.

I could not in good conscience support the final Senate version of the FISA Amendments Act. It would grant blanket retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and give the government new surveillance authorities without adequate safeguards. Nevertheless, the bill passed the Senate and is currently in conference to negotiate the differences between the House and Senate versions. It is my hope that Congress and the President will soon agree on a responsible compromise measure that provides new tools for our intelligence community along with robust privacy protections and independent court oversight.

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

I added the bolded link that points out that FISA has been updated 50 times since it was enacted, so I'm not sure what he means about updating FISA.

But more to the point, this is where it's come to. From his letter: "I believe that it should be up to the courts, not Congress, to decide whether any telecommunications company that assisted the government was acting legally."

The three equal branches of government isn't something we should believe in, is it?

Congress makes laws, the President signs them in, and the judiciary adjudicates them. Congress can change laws, but it should not step in and retroactively change them before they come in front of the courts.

And that's really what retroactive immunity means. It means that before the courts rule on whether telecoms broke the law, congress would change it. That would negate the role of the third co-equal branch of government. I'm glad that Senator Schumer believes this is the right course, but that it's come to this is a testament of the times we live in.

Matt Taibbi on you and I

Matt Taibbi started the Buffalo beast and then bolted from Buffalo. Too bad. But we can still read his articles, and still think for a few minutes, we had him all to ourselves.

Check this out. This is the American electorate, Generation Squeeb.

On the eve of another war

This is all about Politics. But it's important. And it's about Autumn, so I'm throwing in pictures of her.

For a number of reasons, I happen to think the US will engage in a conflict with Iran this year. And as 5 years of this war in iraq passes, with the 'troop and treasure' losses more staggering than is imaginable, we find ourselves in a most frustrating place.

Namely: The American people seem to overwhelmingly want the War in Iraq to end. Whereas, the Bush Administration seems bent on escalating the war to include Iran.


It's a baffling situation. But I guess this is the thing: if it's true Americans don't want war in Iraq (and some of them didn't want war in Afghanistan), then surely they mustn't want War in Iran.

But alas, the problem is, when the US went to war in Iraq, it appeared the majority of Americans wanted it. I remember sitting on a couch talking to someone I would call a pacifist poet, listening to her tell me what a monster Saddam Hussein was.

The thing is, he was a monster. And I was arguing to let him stay in power. So I found myself in the impossible position of explaining that even though he was a monster, it was not reason to justify war. It was a position that seemed perilously close to defending him.

It wasn't. It was a position that says there are monsters all over the world (including perhaps, in Iran). But the important question is this: is it America's responsibility to cleanse the world of monsters?


And another question emerged: was attention was being paid to this monster because of oil and anger? The administration cared about oil -- that isn't a conspiracy theory. When they invaded, they shored up the oil fields and left the Museums and Hospitals open and subject to looting.


The anger was from the American people. The events of 911 were still fresh in their minds. Thus, you get this, a well thought out response, five years after, to people who switched.

"People who supported the invasion of Iraq were fatuous, bloodthirsty, ahistorical, immoral, politically naive, callous, unthinking, reprehensible morons--to the man. The proper attitude is contrition, silence, and contemplation. Making a gaudy spectacle of having "supported" something so awful, even if only to show how smart you were to change your mind when you noticed things going south, is disgusting."

So here we are. Five years into a war we don't want. Six years into a war that we have forgotten. And possibly on the eve of another war.

And the question is, what to do? Will Autumn's life really be one lived in a perpetual war that she will spend her life paying for?

Uh oh

I haven't talked a lot about politics lately. Like the Main Stream Press, the war in Iraq has gone off the front pages. what has also gone off the front pages is the possible strike on Iran.

With nukes.

This month has been bad for those who hope beyond hope that President Bush will not invade, attack, or otherwise bomb Iran before he gets out of office.

First, the guy who was most against war with Iran 'retired'. Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has decided to retire early. He had gone on the record as saying there would be no war with Iran on his watch. In his retirement announcement he said:

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the President's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region,"

Uh oh.

Next, a Saudi newspaper reports that Saudi Arabia is preparing for nuclear fall out. Saudi Arabia is very close to Iran in terms of geography. And since the papers are government controlled, this is most likely a tactic of some sort. It didn't get picked up by the mainstream press here. Oh, and the Saudi preparation came after the Vepp paid them a visit.

Double uh oh.

And finally this:

"Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets."

To recap: The guy in the army who said we wouldn't bomb Iran on his watch has left the building. Saudi Arabia is preparing for nuclear fall-out. The guy leading the troops in Iraq has just blamed Iran for an attack in Iraq.

That's the kind of stuff that gets one thinking the USA is about to nuke another country. Crikey, we're buggered.

This election year

This is going to be a really interesting election year, I think. This is a massive generalization, but I think that creative people tend to be democrats and more business-like people are republicans.

In other words, Democrats are content creators and Republicans are content producers. Thus, we get a meme that the press is liberal, when the press is a huge corporation that is most definitely not liberal. So the new York Times, a huge corporation that owns more than just the times, can be both a left wing paper and one of the biggest cheerleaders for the War in Iraq at the same time.

All that I just wrote is arguable, but this is my point. Democrats as content creators no longer need the okay of large businesses to run their content. in this new media era, people can throw down a slick video and let the internet spread it.

Thus:



And the great part is, we're going to see a lot more people do this in the coming months. Especially when all the content created will be for one candidate, whoever he or she is.

Will this be the choice?

This is will.i.am and gang doing Barack Obama.



This is the same gang doing John McCain.



Keep in mind, this is a conversation going on in a place that didn't exist in the last election. It exists now, and when you see these two videos, it shows you the difference, but also the power of this medium. Especially back to back.

FISA, America, a snuggly bear

This is great. It's all about FISA. It's all about America. Told to you by a snuggly bear.

The rule of law

We're at the point in Autumn's life where we have to begin to set down rules. Call it the rule of law. She's not allowed to dance on the table. She's not allowed to pick up the phone. She can't get everything she wants.

Admittedly, it's awfully cute to watch her dance on the table, but we can't allow it. There needs to be rules. And consequences. Meltdowns be damned.

At least, that's the theory. Only yesterday, the Senate of this country gave retroactive immunity to telecom companies who broke the law. It's not even open for debate that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint broke the law. You don't give retroactive immunity to someone who's innocent. Thus, it's all in the framing of the immunity. The President calls them Patriotic companies because they helped him fight terror. The problem with that is simple: if you believe what they did was good and right, then there should be no need to grant them immunity.

And yet, immunity was granted.

People reading this might think this is an incredible stretch to make. Us telling Autumn no and then holding her to a no doesn't compare to the delicate action of the government, whose role it is to enforce the laws of the land.

Perhaps it's a stretch. But I've been thinking a lot about the rule of law in this country, and at the same time, we're making attempts at setting down rules for Autumn. The blog was always meant to talk about Autumn's life in context with what's going on in the rest of the world.

The state of the 4th amendment

Tonight is not just the State of the Union. It’s the state of the 4th amendment. We almost lost it today. And, to break party ranks for a minute, every single Republican (except Arlen Specter) is for this, along with Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid. Senator’s Clinton and Obama are also for it, but will actually leave the campaign trail to vote for a filibuster in which Senator Chris Dodd (keep reading for a thank-you video) is Filibustering a bill written by a Democrat and endorsed by the Democratic leader the aforementioned Harry Reid.

Thus, to recap. Jay Rockefeller and Dick Cheney’s office wrote a bill that squashes the 4th amendment to the constitution that they all swore to uphold when they got into office.

Not just that, but Rockefeller wrote into the bill amnesty to the phone companies that have been secretly helping them break the 4th amendment.

It gets better. Guess who are the two leading democratic recipients of contributions from phone companies? If you said Jay Rockefeller and Hillary Clinton, you’re right! Note: ALL Republican senators are for this already — they already got paid off.

But, as the State of the Union comes off, it will be the top of the news cycle. So there's nothing to see here. Just a Senate that’s about to squash the 4th amendment, and offer immunity to companies that pay them off. They need immunity because they broke the law when Bush told them to.

As Glenn Greenwald writes

Of all the creepy post-9/11 phrases to which we've been subjected ("The Patriot Act" - "Protecting the Homeland" - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "Department of Homeland Security"), I think the creepiest and most Orwellian is the phrase "good patriotic corporate citizen," used to describe companies which broke our laws because the President told them to. It's now apparently a Patriotic Duty to obey the President even if he tells you to violate the law. The accompanying claim that companies should never "second-guess" the "judgment of the President regarding what's legal" -- which I just heard from John Cornyn and Saxby Chambliss -- is equally creepy, and is the crux of the authoritarian case for telecom immunity.

So much for a nation of laws.

That’s the state of the union. Last year, Habeas Corpus. This year, the 4th amendment. Enjoy the speech. BTW, this is the thank-you to Chris Dodd for getting us even this far.

An endorsement for a person who can speak

This is the end of Obama's speak from last night. Holy crap, we're due a person who can speak like this:

"This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long; when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who have never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so," Obama said. "This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

"Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.

"It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.

"Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar Rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill. A young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

"Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq. Who still goes to bed each night praying for his safe return.

"Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire. What led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. What led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause.

"Hope -- hope is what led me here today. With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.

"Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

"That is what we started here in Iowa and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond.

"The same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can save this country, brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand -- that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

"Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

15 billion a month

$15,000,000,000.00

Take a look at that number. That's how much a Senator thinks the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ('member that one?) is costing. The senator in this clip is a Republican from Alaska. When a Republican speaks like this, you know the excrement has hit the fan.



Remember those quant days when guys like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraqi oil would all but pay for the war?

Torturous logic

Been away for a few days curling. Didn't even check e-mail. I just saw this from ALAN DERSHOWITZ, who writes in the Wall Street Journal an article called "Democrats and Waterboarding" with a subhead: The party will lose the presidential race if it defines itself as soft on terror.

Right off the bat, something interesting. Since we know that Democrats are the party on record against waterboarding, that means that being 'soft on terror' appears to mean not torturing.

Also, in Dershowitz's world, Republicans appear to be okay with torture, specifically waterboarding. Now, that might seem like a logical fallacy for me to make that leap. Just because he says that being against torture means being soft on terror, and we all know that Republicans aren't soft on terror, so they must be for torture.

But then, in the article, he makes two incredible statements:

Copied verbatim:

"Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president--indeed any leader of a democratic nation--would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack. The only dispute is whether he would do so openly with accountability or secretly with deniability. The former seems more consistent with democratic theory, the latter with typical political hypocrisy."

Emphasis mine. So, he's advocating that Democrats should be for something that he's personally against. Perhaps it's this bizarre position that gets him tied up in rhetorical knots because the very next paragraph in the piece goes like this:

"There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works--it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives."

To recap his argument: I, Alan Dershowitz am advocating that Democrats follow the policy of the Nazi government which proved that torture (which I am against) works.

The shorter version: "Hey Democrats, why are you against something that was good enough for Hitler?"

Holy crap, that's gotta be the weirdest argument in the history of arguments.

War in Iran countdown

If there's a war with Iran, France is in!

"[President Nicolas Sarkozy] received a standing ovation during the first address by a French president to both houses in more than a decade."

Freedom Fries are off the menu. Congress is back to serving French Fries and wars in the middle east.

Pot/Kettle black

Dana Perino is the White House Press Secretary. She speaks for the president:

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

Look: it's possible that the things the Bush Administration are doing to chip away at American's freedoms are in fact going to protect us. Perhaps the ability to listen to our calls, hold us indefinitely without charge, rifle through our e-mails will ensure the safety of all of us.

But to suggest so boldly that these things fit the Constitution? Either Ms. Perino hasn't been paying attention, or she really does think what her boss is doing is constitutional. Take a look:

First Amendment: In September, a federal judge ruled that the FBI’s use of secret “national security letters” to obtain citizens’ personal data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations “violate[d] the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers.”

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment: In Aug. 2006, a federal district court in Detroit ruled that the Bush administration's NSA warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, violating the “separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.”

Article I: Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempted to justify the administration’s detainee policy by claiming, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”)

Article II: In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order order designed to safeguard classified national security information by claiming that he was not an “entity within the executive branch.”

It's about time: politics

From a speech on the senate floor this morning, this is proof that my $25 was well-spent on Senator Dodd.

Mr. President, for six years, this President has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn’t respect the role of Congress nor does he respect the rule of law.

Every six years as United States Senators we take the oath office to uphold the Constitution. Our colleagues on the House side take that oath every two years. That is important.

For six years this President has used scare tactics to prevent the Congress from reining in his abuse of authority. A case and point is the current direction this body appears to be headed as we prepare to reform and extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Many of the unprecedented rollbacks to the rule of law by this Administration have been made in the name of national security.

The Bush Administration has relentlessly focused our nation’s resources and manpower on a war of choice in Iraq. That ill conceived war has broken our military, squandered resources and emboldened our enemies.

The President’s wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq and has made our nation less secure and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated in the world.

Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib – where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane and humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them.

Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the nation, the prisons at Guantanamo Bay have instead become the very symbol for our weakened moral standing in the world.

Consider the secret prisons run by the CIA and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture.

Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions – who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than the laws he had sworn to uphold.

And consider, of course, the Military Commissions Act – a law that allows evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence.

It denies individuals the right to counsel.

It denies them the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions.

And it denies them the single most important and effective safeguard of liberty man has known – the right of habeas corpus, permitting prisoners to be brought before a court to determine whether their detainment is lawful.

Warrantless wiretapping, torture – the list goes on.

Each of these policies share two things in common.

First, they have weakened our ability to prosecute the global war on terrorism – if for no other reason than they have made it harder, if not impossible, to build the international support and cooperation we need to fight it.

And second, each has only been possible because Congress has not been able to stop this President’s unprecedented expansion of executive power, although some in this body have tried.

Whether or not these policies were explicitly authorized is beside the point. In every instance, Congress has been unable to hold this Administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. In each instance, Republicans in the Congress have prevented this body from telling this Administration that “a state of war is not a blank check.”

And those aren’t my words, Mr. President – those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who was nominated by Ronald Reagan.

And today, it appears that we are prepared to consider the proposed renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – a law that in whatever form it eventually takes will almost certainly permit the Bush Administration to broadly eavesdrop on American citizens.

Legislation, as currently drafted, that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped this Administration violate the civil liberties of Americans and the law of this country.

Mr. President while it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement on existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.

That is why I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed.

It is time to say “no more.”

No more trampling our Constitution.

No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.

These are our principles.

They have been around at least since the Magna Carta.

They are enduring.

What they are not is temporary. And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them.

My father was Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals during 1945 and 1946.

What America accomplished at those historic trials wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It took courage – when Stalin and even a leader as great and noble as Winston Churchill wanted to simply execute the Nazi leaders, we didn’t back down from our belief that these men—as terrible as they were—ought to have a trial.

We did not give in to vengeance.

As then, the issue before us today is the same.

Does America stand for all that is still right with our world? Or do we retreat in fear?

Do we stand for justice that secures America? Or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?

Mr. President, I am well aware that this issue is seen as political. I believe that Democrats were elected to strengthen the nation – elected to restore our standing in the world.

I believe we were elected to ensure that this nation adheres to the rule of law and to stop this Administration’s assault on the Constitution.

But the rule of law is not the provenance of any one political party – but of every American who has been safer because of it.

Mr. President, I know this bill hasn’t even been reported out of the Judiciary Committee yet.

But I am here today because if I have learned anything in my 26 years in this body—particularly during the last 7 years—it is that if you wait until the end to voice your concerns, you will have waited too long. That is why I have written to the Majority Leader informing him that I will object to any effort to bring this legislation to the Senate floor for consideration.

I hope that Senator Leahy is able to remove this language – he is a dear friend and I know his respect for the rule of law runs deep.

But if he cannot, I am prepared to filibuster this bill.

President Bush is right about one thing: this debate is about security. But not in the way he imagines.

He believes we have to give up certain rights to be safe.

I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice.

I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker.

The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was stunning. It changed the world forever.

But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple.

Mr. President, history will likely judge this President harshly for his war of choice and for fighting it with a disregard for our most cherished principles.

But history is about tomorrow. We must act today to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise to it.