Well, boo hoo for Sen. Betty Crocker on CIA snooping

Sen. Dianne Feinstein/Mother Jones file photo

I love how, now that it's her and other Congresscritters that have their balls in a vice and tits in a wringer, depending on sex, on federal agencies snooping on them, that Dianne Feinstein, as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is in high dudgeon. (As for the nickname? Long-standing joke of mine, based on older photos of her.)

Perhaps the CIA is doing stuff that's illegal. Perhaps not. 

On the actual Patriot Act, at least, I highly suspect that, in their rush to be "patriotic" 12-plus years ago, Members of Congress failed to exempt themselves from its provisions, although I'm not at high enough of a pay grade to wade through the whole damned thing right now to prove or disprove that.  Ditto on whether the CIA did anything criminal in the current snooping.

Second, Congresscritters, if you're dumb enough to presume that the CIA, on CIA computers, wouldn't snoop your computer usage? I have beachfront property in Langley, Va., to sell you.

Third, note to David Corn. We're not British, with a "traditional" unwritten constitution evolving over centuries. Given that courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular, as far as matters of precedent, which DO govern constitutional interpretation here in the USofA, whether or not there's a constitutional issue is arguable at best.

Fourth, I also "love" how Betty Crocker is also so worried about leaking. Hey, that's the national sport inside the Beltway, and you know it, because you've done your own fair share.

Fifth, given that Betty Crocker and other Congresscritters, any time some portion of our snooping has come under question from civil libertarians, have simply expanded the law, this is even "richer":

Feinstein said that the CIA appeared to have violated the Fourth Amendment barring unreasonable searches and seizures—and perhaps other federal laws and a presidential executive order prohibiting the CIA from domestic searches and surveillance.

Sorry, Betty, but that falls under the Patriot Act, too, I'm sure. The CIA is simply making sure you're safe.

Speaking of "expanding the law," remember that Dear Leader himself voted to do that in 2008, when he was still Senator Dear Leader. That would be our President Dear Leader, who's not helping Sen. Betty Crocker much.

Look, if you actually cared about anything beyond Congressional prerogatives, you'd have spoken out about illegal snooping, and spirit-of-illegal snooping, long ago. Ditto on the issue of torture, or, as you probably call it, "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are in the report the CIA won't green-light that lies behind all this.

So, don't worry, folks; Congress will soon exempt itself from all this that it hasn't already, and the outrage will die back down.

Hell, Corn, who knows all this himself, halfway admits it:

Overall, the system of congressional oversight has hardly (as far as the public can tell) been stellar.

As far as I'm concerned, if the NSA, at least, and possibly the CIA, are spying on the rest of us, they can spy on you too, Betty Crocker. 

If you really gave a damn, Sen. Betty Crocker, you'd care about the latest in Edward Snowden's ongoing revelations. But, since you called his leaking "an act of treason," we know you don't. So, yes, per him as well as per me, you're a big effing hypocrite. You're a hypocrite about the snooping and leaking both.

Dammit, California Democrats, get somebody to primary her. If not, Greens, get a credible challenger. Sadly, she was last re-elected in 2012, so, unless she dies off, we're stuck with four-plus years of her to remain.

And, as far as Corn? He's not hugely overrated, but I've found him moderately overrated for years as an investigative reporter on issues like these. (I Tweeted Corn to ask if he, too, has asked Snowden for comment.)

US more of a police state, thanks in part to Obama; #VoteGreen

I guess, courtesy in part of then-Senator Barack Obama's HUGE flip-flop in summer 2008, we've officially come more of a police state here in the US. The US Supreme Court has upheld telecom immunity in telco companies (except, honorably, Qwest) warrantless wiretapping/snooping on American citizens.

This is yet another reason I tell people to vote Green, that is, Jill Stein for President.

I already, before the end of 2007, had “seen through” Obama to some degree, but his 2008 flip-flop on telco immunity was something concrete and empirical I could have in Obamiacs’ faces. And now, sadly, this is something else empirical to wave in their faces.

At the same time, as I tell libertarians, Paultards (who won’t listen) and the Glenn Greenwalds and Conor Friedersdorfs of the world, I want economic freedom, too, freedom from big biz controlling the future of the country. And, Gary Johnson or whomever of a libertarian bent isn’t going to give me that.

Meanwhile, indirectly related to Obama, here’s yet another reason, again, not to vote for either Tweedledee or Tweedledum ... current incarnation, or future representatives of either Republicans or Democrats — the fallout from "outsourcing" military functions.

That’s right, if you work for any contractor, toughshit if you get hurt in a war zone. Tough shit.

Now for the people who make $100K for Blackwater become Xe and now renamed Academi (Erik Prince, Wikipedia and everybody else know who you still are) I don’t feel sorry. But a truck driver for Halliburton making half that? Or less? Absolutely, this is wrong.

Good news on FISA front

As Glenn Greenwald notes, an appeals court has said that plaintiffs in a suit the ACLU has brought against the U.S. government over warrantless telecommunications wiretapping have legal standing to sue the government.

Team Obama had been continuing the BushCo argument that the plaintiffs could not prove they themselves had been harmed by the snooping and that, due to the stase secretes executive privilege, they could not look at records to determine if this might be the case.

Well, now, just maybe, the state secrets bullshit can get blown up in court.

Maybe some Internet utopians can fill amicus briefs on behalf of poor, poor Team Obama, too.

Or, more seriously, maybe Wikileaks can have some new dumps, directly relevant to this, by the time this goes to SCOTUS because, without that, given the Supremes' deference to the executive branch, I'm afraid this will be overturned.

Stop eavesdropping, Obama!

Even the New York Times officially says "Stop it." It even compares the ideas surrounding warrantless wiretapping to the "double-secret probation" of "Animal House."

President Obama should read this court ruling with chagrin and eliminate warrantless spying. It is also far past time to stop hiding behind spurious, often ludicrous, claims of national security.

However, The One, perhaps as messianic on national security as Shrub but in a "cooler" way, will go on his self-assured path of knowing what's best for Americans in this area.

Mike Hayden still defends warrantless wiretaps

The former CIA and NSA head claims everything was legal and aboveboard.

Oh, let’s hope all levels of federal courts reject the immunity deal then-Senator Obama supported, so we can put Hayden on a witness stand.

Credit card companies, like telcos, helped snoop on America

That’s the word from former National Security Agency analyst, and current whistleblower, Russell Tice. Without saying he had hard evidence, he indicated that it’s his belief that credit card companies, like telecommunications companies, voluntarily gave the NSA access to their data after 9/11.

To get at what's really going on here, the CEOs of these telecom companies, and also of the banking and credit card companies and any other company where you have big databases, those are the people you have to haul in to Congress and tell them you better tell the truth. Because anyone in the government is going to claim executive privilege.

Is Obama listening? Is Eric Holder listening?

House Dems actually have backbone on telco immunity?

House Democratic leaders are prepared to say no to telecom immunity as part of FISA renewal with a much better alternative This bill would authorize trial judges in the suits already pending against AT&T et al to look at the actual evidence, thus legally throwing out BushCo’s “state secrets” claim, make a summary of their findings for plaintiffs, and continue to hear the suits from that point.

Here are key points:

The tentative proposal worked out by House Democratic leaders, officials said, has three main elements.

It would impose tougher restrictions on National Security Agency eavesdropping than the Senate version does by requiring court approval before the agency’s wiretapping procedures, instead of approval after the fact. It would also reject retroactive immunity for the phone carriers.

The proposal would also create a bipartisan Congressional commission with subpoena power to issue a report on the surveillance programs, including the one approved by Mr. Bush to monitor some Americans’ international communications without warrants.

The commission would seek to find out how the program was actually run. Some Democrats complain that even now, more than two years after the program was first publicly disclosed, many questions about its operations remain unanswered.

Theoretically, this is actually better for telecoms. They could, with all cards laid on the table, present as vigorous of a legal defense as they wanted. Or, once they knew for once and for all that the state secrets issue was dead, they could decide to accept the obvious, and then get down to the business of negotiating out-of-court settlements.

One thing the House bill does not have is federal indemnification of claims against telcos. And I agree that it shouldn’t.

First, the warrantless wiretapping started before 9/11. Second, not everybody did it. Once again, it is most relevant to mention Joseph Nacchio and Qwest.