Abijah Adams's blog

The most remarkable email is floating around. This is the website in a widget that it contains.

I am happy to see this.

In Plato's Republic, the question is put to Socrates, "Who will watch the watchers?" or, "Who will protect us against the protectors?"

Today there were more Senate votes seeking an answer to that ancient question. Here are a few notables:

• (Dem) Russ Feingold's S 3913: Prohibits the government from getting around FISA's court order requirement by wiretapping an individual overseas when it is really only listening in on a person in the U.S. with whom that "supposed foreign target" is communicating.

  Aim: Watches the watchers. Failed: 38-57.
  (Democrats voting nay - Inouye, Pryor and Salazar [Lieberman])

• (D) Feingold's S 3915: gives the FISA Court discretion to impose restrictions on the use of information about Americans that is acquired through procedures later determined to be illegal by the FISA court.

  Aim: Watches the watchers. Failed: 40-56
  (Democrats voting nay - Rockefeller, Johnson, Bayh, Inouye, Pryor and Landrieu [Lieberman])

• (R) Kit Bond's S 3941: Extends from 30 to 90 days the window of time that wiretaps can continue without any ruling from FISA court before the telecoms can petition for removal of the tap.

  Aim: Give the watchers more power.  Passes: by voice vote.

• (D) Ben Cardin's: 3920 To modify the sunset provision from 6 years to 4 so that the next president can amend, and so FISA can keep up with technology.

  Aim: Watch the watchers. Failed: 48-46 [needed 61 to override the GOP defacto filibuster]
  (Clinton not voting)

Plato's answer to this is that "They will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a noble lie. The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege, they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."

Plato was overly naive. That's why a system of separation of powers, checks and balances, was devised.

That mechanism ended in America under this President Bush and this generation of Democrats.

Shame.

Whatever you want Mr. Bush.

The stimulus package bill, defective as it is, is probably as good as we can get thanks to our frienemies the Republicans (emphasis added):

Pelosi's decision to drop expanding unemployment payments and more money for food stamps — which many lawmakers had assumed would be included in the package — could prove very controversial with Democratic constituencies, who were already stung by a decision to deny states more money for their Medicaid programs.

Many Democrats had pressed to extend unemployment benefits for people whose 26 weeks of benefits have run out, but Republicans resisted.

In light of the WaPo article this week on growing long-term unemployment among the well educated, the Republican Party just stuck it pretty damned hard to the middle class.

Pelosi dropped some key demands to keep the tilt of the package toward the middle class and to include the working poor. In addition to the unemployment and food stamp benefit extensions, she set aside proposed funding increases for low-income heating assistance and aid to state and local governments in the form of either Medicaid assistance or infrastructure funding.

Bush made Pelosi drop off the package help for people who need to heat their homes this winter. This is a classic "fuck the Blue States" tactic. The side of the civil war that won is in the middle of winter - this is what we get for winning. Scared of her shadow, she caved to Bush.

The whole point of the "stimpak" is then not to help anyone, really. It's designed solely to get people who don't have credit, or are already maxed out, to buy more stuff, thus keeping the consumer spending machine humming a few more quarters until Bush is out of office.

Then we'll officially be in recession, and suddenly everyone on the Hill will rediscover fiscal responsibility, saddling the next President with either deep spending cuts or higher taxes, and God help the poor bastard who has to deal with this big shitpile.

All of this is designed to give Bush CYA so that the Republicans can come roaring back in 2010 and 2012 with the promise of more tax cuts. It's a goalpost move, nothing more, nothing less.

Just as the emptying the treasury and enriching the rich was the best way to deal with the Bill Clinton surplus (Bush's tax cuts of 2000), and just as emptying the treasury and enriching the rich was the best way to deal with the shock to our economy after 9-11 (Bush's tax cuts of 2001), now we learn, of course, that the best way to deal with recession is to, guess what: empty the treasury and enrich the rich. As the Post reported:

"Another element of the plan is a package of tax breaks for businesses that could cost as much as $70 billion, far more than had been expected, a senior House aide and a Democratic lobbyist said."

The stimpak is corporate welfare in two ways; one, it's a direct corporate hand-out, and two for retailers, it gets people out to buy more shiny crap for a few months.

What if everyone took the $300 checks and paid down credit card debt? What then? My guess? More tax cuts.

"We've tried tax rebates before, but they haven't worked as well as they should because previous rebates left out those at the very bottom of the economic ladder -- the families struggling every day to pay their bills, heat their homes and pay their mortgages," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) said on the Senate floor. "Now the president wants to do the same thing again. He's proposed a tax break in his stimulus package that would completely leave out the poorest Americans."

And what happens when we are so in debt that the dollar isn't worth the paper it's printed on? When our infrastructure is crumbling? When the elderly are freezing to death in winter, dying of heat stroke in summer, starving all year, when schools close, when local governments shut down due to lack of funds?

Who cares? They'll blame it on the Democrats. And cowards like Nancy Pelosi will offer to share the blame.

The Democratic Party caucus wouldn't hold strong if their lives literally depended on it. Literally.

Democrats will always have at least have one stray, retarded sheep who thinks that being all alone dancing on edge of the cliff is somehow "Maverick" and that such fairy tale behavior is the best way to quickly become a globetrotting celebrity "Straight Talker". 

This is the delusion that infected Joe Lieberman.  It's based on the image that John McCain cultivates with his furiously masturbating press corps, but notice, that when push comes to shove, McCain always protects his party's power.  Democrats who play Maverick always go too far and give away their power.

Today, under Mitch McConnell's Republican leadership, not a single Republican voted against helping Dick Cheney.

But on our side? Sad.  It's really so sad how easily we crumble.

Rockefeller*, Bayh*, Mikulski*, Nelson (FL)*, Pryor, Salazar, McCaskill, Carper, Nelson (NE), Landrieu, Inouye, Johnson all votes aye to Cheney's law.
*SSCI (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) membership.

DiFi described her amendment to FISA repeatedly as the "good faith" amendment.

All it takes is "good faith" and Bush is granted sweeping spy powers. The FISA court merely needs to grant that the Bush Administration acted in "good faith," for them and their telecom companies to be granted retroactive immunity.

What? Why?
What. In. The. World... What the fuck makes Dianne think that she can trust the Bush Administration AT ALL?

Good faith? Jesus God, are you serious, lady? Oh, I didn't notice that you were born just minutes ago and have yet to open your eyes, let alone meet the Bush Administration. So you have no idea what's been happening the last 8 years, obviously, yes?

Di, there is no chance in hell that Bush and the Republicans will agree to any compromise short of complete immunity for telecoms – making compromise impossible.

What Feinstein is aiming to do here is “finding middle ground between the all-or-nothing approach on immunity,” as her
spokesman told The Hill. My, what a cute newborn infant Senator!

Senate Republicans won't agree to Feinstein’s amendments. They have repeatedly acted as proxies for the Bush Administration, especially since the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly declared his belief that telecom immunity is essential to any FISA bill, and has never shown an interest in breaking with the Bush Administration’s insistence on full telecom immunity.

Ultimately Feinstein and all the other Senate Democrats are going to have to choose between one of two sides – either stand with Senators Dodd and Feingold for our rights and the rule of law, or stand with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their disregard for the law, the Constitution, and America’s basic rights.

Congressional Democrats have consistently tried to avoid open confrontation with Bush, even when the cost is our Constitution and our basic rights. There is no avoiding this one. Senator Feinstein has only one choice open to her if she does not want to give Bush everything he demands.... but, you know, being a new born baby, she doesn't understand that

The FISA Bill is on the Senate floor now, complete with retroactive immunity from the U.S. Constitution for spying telcos as well as for the Administration that broke the law all those months that they bypassed the FISA court.

The current bill also contains new invasive warrantless eavesdropping powers including datamining. Harry Reid wants to pass it ASAP so the Senators can go to Davos, Switzerland.

The Administration wheeled out Darth Cheney, of all people, to wag his finger at Democratic members of Congress about partisanship.

"We’re asking Congress to update FISA and especially to extend this protection to communications providers alleged to have given such assistance any time after September 11th, 2001. This is an important consideration, because some providers are facing dozens of lawsuits right now. Why? Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.

[snip]

This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt. We will do our part to keep this nation safe. We will press on despite any difficulty. And we will prevail."

Shorter Cheney: If those pro-law Democrats will only transcend their petty party partisanship and side with the pro-me Republicans, and do 100% of what we want done, then WE will prevail.

No shit you will.

Why would the GOP get the person least willing to cooperate with Democrats, the person who single-handedly could eliminate the legal problem they allege the telecoms have, and the person who stands to benefit most from an immunity provision for telecoms, to head out to pressure Congress? Did the GOP really think this would work to persuade Democrats to put aside all the troubling legal issues to grant him er his funders immunity?

Of course not. The point is merely a dog whistle to the GOP caucus to protect Cheney, and a silent "go fuck yourself" to the Democratic caucus.

And if that's not pathetic enough, consider this: rather than laughing at Dick's little self-serving temper tantrum, as the Dems should, they'll probably cow to him and pass Cheney's immunity.

Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for not joining Dodd and Feingold. Obama especially, talks constantly about his leadership but when the chips are down he does squat. Nothing. Coward.

Jay Rockefeller doesn't understand basic evidentiary court rules.

And too many liberals who are on his case about FISA don't understand what retroactive immunity is all about. This is about Cheney.

First, retroactive immunity has very very little to do with the telecoms (particularly since they're cutting off wiretaps anyway, since the FBI isn't paying its bills).

Telcos will be indemnified for anything that they've done with AG approval (though there is that sticky episode in the period following the Ashcroft hospital incident, when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales forced the approval of the illegal program of the body of ailing Ashcroft, but never mind). Nope, rather, any immunity is immunity for those who decided it was a swell idea to illegally wiretap Americans. And that list of people begins with Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney is saying that it is impossible for telecoms to defend themselves against the "dozens" of court cases pending against them for breaking the law and compromising customers' privacy rights.

Dick Cheney has a way to eliminate the problem he says the telecoms have: he can take the advice he once gave Senator Patrick Leahy and fuck himself. Then he can stop declaring State Secrets for any freaking thing that comes into Cheney's field of vision.

The entire logic to Administration/Telco/Rockefeller claims that the telecoms need this magical immunity is because they can't defend themselves in Court.

Hey, Jay, stupid, that's Dick Cheney's fault, because he and the Administration have declared State Secrets even in the face of abundant public evidence that the telecoms did what they're accused of doing.

Now let's start caving!

How best to announce to America that the people's Congress is back in session and ready to do the business of fixing the nation? Talk baseball.

The theory goes that people care about sports and the media will cover opening sessions above the fold if the hearings are about sex or sports. Therefore, Henry Waxman asked the Justice Department of the United States of America to investigate shortstop Miguel Tejada.

Seriously.

And we wonder why Americans don't think Congress has done anything worthwhile. Maybe it's because when we're not bending over for a hated President and his loathed Republican lackeys we are dicking around with bullshit like the Baltimore Orioles.

I don't particularly care about baseball, so can we put this steroid thing aside and get back to what we normally do, wholesale and unnecessary capitulation?

Good.

One man standing up in the Senate stopped a bad bill from moving forward. Chris Dodd led.

Rush Holt called for Special Counsel over CIA tapes. Sure, Senator Biden had previously called for one publicly in a Q&A, but nothing is official in Washington unless the statement is on letterhead and stamped "received."

In a letter to Attorney General Mukasey, Congressman Holt of NJ requested the immediate appointment of a special counsel to investigate the creation and handling of two CIA interrogation tapes. Holt is a member of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. Meanwhile, down the hall, Silvestre Reyes, sat on his greased palms.

Holt said that neither the CIA nor the Justice Department can be trusted to take on the probe, and his letter lays out what he believes should be the focus of the special counsel's work:

1) the circumstances surrounding the CIA's creation, handling, destruction, and representations regarding its video or audio recording of detainee interrogations to the federal courts, the 9/11 Commission, and the Congress;

2) the legality of the activities contained on the recordings, considering the identity of the detainees involved, the reasons for their detentions, the nature of the information sought, and the methods used in the interrogations;

3) who within the executive branch had knowledge of the CIA's destruction of these records, including who authorized their destruction and who was informed of their destruction; and

4) whether any federal laws were broken as a result of the CIA's creation, handling, destruction and representations regarding said video or audio recordings of detainee interrogations to the federal courts, the 9/11 Commission, and the Congress.

Nothing will come of it, probably, but it's on the record now, future historians will be able to add this CIA tape thing to the list of scandals and crimes.  Keep them on the defensive about everything and keep feeding evidence into the narrative of lawbreaking Republicans run amok.  Well done.