Last week, a federal court judge in San Francisco ruled that the Bush administration had illegally wiretapped an Islamic charity and its lawyers without a warrant. The case is notable not only for the judge's decisive ruling that government officials deliberately broke the law. It's also important for its implicit finding that the government, using the so-called "state secrets privilege," tried to cover up the crime.
Let me start with the obvious, that yes, if Pelosi knew there were war crimes being committed by the administration, and failed to try to stop it, even at risk of prison time for violating secrecy laws, then that deserves condemnation, loss of her Speaker's gavel and perhaps even prosecution. I certainly think her and the other members of Congress who were at all briefed on these activities should be part of any investigation that takes place. That said, let's not get carried away and equate people who merely know about a crime, and those who actively plan and execute that crime. Morally there is a significant difference there.
However her predicament highlights a lesser feature of multiple Bush Administration intelligence scandals that needs more attention: Bush's penchant for only having the Gang-Of-Eight briefed, rather than the full Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate. This decision was quite deliberate, and legally it is highly consequential in so far as it eviscerates Congress' ability to conduct meaningful oversight or legislative check on the Executive branch.
This isn't PATRIOT, our Senators have a week to read the FISA/Wiretap Act legislation, but without our intervention likely won't.
Senator Feingold bought us a week, but Emails and Voicemail boxes won't get read or played over the recess, and the Members will only get digests anyway.
If we want the Senators to Read the f'ing bill, our best bet is to literally hand them copies, (along with Feingold and Dodd's amendments, if they're available. Are they?)
Fortunately, most return to their Districts this week, hitting the Parades and Picnics, others may hold Town Meetings or fundraisers.
Print out the bill (114 page pdf) as it stands. Hand deliver it to your Senator. Best if you can say, "I read it, you should too." For Exrta credit, highlight what you consider to be the problematic sections in color.
To make a long story short, if this is true and Reid intends to ignore Dodd's hold on the FISA Bill, then it is time to mount a leadership challenge against Senator Reid.
I just watched the Hot Topics panel at YearlyKos (you have got to get a radio show, Digby), and Jonathan Singer reminded me of the wiretapping ad run against Chris Murphy in CT-05 in 2006. Widely considered the nastiest Congressional campaign in state history, Nancy Johnson spent $5 million against Murphy versus $2.5 million against her. These commercials, considered devastating at the time, backfired. Murphy crushed Johnson 56-44, the biggest margin of victory over an incumbent in 2006 (aside from Hostettler).
Anyway, something about the recent excuse from Democrats, that they were afraid of being criticized for not passing a FISA expansion, didn't make sense to me. And I think this is what it is. There is a compelling case to be made that the public is angry at Republican fear-mongering, and that Murphy's crushing defeat of Johnson is where the rubber meets the road, hard-core evidence at the ballot box. Remember, this was a specific ad targeted at wiretapping authority, and it was considered really effective at the time.
It wasn't. Democratic leaders know it, but they are choosing to pretend otherwise. There is simply no compelling public reason that Democratic elites passed the FISA expansion. It wasn't fear of the public, anyway.
Interestingly, though this ad was cited as one of the cycle's best by numerous operatives of both partisan stripes, one GOP strategist noted that Johnson's numbers actually went down after the spot aired -- a sign that while it may have looked and sounded good it may well have not been all that effective in moving votes.
UPDATE AGAIN: Glenn Greenwald compiled much more evidence. The 'soft on terror' meme was the centerpiece of the entire 2006 strategy, and it failed entirely.
STATE BLOGS
