Field Hands: It's About the Organizing

I am number 400 and joined Oklahoma!!  Umm...there's only two of us but I will start recruiting more!!

Al, I just wanted to comment that your acknowledgement of my recent nuptials is greatly appreciated. 

And I sent an email wedding announcement to all my friends and family linking them to my Fieldhands blog, so that more people would be exposed to the community we are building there.

The DKs of the Democratic Party are going to be so surprised when they finally realize that they have been rendered irrelevant by the power of community organizing.

I'll be staffing an Obama booth at tomorrow's Sacramento Pride Festival, and assisting with the Folsom, CA Families for Obama's Unite for Change gathering on June 28th.  We're doing it as a picnic and have a huge number of signups through the web already, and many of the names are unknown to the leaders of our chapter.

I'm an example of a middle-aged man and longtime Democrat who has never been more engaged and active than I am in this campaign.

While Field Hands are proudly getting organized, I see the rest of the progressive blogosphere flirting with what Al has called "beautiful loserism".  I figured it wouldn't take long before folks at Daily Kos (and elsewhere) took their eyes off the ball and started eating our young over FISA (and by extension, everything else) even before we've made it to July, let alone November.

 

That said, it'd be nice to figure out what productive things we can do with Field Hand groups that would be in addition to or different from similar groups organized via the my.barackobama.com tools.

but thanks to dkos and TheWurx I found you again. I thought it was strange to be routed to the back forty with no Al and articles averaging 2 to 10 comments. I thought you went the way of "The Wege", an irreverent blog called Norwegianity. Glad I found you I've missed your politically astute commentary.

BR:

 

I agree with you about DKos.  They really need to get a grip regarding FISA.  Obama has his statement out over at Politico.  Anyway, they panicked without knowing exactly what is in the compromise legislation.  I am not making excuses for Obama but I work for a politician and am a lawyer.  Sometimes a little compromise can get you a lot more that stomping your feet and refusing to do anything!

Anyway, here in Oklahoma I am hoping to get together enough Field hands in order to get Inhofe kicked out of Congress and elect Andrew Rice.

The energy to self-organize even appears to have hit the vets in addition to Kerry who were dissed by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the last election.

Now four years later and after a $1,000,000 challenge from SBVT funder Boone T. Pickens last Nov to prove him wrong, they are hitting back. (Actually they hit back in Nov. but Pickens raised the proof stakes, which they now have.) Sam Stein has the story on HuffPo, and it's worth reading.

But more so, worth noting that the vets delayed anger didn't go away during the past four years. It lay fallow, waiting for the field to renew its nutrients, and new rain to fall. (Just as Alinsky predicted.)

There is a revolution happening this year but it isn't in the physical streets. It's happening across our virtual highways, and this one will be found next Dec. to be more far-reaching than anticipated. (How do I know this? Why do I make this claim? From talking to kids under 25 working to pay for school etcetera in local bars. Lots of them. Which you might diss, but I dont, not based on what I've heard.)

As I noted on the ex-Field, the new FieldHands site had an instantaneous vibrancy to it when it was created. Will be interesting to see what it morphs into, which morph it will. (So when a researcher assesses the response to the new Field here, dont forget to add that site as well.)

I've written two letters to the editor.  I don't know if I should pick one as they would never publish both.  Or do I just send both in to be considered?  What might make them better?

OSD

On May 30, 2008 when asked if he supported additional offshore drilling, John McCain stated, "With those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels."  Cut to Tuesday, June 17^th (18 days later) and John McCain states in Houston to a room full of oilmen, "I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.”  Furthermore, in mid-May 2008 Senator McCain was quoted saying he didn't "like obscene profits being made anywhere," and, as such, would be "glad to look" at a windfall profits tax on oil companies.  On June 17th, however, he criticized Barack Obama for wanting "a windfall profits tax on oil.”

 

Curious how on June 18^th, President Bush called on Congress to overturn the moratorium on offshore drilling.  No connection there I suppose.  So what’s happened in the last month to prompt such an about face on these positions?  I’m sure those Texas oilmen and their money didn’t have anything to do with it, because the Maverick McCain doesn’t associate with such lobbying activities.  And lest I mention that the the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) which in their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, reported:  "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

Campaign Finance

The AP story Obama Opts Out of Public Election Money states that Obama “abandoned his once-stated desire to compete within a system designed to reduce the influence of money in politics.”  This would be all good and well if each candidate received only the money from the public financing and didn’t reap the rewards of soft money, such as 527s, which  play by very loose rules.  Does the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth sound familiar to anyone?  Privately funded with many millions of dollars from very large dollar donors, they decimated Kerry, who sat on the sidelines, his public primary funds insufficient to match that kind of firepower.  And John McCain made it very clear the other day that he was powerless to stop those types of organizations when he said “I can't be a referee of every spot run on television.” 

 

In the meantime, I received a note in my email box today indicating that MoveOn was disbanding its 527 arm in order to comply with Obama’s wishes that all donations be channeled through the official campaign.  Hmmm, Obama doesn’t seem powerless to run the type of campaign free from outside influence.  But since McCain couldn’t or wouldn’t reign the 527s in, I think Obama made the only choice he could.  The system is broken.

 Besides, I think most people would agree that 1.5 million donors contributing an average of $100 pretty well defines a publicly run campaign.

 

Sorry to be off topic about this Al, but DKOS, AmericBlog, Firedoglake and their commenters are having litters of kittens about Obama's supposed embrace of FISA. What are your thoughts as you have cooler head than some in the blogosphere.

I also wanted to note that Barry Crimmins indcicated something to the effect that Al organized the FieldHands.  While he certainly encouraged it, it was the Fieldhands themselves that did it and that's what makes it so powerful.

 

Allan, I've been thinking about your wedding.  Yeah!!  Have you rec'd help from the campaign for your Unite for Change meeting?  I had to call campaign HQ today and ask for follow up.  They took a message for me.  I have organized a kid and wine friendly gathering.  (Don't worry, the kids don't drink the wine!)

Zinzen, yes litters of kittens indeed...LOL!  But there are a few cooler heads over at Kos:

 

"I fear that my years of voting, arguing, living, breathing, fighting and just being generally partisan on behalf of the Democratic Party must come to an end at midnight tonight if Barack Obama doesn't don his Superman Cape and Elven Ring of Power and fix everything, exactly like I wanted, by midnight tonight.  If he doesn't save the world by the time I turn into a pumpkin, I'm giving my partisan vote to the GOP to show my righteous indignation at all the things I cannot change."

Yup. they are going mad those bloggers who are refusing to give money to BO and wont vote for him in Nov. It's actually stupid and faintly amusing even. Would love to know what all of you think. Obama has been a bit slow on this one though. Don't know why but just does not seem to be in the top of his game somehow as he usually is.

Hey Tara, I saw that post over at DKOS and thanks goodness the cooler heads are reccing it up.

On topic, I have got to reach out to my Northern CA Fieldhands and get some movement going on.

Congratulations Allan!

Ah, yes.  Good snark is always welcome!  :)

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. . . It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.

He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. The full Obama statement is here.

This is my take on FISA. I happen to agree with Joe Klein on this one. Wow, I can't believe I am admitting this!

 

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/on_fisa.html

a.k.a. geekygirl602

Hey Al,

Any chance we could pay for you to come to St. Paul for the RNC? I think that will be equally important to cover and I'm sure my fellow members of local 9 would be happy to help get you here and find you housing.

Any chance you'd do that if we could raise the money?

Mea Culpa! I have posted the following

 

http://barrycrimmins.com/index.php?page=news&display=1060

 

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Tara Van Niman points out that Al Giordano didn't organize the Fieldhands into geographical affinity groups, they did so themselves. I apologize for my inaccurate statement and will make sure to get it right if and when I mention the Fieldhands' organizational structure again. -- Barry Crimmins

Al,

This is a terrific community we have growing here at The Field. This weekend I'm going to post something over on the "Chicago Field Hands Local #1" about the Obama campaign passing on public financing. I think the message about it is all distorted and needs to be REALLY emphasized that it is the best thing to happen to the U.S. electoral process in modern times and IS truly Campaign Finance Reform in it's finest form and something that all Americans can and should embrace.

I thought the video Obama made the other day about it didn't seem to contain that as a clear message. I'm thinking of a Ross Perot type of charts and graphs presentation as the average person doesn't really know what public finance is and what a 527 is. The whole line of "Obama reneged on his promise" needs an akido-like response.

Presenting this in a more positive and transparent way will help move a lot of Independents towards Obama as the one carryover from McCain's 2000 campaign run was that a lot of Independents (including me) thought he had some good ideas back then about campaign finance reform. We need to be more clear on this issue to win those type of voters over to the Democratic Party this Fall.

p.s. Tara - both of your letters are great but my vote on your letter to the editor would be the campaign finance one.

There's folks who want to get things done, and there's folks who want everyone else to obey their wishes. And there's no much you can do to change the latter to the former. They'll grudgingly come around, or they won't. The ones who won't will sit the election out.

Obama is not a leftist, an environmentalist, a gender warrior...he's a community organizer. He brings people forward, as many as will go with him. So there are going to be a lot more "compromises." That, frankly, is how any of us get anything done. What, we thought everyone was going wake up on January 21, 2009, cast off their chains, and march together to Washington to shake off the oppressors?

I just picked up "Rules for Radicals" from the library. I cracked it while putting it discretely into a corner by my desk and found treasures on every page I flipped by.

I'll still vote for Obama, and I will still work hard to get him elected, but his position on telecom immunity is rotten from the inside out.  This is a big issue to me.  My continued support of him is a compromise. 

Why didn't the dems work directly with the telecoms and agree to immunity in exchange for testifying or something? 

So while I think there may be some vitriolic wah-wahing going on, those who oppose telecom immunity on principle are right to be disappointed. It might even be morally right for them to turn away from Obama as their choice and .. go to no choice.  Which is, of course, what Obama is counting on.

With all this talk of the FISA compromise, it's got me to thinking, about compromising, in general, and as it relates to community-building in particular (so as to remain vaguely on-topic? - but if this kind of comment is not desired here, I'll happily move it to my fieldhands page). 

What with Obama supporting the incumbent over the netroots fave candidiate in Georgia, and now the chicken-littleing over the FISA compromise (although, admittedly, I am not anywhere close to educated on either issue) - it's gotten me to thinking about what exactly people think the word "compromise" or "unity" or "community-building" or "organizing" mean. Because what all of this, to me, sounds a lot like what I hear (and have heard) in my community, when people are trying to get organized around an issue, or campaign. Which is that people have some vision of compromise, or an ideal community, or community-building experience as being one in which everyone is happy and comfortable. Like there is a way in which we can all agree to always agree, or at least agree to not disagree publically, no matter what. 

Anyways, it makes me remember to re-read Bernice Johnson-Reagon's speech from 1981, talking to the West Coast Women's Music Festival. The speech was talking mostly about organizing in the feminist movement, and more specifically about women-only spaces, and race, but every time I read it, I get something new from it. 

Read it here

I'm with Johnson-Reagon. Coalition-building is about survival, and as such, it necessarily involves making really big sacrifices and working with people who may be trying to hurt us. Even telecom giants. 

My 2 cents on these issues. 

 

Julie Bays:

 

Thanks for the link. As usual, the best part of a JokeLine post is the eviseration he receives in his own comments sections.

 

Don't understand what one would agree with out of JokeLine's argument. Apparently some feel the Constitution is the law of our land, except when a few people determine it's getting in the way. Then, we can just ignore it when Those Who Know Better tell us it's OK. Make no mistake about it - this latest FISA "compromise" is a complete trashing of what the Founding Fathers and Mothers fought and died for. Sad that Obama's going along with it. Completely understand how O-man has to pick his battles wisely, but I'd think fundamental elements to the Constitution would be worth standing up for, especially for someone who has "taught the Constitution" to college students.

 

JokeLine's last paragraph, or punchline, is so incoherent and contradictory it is hysterical.

Here's why: it's a bad bill, giving the Repubicans everything they want, especially legal cover for their criminality.

Barack can go on the Senate floor and say, "This is a bad bill, I'm voting against it -- who's with me?"

I can think of maybe 2 Democratic Senators who would buck him if he did that. It's the right issue, and it would be good practice at whipping the Senate into line when he's President. He claims to be a constitutional scholar -- here is his chance to prove it.

I haven't had time to really look into it but the understanding I've got from what I've read is that although the FISA compromise bill as a whole is not as strong as people would like, the immunity provision is what everybody has been denouncing and rejecting. And since Obama said that he opposed immunity and would work in the Senate to remove it, I am not sure what people are still having kittens about, except that they did want him to use his Elven Ring of Power to save the entire world before midnight.

It seems to me like Steny Hoyer pushed this very hard and very fast, and maybe didn't consult with Obama on it (though this is pure speculation on my part) and that is why Obama was caught off guard.

Actually, I suspect that Bush himself was originally behind the push, hoping to use it to divide Democrats or make us appear weak. From the looks of things at Daily Kos, he seems to be succeeding at the division part.

I have not seen such childish behavior in a long time.

I can't seem to get my link to post properly, despite the fact that it showed up just fine when I previewed the post. 

 

But please, do yourselves a favor, and google "Coalition Politics: Turning the Century" by Bernice Johnson-Reagon. I know that it has been re-published on a couple of blogs recently. 

As I said in the Scagliotti thread--the "progressives" threatening to take their ball and go home because Obama hasn't towed their line verbatim re: FISA are simply not seeing the forest for the trees. Have they not read Obama's books?  Have they not seen his senate record?  He is not a pure leftist.  He's never claimed to be.  We knew all along that we weren't getting a pure leftist in his candidacy.

What we DO get is a community organizer.  An inspiring leader.  A fallible, yet brilliant politician.  A good man who wants to make our government better than it has been.  A man who has inspired  new activist movement larger than his campaign and largely independent of his personal politics.

I'm not sure why the FISA stance is such a shock.  Firstly, it's not out of line with Obama's other policies, and moreover he does not support Telecom immunity.  But whatever your point of argument is regarding Obama's stance on this one issue, what I fail to understand is how so many can be so petulent as to ignore the importance--and independence--of the activist reawakening going on in our party as we speak.  Without an Obama presidency, that movement becomes sorely restricted, if only for the logistical limitations imposed by a Republican regime.  Obama has inspires us, but it's irrational to suddenly expect liberal purity from him--and most irrational to say you're pulling your support from him because you didn't get purity this time.  I'd rather try to push further left under Obama than under Roadblock McSame, wouldn't you?

It just seems to me the ones so willing to "give up" on Obama now are the ones least able to see the potential for movement--or the restriction thereof under another Republican administration, as the case may be.  Be upset and angry with Obama, by all means. We can and should criticize his policy stances when we feel he's on the wrong side of any issue (and believe me, I firmly believe Obama is WAY too centrist regarding certain poverty issues, particularly welfare reform...but I digress)

But please, stop threatening to sabatoge his candidacy, take away your support, vote Nader, or assist McCain in any way.  Remember that we have more than one issue to work on.  We have work to do.  Let's give ourselves ideal conditions for agitation, yes?

OT, but necessary to look at.

While you're checking out the new FISA bill as signed, check out this alert yesterday from FreedomWorks (Dick Armey's group) about "Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government."

If you read a summary of the bill carefully, this is a sneaky way of getting internet taxes passed without a single solitary debate. Note the term "payments by third party settlement organizations." All info about what you buy is going to the IRS and the Feds. This obliterates political privacy, if you choose to donate to a PAC. This records all your buying habits. Once you let this flow from the credit card companies to the govt go through, you will never reverese it.

I dont know what the comment period is, but the bill to object is "House Amendments to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3221 – Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008."

The press release about this lists a phone number. I just called and ranted. I would love to know who added this.

In the "world's largest democracy", our Indian Government openly says that they won't allow blackberries in India yet because they don't the technology to tap them yet.

Yes, it is an official statement.

"Telephone tapping = Terrorism stopping" seems to be the motto in many countries now-a-days.

@6:25pm

<i>I can think of maybe 2 Democratic Senators who would buck him if he did that. It's the right issue, and it would be good practice at whipping the Senate into line when he's President.</i>

I don't want a president "whipping the Senate into line." That's what we've had for 8 years -- a continued centralizing of power and control into the executive branch.

And I know this is *really* chicken littling, but I can't help but think that there's some unknown attorney at Justice right now crafting a memo for the White House on the legalities of simply not vacating on January 20 in the event of an "emergency."

 

Hey Al don't know if anyone else  brought this up but i kinda miss the saloons and Sixshooters and family farm stuff you had up over at the  other place.  Any plans to but some of that kinda stuff up again?

 

I only read the summary of the bill, not the bill itself, but that seems to be an income tax measure, not an internet tax thing. As I see it, the bill provides that if a payment service sends you more than $10,000 in more than 200 transactions, that information gets sent to you and the IRS (probably on a 1099 form). That impacts eBay Power Sellers, not the average Joe selling their TV.

As for privacy, any small business person can always get a separate Tax ID number instead of using their SSN.

Heather Hansen-Munro

That's a pretty good explanation.  As a leftist (not the same thing as a liberal), I've been pretty much holding my nose, but I think it is true that Alinsky is not about changing the system as much as getting a seat at the table, at least that seems to be the modus operandi of Ernesto Cortes and the Industrial Areas Foundations.  I'm old enough to have observed the new deal coalition get a seat at the table and then be thrown under the table by a vicious resurgent neoliberalism over the past 28 years.  Regaining that seat is going to be immeasurably more difficult this time around.  But if that is all you've got then I guess...that's where you go.  It's truly amazing that things have evolved to the point where the "people" are just merely trying to get a seat at the democratic table. And our hero is uh...well, he's no Huey P Long

Glad number Field Hand 402 is in Nevada: i need to alert him that several Nor Cal Field Hands are organzing and heading to his neck of the woods for a weekend of volunteering in end of August, complete with a nighttime public art plastering across Reno. Ill photo blog the event.

Obama's support of the FISA "compromise" is a big disappointment.  Who cares what the political reasons were for his going along with it... this is a lousy bill & it gives Bush everything he wanted.  Obama is far too knowledgeable about the Constitution to really believe this is nothing but a capitulation.  It all but decimates the 4th Amendment.  If Obama wanted to blow this bill off, who would've stood up against him -- Give 'Em Heck Harry Reid?  I also have no doubt had Hillary Clinton supported this FISA compromise during the campaign, almost of all us here would have jumped all over her.  The bottom line is, as great as Obama is... and he is great... he's also still a politician.  And with that as your life's gig, we have to take the bitter with the sweet.

I'm now a co-publisher!

I noticed the "chicken-littles" or worse over @kos starting yesterday.  They're starting to sound like HRC supporters--my way or McCain!  Yeech!

Seems like we not only have to *teach* others, but we have to teach ourselves!

What has additionally made me very sick in the last couple of days is the MSM acting like BHO is *flip-flopping* on Campaign Financing!

He said that he would agressively make sure that public financing was available!  That he did; he just chose not to use it himself!  Now McC has said he won't either!

Re: FISA...

Haven't these people learned ANYTHING from Our Candidate and other Progressive Leaders?  One person isn't supposed to do everything him/herself!

I would expect most of the people on these blogs to be at least a few thought processes above the average person--too much to hope for?--and look at the bigger picture, as BHO has always done!

Nothing will be done in Congress until we have a plurality!

Nothing is accomplished without some compromises on both sides!

I fully understand the implications of FISA; but I also understand the implications of falling apart over one issue that is part of the bigger picture of changing the way things are done in Washington from the bottom up.

OT: today is the Summer Solstice...I'm going outside to salute the sun and do some good old *thinking*...

I'm doing voter registration tomorrow afternoon in Clark Park in SW Detroit...can't wait!

Liberal with a Capital L!

Barry Crimmins said: Mea Culpa! I have posted the following

http://barrycrimmins.com/index.php?page=news&display=1060

 

Barry, that is an act of class in my book, and the difference between radicals and liberals -- and conservatives.

Radicals get to the root of things; liberals are about the root of themselves (to the exclusion of most other folks); conservatives just want to forget about the roots when it proves inconvenient.

I suggest the radical perspective is the hidden force behind human evolution. 

Bumperstickery I know (and no one is that black and white, but we all have tendencies that present us with choices at those forks in the road).

Bottom line, I still like what Barry did.

 

 

Cooperative Research has the timeline for the FISA discovery after Mike Klein blew the whistle on AT&T/Narus/NSA. Klein cites the sophisticated data-mining computer called a Narus STA 6400, a “Semantic Traffic Analyzer… known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets.”

Go here, and search for Narus. [Disclosure: I taught NSA guys in the use of AT&T Private Line Network (PLN) as a private contractor over two decades ago that involved the use of similar machines for similar uses; they grabbed everything wholesale. This has been going on a long time. The Israelis only became involved after April 1994 when CALEA passed, and all was deregulated. I know what all this technical gobbledegook means because I had to learn it in order to teach it. :-) And I can tell you the story we are getting is not the truth. Everyone on the Hill is covering their ass for decades of illegal activity in this regard.]

is all over the liberal blogs. DKOS has several recc'd threads about FISA. I get the impression from some supporters that Obama is "their" politician who if he does something they do not like, well they are going to go vote for Bob Barr. That to me is just silly, and lacking insight into political compromises that have to be made.

the sound from the blogs is escalating from having a litter of kittens to birthing bovines.

 

Zinzen

KKKarl Rove loves this kind of purity.  He encourages it.  Purity is what keeps yeggs like Rove in power.  Screw it.  Maybe that's the Chardonnay talking but I'd like to think not.

@ amk:  Does India have the equivalent of the US Bill of Rights in general or the 4th Amendment in particular?

@ downplaying this decision by O --  Individual liberties trumps community organizing. 

Set me striaght, please. We were blogging away about how we all could provide assistance to Al when he was in Denver. We were tring to coordinate meetings places, video cameras  and the like [including designated drivers]. Someone suggested taking it to a conversation site. Volia - Susan found a site and Fieldhands was off and running. It was all about supporting the [ex] Field at the convention. Nothing radical. Just organizing to have the best reporting available at the Dem Convention. Right?

I should have clarified my remark but was in a hurry. As a matter of fact, FISA is abomination towards our Constitution. I don't agree with everything that Joe Klein writes in that article. I don't agree with the last line. I should have wrote that I agree that this is exactly why Obama had to follow along. That's what I meant. Klein and many others would have pounced on Obama like flies on shit! Obama would not have been able to overcome it...I believe it would have been a "political bludgeon."

 

Right now, we need to step into the enemy's den in order to make any change at all. That is where it needs to start. I don't think Obama had a choice in this decision.

 

Sorry that I sounded like some "freaked out by terrorists okie", but after reading my post, I can understand it.

 

Believe me, I understand more than most what is going on.

 

Julie

Bill, I loved Barry's line: The problem with Tim Russert wasn't found in the questions he asked. The problem was found in the answers he accepted.

He gets it. It takes a little trust right now. Okay, a LOT of trust. But he is our best hope...

Jeez, I think I just experienced a flashback to Star Wars. ;)

@ Susan Kitchens - Just wanted to give you a high five for the "handy" work you did with the Field Hand design! Very cool design.

@ Pamela Hilliard-Owens - new fellow co-publisher!  I completely agree.  DKos Obama supporters are all righteous about something that I would bet 90% of them haven't read.  Unfortunately, attempting to interpret the legal language in these bills gets me lost by the 2nd paragraph.   I would love for one of the Dkos diarists with some legal background to write up a layman's interpretation of it with actual factual content description instead of just opinion.

It goes to the Senate next, the "deliberative" body. Not that this might happen, but not that it won't -- plenty of breaks for a long stall in action between news cycles, which could be communicated as strategy behind the scenes, without the potentially politically damaging showdown of a floor or media-jello wrestling match. 

We'll see, but I don't see the Senate Dem.'s being smart in allowing action on FISA give-aways prior to the convention at any point. If the Republicans try to make an issue of it after the convention, then you can see where your options are, but why close them down before then?

That would be smart politics, no? Unless everyone's been bought off as the most cynical observer might advance. In that case, what could Obama do anyway, besides piss in the wind in the middle of an election?

(For the record, I assume this communication is now being monitored since it likely crossed international lines over the Internet -- wish the monitors would weigh in, as long as it doesn't show up on my phone bill ... make it more interesting.)

Here's the Senate calendar (below) as best I can figure at this point:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/two_column_table/2008_Schedule.htm

Jun 28-Jul 6		State Work Period Independence Day
Aug 9-Sep 7		State Work Period
Aug 25-28		Democratic convention
Sep 1-4		Republican convention
TBD		Target Adjournment Date

You are right about DKos.  They and half of the House of Representatives haven't read it.  I am sure that most of you have heard the old addage regarding "making sausage."  You really don't want to know how UNinformed your legislators are.  It's downright scary.

What this legislation does is to put us back to a somewhat sane level of judicial review of search warrants.  It doesn't put us back to the actual "real" judicial review that we all took for granted under our Constitution but it's a start backwards towards our roots.  Under the Constitution, we WERE protected from "unreasonable search and seizures."  This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that someone in the Judiciary must review each and every search warrant. The Judiciary meaning an independent judge.  This includes all wiretaps and interceptions of any electronic communications. However, FISA changed under the Patriot Act. It gave special provisions for the Federal government to intercept messages in certain cases of emergency.  Under FISA, the Feds still needed a judicial review at some point.

What Bush and Company had done is even remove the provision of ANY judicial review of a search warrant or actually the NEED for any search warrant.  Today's compromise puts back the provisions that required a judicial review...of sorts.

I could probably write a 40 or so page essay on it but I think I need to leave that to the Constitutional law professors.  It's a hard subject to try to explain.

I keep trying to compose a comment about FISA, but I am not having any luck writing anything logical and coherent. I just hope you guys (or Al) keep sharing your thoughts until I can get my head around the whole thing.  

For now, I am overwhelmed with emotions, shaking my head, unable to figure out why the democrats would choose to bring a vote on this awful bill now, and in the way that they did.  I keep thinking there must be something we don't know that would allow it to make some sense.

Okay, one more thing...

I find it really disturbing that Barack's statement on FISA hasn't been posted on barackobama.com.  I mean, they routinely post Barack's statements on all sorts of things that are a lot less important than this.  That says to me that Barack doesn't feel good about it, and I find that worrisome.

P.S. If I am going to get a chicken little lecture, please be gentle, this has been a tough couple of days...

I wasn't looking for a correction but it does change the narrative a bit, eh? Al encouraged it but it really was a very organic thing that happened among Fieldhands - with big thanks to Susan Kitchens.

Thank you.  I was thinking it was in that general description so thank you for providing clarity to it.  And to wrap it up, with the previous rights restored but unfortunately with telecom immunity for past unlawful acts.  And Obama doesn't agree with the immunity portion of  it, said so, and the Senate possibly won't vote on it without extensive discussion of that aspect of it.  In fact, possibly won't vote on it at all  due to the election calendar.  The purists would like to think that BushCO and the CEOs of all the telecoms would  all be found guilty and imprisoned.  I would be dancing in the streets if that were to happen but realistically it won't and so granting or not granting immunity is just going to be a lot of hot air. 

Me thinks over at DKos there is a severe degree of already being tired of having to get excited about McCain gaffes and they might even be missing Clinton to write diaries about.   I completely understand.  Baseball is very similar with the playoffs often much more exciting than the World Series. 

Raised 'only' $22 million in may, roughly the same as Mccain.

 

 

My response to some of the above comments regarding the FISA bill.  I will note up front that I'm as much of a civil libertarian as most (as an Independent with Libertarian leanings).

 

Timing:  The reason for the current timing, besides because Bush likes to mess with spineless Dems, is because the warrants allowed by the FISA court under the legislation passed last fall are about to expire.  There is no "safe" mechanism in currently in place to deal with this stuff, so both sides were pushed to do something.  I always hate it when politicians try to be seen "doing something".

 

FISA:  FISA itself (I mean pre-2001) has been found Constitutional many times by the Supreme Court.  No sense arguing that it is unconstitutional (as much as we might like to).  That includes some pretty liberal Courts in the earlier days, so it would take some serious Court-packing to get that reversed (and even then you'd lose.

 

New FISA:  The new bill, from what I've read, at least tries to reasonably address the shortcomings in FISA resulting from new technology.  It also tries to close the loopholes that Bush drove his truck through, and codifies the idea that nothing done outside of the FISA court's purview would ever be legal.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it a lot better than we've seen before now?  I think so.  I don't think Bush won this particular part.  FISA did need updating, and this part seems to go against most everything Bush argued for earlier.

 

Telecom Immunity:  I hate it.

 

Overall, my position, even as something of a Libertarian, is that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Telecom immunity sucks.  The other provisions seem not too bad.  And there is no way you are going to win a "You may not do anything ever" argument, even in this anti-Bush climate.

 

My $0.02.

From Bob Cesca on Obama and Fisa: http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/06/a_wanker_really.html

I see the FISA thing as a trojan horse, politically of course. As another commenter said, to really make change you have to step into the lion's den. Think big picture - if Obama wins the presidency, perhaps he'll work to repeal FISA? And for now, what kinds of compromises did the Republicans make to get their bill passed? What are they going to owe Obama and the Democrats?

So it's my opinion that chicken littles ticked off about this FISA thing really ought to settle down, especially the chick-littles at DKos. Yes, it's ridiculous that this is passing, but I suspect something bigger is at play here than we are led to believe.

I got this letter second-hand but it is from Granny "D" the 93+ year old woman who walked across America for Campaign Finance Reform. Given some comments here about Barack's decision I am sharing it here for the Field readers. — Dear Friends and Family,— Everyone I know seems quite upset that Mr. Obama has said that he will opt out of the public financing system for his campaign. I have been a big fan of campaign finance reform in general and public campaign funds in particular. Indeed, I have quite a few miles on my shoes to promote such reforms. But the point of using public money to finance campaigns is to get the fat cats out of the system, so that regular citizens can again be heard. Obama's creative use of the Internet to raise small donations from a million and a half people essentially achieves the same result: Regular people are again being heard over the shrill and selfish voices of the fat cats. So I am fine with what he is doing. If Mr. McCain will get a million or so small donors, and if he will just say no to fat cat money and lobbyist-bundled money, then I will say good for him, too. Mr. Obama has reformed the system in his own way. He has used the social networking aspects of the Internet and got around the problem of fat cats. He owes some thanks to the old Dean campaign as devised by Joe Trippi to thank for this, as I'm sure he knows. I am sure that there are no permanent problems or solutions in our politics. But for now, I like the looks of Mr. Obama's small donor miracle. Very sincerely, Doris "Granny D" Haddock —Can't get paragraph spaces in my preview I hope they come out in the post.

I also find it ironic that those ridiculing Kucinich for introducing the Articles of Impeachment "because this is an election year and we cannot afford the distractions, demonstrable crimes of the administration or not" and those who are tonight lamenting the Obama camp's (likely) politically-driven statement on FISA "because it doesn't matter that this is an election year, even if it's a distraction- it's the principle of the thing" are the same people. To me, frankly, impeachment is the more important of the two, particularly since FISA hasn't even made it to the senate yet and for all we know, the good Senator might be cooking up a fight yet (benefit of the doubt and all that)...

 

And for whatever it's worth, I think Obama came out fairly strongly on one of the most important (at least in the progressive blogosphere) issues, telecom immunity.

 

J-NC@9:47 pm said:

"we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good..."

Absolutely too true.  And we cannot allow a quest for progressive purity stop us from winning.  Obama knows--as should we all--that in this political climate the President will not--can not--start a left-wing revolution.  So progressive change won't happen from the top down.  It will start from the bottom up--but for a progressive mandate to go anywhere, we need a Democratic president who is open to organizing and activism as a legitimate form of communication.

 

J=NC ... or + What?

Not something I've ever heard from a die-hard Libertian before -- and if you're leaning, you seem to have already past the stress point.

Not trying to be insulting, really, but the Electronic Freedom Foundation, arguably quite Libertarian in its outlook -- seem to recall a Grateful Dead tune (and they did have a Libertarian influence) John Perry Barlow, one of/it's founders -- the band anyway sang the song, that says to this effect:

"Saw a bird with a tear in his eye / Walking to New Orleans, my oh my / Said, 'Hey bird, wouldn't you rather die / Than walk this world when you're born to fly?'

Here's what the EFF says about the FISA bill:

EFF has obtained a copy of the new FISA "compromise", and -- surprise! -- it contains blanket immunity for telecoms that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans, just as we predicted yesterday. House Leadership intends to bring this bill to the floor for a vote tomorrow, so please contact your Congressperson now and tell them to vote NO on H.R.6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

For a shortcut, libertarian-style, their view:

http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf

So if you built a lean-too in the woods with a Libertarian bent, it just fell down, sorry to say.

Now, I'm not all that pure (though confess to enjoying good music and lyrics that stretch my mind), but in terms of the FISA bill itself, the way I see it, well, would you trust me to spy on you to keep you safe?

I always would prefer a third party firmly entrenched in between, if that has to be the case -- and accountability across all spectrums absent historically aberrant precedents. Not certain we get that when accountability is measured in pure purchasing power -- from all I've seen, it seems, that is the operating principle here in th FISA compromise. I guess that makes me less than welcoming of spying advancements during the balance of this administration -- but they continue nonetheless. 

But the politics of it are a whole other matter. Still, I wouldn't begin to justify immunity or the granting of Title III powers absent a warrant as called for in the Constitution. Even back in those days of no deodorant, they recognized that King George was not the guy you want listening into your pillow talk absent the leverage of having the legal leverage of being able to listen in on him in a pinch -- via court-ordered discovery, which is only possible if the government has to produce records of their transgressions.

Cover-ups excepted so long as the people follow their orders.

My personal take on the FISA bill is, it's an abomination.  I understand why Obama has done what he's done, I'm just not happy about it.  I am one of those "Progressives".  I can live with it "for now".  I will be deeply disappointed if he does nothing about after election. 

I'm highly disappointed with Obama's position on FISA.

George Bush used the fear of 9/11 to expand police powers and convinced corporate america to go along with him as he built the infrastructure of a repressive, Orwellian system. This system was (and is) aimed at crushing domestic dissent to the government, not at arresting Turban McTerrorpants off in Far Bhaguanistan.

The progressive blogosphere is freaking because they 1) smelled a rat 2) built opposition to FISA into a movement and 3) are getting sold out by Congressional leadership - including Senator Obama.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism" said Benito Mussolini *(more or less) because it's a merger of state and private power. The FISA immunity is about letting private power off the hook for cooperating in a fascist act by the Bush Regime.

The reason the Fieldhands are important, outside of Deb's Rural Field, and outside of Obama's Community Organized Campaign, is so we can put pressure on him when we need to.

And we don't do this by threatening to vote for McCain, we do this by sending an organized message that we're on the same side, that we would love to know what he was thinking, we would love him to know what we were thinking, and want to know how we can move forward together.

J-NC and some other commenters:

Seems like you might be missing the point of all this. People are pissed that huge corporations can knowingly and repeatedly break major laws while willfully ignoring the Constitution, and not face any punishment whatsoever. Perhaps you'd like to mention this to the cop if you ever get a ticket for speeding or having a tiny bag of weed, and see if they'd let you off? Let me know how it goes

It's not about FISA itself. I haven't seen anyone arguing that we need to eliminate FISA. It's about this telecom behavior that went on for years after 9/11, unlike what Time's JokeLine says. Quest refused to do it all, and the others could've done the same. This sets a precedent. Very, very dangerous stuff.

Yes, Obama has yet to vote on this. His word now carries a lot of weight. All the more reason we should be rising up now and letting the Senate know that this is wrong, and perhaps they'll stop it.

Doesn't it seem like a good idea to influence Obama's decisions as much as we can? He needs to know he can't pander to Liberals only to give BigMoney exactly what they want, over and over and over again...like the Clintons and other DLCers have been doing for decades now.

Liberal complaceny, and arguing, "Hey, it's better than the alternative" is all I ever heard through the 1990s, and is largely why we are now currently living in a Constitutional Crisis

I mostly just read here and one other place, and have not seen anyone saying they'll vote for Panama John over Obama because of this. Seems to me y'all are the chicken littles, fretting that any criticism of the O-man means he's gonna lose.

I spent last week in the Deep South and got three Repubs I was working with there to re-consider their support of CrazyTrain McSame, and will continue to do that until we have a President Obama, but I will not take the attitude that we should just blindly follow whatever Obama says. A bottom-up, grassroots movement is all about speaking up, isn't it?

You said:

"And we don't do this by threatening to vote for McCain, we do this by sending an organized message that we're on the same side, that we would love to know what he was thinking, we would love him to know what we were thinking, and want to know how we can move forward together."

I like the way you've framed this. I really do. How do you propose we come together to make our collective voice heard? This is productive, to me. It doesn't smack of childishness or petulence. It doesn't ignore the big picture or the wider context of this election. But you're right--there is no reason to simply piss into the wind. If the progressive voice is upset, then it has every right to be heard--constuctively, as a movement.

Though I'll reiterate, for the record, that I wish all this righteous indignant rage the progressives have discovered today could have been channeled into supporting the impeachment of George W. Bush for the demonstrable crimes he has perpetrated during his tenure. Here we are, railing against a bill that's still a maybe--one that our candidate has promised to work to change (i.e. his opposition to telecom immunity)--but on the other hand, we have a real, honest to God law-breaker in our midst who has abused his power time and again and we do but-nothing about it? I don't like those priorities, frankly. if anything sends a bad message to the executive branch, it is that we'll roll over and play dead and not pursue impeachment for even the most blatant of violations.

Does India have the equivalent of the US Bill of Rights in general or the 4th Amendment in particular?

We have our own Constitutionally Assured Rights, thank you for your "concern".

And your point was ?

New McCain 527 Ad Calls Obama a Muslim

The full link is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/223128/818/541/539504

Are you mad yet?

"By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."

Well, maybe it was just because I read these words of Obama just as I was watching him gently veer to the right but for some reason it annoyed me even more than the immunity issue which I feel strongly about. I perhaps was emoting more than thinking. I do wonder at this though. Is he just promoting organizing? But why here? I seem to have missed the grass roots movement for oversight. Maybe its the circles I run in but all the ground level passion I've seen around this has been precisely on the issue of immunity. The oversight and accountability seemed like givens.

I've started a discussion on this at Fieldhands.

I encourage people to join Fieldhands, for first, and then if you have a specific Obama/FISA comment make it here first, then duplicate it at Fieldhands.

Sorry, folks--I didn't realize that if I edited my post, it'd republish it as though it were a new comment.  My fault--next time I'll just leave the typos.  ;)

 

amk

I studied Indian democracy -- patterned after English parlimetarianism if I recall /after the Indian victory over colonialism/ (though fluxed with political U.S. bicameralism ... not sure how that happened) and underpinned by the father of civil disobediance (Ghandi Gandhi)-- I recall the story of the snake who crawled across his body without harming him, still he was executed by far wearker creatures who feared him) unless you consider a short stay on a pond in transcendental American (Thoreau/Emerson) as in any way a thought that might bridge Eastern and Western realities.

Relax, in this forum, the main goal is to blow off a bit of steam and still accomplish a larger goal in reality. If we do that, we are kicking ass compared to any most (always an exception, as logic teaches us; and the hope for the future beyond this) other virtual reality in reality.

My earlier post on FISA was about how things work in many countries visa-a- vis privacy rights being sacrificed at the altar of "war on terror", including in our country. And I am glad our msm is far more enlightened about our defending rights when compared to constant gotcha-moments in what passes for media in US today.

So your "snake-pond-TM" reference was a typical, age-old, "western" view of India being a country of snake charmers and rope tricksters and spiritualists, which I find quite insulting.

BTW, since you seem to have editing rights, you might want to change our national leader's name to Gandhi, who was a far more radical, grass-roots organiser than any other 20th century leader.

Ok. I have blown my steam now as you advised.

Congratulations to San Diego, now Field Hands Local #16!

Could everyone calm down about FISA. Just maybe Obama knows what he's doing, he's privy to a good deal more information than us and he has a pretty good track record. Remember that whole judgement argument that we're making on his behalf?

Obama did not vote on the bill, he just failed to come out against it as strongly as some people wanted. Maybe having a presidental canidate come out for against a bill strongly ties the hands of people in the other party who want to support McCain.

No this is not the same thing as blind faith. Obama has done a lot of good stuff so far, but if just one questionable thing which we don't have all the facts in is enough to give up on the guy then we're in trouble.

I am neither American nor a resident but a reader, though not a contributer to the comments, of the Field.

Do I qualify to be a fieldhand - like maybe fieldhand abroad?

AMK....

Cool to blow off steam ... but I think you missed my point on the snake thing -- which might be as you say, a Western slight, but Gandhi did allow a snake to "pass over his body," as he himself notes, according to Mahadev Desai, Gandhi's personal secretary:

The snake was passing over my body. In a case like that, what could I or anyone else do except lie motionless. This hardly calls for praise. And who knows whether or not the snake was poisonous? The idea that death is not a fearful event has been cherished by me for many a year, so that I recover soon enough from the shock of the death even of near and dear ones --- The Diary of Mahadev Desai

For the typo on Gandhi's name, I do apologize -- a gottcha moment for you. But the facts is the facts -- and the irony of his ultimate fate vs. his philosophy of nonviolence was the allusion (much like that of Dr. King, who also helped shape a nation at great personal cost).

Please don't mistake the truth for a cheap stereotype.

If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics encircles us today like the coil of a snake from which one cannot get out, no matter how much one tries. I wish therefore to wrestle with the snake. — Mahatma Gandhi

 

Wan - To answer your question, I don't think there is any requirement of citizenship to any country, nor of being a regular commenter here, to sign up with Field Hands. All one needs is the dignity of being human and occasional access to a modem!

I have read Obama's statement on FISA and he does not support the immunity part of the bill. He does support the rest of it, correct? Does this mean he is going to vote for it or will he first try to strip that part from the bill? If this passes will the telecom compainies still be subject to criminal but not civil penalties?

 

A lie cannot live. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

@ Wan:

Continuing on the answer from Al...

There is a Field Hands Abroad Group you can join if you desire...see the sidebar on the right.

AND...you can sign the petition to get Denver Credentials for Al!

I love the international support we are receiving with the signatures, and your signature will continue that powerful statement!

Most of all, keep reading...and pass this site on to all of your like-minded friends and family!

Thanks!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I have to say, the level of conversation on this blog has grown A LOT recently, and I'm not sure what to attribute it to.  It has certainly gotten (is that a word?) better since moving to the Narcosphere, for whatever reason. There is a level of sober thinking and civility that I defy any other blog with the number of readers as this blog to replicate.  I think using our names is big, and I congratulate those who have taken up the challenge to do this, while I respect that some may have perfectly good reasons for not doing so. Big ups to Catherine Cain, Alexa, Julie Bays, Pamela Hilliard Owens and Bill Conroy for really taking it to another level.  I think we have been seriously blessed with commentary from a number of real professionals here on the Field.

Wan

I am an Indian national who had similar doubts about gang initiations. Took a chance yesterday and viola - became a fieldhand abroad. The whole thing took about a minute.

(Right now though, there seems to be a tech glitch in all fieldhand.nings.com sites. So, you can try later.)

And listen to Pam and sign the petition.

Christi - I haven't "weighed in" heavily regarding the FISA vote because I look at how somebody votes on legislation through a strictly practical lens: If the vote on a bill is so close that only a few votes make the difference between pass and fail, those are the situations in which I pay attention (for example, last year's Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate could have gone either way). In those cases, it matters a lot to me how one legislator votes.

But in situations like this one where the bill is going to pass no matter what one (or a few) Senators do, I see the vote as impotent to begin with. At those moments, I don't mind so much if a presidential candidate makes a calculation that he or she doesn't wish to trade political capital for merely symbolic reasons.

I consider most of what Congress does, frankly, to be a distraction, full of symbolism over substance, and the greater priority for me is changing the system, which is something that taking the levers of power in the executive branch will have far more impact on than a symbolic legislative vote by one senator.

I understand that not everybody views it that way, and I respect their opinions, but I choose not to be sidetracked by it, or spend a lot of time on it.

I have a question and a challenge for all Field Hands. If we have over 400 members, why are there not 400 signatures on the petition to reinstate Al's press credentials for the Democratic convention? All Field Hands should be on deck (love those mixed metaphors) for this. Go to this site and sign, please:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

It's easy and can be anonymous if desired.

amk - really, I meant no snark -- and no concern either.  Whether India has a 4th amendment (prohibition against unreasonably searches and seizures) is relevant because without a 4th amendment, there is no comparison between the actions of the two countries.  It is the 4th amendment, US Constitution that makes the FISA amendment necessary, and raises the need on the part of the telecom industry for immunity. Most governments prefer unfettered ability to spy on people for reasons of national security. But is there a legal civil liberty out there that pushes back on this?  If India does not have it, then the countries are not comparable on this issue.

 

I'll toss in a couple more comments, based on some of the response from my post last night.  Then I'll shut up.

 

FISA:  The new bill updates FISA, but FISA itself has been around since 1978 (and precursors before that).  It is constitutional, as determined in many Supreme Court cases.  Read the opinion from the Federal judge that declared the warrantless program unconstitutional if you want more specifics.  She agreed to the constitutionality of FISA.  It does NOT violate the 4th amendment (or the body) of the constitution.  That amendment doesn't say, "you can't spy on me."  It says, "you can't spy on me without demonstrating probable cause to an independent authority."  FISA established the court to handle that for intelligence cases.

 

Loopholes:  Here's the problem.  New technologies left loopholes in the FISA process that you could drive a Mack truck through.  This administration drove as many of them through the loopholes as it could.  Who is next to do so?  The new bill does a halfway decent job of closing those loopholes to prevent the same thing happening in the future.  That is the "good" I mentioned in my statement to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Closing those loopholes is important in order to keep to the 4th amendment, where the government must show probable cause to the judiciary.

 

Immunity:  Yep, when they go to court the telecoms they will probably get immunity for their past support of the administration in all this.  It sucks.  I don't like it any better than anyone else.

 

So, do I throw away the part of this thing that closes the loopholes because I'm pissed about immunity?  Which is safer?  Holding out for absolutely no immunity, and getting no help on the loopholes?  Or the other way around?  Keep in mind when you're thinking about that there there are 7 months remaining of an administration that has demonstrated it will abuse the loopholes in FISA for all they're worth.

 

So yes, I do still consider myself to have libertarian leanings.  I'm also an engineer, so I have a practical streak a mile wide.  If it is necessary for preventing abuse in the future, I'm willing to give a little on the past even if I don't like it.

While I think all elected officials have to make political choices on legislation, a presidential candidate's choices are relevant and instructive.  Hillary Clinton voted "yeah" for the Iraq War. Had she done otherwise, she very well may have been the demo presumptive nominee.  BUT, there was no way the bill authorizing the war would have been voted down. So she made a political calculation (or she believed in her vote) and came out on the wrong end of the historical stick (this go around).  The corollary is interesting as well -- opposing  a bill is merely a political calculation? So Obama would have voted for the Iraq War had be been in the senate at the time and that would have been ok?

Given this rationale, at some point, this becomes nothing but a game of mirrors and the poor schmuck voter is out there electing smoke but believing it is real.

I am going to work tirelessly for Obama. I want him elected. The whole friggin population is so conditioned by Rovian tactics and Nixonian theories of the electorate that Obama throws me a bone about being against the telecom immunity and I'll take it because otherwise, I won't eat.It has to be enough right now. But it pisses me off.  And it is no small thing, despite the comments on here to the contrary.  It is a big thing, and it remains to be seen how it will play out.  Also, I think public opinion on this one was more in favor of no immunity than the pols think.  But Obama has to win an election, and the repubs are already painting him as an effete, terror loving pansy, and he can not afford to look weak on terror, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Al, you said:

"I consider most of what Congress does, frankly, to be a distraction, full of symbolism over substance, and the greater priority for me is changing the system, which is something that taking the levers of power in the executive branch will have far more impact on than a symbolic legislative vote by one senator."

Yes and yes.  This is what I've been driving at in my wordy posts, though I doubt I could have boiled my point down as succinctly, lol!

Let's "take the levers of power in the executive branch" and give ourselves the chance to try to shift the country left. Let's not lose sight of that as our ultimate goal.

@Joel and @ Joann:

1) Thanks for promoting the petition!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

2) I fully understand why some would want to stay anonymous--as I told AL, since I work for myself, my "boss" can't fire me! LOL My dear husband is on the same page as me politically---he lucked out!  LOL2

But I know that some people might *get in trouble* from employers/family, etc.  Plus, if you post as anonymous, but you are really trolling, Al will *get you* soon enough!

So join the Field Hand Group of your choice...AND...

sign the petition! (anonymously, if necessary!)

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I stand by my earlier statement that I fully respect that people may have perfectly good reasons for witholding their names in this public forum, though I am curious about the "getting in trouble with employers and family" thing.  Do people have employers that google their employees' names to see if they are blogging/commenting on certain blogs?  I confess naivety on this as I am self employed as a doctor in Canada and will never have to rely on being "hired" by anyone for my employment.  Also, if family members and employers are enlightened enough to be prowling through the Field, wouldn't you expect  them to be inclined to sympathy for the gist of this blog?  It's not exactly a mainstream publication.  Again...curious, not meaning to be snarky.  That being said, as an experiment I googled myself and found, at position 7 in the list of responses, my Narcosphere profile, which includes identifiers like my job description and location - which I am free to delete.

Thanks fieldhands. Just joined Fieldhands Abroad. Hope to once in a while make some positive contributions.

I am disappointed with him right now. He is supporting Barrow in the GA primary and Barrow voted yes yesterday.  Pelosi voted no but many democrats voted with the repugs. Thank you Al for your insight and I appreciate it wholly. I sure hope you are right about

"taking the levers of power in the executive branch will have far more impact on than a symbolic legislative vote by one senator."

Why is he supporting this blue dog dem over the progressive Regina Thomas?http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-takes-stand-in-georgia-primary.html

Does anybody really think that unwarranted surveillance of US citizens abroad - our phones, our emails, etc. - isn't already happening?

There's already a loophole big enough to drive a super-computer through on a trailer: There's no US law that prevents US law enforcement agencies from receiving recordings and data files from foreign agencies, or private sector telecommunications companies abroad, if permitted by the government in that country. I have direct lived experience with this in Mexico.

Everything that people fear FISA will do is already happening. That gives me some perspective on the bill.

First, "Chicken Little"  should not become a label tossed around anytime someone disagrees with a very real, very important policy issue like FISA. It makes me nervous when people start buying into "Well, but he knows more than us. Who are we to show concern?"  Does this sound familiar? Like, say, the last 8 years of congress voting to hand all their own power--and in doing so many of our civil liberties-- away?

 

One of the loopholes Al is describing is the process whereby, via friendly agreements, foreign countries (often through private companies) monitor communications in their nations (and even possibly in the U.S.) and then turn that information over to the U.S. government. Mexico, for one, has such a system in place. It gets around the U.S. Constitution with respect to monitoring the communications of U.S. citizens.

http://portal.radiobemba.org/index.php/archivos/doc/us_government_starts...

And then there's the case of Richard Horn, a former DEA agent who worked overseas for the agency and currently has a case pending at the appeals level in the U.S. Court system. The case has been kept from public view via the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege claim.

http://www.narconews.com/Issue34/article1063.html

From the start, Horn ran into problems with the top U.S. State Department official in Burma, Charge d’Affaires Franklin Huddle Jr., and the CIA chief of station in Burma at the time, Arthur M. Brown.

.... Horn’s attorney claims the bug was planted by Brown or one of his cronies as part of an effort to set up Horn and to undermine DEA’s mission in Burma. The eavesdropping, in the end, failed to produce any dirt that could be used against Horn, but it was a clear violation of his civil rights, according to Leighton.

Sources within DEA contend Horn’s claims against the CIA and State Department are on target, adding that the Department of Justice went as far as to claim that no U.S. citizen is protected from eavesdropping by its government when overseas.

“Horn’s whole story is true,” contends one DEA source. “They spied on his home, and the Department of Justice defended the CIA’s actions.”

As you can see, Big Brother has been in our shorts for quite some time now.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but the FISA bill doesn't seem to provide "immunity" like you'd see on an episode of Law and Order. I didn't read all 114 pages, but zeroed in on the provisions that seem to be relevant here.

Section 802 says "a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against" which seems to imply that civil matters, not criminal matters, are what this bill addresses.

Section 804 also requires the Attorney General provide details to both the Senate and House judiciary committees -- every 6 months -- on all certifications issued under this act.

Note: A search of the PDF shows that the word "immunity" only appears once, and only in the context of not interfering with other immunities.

 

PDF is here in case anyone's interested:

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/FISAINTRO_001_xml.pdf

 

 

Al @12:14, Bill @ 12:47.  I concur.

I also don't know how to get around it.  We can't regulate what monitoring, say, the British government might be doing (or Mexican, or any other).  Or whether they "happen" to decide to share that information with our own.  And so many of them like to monitor citizens, don't they (look at all the cameras in London)?

We can do our best to try to control the direct monitoring by our own government.  The new bill attempts to do this, even requiring a warrant for direct monitoring of US citizens overseas.  Of course, as was already pointed out, you can get around that by having the other nations do the monitoring for you.

It's not unlike some parts of the drug issue.  After all, if you change the chemical structure of certain "illegal" drugs slightly, and poof - they're legal until the law catches up.  In this case, technology changes and oh, my - the law doesn't cover it.

If anybody has a good idea on how to overcome the problem of monitoring (and sharing) by other governments, I'm all ears (I would like very much to do so).  Otherwise, we're basically dependent on the good intentions of the current administration for privacy in that area.  Not my favorite way to go...

A bit of a rambling post, but hopefully at least minimally coherent.

Robert,

That's my read as well.  What I have read says that claims by people who were not damaged (can't show they were monitored) would be subject to a hearing.  If the telecom can prove they had a written government order, that case can be thrown out.

If, however, someone does show they were monitored (like those folks who got the FBI report), those claims are not granted the opportunity for immunity.

That's what I read from it anyway.  But I could be wrong.

You articulate your position well. 

If my whole profile can be googled, I'd rather stay anonymous.

I agree with those who counsel patience. The compromise bill is not yet law, so until then all of the lawsuits stand. If the Senate is smart, action could be delayed until the next administration when a ( hopefully more sympathetic) President can quietly get Congress to delete the immunity part.

After reading Al's comments below, perhaps the Government already knows what they need to know through back channels already. Technology is porous: there is a great deal that simply leaks out through wireless transmission, phone lines, radios.  Its not a problem to get the proper equipment for a good intercept or to get a hacker for hire who already has the equipment.

I take heart in this fact: despite all of the spying by J Edgar Hoover and all of the harassment by COINTELPO,(without Fisa) America changed anyway. If he were here today, he would have a massive coronary over the social changes that have happened since he passed away. Integration, the sexual revolution, the women's movement and all of the rest happened anyway. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the listeners later changed themselves by what they learned. When an idea's time has really come, it's come, and nobody can really stop it from coming.

 

No doubt, there are incidences of the guvment violating the 4th amendment and a whole host of civil liberties before 9/11 and the warrantless eavesdropping on citizens debacle, and no doubt they will do so again.

I totally get someone throwing up their hands with this one and thinking they will save their energies for something else.  I also understand someone cutting Obama slack for reasons of political expediency and reality because reasonable minds can differ on whether it would be political suicide for him to vote against the bill w/ telecom immunity in it.  

I do not understand anyone saying constitutional rights are already being violated, so why try to reign in behavior and insert a modicum of discipline that at least TRIES to conform with the 4th Amendment. Not saying anyone is saying that, just saying if they are, I think it is an untenable thing to say.     

 

Take this with a pinch of salt because I am from a country with no "4th amendment".

May be the people, who act outraged about to Obama's stand on FISA, are really upset about finding that this phase of election isn't about them alone anymore. Obama has to throw a wider net in GE to reach a position where he could do something about those "damn civil lberties".

The ones claiming, a la dutch courage,  " I'll vote for McCain or will sit out" are no different from those hardcore clintonistas, whom the obamites were constantly deriding in the primaries.

On FieldHands there is a forum titled "Obama and a Blue Dog." Some of your questions and concerns might be addressed there. There is quite a bit of discussion about the issue.

I completely agree with Al regarding FISA.  You can be against something and not be moved to action to protest.  I hope that the final bill does not grant immunity.  Any junior attorney at any of the telecoms could certainly have determined that the government request was questionable, if not completely illegal.  In fact one of them - QWest - did refuse to comply with the govennment's request.  (Or maybe the request just got routed to their fantastic Customer Service Dept. and it's still being looked into by a Team Leader).  But I think we take our eye off the ball if we think that's the most important event to talk about in the next 5 months. 

Regarding illegal wiretapping and the fact that it goes on as we speak, I still think it's very important that we have restrictions in place regardless of whether or not there are agencies or corporations in or outside of the U.S that violate those.   The important word being violate.  Because if there is nothing to violate then there is the potential for unlimited prosecution of innocent people.    So my point being that even if we are being monitored, if it's illegal to do so, at least there is protection from prosecution.

It would be naive to believe that anyone's electronic communications cannot easily be monitored around the globe by someone who you don't know.  I don't ever type anything on the internet that I wouldn't feel comfortable being presented in court or to my family or friends or co-workers.  But I DO have a real problem with any government snooping within my home or at the library to see what books I read, or accessing my snail mail, or listening in on my telephone conversations.  But I think the world we live in demands that we understand that electronic communication is next to impossible to keep private.  

I would like to believe that our Congress has more of a purpose than just being a distraction.  However, that certainly has been the case for most of my adult life.  The few times they were not a distraction, they were even worse by being an enabler to two awful wars, abdicating their responsiblity under Article I Section XIII to declare (not declare) war against the countries of North Vietnam and Iraq. 

Getting Sen. Obama elected President and having his leadership in creating transparency thoughout the legislative and executive branches, getting citizens involved at a grassroots level on the environment, our infrastructure and poverty issues, and getting out of this illegal war are things that will constructively move this country forward.  All other topics and events for the next 5 short months are distractions that the Republicans hope we all find  both interesting and divisive.      

It was a Groundspring donation.  Will get a new one over to you shortly, Al.

Is simply fear of non-field hands lurking here or any other blog. Having grown up in the 70s Bronx, petty vindictivenees is a coping mechanism that I've seen since day one of my life.

I realize it's irrational for the most part but I can't shake it. I hope ya'll understand.

Thanks!..

Maria - No problem. What part of The Bronx?

Tara - Glad to hear it. And thanks!

Does anybody really think that unwarranted surveillance of US citizens abroad - our phones, our emails, etc. - isn't already happening? There's already a loophole big enough to drive a super-computer through on a trailer: There's no US law that prevents US law enforcement agencies from receiving recordings and data files from foreign agencies, or private sector telecommunications companies abroad, if permitted by the government in that country.

Let me second what Al and Bill Conroy wrote, and also state that it applies to US citizens/non-citizens here in the US.

I can tell you from first-hand experience -- first-hand, not second-hand, not 'I read it some place', not 'someone told me' -- that this has been going on since at least 1984. Domestically. Culled from the ten major nodes of the US telecommunications system. (San Francisco, Denver, Missouri, New Jersey, etc.) Stored underground near Falls Church VA, last I knew -- maybe they filled it -- in a massive multi-floor storage area several football fields per floor wide.

I can also tell you, first-hand, that before 1994, there was a modicum of secrecy and protection involved -- before 1994 -- because of the internal culture of AT&T that viewed itself as a utility and a law unto iteslf, and as a major US govt national security player.

When the hardware and software law changed with CALEA -- the stupidest thing we ever allowed -- foreign governments and companies were involved because of judicial deniability. That was the intel thinking then. My knowledge, again first-hand, involves Israeli companies, and their subsequent morphing into US subsidiaries with no ties to the motherland; they seized the opportunity when AT&T really broke up mid-1990s by getting the WH contract, then over quiet but intense objection becoming a US company.

What happened in the 90s can be explained moreover by human nature. It's called greed and kickbacks -- a whole new candy store protected by national security claims; therefore those Liechtenstein and Costa Rican accounts were protected hola!-- and the late 90s dotcom boom with staggering profits, which caused foreign commercial/govt entities working with US intel to create US subsidiaries to cash in on a greater scale. Our exploding digital technological world was the ocean these characters now wanted to cruise on to buy islands in the Pacific and tschotkes for mistresses. No one paid adequate attention to this during the Clinton admin, when all the dark players dreamt this up, sometimes using political/religious motives as the ostensible reason. All this is what is giving many 90s-era congressmen on the Hill the heaves. Both Dem and Repub. Their participation then can make them unelectable now, and it frightens them. (I worked with some of these Reps; they rubber-stamped their sponsorship while having drinky-poos at fundraisers.)

Bottom line: we out-sourced out intel (making our govt officials subject to blackmail, even today), we out-sourced our telecommunications (all call-record data are stored in foreign countries subject to their intel shenanigans; your bills are produced overseas), and we out-sourced our hardware and software to the extent that we have lost complete control over what can be collected. Or protected.

My position, knowing what I know? Accountability and the truth. I want sunlight on the whole goddam thing, the whole megillah. I'm grown-up enough to say 'OK, so you did this, and you over there did that, and you did it because the guvvie came to you and said You Need To Act To Help Save Our Country, Blah-Blah, but the time has come to tell us what you did and what you're doing now'.

Bitching about FISA is like bitching about the buttons on your coat being too tight. It doesn't address the body that still gets to walk around and do the same things.

We need to know what those things are. In plain English. With flowcharts. And little Spy-vs-Spy icons.

There are 400 Fieldhands - how come there are only 202 signatures on the petition so far?

I keep looking at the 'diaries' on DKos and can't find the link to it?

Congress set to Approve IraN War Resolution.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/144412/857/181/539848

Here is the link.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/19/123350/442

 

A lie cannot live. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

at

Submitted June 21, 2008 - 5:03 pm by Anonymous (not verified)

I am having cable problems agains and couldn't fix this in time.

Alexa,

I was reading it and thought "this HAS to be Alexa!"  LOL. 

Suzy - re: "There are 400 Fieldhands - how come there are only 202 signatures on the petition so far?... I keep looking at the 'diaries' on DKos and can't find the link to it?"

This is literally the sort of "half empty, half full" looking glass that the Chicken Little vaccine is meant to adjust. I say this as the one person that really can't be involved in such a petition drive, because it is on my behalf. But I'm grateful for it, and, from behind this lens, impressed that in less than two days more 200 people have found it.

If you think that 200 signators is not enough, as a Field Hand at ning.com you have the ability to contact any other Field Hand there and organize on behalf of that or anything else. If you're wondering why something's not mentioned at another website (one where anybody can sign up and make comments starting 24 hours after signing up), the organizer's approach would be to go spread the word yourself.

But asking aloud why somebody else isn't doing something you or anyone could do is not good organizing technique - especially because it doesn't point people who may only now be learning of it to do what you'd like them to do. It also minimizes the good efforts of the many that have (at least that I've noticed online) been organizing, sending out emails, contacting Field Hands and others, and giving them the link to do that.

Do you see my point? An organizer never complains about something not being done the way that he or she wants it to be done. An organizer just does it.

I myself am humbled that there are hundreds of people that think it's important that I go report on that convention enough to go to another site and sign a petition. It's particularly impressive that so many have done it after they were burned so insultingly by the first person and organization to ask them for donations to do that.

But my point is not about that petition (which clearly, if successful, would be excellent for my work). It's about organizing. Promoting gets things done. Complaining simply does not, and can only serve to demoralize allies and make rotted evil corrupted souls that root against a project take joy in your chicken-littledom.

Bill,

Verint Technologies, in the Mexican communications spy story you linked to here, is the renamed Comverse Technologies, described here and here and here. Even though the Comverse site now calls Verint a "U.S. subsidiary," the original press release, which seems to have vanished, said Comverse would be renamed Verint. Probably because of the removed Fox News story association, and the fact that its former CEO is on the lam in Namibia.

So now the crooks are down in Mexico? On the U.S. dime -- my dime -- no less.

===============

 

Catherine, yeah everyday around this time my internet cable plays hookee for 60-90 minutes. No ryhme or reason because the TV works.

Joel asked:  Do people have employers that google their employees' names to see if they are blogging/commenting on certain blogs?

Yes.  Public sector, law enforcement related, extremely conservative state.  So far we still have merit status but they're talking about taking that away.  Until I'm willing to give up the insurance I need I've got to be a little paranoid.  Hell, I feel brave just using my first name.  I'm taking a chance just visiting narconews while at work. Hell, I google my name and find all kinds of things out about me.

I wonder which is better:

 

1) 400 Fieldhands/202 signatures?

2) 202 Fieldhands/202 signatures?

3) 1000 Fieldhands/202 signatures?

 

I'd go for #3, but that's just me...

 

Thanks for bringing up the Iran Resolution link @ 5:15 PM, Christi Demuth. You're right. I knew nothing about this.

Just when I thought I could have a reasonable weekend, I have to get on my high horse again & start screeching around the web about this. ESPECIALLY after waking up yesterday AM to NPR quoting the Russian Foreign Minister's warning about bombing Iran. In my semi-consciousness, my eyes bulged. He was effectively saying Russia would come to Iran's aid. Doesn't anybody know what Russia has in terms of bombs? And what they sold Iran at the beginning of this century?

Russia has cruise missiles that we have no deterrent against, according to the Pentagon official who was upbraided for admitting it (ABC News). They can fly 45 ft above the water with 100% stealth capability at 2900 mph (15,312,000 ft/hr), then lift themselves up 15 ft and hit an aircraft carrier, obliterating it. Not "put a hole in it." Remove it from the earth.

The captain of the aircraft carrier will only see it when its 500 ft away. He has less than a second to react.

It's an upgraded missile. The web is now rife with statements that we can stop this missile in its tracks. That's not what overseas weapons-based journals report. The USA in 1995 tried to buy one of this bomb's predecessors from the Russians and they refused.

I have the history and technical specs on the honkin' morgue, and a JPG of the DoD request for purchase, but I am in no mood to hook it up to locate the source.

Obama's position on the FISA bill compromise comes with a welcome caveat re: retroactive telecom immunity... From a Huffington Post article:

Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

"[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Thanks to those in the thread above for the shout outs about http://fieldhands.ning.com/ and the hands header image. (I put a favicon up today, so you should see a tiny hand in your browser's address window! woo hoo!)

I just posted two new items in the Forum discussion about the site. We lost one of our admins, Patrick, from the site. As an Obama Organizing Fellow, he's now part of the campaign, and that means no independent online activity for the duration. His discussion threads --especially the helpful suggestions, and tips -- went away with him when he left.

So one thread is a new suggestion/brainstorming thread, to take the place of the one that went away..

I also wrote a two week history of the site and a call for help in running the site.

You can find links to both threads at the top of the home page. 

(I've basically spent the last 24 hours (waking) doing stuff to the site, writing a detailed how-to tutorial, and prepping the posts I just mentioned. What with life and all that, I've been operating on a personal deficit, and made this push to articulate a call for help, describe what's needed, to make the site more self-running and see if a few people can come forward so that I might take a step back. I must. need. cannot. fail. to work on my own personal backlog.)

I think my own, personal, lesson in the task of community organizing is how best to hand stuff over when it gets to be too much. (I say this after reading Al's comment upthread about how a community organizer does it.)

--Susan

...so long as you don't call me late for lunch.

Al @ 6:16 said: "An organizer never complains about something not being done the way that he or she wants it to be done. An organizer just does it."

In contrast, midaged @ 8:02 said" Individual liberties trumps community organizing."

So there's politics, if that's what you call it; and then there's community organizing, which I guess you'd call process.  If the goal is a liberal or progressive agenda, politics is key, and it's a betrayal to support the conservative candidate or a bill that leaves past evils unpunished (in civil court only, by the way).  But if the goal is to revive the popular democracy that some of us believe is the thing that matters most, these are wrong but, as Al says, sidebars.  Important in their way, but in the big picture they're blips.  If nurturing democracy is our goal, the question is how to best serve that goal, not how to force a particular conclusion.

Call it relativistic, and if you think politics is a battle between good and evil, accommodationist, perhaps even appeasement.  I respectfully disagree.  If done right, it will get us much further than any one decision might.  If we want a progressive government we need to build a progressive populace that forces that government to serve it.  We few aren't enough to fight the moneyed powerful; we need millions of Americans to get up and define their own interests.

Meanwhile, the wealthy, the corporate slime, the lobbyists, the multinationals, big oil, big pharma, big finance, all them guys--they're just delighted that Obama's followers are wringing their hands and speechifying about voting McCain in.  The more the merrier, as far as they're concerned.

Alexa --Ya' know what's happening in those 60-90 minutes is a telecom acting with impunity (and oh yes... immunity). 

Catherine, and they put the Qwest guy in jail for not playing ball.

It would be naive to believe that anyone's electronic communications cannot easily be monitored around the globe by someone who you don't know.

In 1985 -- that would be 23 years ago --  I used to watch At&T BL techies, just for fun and to impress me, dial the number of someone across the country and listening into the conversation in the room. Worked on the same principle of the old BBSs. The dial-in number was a silent ring. And the special number dialed hooked you up to the particular 'cable & pair'. Then additional digits engaged the duplex part of your microphone. Just like 'room monitor' feature of old telephone answering machines. I even had that special phone number myself, which I never used, along with a special phone number that would tell me whether my line was being watched. The latter was what AT&T have out to special ops groups. Again, a present from the techies.

Credit collection companies do it now to see if you're home. Word has it that it's been extended to cable boxes able to record back what they see if front of them.

Based on what I've seen and experienced, if I ever build a house, I will build all walls adjacent to technology to be 24" thick, and place all tech boxes (CPUs, cable boxes, anything with a duplex characteristic) in that space between the walls, air-conditioned, and with a skinny door for access at the end near the hallway. So only the teevee or the video player would be visible in the room. I would put a Radio Shack ring enhancer on the phone inside the skinny space. Then I would put a white noise machine inside this space, or play an aggravating loop of Swedish or Russian porn groans, preferably bored.

This shit is just too easy to do. Your cell phone acts as a megaphone, for those who care. As long as you have duplex anything in your room, you're vulnerable. Motorola is one of the worst offenders because its speakers are so good.

Alexa - I had the same problem when I moved to this house. They said it was something to do with the feed to my house and the wiring in the house. I had the cable guys out here three times to work on it. I finally learned how to disconnect everything, take the battery out of the converter box, wait one minute, put it back and turn everything back on. The act of resetting the stuff usually clears it up. They must have increased the juice to the feed since it hasn't happened lately.

JoAnn,

I wish it were the converter box. This involves the direct feed from the street, which goes thru the walls from outside the front door. Another feed goes to the converter box.

I think I'm getting dinged to see if I'm stealing bandwidth or something.

Alexa,

This article in Counterpunch, by John Ross, also mentions the Verint contract.

And one of NN's copublishers, Stephen Peacock, did a story last year on a huge surveillance center being set up in Mexico:

Mexico To Deploy Nationwide Electronic Surveillance System With State Dept. Help

And in the event anyone is looking for a searchable database of government contractors/contracts, etc., the link below is worth checking out. For some reason, though, Verint doesn't show up in the database, at least in a search I did -- though it could be buried in the data under some related name or simply not included for some reason that is explained somewhere in the fine print. Would require more digging to get to the bottom of it....

Welcome to USASpending.gov - Where Americans Can See Where Their Money   Goes

Have you ever wanted to find more information on government spending? Have you ever wondered where federal contracting dollars and grant awards go? Or perhaps you would just like to know, as a citizen, what the government is really doing with your money. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) requires a single searchable website, accessible by the public for free that includes for each Federal award:  1. The name of the entity receiving the award; 2. The amount of the award; 3. Information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, etc; 4. The location of the entity receiving the award; 5. A unique identifier of the entity receiving the award.

 

Bill thanks for that reminder about the spending/contractor website. I'd forgotten to bookmark it.

Al--E.163rd St, then 173rd St then Mosholu Pkwy(Webster Ave side) until Mom/Dad moved to the Catskills region while I was in college. Worked at Associated SuperMarket on Kingsbridge..time of my life ;-)

Alexa--thanks so much for your posts. Although I knew that stuff went on, I never had "proof".

It's not that anything is wrong with the converter box.  The repair man explained to me that the converter works so hard to keep up without enough juice coming from the feed that it finally gives up and stops for a while so that it can recover.  The cable company needs to adjust the strength of the signal coming into your house.  At the very least, they should give you a discount on your bill for the time you can't use the internet.

@7:39 - "Meanwhile, the wealthy, the corporate slime, the lobbyists, the multinationals, big oil, big pharma, big finance, all them guys--they're just delighted that Obama's followers are wringing their hands and speechifying about voting McCain in.  The more the merrier, as far as they're concerned."

 

Please don't paint with such a broad brush. It's not as clear cut as you might perceive. Plenty of the "wealthy" are with you, especially those in what would be called the "lower class" of rich (net worth between $1 million and $10 million).

True, only about 27% are registered Democrats (51% Republican), but these lower class millionaires have been 25% more likely to cross party lines in elections than the super rich. And they're almost twice as likely to share "regular" middle class values (such as "being ethical" and "contributing the world community") than the super duper rich.

They're also a lot less trusting of the government than either the ultra rich or the traditional middle class. True, they're far less likely to volunteer time, but these 8 million households are far more likely to cough up a check (and can afford to "max out").

My source is a survey conducted by Russ Alan Prince that became a book called The Middle-Class Millionaire.

My own view? I'm not sure this group is as "progressive" as you'd like, but I'll bet you have more allies than you think.

 

 

 

 

Re: "Rich People"

Don't mean to be funny, but if I'm outside in my backyard listening to some jazz and on my laptop on a Saturday night, I can be excused for some levity, eh?

I can't wait to join our next First Family in the "Lower-Class Rich"!

I read somewhere that the O's total net worth is "only" about $4.1M...'way below J McC and/or the C's!

I'm gonna make that a goal for myself and my hubby: "Lower Class Rich"!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Don't ever forget about the richest liberal of them all - Warren Buffet.  I think it's Audacity of Hope where Obama talks about going to his unassuming office and getting an earful on how he thinks he pays way too little in tax. : ))

Al, good comments about the signatories to the petition.

Another reason why some of us haven't signed it to date is that we hadn't heard directly from you whether it's an effort that you endorse.  Now that you have indicated that you appreciate the concept, I'm ready to sign.

 

@11:19 pm "Don't ever forget about the richest liberal of them all - Warren Buffet.  I think it's Audacity of Hope where Obama talks about going to his unassuming office and getting an earful on how he thinks he pays way too little in tax. : ))"

I wonder what he (Buffet) thought when he got his "stimulus check" in the mail.

Bill,

I found Verint in that database by typing in the lone words Verint or Comverse. But it said the contract was a measley $300Gs.

The contracts that pop up for Verint/Comverse do not list State, which is allegedly who let the Mexican contract. Notice list below:

Amount	Parent Company Name	Major Agency	Product or Service	Date	Program Source (Agency-Account)	Program Source Description
$198,425	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of Veterans Affairs	Utilities and housekeeping services	2007-08-17	-
$79,723	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of the Treasury	Automatic data processing and telecom. services	2007-01-22	-
$30,405	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of Veterans Affairs	Utilities and housekeeping services	2007-07-01	-
$21,458	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of Defense	Automatic data processing equipment	2007-03-06	-
$2,000	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of Justice		2006-10-10	-
$2,000	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of Justice	Maintenance, repair and rebuilding of equipment	2006-10-10	-
$0	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	Dept. of Defense	Automatic data processing equipment	2007-04-11

Here is the list of all State Dept. contracts for FY07 that pop up in the public search site (involving 18,244 parent companies) and nothing mentioning Verint or Comverse.

Assuming the Mexican news reports are accurate, it might be that the contract falls into the "black" side of the budget? Pure speculation, though, absent some more evidence, if it exists.

Alexa - hilarious post re: phones etc. Really great.

Re: Iran resolution (now well off-topic) - when someone gets hysterical on Dkos, they should at least link to the legislation:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:

Looks pretty Lieberman/AIPAC-esque:

"...demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program..."

Thanks for the Counterpunch link. I usually read everything over there and I am an on-again-off-again paper subscriber, but I missed that particular article. (Depends on my paper-in-the-house mood for the year.) God, I wish there was some way to put together an interactive MindMap on the web so that all these under-the-radar associations of companies, govts, intels, contracts, news, consequences, etcetera, could be collected and seen in one place. Problem is keeping the trolls out, not to mention the technology not being ready for web prime-time.

BTW, it was Comverse InfoSys that became Verint. Comverse InfoSys was the subsidiary of Comverse Technologies.

Another BTW, the Peacock report on the Mexican system strikes me as a whitewash of what the US govt via Verint is really dumping in Mexico. The whitewash is not what Peacock reported; he was quoting the documents provided. The whitewash was the description of the technolgy in the documents, making it sound like everyone went to Radio Shack for a science project.

"minimum 25,000-hour capacity?" That's 25,000 teenage girls in the entirety of Mexico [for those who dont know: Mexico City pop alone = 28,000,000] talking on the phone for an hour . . . or 100 terabytes of CD uncompressed quality, waay less storage needed if they're recording in H.264 audio, or military HD. I have five terabytes here that take up the footprint of a loaf of bread. I could easily store 25,000 hours of audio on that. Maybe I could do Mexico?

While the system would allow those staffers to “collect, monitor and record” a total of 60 calls at once

Hunh? A few MacBooks and PhoneValets could get that done. It's called small-business office capacity.

I could go on. Wont bore you.

So it would be interesting to know what they are really pulling in Mexico, because this jive doesn't cut it.

My suspicion? OK, this is my opinion. All operations have been moved to Mexico so that when this shit is revealed, which everyone suspects it will be, its one more reason to blame the Mexicans and ramp up more anti-immigration feeling in this country. This is a set-up. Calculated to make it look as if the Mexicans are invading the USA, and stealing US secrets, your secrets, your privacy, your banking information, yammer yammer, your first-born, etcetera. And a whole shitload of people, probably 75% of America, will fall for this crap.

The State Dept gave a $2+ million contract via an internal State Dept grant (at least the one we know about) to a "US" company to spy on Mexicans and Americans at the exact time in 2007 it was being delisted on the Nasdaq for fraud? That's the ballgame right there.

Pul-leeze.

Bill,

I got this for Verint with Comverse as Parent Company in 2007:

http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?company_name=verint&x=0&y=0&rep...

Hope the link works. let me know if it doesn't. I can't insert the table.

Hey! Let me try.

=========================

You can click on the column headers below to re-sort the search.

Parent Company Name	Contractor Name(s)	Total Amount (for this search)	DUNS Number
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.	VERINT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, VERINT TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, VERINT VIDEO SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED	$334,011	130205297

Total parent companies for fiscal year 2007: 1

Total funding (within this search) for the year: $334,011

Thanks fieldhands. Just joined Fieldhands Abroad. Hope to once in a while make some positive contributions.

Alexa -

 

Your posts on domestic / international spying (both from your firsthand knowledge and general knowledge) are exactly the kind of thing that more folks should know about.  Also, your comments, combined with Al's comments on FISA, should put the FISA bill in perspective for the multitudes who are wringing their hands all across the vast Internet plains.

 

If you do get a chance to write up a DKos diary on what you've posted here about spying (and its possible relationship to FISA), could you post a link for us to recommend?

Have just done a compare traffic between ruralvotes and narconews.

The traffic graphlines have crossed each other in recent days. Guess which way the 'spikes' look like they're heading.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ruralvotes.com

On the top line of the Traffic History Graph just enter narconews.com in the box after the first plus sign and go Compare Sites.

Or, if you prefer to do it the other way:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/narconews.com

BondiBeachViews

Just an aside about stupidity: this article from thehill.com entitled More congressional computers hacked from China. Which manages to imply also that Iran is hacking into house.gov computers as well by virtue of stating it. And that this has gone on for two years, which means our Reps, their assistants, and IT are profound idiots not to put safeguards in place for 24 months.

Also, an example of how people can be bamboozled into believing this.

Every once in a while a relatively innocuous disinfo artcle strikes me as so brazen, I can't ignore pointing it out.

The FISA bill is a disaster. As Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU have pointed out, while retroactive telcom immunity (which Obama says he opposes but is unwilling to do anything serious to stop) is its worst feature, the underlying legislation is also terrible.

Under current federal law, FISA gives the government all the spying power it needs.

This is just a power grab by the executive, which all the Republicans and most of the Democrats (far more than the numbers who have to vote "yes" to get it through Congress) support because they are basically authoritarians, whose commitment to the national security state is much deeper than their commitment to civil liberties.

That Obama belongs in this camp is disappointing (because, under pressure from Dodd, he had indicated otherwise earlier this year), but hardly surprising.  If they wanted to protect their civil liberties, Democrats should have supported Kucinich or Dodd.

Obama remains, however, a pretty clear lesser evil to McCain.  However, votes like this (and speeches like the one to AIPAC) should remind us all that Obama, like Clinton, is very much about DC politics as usual when it comes to anything other than the organization of his campaign.

Sean at fivethirtyeight.com has a really nice article up on the voter files and how the value of the information and accuracy is increased by grass-roots organization.  Take it from someone who works in an extremely database-oriented industry...data is _expensive_, accurate data is _priceless_.  Building a ground-up organization where one of the goals is collecting real-world concrete data as opposed to inferred and hypothetical relationships as found in normal SOS data cannot be underestimated.  One result of the marathon primary that we don't hear all that much about is that the Dem database is hot and fresh...the GOP one, not so much.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/word-on-voter-files.html

Nate

The whole section of "Week in Review" was great today - I especially enjoyed this story from an Op-Ed contributor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22pollack.html

I was also thinking about those who are so disenchanted with Obama's position on FISA.  It was interesting that his bold decision on not allowing lobbyist or PAC money for the DNC just a few days ago got about a 1/2 days play in the liberal and the pro-Obama columns and blogs.  Perhaps it was because it wasn't something that Obama supporters had been demanding - that it was a surprising GOOD move?  I think a lot of this anger has as much to do with "he's not doing what we expected him to do" as it does with FISA itself.

I can't get to gopetiton.com from my Verizon FIOS home connection.  Is it down, or is Verizon blocking it?

Or heck just go here:

http://fieldhands.ning.com/profiles/blog/list?user=3ck9rr5aw07t8

And if you haven't already - feel free to sign up!

This link to the petition works fine for me:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

 

Al, thanks for your comments on organizing.  I have posted several messages on Fieldhands about the online Petition to get you the credentials to Denver.  have also sent out hundreds, literally, of emails, and made phone calls.  I am pleased you are happy with the numbers of signers.  I was surprised there weren't more given the traffic you generated and the post by Barry Crimmins.  As others were happier with the numbers generated to sign, obviously my expectations were/are different.  Don't see it as a Chicken Little moment, and hope if the nubmer 200 something is good in other folks eyes, it does get you to Denver.

When you get into the spook world, especially on the topic of telecom and matters of FISA, it gets to be a true house of mirrors in short order. It doesn't surprise me a bit that "Company" related contracts would involve shadowy or even criminal elements. The Agency is illegal overseas and by that mere fact has to operate through the criminal world, and has assets planted deep in that world as a means of executing their varied missions.

Just consider the fact that the AFI, the Mexican federal police, which the Comverse/Verint telecom pact (as well as the newly minted Plan Mexico) supposedly assists, is replete with corruption aligned with the major drug organizations in Mexico. So what do you think is happening with any intelligence gathered on that front through wiretapping and various other less low-tech interrogation techniques?

The drug organizations help to prop up the Mexican economy (multi-billions of dollars in annual revenue), so how much incentive is there to really put them out of business on either side of the border, given the cascading effect that would have on the U.S. economy, where a good deal of the money from the drug business is laundered? By the way, when's the last time you read about a major U.S. financial institution being prosecuted for laundering drug money? Do some digging, you'll be surprised at what you don't find.

It's a complicated game that no one really controls, at best it's managed, and given this administration's track record, very poorly -- and to the advantage of all the wrong players -- in the last eight years, in my opinion.

I had one intelligence analyst tell me, and if it's true I really can't say for sure, but it's interesting ... that the Agency attempted to cut a deal with the top leadership of the major DTOs (drug trafficking organizations) in Mexico, that they would arrange to keep the big heat off the top guys if they agreed to cooperate by sharing information and assuring nothing bad got through the border in the way of WMDs. The analyst claims only the Gulf "Cartel" refused to play ball, and coincidentally, that's where the most recent turf battle in the drug war flashed first, in Nuevo Laredo -- Gulf Cartel territory (and after the top man in that organization was extradicted from a Mexican prison to a U.S. prison).

According to a U.S. informant, the same one involved in the infamous House of Death, the Mexican government has an agreement of convenience with the Juarez Drug Organization, allowing for its rise to a dominant role in the capitalism of the drug economy. And all these drug organizations, like giant corporations, have major intel components, very sophisticated, and certainly are making use of the same intelligence that the Agency is gathering -- both often through the same equipment, given the huge amount of corruption in the drug war ON Both Sides OF the BORDER. I have wondered if the rash in recent Mexican cop shootings along the border is not a product of their unwise use of cell phones.

Now, tell me, how do you write a FISA law that encompasses those complications? And big telecom companies, many global in nature, who also might be assisting the Agency overseas, would be deemed criminal organizations in those nations if that reality was brought into the public spotlight. If that was all exposed, what do you think would happen to those major cogs of the US economy? 

And the same thing is happening inside the U.S., where a host of other nations, any with functional intelligence agencies (foe and friend alike), have their ears firmly entrenched through various legitimate and criminal elements.

It's a nasty game, but it exists. In that light, I just want to make sure any information gathered through this game against innocent Americans can't be used against them in court or to otherwise mess up their lives. I would be happy with that as a baseline. Then we can get onto larger policies, like those that now prop up the current insanity of the drug war, but that's another story all together.

I think a lot of this anger has as much to do with "he's not doing what we expected him to do" as it does with FISA itself.

Speaking only for myself, Obama's position on FISA is exactly what I'd have expected him to do. And it still makes me furious.

I just want to make sure any information gathered through this game against innocent Americans can't be used against them in court or to otherwise mess up their lives. I would be happy with that as a baseline.

Me too. This is the real point. And I would like to add depriving lesser Law Enforcement Agents or LEAs (meaning PIs or former intel guys now working as PIs, and 'security guards' that can get the LEA appelation) from access to this data mining, which can be used against them in court, whether that be custody, divorce, or civil business suits. Or a joint in their hip pocket.

OK, OK, I was ranting about big money, particularly selfish business and financial leaders who have used the right to shape government into the guardians of inequity at the expense of the rest of us.  I'm talking about the people who own our government for their own gain.  I sure didn't mean Warren Buffet and Greg Soros and both the upper and lower-upper class who have a conscience and are willing to put their money towards progressive or even liberal issues.

Things seem slow here; perhaps all the action is over at Fieldhands, and it's past time that I joined up there.

We've been talking a bit about site traffic numbers using alexa.com recently, and the numbers show that gigantic spike around the time that Obama clinched the nomination, followed by a return to normal.  I would suggest that the "modest" number of petition signers is reflective of the number of serious readers who follow the blog during a relatively lulled news cycle.  Compare the number of blog posts in May to the number now...maybe there just isn't the activity in readership this month to generate higher numbers?  Whatever the case may be, I think it is a great initiative and I am happy it is being done...I'm just not surprised that the numbers are in the order of magnitude that they are.

Al, I requested my money back from the Denver drive over at RR and haven't recieved a reply back. Nevertheless, I have donated today as well--but it would be nice to get the money back from Deb.

About site traffic: what made the previous manifestation of The Field so sought-after and dynamic was the daily contribution of fresh material.  I am sure Al is aware of this and, in due time, this site will be humming again.

I noticed one article from AP where the reporter said that Obama distanced himself from Wright because of the latter's 'antisemitic' comments.  From everything I read from the Reverend this is a blatant lie.

The quality of journalism from the US corporate mainstream is abysmal.  Informed and authentic journalism would not make these mistakes.

Al,

I really like the ability to look to the right side of your website to see your recently added links to a few good Left side news and views websites. Thanks for posting them.

 

Joel, I agree, and most of us coudl use a break after the hysteria of the Democratic primaries.  The news and blog addicts are still buzzing, but I think it'll be a few weeks before another flood comes up around the Republican convention.

Got an interesting analysis of the current FISA bill from someone who normally is on the ball with such things. This source predicts the bill will pass the Senate, but then be vetoed by Bush and sent back to correct one major flaw from the administration's perspective. This source claims, after reading the legislation, that the FISA bill as now structured pretty much insulates the telecom's from civil liability, but does not address the potential of future criminal liability -- which could become problematic in future years should we ever get a Congress or president with cajonas. 

I'm not certain we ever see the day where a criminal prosecution on this front gets a foothold, but you never know ... maybe there might be a prosecutor out there who still believes in equal enforcement of the law.

I have not vetted the proposed legislation enough to determine if this source is right on the analysis, but it was an interesting perspective.

Steven H., Claus and other Field Hands interested in the Field's level of traffic and how that relates to the number of posts Al produces:

We know that Al has noticed a correlation between the joys of smoking and the amount and quality of his writing output!  As the Field's quality is still way up there but there might be fewer posts per week, Al has obviously not quit smoking. However, his income from the ex-Field is gone.  Unless Al is independently wealthy, logically he will have to spend more time doing other work for money unless the Field is organized to garner ongoing payment to him for his writing here.

Therefore, as I suggested late in the previous thread,  putting a box on the main page of the Field with a balance sheet or thermometer or graph or something to indicate that the Field's editorial content needs our ongoing financial support, and a reminder once in a while, could  help create more bucks for Al's writing.

Al  hasn't responded to this idea one way or the other.  Perhaps he might do something like this if other Fieldhands pick up on it and encourage him to set up a more clear financial appeal.  The more transparency in the way it is set up, the more I think Fieldhands will respond.

Do contributing editors have some more say in this also?  I'm still debating signing up for that because of the anonymity issue.  What factors allow people to let go of concerns about revealing their identities here?

I had made my donation with funds in my PayPal account, and discovered that I could file a dispute through PayPal. That got Deb to respond right away! Hopefully I should be getting my refund during this coming week. If anybody else paid with PayPal, consider going to the Resolution Center and filing a dispute. That can help expedite the process.

I concur fully - I supported the Field through Ruralvotes and one of the first things I did here was to support the Field here. I think a thermometer or similar and perhaps a monthly target would help.

 

I wouldn't expect co-publishers to have much say on that - but then again perhaps we do.

 

Anonymity or not - I'm just rather used to being a public figure where I live, so for me it is not a big issue - and contrary to a fellow co-publisher who fleshed out his bio with line of work and similar I kept it relatively bare. So all it shows is my name and commetn score. Still shows up as result no. 4 on google. But it is aquestion of temprement.

Hey Folks, your friendly neighborhood webmaster here.

You probably noticed a few minutes where you couldn't log in and there were some ugly looking errors. It's been fixed and we're smooth as ever right now.

I apologize for the brief interruption in your discussion.

Write on!!

-David BB

I'm not sure why there is any concern about traffic one way or the other.  Between the intensity of the primaries and a few months before the general election campaign kicks into HIGH gear, there is some quiet time to get our thoughts and campaign plans put together.  I'm sure if you looked at the barackobama.com website there would be similar trend lines.  I did notice that there were technical glitches for me for the last 3 hours trying to get into The Field. 

Regarding the discussion about Al's frequency of  writing new material (every day?), I think that is a little much to ask.  It's worth noting that  he doesn't restrict conversatons about other political topics once his story is commented on by around 20 people or so.  (I had asked him earlier about that and that was his response.)  This would be apparent from the discussion of FISA, etc.  So whether or not Al posts a new story shouldn't restrict our conversations on other issues. 

Nancy in BC (by the way, is there anyplace more beautiful than British Columbia?) - I wouldn't be concerned about Al's income since there is always a donation button to click on.  If you can donate, do.   But he did had Narco News for a long period of time before The Field so unless he responds to your comment, I'm going to leave well enough alone.  His writing passion is no doubt unrelated to how his bank account looks.  Just my .03 cents (inflation).

I concur fully - I supported the Field through Ruralvotes and one of the first things I did here was to support the Field here. I think a thermometer or similar and perhaps a monthly target would help.

 

I wouldn't expect co-publishers to have much say on that - but then again perhaps we do.

 

Anonymity or not - I'm just rather used to being a public figure where I live, so for me it is not a big issue - and contrary to a fellow co-publisher who fleshed out his bio with line of work and similar I kept it relatively bare. So all it shows is my name and commetn score. Still shows up as result no. 4 on google. But it is aquestion of temprement.

 

David, never doubted that we would be back up in a hurry :-)

Just to clarify, my comments on traffic were not intended as a commentary on the current volume or the need for more, but to address some recurring questions as to the perceived low ceiling of signatures to the Petition to credential Al at the convention.  I have no concerns (zero) about Al's output.

Catherine, I'm going to step out on a limb and answer your question for Nancy regarding British Columbia - the answer is a highly biased NO. Ok, except maybe Ladakh, India and Baja, Mexico.

At this time the petition links are not working.

Thanks for the note, Bill. Did your source mean to say that the Shrub is holding out for criminal immunity? I actually have understood the FISA telecom shield to be about civil liability, not criminal, but maybe that's because I assumed the Shrub administration isn't about to go after anyone. But now that they're handing the white house away...

I'm not sure exactly where the criminal liability would attach, but perhaps several inches below the coccyx would work. Any ideas?

Bill Conroy, re:
"When you get into the spook world, especially on the topic of..."

 

Somehow a spookworld acadamy keeps getting into my gmail *shudder*

 

Probably has to do with the way google(gmail) tracks and analyzes user's search engine queries, and web surfing habits. So I get this stupid ad that says "Want to be a CIA agent?" with a link to a college that specializes in training intelligence officers.

 

I guess if I log out of google, disable cookies, javascript, etc, and go back to using tor, that wouldn't happen. But that can be a hassle, as using tor can slow things down, have to always relog on to sites I comment on, some sites won't work without the javascript, ad nauseum.

 I also felt that Deb Kozikowski might be threatened by the organizing of the FieldHands website.  (I notice she is no longer a FieldHand.)  Also, I don't know if this has any importance, but RuralVotes home page only lists a link to the BackForty. However, The Ex-Field still has a link to The Field. (Of course, the reader is immediately taken to The BackForty.) One link has been removed, but the other link hasn't. Maybe Deb doesn't want readers to find the New Field, so by keeping the old link, novice "googlers" might be somewhat dazed and confused. Or does maintaining the Field link possibly provide some justification for not transferring Al's credentials, which were specifically based on his work at the Old Field? Or is it just an innocent oversight? Guess I will have to get out my Nancy Drew mysteries from grade school soon.  

@Lara M. Poyneer 3:13 p.m.

I am glad you got a response from Deb after you filed your dispute with PayPal. Last night I filed a dispute with my credit card company, since it is Day 6 now. It was a lot of fun explaining how Al's merchandise would not be delivered to my house. (I was told an investigator might be contacting me. I immediately offered to send all pertinent documents, if requested.)

And then the man he steps right up to the microphone
And says at last just as the time bell rings
thank you, goodnight, now its time to go home
And he makes it fast with one more thing

THAT'S what happened! i had no idea! i was going nuts thinking i was going nuts. page kept getting redirected...and no mention of a change. i just couldn't figure it out. well. i've rearranged my bookmarks. this place is prettier anyway. 

i thought those 13 rules were great. i bookmarked the link and copied them when i read them. so funny that that is what broke up the game. but i guess i see why. people just don't have the stones anymore for a real fight.

LoL said:  One link has been removed, but the other link hasn't. Maybe Deb doesn't want readers to find the New Field, so by keeping the old link, novice "googlers" might be somewhat dazed and confused. 

I have wondered the same thing, but no longer visit RV.  Maybe she's also trying to keep refunds down by confusing unwitting Al supporters with the thought he's just off on a jaunt.  It's troubling, just like the rest of Deb's behavior.  Blech.

Lenore, the way the source put it -- and I can't say this source is right ... normally like to verify all that, but figured folks here would have insights as well -- all the civil cases go away under this FISA "reform," which is definitely big on the agenda, but potential criminal liablity stays on the table.

Here's a description of the exposure from a conference report on the original legislation from the 1970s.

Makes it a criminal offense for officers or employees of the United States to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as specifically authorized or to disclose information through unlawful electronic surveillance. Imposes civil and criminal liability for such violations and authorizes the recovery of actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees by an aggrieved person other than a foreign power.

The actual law as written:

(a) Prohibited activities
      A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - 
        (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law
      except as authorized by statute; or
        (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law
      by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that
      the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not
      authorized by statute.
    (b) Defense
      It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this
    section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative
    officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the
    electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to
    a search warrant or court order of a court of competent
    jurisdiction.
    (c) Penalties
      An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of
    not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years,
    or both.
    (d) Federal jurisdiction
      There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section
    if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of
    the United States at the time the offense was committed.

The source is saying that there is nothing in the proposed FISA reform that eliminates the above potential liability, and that is a concern for the administration. That's how I understand it.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation analysis says this about the pending FISA bill:

As before, cases against telecoms that provided assistance "in connection with" ... the President's warrantless surveillance program "shall be promptly dismissed" ... so long as the AG certifies to the court that they got a piece of paper "indicating" ... that the surveillance was "authorized by the President ... and ... determined to be lawful" ... ie., the piece of paper that we already know they got, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report.

Now the cases pending, and what this analysis refers to, are all civil in nature. I don't read anything in this that precludes bringing criminal charges against either government or private-sector individuals or companies who engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that  the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute."

So if evidence is found so that a case can be made that anyone along the way used or disclosed (sold, traded on or otherwise took advantage) of information gathered from these data sweeps that isn't in keeping with the stated purpose of FISA, it seems criminal liability should extend to those parties who engaged in that activity.
And as we know, through programs such as COINTELPRO, information gathered through similar projects in the past was used to disrupt or target purely domestic political organizations and individuals targeted as "dissidents" -- like Dr. Martin Luther King. for example. 


I'm not a lawyer, but I would think it's not completely off the books with this pending FISA bill that if warrantless wiretapping and the data gathered was used this way or in other unauthorized (illegal) ways, systematically, those involved in maintaining that system might well be deemed in violation of criminal law. 

But that's a complicated issue that people smarter than I on the law would have to assess. And I believe that's what my source was getting at, that potential.

I have noticed that sometimes new comments show up between comments I have already read.  Has anyone else noticed this?  I am guessing that this is the result of co-publisher comments showing up right away and other comments being delayed for approval.  Anyone know if times on this blog are ET or something else?

Also, I recall seeing an email address for the webmaster in a previous blog, but I didn't record it.  Does anyone have that email address?  Thanks.

Hey Nancy. Yes, times are ET here. And you hit it right on the spot. The reason you are seeing new comments in-between those that you have already read is because of the approval queue.

You can contact me for any other issues at webmaster@narconews.com.

sultans of swing!  :-)   thanks gordie!

Al, Thanks for the links on the right-hand side. I just noticed and appreciate them!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5RsK "The Education of an Organizer" on Obama's site

Susan, who got the ball rolling with the Field Hands site, explains what help she needs welcoming the steady stream of new members and keeping the site shipshape. Please visit this thread and join in the conversation.

Maybe it's just me but...

The dark color scheme of the blog now makes me feel ultra claustrophobic and is just really hard on the eyes.

 

We're still planning on adding an option which lets you switch to a typical white background page. Coming soon...

Thanks for that. You guys are awesome. Looking forward to the color option.  :)

Who owns you? A tribute to the late great George Carlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-NA_B6sAI

 

 

I've been on vacation the past few days, so I missed the FISA dust up. So how I understand this: Obama is supposed to fall on the sword on the FISA bill, with little to no support from other Democrats in Congress. The bill will pass anyway, and he'll have to spend time and money trying to reach the low information voters who have gathered from snippets on CNN that he voted against a bill that would protect us from terrorists (which bolsters their suspicisions that he is a Secret Muslim who is just waiting to institute sharia law the second he is sworn in on the Koran after not saying the Pledge of Allegiance on Inaguration Day). Secret confession time. I don't give a crap about the FISA bill. I've read all of the info and I know I am supposed to be calling my Senator daily, but I can't pretend to care. Immunity from lawsuits for telecom companies who spy on Americans? What abut the government who authorizes the spying? That for sure won't change with McCain in the White House. So Obama is still getting my money and my support. I am not trying to say that people shouldn't care about this. We all have our core issues, and Obama is going to disappoint all of us at some point with a stand he takes.

for that Carlin video. Never heard of him, but I wish I have.

The guy was gooood. How many low info, effing voters in US get him ?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2UVXj8F9Fmk.

 

"@yellow

Submitted June 23, 2008 - 12:51 am by David B. Briones"

Oh thank you,ThanK GOD! May pretty maidens satisfy you into the night.

The 'pretty maidens' remark was mine -- Alexa.

BR,

I missed your missive earlier today. Thank you for the oom-pah-pah, but I have no interest in making a star of myself on some other site with my dedicated insight into telecom-intel activities.

I suggest you direct the readers, there, over here ... if the info is that important. Make them work if they are interested.

If I'd wanted to create a DKos Diary, I would have done so years ago. I dont have the interest.

I stay here with The Field even though I know every once in a while, Mr. Giordano runs out to the Spanky-Spanky Corral at the edge of The Field and rams the water hose down my throat again because I'm using my megaphone in ways that dont comport with his mission statement.

I can deal with his hands on his hips and his occasional hissy fits about me. But I have zero desire to be a flag-waver on my own. or some spin-off star. I have zero desire to set myself up as a finger-pointer to the truth. I know disparate pieces of critical info. Big deal. That's all. That's my value. I'm contributing to the grouting here.

I have a head full of useless information, and The Field is structured in such a way that I can contribute to its growth as a result. I have no desire -- zilch -- to be Joan of Arc, or use it to expand my influence. Zero. Zip.

Thanks, tho'.

Alexa

Oh, no-o-o . . .

re: criminal component, John Dean agrees, on Friday's Countdown.

Here's the kos link. Haven't gone thru the comments, but...

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/23/0035/51973/576/540462

Kat- Neither do I care a rat rear end about FISA. Yes, the low information voter and the repubs are going to hit him hard on this if he votes against it. I think most people are not thinking about this dispassionately enough. The repubs want to box Obama and the dems in Congress seem to have given them some ammunition. Best is if this bill just dies and is unable to be revived till Obama takes office. Have you seen the way Mccain HAS GOTTEN AWAY with so many gaffes, the media seems to be gunning for Obama- 'an almost how dare you won' kind of way. Its going to be an interesting few days. The guys at Kos are too damn funny. They are writing diaries about how Obama has broken their hearts and such like. So for some amusement go on there and enjoy that if you like. But, this FISA thing is somehting for activists alone who get it. Otherwise, I swear with the oil and food prices skyreocketing and so many other things happening in the world, like a looming war with Iran, I don't know  how much FISA is THAT important. To some yes, me NO. I want the troops home, I want a sound energy policy, the economy booming and no war with Iran or anybody else. Just thought I would offer my perspective on this.

Woke to the news of George Carlin's passing...He will be missed.

Most people (I know) my age (late forties) love George Carlin, but that just goes to show the kind of people I hang out with.  He was going to do a show near me in a couple of weeks, very sad.