Democracy for New Mexico

1/13/08: Join Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday Parade March

Click for more information. (Click on image for larger version.)

Power to the People: Mike Gravel Raps

I don't know about you, but I miss Mike's outspoken presence at the too, too politically correct "debates."

Fight Against FISA Telecom Immunity: What Next?

Dodd's message to netroots on (temporary) victory

Must Read: Glenn Greenwald's post on the Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory. Excerpt:

By itself, derailing a bill that Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller, hand-in-hand with GOP followers of the White House, were working so hard to ensure would pass smoothly is a major victory. That is particularly true given that the entire cast of standard establishment defenders and propagandists -- all fed by the Jamie Gorelicks and the rest of the bipartisan slew of slimy telecom lobbyists working in the dark and suddenly feeding the coffers of key pro-immunity lawmakers with new infusions of cash -- all lined up behind giving the extraordinary gift of immunity to telecoms.

Even now, in the wake of his defeat yesterday, Harry Reid is doing everything possible to undermine efforts to defeat the telecom immunity bill that he claims he opposes. This is from today's Washington Post article detailing the defeat of telecom immunity ("in the face of more than a dozen amendments to the bill and guerrilla tactics from its opponents, Reid surprised his colleagues when he announced there would not be enough time to finish the job")

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the decision had nothing to do with the efforts of Dodd and his allies.

There are Harry Reid's true colors: going out of his way to deny that the pernicious group known as "Dodd and his allies" had any effect whatsoever on the Senate's efforts to bow to every one of Bush's demands. We can't have any notion that the Establishment's will was disrupted in any way by dirty outside forces.

... The most important value of victories of this sort is that they ought to serve as a potent tonic against defeatism, regardless of the ultimate outcome. And successes like this can and should provide a template for how to continue to strengthen these efforts. Yesterday's victory, temporary as it is, shouldn't be over-stated, but it also shouldn't be minimized. All of it stemmed from the spontaneous passion and anger of hundreds of thousands of individuals demanding that telecoms be subject to the rule of law like everyone else. And this effort could have been -- and, with this additional time, still can be -- much bigger and stronger still.

Call to say thanks:

Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823

Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553

Sherrod Brown: (202) 224-2315

Russ Feingold: (202) 224-5323

Ted Kennedy: (202) 224-4543

Bill Nelson: (202) 224-5274

Ron Wyden: (202) 224-5244

Chris Dodd for President

Keep contacting Sen. Jeff Bingaman from now until the Senate reconvenes in January after the holiday break: https://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/. Tell him any FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms is unacceptable.

See my previous posts on yesterday's actions in the Senate re FISA legislation here and here.

Harry Reid Forced to Table FISA-Telecom Immunity Bill

Coverage on today's action on the FISA bill on Countdown

I'm amazed. And relieved, at least for now. The pressure from voters on the Dem Senators, as well as the pressure applied by certain Dem Senators on Harry Reid, seems to have made a dent in the process. Following up on my previous post. As reported on the Dodd blog. Excerpt:

Majority Leader Harry Reid has just pulled the FISA bill from consideration in this session. It will be brought up at some point next month. Without Senator Dodd's leadership today, it is safe to assume that retroactive immunity would have passed.

This is a great victory for the American people. His outspoken opposition to retroactive immunity and the Intelligence Committee's FISA bill made it impossible to move forward now. From a process standpoint, that took the persistent shadow of a Dodd filibuster on this legislative process, a "hold" against any legislation that included retroactive immunity, and today, a refusal to grant unanimous consent to rules of debate that would have made it harder to strip retroactive immunity from the Intel Committee's bill through the Dodd-Feingold Amendment. He brought along some of the Senate's most passionate voices -- Senator's Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer, Wyden, Brown and Bill Nelson joined him to stand up to the President today.

You can watch a video of Dodd speaking at Crooks and Liars. They also have video and a transcript of Ted Kennedy's speech. The lion roars once more. Sen. Feingold also gave a superb speech and you can read the text or view the video (wmv) at his website. As usual, Glenn Greenwald has the nitty gritty.

Bottom Line: Reid obviously wanted the process of passing what Bush wanted to be an easy and quiet one. If Dodd and the others hadn't stood their ground, that's what would have happened today. Chalk one up for the people.

Of course the fight has just begun. Both sides will be strategizing and gathering more info between now and January. We have to stay engaged. Reid himself has reportedly admitted that the massive number of contacts from the public on this were a major factor in his tabling the bill. Literally thousands and thousands of people contacted various Senators, including Reid. Many blogs, as well as Democracy for America and other progressive group,s urged people to express their views in no uncertain terms to our Senators. For once, it worked. For now.

Remember, Bush tried to set up domestic spying within two weeks of taking office. Read this for details, as reported in the New York Times. Quote:

Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”

So I guess Bush's claims that the warrantless wiretapping was an emergency response to 9-11 are just more smoke from his blowhole. Clearly, powerful forces were behind the data mining and domestic spy programs. The only way we'll ever learn the full extent of this lawbreaking is to keep the pressure on Washington from the hinterlands. This means you (us).

I think we should all also contact our presidential candidates from the Senate, who didn't think it was important enough to be at their jobs today, to express our disgust: Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden, where were you?

(Updated) Sen. Harry Reid Caves to Telecom Lobbyists & BushFEAR

UPDATE 8:20 PM: We won this round! Reid was forced to table the bill until January. See my later post.

UPDATE 9:28 AM: Go to Thank You Dodd and participate in the effort to support the fight against the horrendous FISA bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. To contact Sen. Bingaman:

Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

************
Oh, he's personally against extending amnesty to the criminal telecoms he says, but it would be so damned unfair if he didn't allow the Senate Intelligence Committee's version of the FISA bill to have the upper hand. After all, members of that committee, like Chairman Jay Rockefeller, might be implicated for their acquiescence to illegal operations because they sat on their hands when they found out some of the sleazy details of the law breaking in closed sessions way back when. We wouldn't want them to face any consequences for their actions. They're Senators! Very Important People! Lawbreaking is OK when they do it.

Reid got thousands of phone calls from citizens irate over his plan to help smother the Senate Judiciary's version of the FISA bill, which doesn't provide the immunity and does provide a semblance of court oversight on domestic data mining. This prompted Reid to ... cover his ass. He agreed to bring both versions of the bill to the floor today. The only problem is he'll treat the Intelligence version as the primary bill and force consideration of the Justice version as an amendment. We all know how that will turn out.

Well, our donor-ruled "leader" in the Senate DOES get lots of money from telecoms, as do many others who want to protect their lawbreaking. That's what counts most these days. Oh, and they wouldn't want to appear to be "weak on national security" and allow the Bushmongers to accuse them of being "for the terrorists" if they were to dare to stand up for the law and the U.S.Constitution!

Sen. Chris Dodd has asked for a "hold" on the FISA bills -- a request that is almost always honored in the Senate's odd tradition. This time, however, Reid feels the need to go forward NOW, despite the fact that the current abominable FISA law doesn't sunset until next February. Dodd is planning to filibuster the immunity for telecoms bill today. Last I heard, Senators Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy will participate in the filibuster. The other Dem Senators who are candidates for president claim they are against passing telecom immunity, but what exactly that means is yet to be revealed.

Here's what Sen. Feingold has to say as the debate gets underway.

Firedoglake has a terrific post on this issue entitled, Who Will Stand with Chris Dodd for the Constitution?

If you want to make yourself even sicker, read this article on Raw Story that digs out info from a long New York Times article that reports Bush started his push for domestic spying using the telecoms within two weeks of taking office. I'm not kidding.

Can it get much worse than this? We have prominent Dem Senators leading a filibuster against their own Senate leadership. We have Reid and his allies sticking up for lawbreaking by the President, the telecoms and the NSA. Is this the "New Direction" they're always touting as their response to gaining seats in the 2006 election?

ACLU Sues for Better Safety and Services in NM Juvenile Justice Facilities

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico sued the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD) last Tuesday, November 20, 2007, for failing to ensure safe living conditions and essential rehabilitation services for young people in state juvenile justice facilities. The lawsuit charges CYFD with breaching the terms of a contract that it signed with the ACLU in February 2006 requiring the agency to establish minimally adequate mental health services and protect youth from physical assaults and threats of violence. CYFD entered into the 2006 agreement in order to avoid being sued for rights violations at that time.

“This lawsuit seeks to make sure that youth in our juvenile justice system get a fair shot at redirecting their lives and overcoming mistakes they made in their past,” said ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson. “New Mexico puts its most troubled kids in prison because we don’t have adequate mental health services. Kids are unnecessarily incarcerated and our juvenile detention facilities become training grounds for lifelong criminals instead of centers of genuine rehabilitation.”

Filed in Santa Fe District Court, the ACLU’s lawsuit seeks two basic reforms:

1. Establish minimally adequate community mental health services for the 3,000 children and youth on probation or parole due to delinquent acts, in order to avoid the unnecessary incarceration of youth due to their mental illness; and
2. Fundamentally improve the safety, medical care and mental health care provided to the approximately 300 children and youth held in delinquency facilities.

The suit cites several instances of guard-on-youth violence, including a March 2007 incident in which staff at the Santa Fe County Juvenile Detention Center assaulted a 17-year old resident who is developmentally delayed and suffers from auditory hallucinations. Guards picked the youth up by his armpits and repeatedly slammed his head into a metal classroom door. CYFD rejected a complaint that the ACLU filed on the resident’s behalf, except to criticize staff for failing to videotape the ‘take down.’

Simonson said, “Hopefully your children don’t wind up in one of these facilities. But if they do, you want to know that the staff is going to protect them, not brutalize them. You want to know that they’re going to get the tools they need to address emotional problems and make productive behavioral adjustments.”

Representing the ACLU are attorneys Daniel Yohalem and Lee Hunt of Santa Fe, ACLU Co-Legal Director Phil Davis of Albuquerque, and Alice Bussiere and Maria Ramiu of the Youth Law Center of San Francisco. Yohalem is former Legal Director for the Children’s Defense Fund.

Download the legal complaint: www.aclu-nm.org

The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the rights to the franchise, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship.

Web: https://www.aclu-nm.org

Turkey Time: Gonzo and McClellan

I'm thankful that protests plague Gonzo and that Scott McClellan squeals. How about you?

Anne Kass on Peeling the Paint: Justice for All

This is a guest blog by political activist and retired Second Judicial District Judge Anne Kass of Albuquerque:

I had the opportunity to attend the swearing-in ceremony for Charles W. Daniels to the New Mexico Supreme Court Friday. It was a moving and inspiring ceremony. 

Justice Daniels told of being a share-cropper's son in Arkansas where, as a small child, he played with a black child names James. When it became time to start school, James went to the dilapidated schoolhouse down the road, while young Charlie Daniels was bussed miles away to a white-school. He was taught the Pledge of Allegiance and began to recognize the disconnection between the words “with liberty and justice for all” and the reality of his experience. He talked about his dedication to making the promise of “justice for all” a reality. His talk was truly moving. 

During his remarks Justice Daniels addressed the issue of equal rights for women. He mentioned that Fred Hart, who was Dean of the New Mexico School of Law when Justice Daniels was a student and professor there, opened the doors of the law school to women and minorities. (I made the same observations when I was a student at the UNM School of Law.) 

Justice Daniels said, after some years, when almost half the law school classes were comprised of women, "... the good 'ole boys discovered that the paint didn't peel off the walls when women appeared in the courtroom as lawyers or judges." While he continued his remarks, I found myself thinking -- That's right, the paint didn't peel off the walls, and THAT'S the problem. The paint should have peeled off the walls.

The paint of property law that allows for the private ownership of everything needs to be peeled off the walls of the halls of justice, starting with laws that allow for the private ownership of everything, including other human beings. Today, one manifestation of this notion is in the form of incarceration and deportation of undocumented workers only trying to survive while their exploitative employer-owners go unpunished.   

Property law also allows for private ownership of DNA genetic codes and private ownership of cures and treatments for terrible diseases. In many of these cases, the underlying research has been paid with public dollars. There are many layers of property-law-paint that need to be peeled off the walls.

The same holds true for many layers of criminal-law-paint which dictates grotesquely disproportionate imprisonment of people of color for drug offenses and which makes the penalties for shoplifting severe while providing no penalties at all for the looting of the national treasury by corporations such as Halliburton. 

Justice Daniels was correct. The “good ol’ boys” have learned they have nothing to fear from either women or minorities entering the law. They have simply co-opted them. Women and people of color have been allowed and even encouraged to join the ranks of lawyers and judges but only on the condition that they walk, talk, and look just like the “good ol’ boys” who wrote the rules and laws in the first place.   

Women and people of color have not changed the system. They have accommodated themselves to a very rigid system. They are the ones who have changed, become assimilated. And that's why, although a relatively small number of women and people of color have risen to positions of much prestige and power in the law, the status and circumstances of women and people of color, in general, remain virtually unchanged. 

If Justice Daniels has any hope at all to make good on his promise to make the national promise of “justice for all” a reality, the first thing he needs to do is peel paint -- lots of paint -- off the walls of the halls of justice. I enthusiastically support his intentions.

This is a guest blog by Anne Kass, who posts periodically on DFNM. Guest blogs provide our reader with an opportunity to express their opinions and may or may not represent our views. If you'd like to submit a piece for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand side of the page.

Bingaman Makes Strong Case Against Mukasey Appointment

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) voted last week against the appointment of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. Unfortunately, six Dems voted for Mukasey's appointment, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Diane Feinstein, who permitted the appointment to gain passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee. His nomination passed the Senate by a margin of 53-40. See the New York Times editorial, "Abdicate and Capitulate," which asks why the nomination didn't need "60 votes" to pass. After all, Senate Dems are always using that magic number for an excuse for not taking action. Filibuster anybody?

If you really want to make yourself sick, read Greg Sargent's piece on that explains why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a deal to allow the Mukasey appointment. Hint: It has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with ethical action.

The good news is that Sen. Bingaman made a blunt yet eloquent floor statement against Mukasey's appointment, saying he was troubled by the Judge's unwillingness to be clear on torture, but also by his refusal to agree that the President must comply with constitutional laws passed by Congress. Sen. Bingaman also compared some of Bush's executive power assertions -- defended by Mukasey -- to the similarly dangerous claims of being beyond the law made by Richard Nixon:

Floor Statement of Sen. Jeff Binaman (D-NM) on Nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the next United States Attorney General.

First, let me say that by all accounts Judge Mukasey is a good man with a long distinguished record. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he made clear that he understands the need to restore the public's trust and confidence in the Department of Justice. I also believe he demonstrated a willingness to take the necessary steps to de-politicize the Department, and to provide the leadership required to repair its credibility.

However, I am also deeply troubled by the positions Judge Mukasey has taken regarding several important issues. Much has been said about Judge Mukasey's unwillingness to clearly state that certain interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are unlawful and amount to torture. I share this concern, but I would also like to highlight another area that I find particularly disturbing; that is the idea that the President doesn't have to comply with a constitutional law passed by Congress.

Over the last 6 years, the Bush administration has put forth a view of Executive power that is incredibly expansive, and in my opinion, an unjustified and dangerous threat to our fundamental rights and our commitment to the rule of law.

The President has asserted the right to unilaterally imprison whomever he wants without judicial review, whether or not they are a United States citizen, if he determines that they are a so-called “enemy combatant.'' The administration has taken the position that the President can authorize the use of techniques that amount to torture, and then immunize any person acting pursuant to his orders from criminal liability. The President also authorized warrantless surveillance in direct contravention to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In all of these instances, the President justified his actions on the basis that he was acting within his authority as commander-in-chief to defend the country, and that neither Congress nor the courts can infringe on this power. While many of these assertions have ultimately been rejected by Federal courts, Congress, or overturned internally when they became public, the President continues to assert that there are few restraints on his power when it comes to national security matters.

During his confirmation hearing, Judge Mukasey stated that he would step down if he determined that the President's actions were unlawful and the President refused to heed his advice to change course. Although this does signal a welcomed degree of independence, I remain concerned about what Judge Mukasey will find to be "lawful.''

Let me read an exchange that took place during a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee which illustrates this point.

Senator Leahy: . . . where Congress has clearly legislated in an area, as we've done in the area of surveillance with the FISA law, something we've amended repeatedly at the request of various administrations . . . if it's been legislated and stated very clearly what must be done, if you operate outside of that, whether it's with a presidential authorization or anything else, wouldn't that be illegal?

Judge Mukasey: That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.

Senator Leahy: Can the President put someone above the law by authorizing illegal conduct?

Judge Mukasey: If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute but within the authority of the President to defend the country, the President is not putting somebody above the law, the President is putting somebody within the law.

While this view may be consistent with the current administration's position regarding Executive authority, this stance is not consistent with how the powers of the president have traditionally been interpreted. The notion that the president may disregard a valid law by citing his inherent power to defend the country is disconcerting.

And frankly, it is all too reminiscent of President Nixon's assertion that actions taken in the name of national security, whether or not they are in accordance with relevant statues, are by definition legal if they are carried out on behalf of the President. This assertion was widely rejected, as it should have been.

As our Nation's highest law enforcement officer, it is essential that the Attorney General faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. It is one thing for the Attorney General to state that he or she will not enforce a certain measure because it is unconstitutional; however, it is a very different matter if the Executive Branch asserts that it is not bound by a law that is clearly constitutional.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General.
*******
If you'd like to send Sen. Bingaman a message supporting his action on the Mukasey nomination, click here.

Just Another Chill: John Dean on Mukasey

From . Dean's piece ends with this:

Since Judge Mukasey’s situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.