Bam!

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, postponed a press conference announcing new reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after progressive lawmakers banded together and said they would fight any legislation that did not include a set of eight principles on wiretapping that preserve the “rule of law.”

“What's most significant is that the Progressive Caucus came together and said to the leadership that all 72 of us require that these provisions be included,” said Caroline Fredercikson, Legislative Director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “This changes the dynamic significantly.”

Not sure what the bill was going to say, but all the scuttlebutt was bad indeed. Stoller framed it as another capitulation on civil liberties proposed by #2 House Dem Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel designed to protect vulnerable freshman by passing something they didn't want (I suppose with an inferred “you'll thank me for this someday” subtext). Whether the caucus really sank this or not is an open question, but I choose to believe it's the case – if for no other reason than if enough people believe it, it grants the P-Caucus a bit more clout. The text of the letter (again via HuffPo) after the jump.

This, along with the other good news that Welch is the hardest working freshman in the House, leaves him with a mixed grade for the last two weeks after disappointing votes on Iran and the MoveOn kerfuffle. The dude does keep us guessing.

Progressive Caucus Official Position and Fundamental Principles Governing FISA Reform, as adopted

October 3, 2007

We, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fully recognizing we live in a dangerous world but proud of, and deeply committed to, the values that have made the United States an exemplar for the world, affirm the following principles to guide consideration over the debate regarding surveillance of foreign intelligence. We hold that these principles represent the pillars by which America gives no quarter to terrorists who would do our country harm, while at the same time ensuring fidelity to the distinctively American commitment to the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and separation of powers.

1. It should be the policy of the United States that the objective of any authorized program of foreign intelligence surveillance must be to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but makes terrorists throughout the world feel insecure.

2. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress, the exclusivity of FISA was unambiguous. Legislation must reiterate current law that FISA is the exclusive means to authorize foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil.

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be modernized to accommodate new technologies and to make clear that foreign to foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.

4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.

5. Congress must have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected and the authority to require court orders when it becomes clear that a certain program or surveillance of a target is scooping up communications of U.S. persons.

6. Once the government has reason to believe that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons' communications.

7. Congress should not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual for helping the NSA spy illegally on innocent Americans. The availability of amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

8. Authorization to conduct foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The threats to America's security and the liberties of its people will change over time and require constant vigilance by the people's representatives in Congress.

Ah, never a dull moment at ol' GMD, where no freewheeling debate about Presidential candidates goes unpunished. It occurs to me that perhaps it's time to channel some of that anxiety into yet another poll!

That's right, it's been many months since our first straight-up presidential preference poll. Oh sure, we've had a few modified polls, such as the “vote for everyone you could stand to vote for in the General” poll, but I don't think we've had a straight up preference poll since waaaay back in early aught-six, when Russ Feingold was the choice out of the 40 or so votes cast.

Well, after taking a moment to read this wondrous diary from Hunter at dKos, come on back and vote to make your candidate the official (for now) Vermont Netroots pick in the Democratic primary for president! Yesiree, we'll keep this poll up for a week, so time to turn all that frustrated energy into emailing your fellow candidate-supporters to get on over here and vote fer yer guy or gal. Remember – sadly, only registered users can vote, so sign up and freep that poll, folks (and consider this an open thread).

Just a quick note to let people know about a new blog called Welcome Campground. It's about the environment, environmental politics, and the life of an unusually aware and thoughtful college student in Missoula, Montana.

 Oh yeah, and if he looks familiar, that's my son Adam. 

Just a quick note to let people know about a new blog I learned about last night. It discusses the environment, environmental politics, and the life of an unusually aware and thoughtful college student in Missoula, Montana.

 Oh yeah, and it's my son's blog. Go over there and check it out.

Douglas stands behind the president

October 5, 2007
 

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

    MONTPELIER – When it comes to President Bush, Gov. James Douglas remains a steadfast supporter, despite policy disagreements.

Douglas has recently criticized the president for several recent decisions by his administration that may cost Vermont money, and Douglas knows that Bush does not have much support in Vermont. But he defended Bush at his weekly press conference Thursday.

Reading the Brattleboro Reformer’s article on the Nude Demonstration in Brattleboro today produced some cognitive dissonance. For example…

“There are so many alternatives that are readily available,” Anderson opined, her sun block glistening under the hot, afternoon sun.

“Her sun block glistening?” Really? Why do I think the author was channeling an adult magazine when he wrote this? Here’s more:

As the hour wore on, the crowds of spectators snapping pictures with cameras and cell phones dispersed. But Gorman and Frechette stuck to their detail and fiddled briefly with Frechette’s personal digital camera.



Gorman hastened to point out they had not yet taken any pictures and were carrying the camera just in case they needed it to gather evidence.



When asked why they were using a personal device, not a department-issued camera, Gorman said, “If we’ve got a big camera, people are going to think we’re a bunch of police perverts.”

Right. So, instead, you make sure you use your personal camera for this? Okay… And how about all the townsfolk with cameras who were there? I wonder what they were trying to get pictures of.


Anyway, the creepiest moment in the story was this:

Board member Dick DeGray, who supports a nudity ban, showed up briefly before the protesters disrobed and said, “They’re exploiting our town for personal gain.”

It’s not inherently creepy. It’s creepy because I had to reread it, as I first read it like this:

Board member Dick DeGray, who supports a nudity ban, showed up briefly before the protesters, disrobed, and said, “They’re exploiting our town for personal gain.”

Stories like this give me a headache, which I felt compelled to share with all of you.

You may not have noticed, but this is Banned Books Week. It's the week that the American Library Association celebrates the commitment of libraries across the country to free thought and free speech. They are doing a display at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library, so you can visit the finest public library in Vermont and see the kinds of things that have been suppressed at various places across the country and around the world.

As vicious as these book-burners and censors are, one of the things that always interests me about Banned Books Week is the absurdities, like the banning of one of the Where's Waldo books because one of the pictures of one of the tiny people on the beach is of a topless sunbather. I stopped by the Library yesterday and I was looking at the collection, and I saw that one of the banned books was Froggy Went A-Courtin', which was placed in a restricted area because of Froggy's  nefarious activities, including burning money and speeding away from  the cat police.

So what does that have to do with us, and politics in Vermont?

Well, the thing is that we observe Banned Books Week because we think we know better. We're the people standing up to the censors. That's what we do. At least, that's what we're supposed to do. And we have to do it even if the speech we have to defend is offensive, or just kind of silly.

That's what I think of Move-On's Petraeus/Betray-us ad. I think it was stupid for them to do something like this, and it changed the focus from the substance of their criticisms, all of which were true, to whether they were acting in bad taste by making fun of the guy's name. The Republicans capitalized on it, but Move-On handed them the opportunity.

But still, what the hell is Peter Welch doing voting for the resolution condemning this ad?

The resolution probably didn't violate the First Amendment, since it wasn't a law abridging the freedom of speech. On the other hand, it comes in a category of issues, like appointing a poet laureate, that seem generally offensive to the spirit of the First Amendment because it establishes official government approval or disapproval of the content of artistic or political speech.

Odum's right–it's bad when our people are the ones getting attacked, but it's just as bad when the government is deciding to singe out the other side as a disfavored political speaker. 

But in addition to that, passing the resolution did nothing–absolutely nothing–to deflect the Republican attack on Move-On and the entire antiwar movement. It did just the opposite. It weakened our friends and strengthened our enemies, and the Representative that the readers of this blog helped to elect shouldn't have helped the Republicans do it.

Well, then… no sooner do I write that post taking Obama to task for lots of talk and little action, and lo and behold, he actually does something besides give nice speeches. He just blocked the nomination for a new FEC head, the ominously named Hans von Spakovsky. Hat tip to the Senator for standing up.

Derailed FEC head nominee Hans Von Spakovsky had this to say – O-baa-maaa!

Brad Blog has the details, Obama's statement: 

“His record of poor management, divisiveness, and inappropriate partisanship makes him an unacceptable nominee to the FEC,” Obama had previously said. “I am particularly concerned with his efforts to undermine voting rights at the Civil Rights Division during his tenure at the Department of Justice.”

Apparently Obama threw a wrench in the works of Harry Reid's deal with  Mitch McConnell that would have allowed four nominees through the Senate on a voice vote. I mean, c'mon, really, Harry, why are you making this easier for the GOP when you should be kicking their teeth in right now? And Barack, was that really so hard? Now if you could just show that same kind of backbone on the war, you might start winning over some of us skeptics. 

Also, more on this at TPM and Roll Call.