Earth to Rockefeller. Come in, Rockefeller.

Regarding FISA, I've said it before:

Every time Congressional Dems actually slow down and take stock of the situation ... new revelations arise that should make all Americans who value our freedoms glad they did.

And I'll say it again. While Congressional Democrats have bought us yet more time to consider the folly of Jay Rockefeller's insane drive for Get Out of Jail Free cards for the telecoms, what has the world -- minus Rockefeller, apparently -- learned that should give us pause?

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Yes, that's right. We found out that -- gasp! -- the "administration" might very well be lying to us!

But not in Jay Rockefeller's world! No, siree! Everything's on the up-and-up there, even though he is occasionally moved to write secret letters to himself (Dick Cheney certainly wasn't reading them) hinting that he thinks something might be wrong.

Everything's hunky-dory, because Jay Rockefeller has had the help of the government in "studying" the situation:

Over the past year, the Senate intelligence committee has examined this issue, along with the need to bring the warrantless surveillance program within the law. We closely studied the facts, the documents and the alternatives to liability for the companies. Ultimately, we concluded that if we subject companies to lawsuits when doing so is patently unfair, we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense.

No doubt "the facts, the documents and the alternatives" were presented oh-so-much-more fairly and honestly than were the facts, documents and alternatives presented by the Paid Pentagon Pundits. Yes, the "administration" arranged for ex-generals to lie through their teeth on national television about the run up to war. But they'd never do that to a rich guy, right?

So everything's cool, America! Jay Rockefeller's looking out for you, and he's got trust in his heart.

Ain't he sweet?

•  So they admit they are breaking the law

  Over the past year, the Senate intelligence committee has examined this issue, along with the need to bring the warrantless surveillance program within the law

  Rather than changing the law to fit Administration demands, How about the Congress (who writes the laws) ENFORCE the Laws thay have passed already?

  Why do we even need a congress if the Administration can just do whatever they want anyway?

  by atlliberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM PDT

  •  Admit?? They admit NOTHING!

    The problem is, the only way the Legislative branch can compel the Executive branch to enforce the law is to impeach those not doing their job.

    The BUllSHit administration has decided that the President is the leader, and can do anything he wants.

    IOW: IOKIYARK

    (K = King)

    by MikeTheLiberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:46 PM PDT

    •  Why would you need to bring the program

      within the law if it wasn't currently ILLEGAL?

      by atlliberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM PDT

      •  You wouldn't

        But with this group, "legal" is such a vague word.

        I mean, any time someone comes in and says, "The Constitution is a G--dammed piece of paper" and isn't impeached, you know the people are not looking out for us.

        by MikeTheLiberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, to them...

          ...law is for suckers.  And Democrats.  But my Republican friends would say I was being redundant...

          by Ken in MN on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:09 PM PDT

      •  Unlawful isn't necessarily illegal.

        Unlawful just means that a particular function that a government agency wants to carry out hasn't been permitted in the law.  The "penalty" for collecting information in a manner that's not permitted is that it can't be used in a court of law.

        The issue here is that actions (collecting information) that are perfectly legal for the tellecommunications companies in the course of their business have not been permitted to the agents of government to access or have.  Another complication is that while taps were easy to place when copper wire was the standard by putting them along side cables that "leaked" the new fiber optics don't leak and the electrons move so fast, they're hard to catch without special equipment.  Putting taps at the nodes works a lot better.  Besides, it makes it possible to map the cyber traffic.

        To put it simply, the agents of government want to be able to use the telecommunications companies like snitches--you know, like Whitey Bulger.

        by hannah on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM PDT

        •  There is a law specifically preventing them

          from eavesdropping without a warrant.(It's the FISA law) Therefore if they DO wiretap without a warrant, they are breaking the law.

          by atlliberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM PDT

          •  First of all

            the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act specified the process for intercepting the communications of foreigners.  Though I'm not sure on what basis that distinction is Constitutional.  In-country communications can only be intercepted if they have a warrant--i.e. demonstrated probably cause to think a crime has occurred or is on-going.

            But, in any event, the only penalty that attaches to the failure to comply with the regulations is that the information won't be able to be used to prosecute a miscreant.  Government officials are presumed that their actions are lawful and in the public interest.  If they're proven not lawful, the officials are reprimanded or dismissed.

            Which is why you don't want crooks in public office to begin with.

            A law never prevents anything.

            by hannah on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:10:19 AM PDT

  •  But enforcing the laws

    would entail the revelation of classified information to the Congress and GWB has already said the information is too sensitive to be trusted to mere elected representatives.

    by entlord1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM PDT

    •  Then he should be removed from office

      by atlliberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:19 PM PDT

      •  I am still worried after January

        it will still take a squad of deputies to evict GWB. I am expecting Cheney to have his office building sandbagged and ringed with armor and artillary.

        by entlord1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM PDT

        •  Extra Iran War term?

          I don't even want to think of it, but little would shock me nowadays.

          by Skid on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:20:37 PM PDT

      •  who has the leadership to demand they be removed?

        To the 2 most obvious potential leaders currently auditioning, the four "Gang of 8" Democrats who are accessories to these crimes are mainly just one thing: Superdelegates.

        Hey, maybe McCain should do it!

        by Levity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM PDT

  •  Congress should be dissolved..they doo nuthing

    and consider all the salaries that could be put baak into the general fund...Since the congress critters are all rich or will be when done accepting lobby largess[Biribes], I might also recommend that they lose all of their benefits..Rockerfeller is a wuss, big time and always was much more like his rpublican uncle Nelson who died with his boots on..Rockerfeller aint a dem and aint a rethug he is a typical Oysters Rockerfeller rich blue blood and his grandaddy sucked the working men and women and their immigrant families dry..A blood sucker and the Rockerfeller Foundation can giva away all the charitable money they want but it wont wash away the years of sin and degradation they laid on the American working men..Wuss !

    by Johnny Rapture on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:08:49 PM PDT

    •  In this instance, doing nothing's fine.

      Problem is Jay's wants to PASS a statute authorizing further spying, and amnestying past.

      by ben masel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM PDT

    •  I Used To Think

      Jay Rockerfeller was one of the good guys.  Boy did I ever get disabused of that notion.  It looks like this apple didn't fall very far from the family tree.  I wish he weren't a Dem, then at least we could all see him for what he is.  How could a socially liberal, corporatist ever get elected in very poor, working class West Virginia???

      by opinionated on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM PDT

      •  M-U-N-E-Y ! Lots of it..! How bout some Oysters..

        by Johnny Rapture on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM PDT

•  Shorter Rock

  THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?

  by Mike S on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:20 PM PDT

  •  Reruns from last season.

    This is a tiresome script.

    by boran2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM PDT

•  The real question is,

  Why aren't more people OUTRAGED? Why do they not care that the Bush administration believes they can do anything they want with no oversight? Why are we not outraged that the congress is allowing it?

  by atlliberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:07 PM PDT

  •  the same reason the treatment of the detainees at

    Gitmo has not outraged the public or even the treatment of Padilla has failed to evoke any sense of outrage.

    by entlord1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:51 PM PDT

    •  I simply don't understand

      I've been on outrage overload for about 7 years  now.

      by atlliberal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM PDT

    •  Because If It's Not Reported On TV

      Then it really didn't happen.  Especially if it's not looped 24-7.  When you talk to even  intelligent, progressive people, it just becomes appalling how little they know about what is actually happening.

      by opinionated on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM PDT

  •  Maybe WHOLESALE law-breaking will get attention?

    Newsweek is saying, "The debate over a new surveillance authorization is likely to be complicated by figures showing sharp increases in the government's electronic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. "

    Now, getting that information out to 'the people' is a complication I welcome, but the fact it's happening is a development I fear ... very much.

    by eztempo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM PDT

•  Rockefeller lacks a sense of irony

  or he would find another term for "warrantless surveillance" since warrantless also means unnecessary.  From what information that is released this seems to define the surveillance best, unnecessary. Enormous amounts of data on private citizens was gathered by various intelligence agencies and it all led to nothing.
  So far has there been a single conviction of a Muslim terrorist as a result of all this activity, I believe. Instead, what convictions that have occured have either been the results of pleas or else the result of covert activities by confidential informants for the intelligence agencies.
  In short, all this activity to protect the US Homeland has had no effect whatsoever.

  by entlord1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:24 PM PDT

  •  Oh, don't discount the additions to "No Fly"

    ...I'm sure that having one's name on a "warrantless surveillance" tap is enough to ground you.  That's not nothing, if you've ever been hassled at the airport.

    by eztempo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:24:52 PM PDT

•  Could they be - LYING?

  TPMMuckraker reports that The Administration and the Telecoms have been secretly discussing immunity!.  Of course, the Intelligence (and Judiciary) Committees haven't seen these letters yet, and won't be able to copy them once they finally do get access...  But shouldn't Rockefeller know better by now?

  by Phoenix Rising on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM PDT

•  Jello Jay

  Jello doesn't need the money from TelCons does he?  So what does the regime have on him to back this piece of crap?

  by Arbusto on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM PDT

  •  Your premise requires...

    ...that you believe the two-party system consists of The Democratic Party and The Republican Party.  In reality the two parties are The Money Party, and The Rest of Us...

    by Ken in MN on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM PDT

  •  Dog Did Not Bark In Night

    Recall that this administration was listening in on everybody everywhere all the time as they pleased: think Richard Nixon on high-tech steroids.

    Now note that our Junior Senator has been a markedly liberal man on almost all other subjects, but on this ONE subject he not only bends slavishly to the will of The Cheney, but has been known to make Bush-esque noises on his own hook.

    What have they got on him? Who knows?

    But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a golden retriever...

    by prfb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM PDT

•  We really need to get the public better

  involved in picking these chairs in congressional committees.

  Any of you people in the know have any ideas about how we can get our congressional watchdogs to actually do their jobs or lose them?

  It seems like the Democratic chairs are enablers and Republican chairs are fucking insane. We need a better process for setting up leadership within our caucus...

  by bbrown8370 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM PDT

  •  Need congress-appointed experts, not congressmen.

    What do these congress-critters really know about the subjects of these committees they are on anyways, besides info they are then given? I'd rather they at least have experts counselling them.

    by Skid on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM PDT

•  Liar or incompetent?

  When the NSA op first surfaced, jay told us that he'd been briefed, but couldn't talk to anyone, not staff, colleagues, or legal counsel lest he wind up "in jail."

  Yet the Supreme court had dealt with just this issue in reviewing Nixon's prosecution of Mike gravel for reading the pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.

  No. 71-1026, United States v. Gravel

  The claim is not that while one part of 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause at the very least protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. [408 U.S. 606, 616]    The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer - either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution - for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Our decision is made easier by the fact that the United States appears to have abandoned whatever position it took to the contrary in the lower courts.

  We agree with the Court of Appeals that for the purpose of construing the privilege a Member and his aide are to be "treated as one," United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d, at 761; or, as the District Court put it: the "Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry into things done by Dr. Rodberg as the Senator's agent or assistant which would have been legislative acts, and therefore privileged, if performed by the Senator personally." United States v. Doe, 332 F. Supp., at 937-938. Both courts recognized what the Senate of the United States urgently presses here: that it is literally impossible, in view of the complexities of the modern legislative process, with Congress almost constantly in session and matters of legislative concern constantly proliferating, for Members of Congress to perform their legislative tasks without the help of aides and assistants; that the day-to-day work of such aides is so critical to the [408 U.S. 606, 617]    Members' performance that they must be treated as the latter's alter egos; and that if they are not so recognized, the central role of the Speech or Debate Clause - to prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 181  (1966) - will inevitably be diminished and frustrated.

  by ben masel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM PDT

  •  I'll go with...

    ...Evil, power-mad liars...

    by Ken in MN on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:02:13 PM PDT

  •  Sadly, there are no Mike Gravels in the Senate

    ...anymore.

    Say what will about the guy's wackiness in 2008, he deserves everyone's thanks and respect for putting his very liberty on the line to expose the lies and crimes of the government the last time around...

    by packerland progressive on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM PDT

    •  I'm running for the Senate again

      in 2012.

      by ben masel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM PDT

•  Maybe someone should primary the guy

  Hopefully bring him down to Earth.

  by bcashncali on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM PDT

  •  ain't happening in West (BG) Virginia

    Short of the proverbial dead girl or live boy. Our state has a bad case of "senator for life"-itis.

    by prfb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM PDT

  •  There's 2, Primary in 12 days.

    Billy Hendricks (no website?!) and  Sheirl Fletcher. Nothing on her site re FISA.

    by ben masel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM PDT

•  I do not believe

  that the current administration is the problem. The problem rests in congress who is nothing else than an appendix of the executive. Mr. Rockefeller,by God, is supposed to be a democrat and by all accounts is carrying water for the Republicans. Along the same lines look at recent vote for the attorney general where Feinstein and Shumer went along with this clown Mucasey?. it seems that our bigger problem is to put people in congress that effectively represent their constituents.

  by AVillamil on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:03:20 PM PDT

  •  A tall order of voter education is needed

    Newsweek observes, "If new legislation is not enacted before the current stop-gap law expires, Republicans may try to use this as an election issue against Democrats."  And, this is the only reason the Blue Dogs are going with BushCo on immunity.  They fear being called 'weak on terror' by the Rethugs.

    Getting West Virginians and others to fully appreciate their Constitution in the face of that attack between now and November -- what with torrid debates over lapel pins and preachers' sermons to be hashed- and re-hashed -- is a tall order.

    by eztempo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM PDT

•  I guess you can call him Jay...

  or you can call him Ray... but we just call him Jello

  by CTMET on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

•  Seven years plus of wiretaping may have a little

  bit to do with Jay Rockefeller's rolling over for this crowd, IMHO.  After all, what do you think they have on him and anyone else who capitulates to their every whim?  It's gotta be somethin', folks.  And I'll bet it ain't pretty...

  by Little Lulu on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM PDT

•  Rockefeller is an elitist prick...

  he's definitely not in politics for the people, Jay Rockefeller and the whole Rockefeller rulers are in politics for Power, Control and domination...PERIOD

  by NoCryingInPoltics on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:08:06 PM PDT

•  Rockefeller

  is the definition of a Security State Democrat.

  A genus of being whose primary characteristic is that of being unable to bend over fast enough, or far enough, to accomodate the fascist program.

  Domestic spying is not about international security.  It's about intimidation and suppression of domestic political opposition.  

  It's what fascists do.

  Was Rockefeller born in 2001, raised by Karl Rove, to be so toolish?  

  For all you do, Jay Rockefeller, Bushco thanks you!

  A Security State Dem is worth 10 Republicans... to Bushco.

  by scotts on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM PDT

  •  1985

    He's been voting for all the PolioeState enabler bills ever since he took office. Before 2001, "drugs" was a good enough excuse.

    by ben masel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM PDT

•  Rockefeller illegally obstructs, PROTECTS HIMSELF

  Rockefeller, Pelosi, and the entire "Gang of 8" are material witnesses to any crimes the Telecom companies committed.  THEY are also Bush's entire alibi that "Congress was kept informed."  

  If there's no immunity then:
  They can be subpeonaed as witnesses.
  They could be charged as accessories.
  They could be charged as accomplices.

  LEGALLY, NONE of them can have any say in whether these crimes they witnessed, and failed to report, should get retroactive community.  It's a clear conflict of interest.

  He's getting away with it because the self appointed liberal Watchdogs at blogs like this one aren't calling his or Pelosi's bluff!  All 8 have a responsibility to recuse themselves from crimes where they will be a witness, defendent, or person of interest just to eliminate any appearance of conflict.  Instead Rockefeller is publicly taking sides, hoping his fellow Democrats will let it pass.  (This culpability is also why they don't impeach.)

  PLEASE stop with the "he's dumb" talk.  

  He's smart like Bush.  
  He's getting away with 2 crimes, in plain sight - conspiracy and obstruction after the fact.
  He's way the hell smarter than you.

  by Levity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM PDT

•  Didn't the Rockefellers used to own the telcos?

  I suspect there's some personal stake in making sure the TelCos get off easy...

  by BetterTogether on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM PDT

•  Ya gotta wonder about the "documents" Jay saw

  Especially when you consider that in the face of a lawsuit won by the Electronic Frontier Foundation,

  "The Bush administration is refusing to disclose internal e-mails, letters and notes showing contacts with major telecommunications companies over how to persuade Congress to back a controversial surveillance bill, according to recently disclosed court documents."

  Apparently Judicial branch of government's un-ambiguous order isn't enough to get the truth from BushCo.  What makes Rockefeller think HE's gotten the truth ... or even a portion of the truth?

  by eztempo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM PDT

•  No Tools Please

  Uh,

  industry as a crucial tool in our national defense

  I don't think I really want private industry to be a tool of national defense. Remember when the military-industrial complex was not be trusted? It still isn't.

  by DJ Adequate on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM PDT

•  Dragging it out until it can be snuck thru.

  We saved the banks a couple months ago from their own overeach, so I can assume thats the plan here. Citizens would be rightfully suing the telcos and the telcos would likely rat-out and sue the government.

  by Skid on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM PDT

•  Question

  Is he trying to

  bring the warrantless surveillance program within the law.

  or is he trying to bring the law to the warrantless surveillance program?

  And, this is rich:

  Ultimately, we concluded that if we subject companies to lawsuits when doing so is patently unfair, we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense.

  So, if we don't let companies act outside the law, they won't act within it.

  by muledriver on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM PDT

•  The Flip-Side Of The Senate Rules...

  Generally, I find the arcane rules of the Senate to be a comfort and one of best things about our constitutional form of government.  After all, how many times in our history have we been spared the consequences of precipitous and potentially disastrous initiatives because the deliberative rules of the Senate forced the whole juggernaut to grind to a halt until cooler heads could prevail?

  That said, what we often see from West Virginia is the flip-side of the Senate rules.  Byrd and Rockefeller have very safe seats and very powerful chairmanships based on their seniority, and as a consequence have lost most of their electoral accountability.  It is the one flaw in the rules which allows personality oftentimes to override popular will.

  And it's a double-edged sword.  At times it can allow a lone and prophetic voice to prevail in the best Capra-esque tradition, but most often it permits the magnification of a particular politician's character flaws and personal agenda to stymie necessary reform or stifle the oversight process.

  I don't think many of us Kossacks would dispute that Senator Rockefeller simply is not constitutionally or temperamentally suited to wield so much authority in the Intelligence community.  He tends, by virtue of family ties and upbringing, to be too elitist and far too "Establishment" for his judgments to be given carte blanche in such a vital arena of the People's business.  However, such is the price exacted for the valuable institution of the Senate, where today's ensconced and unaccountable chairmanships will permit tomorrow's solitary filibuster by the marverick reformer.

  All things considered, I think it's worth the trade-off.

  But that doesn't keep Jay "Anyone-Seen-My-Balls?" Rockefeller from pissing me off now and then.

  by terry2wa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM PDT

•  I've found that,

  as a general rule of thumb, it's a fairly risk-free endeavor to assume that the administration is lying, spinning half-truths, generally misrepresenting, or just flat-out wrong regardless of the subject matter.

  by FunkyEntropy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

•  Terminology: WIRETAP ACT Amnesty in the FISA Bill

  Both technically more accurate, and easier to understand.
  Wiretap Act provides for href="00 per intercept, up href="0,000 Statutory Damages @2511 per plaintiff, plus Atty's fees.

  There's an exemption under the Wiretap Act for intercepts authorized either by the FISA process, or through normal Court warrants.

  by ben masel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:58:49 PM PDT

•  Rockefeller must be eyebrows-deep in this.

  Why else would he keep after it? He doesn't need telecom money. His seat is probably safe. He's got tons of friends in congress. He must be deeply involved in this surveillance issue and they must've gone so far that he's facing major prison time if even half the truth comes out.

  by jck on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM PDT

•  As you guys attack Hillary....

  You may notice that Hillary has been consistently ahead of Obama in Gallup and Rasmussen polls since the Wright controversy reignited Monday.

  Obama has also been collapsing in most general election polls versus McCain. Check out Rasmussen.

  by maroge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:02:11 AM PDT