Get FISA Right

Here’s the current draft-in-progress for our Fall 2009 open letter — a combination of excerpts from letters Nancy, Lois, and Sally wrote, along with a few points from our discusson on last Tuesday’s phone call and a quote from his previous letter to us.  There are several excellent comments on the wiki with various suggestions that we still need to incorporate — please check them out, and jump into the discussions, or leave your opinions here on the blog.

Dear President Obama,

With FISA reform once again in Congress, we’d like to take the opportunity to continue our dialog.

In July 2008, in your response to our previous open letter, you committed to have your Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in.  You also told us of your intent as President to run “a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples’ business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.”

We have a hard time seeing how your administration’s work behind the scenes with Senator Sessions to weaken privacy and civil liberties protections during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Patriot Act reform manifest this commitment.   In the courts, too, your administration’s repeated backing of Bush Administration arguments for hiding information is troubling.

We urge you to live up to the stated goals of your campaign and avoid continuing the horrific practices of the previous administration. You have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and we had every reason to believe that as a professor of Constitutional law, you would honor that pledge.  Please, do not betray our trust.We ask you to …

Please, Senator Obama, reject the politics of fear on national security, and take the lead in restoring our Constitutional rights.

Signed,

…

Hmm.  Just what do we want him to do?

jon

PS: Other feedback welcome too, of course!

By: Harry Waisbren

In my post, Questioning Obama on the Patriot Act, I described how Attorney General Holder’s discussion of the “conversation to be had” about modifications for civil liberties concerns could help dictate our response. In particular, I cited our open letter to Obama last summer as instigating a conversation of sorts with then Senator Obama by way of his follow up post directed to us, and asked whether or not it is time for a follow up–based on our own precedent–through writing another open letter.

As we take steps forward by working together on our collaborative effort to draft a new open letter, we must recognize the enormity of what we did last summer. Our organizing of Obama supporters in a group on his own social network, My.BarackObama.com, was an example of a crowdsourced action that set an entirely new model for communicating with our government. Critical acclaim abounded, as we were cited as part of Fast Company magazine’s rationale from Ellen McGirt for ranking the Obama campaign as the “top startup company of the year” as well as an example of an innovative lesson the Obama administration learned and exhibited in Jeff Jarvis’s book What Would Google Do.

Our precedent, and the innovative model for citizen engagement it exhibited, was explained by Alan Rosenblatt in his post Will They Rise Up and was recently reemphasized during The Progressive Revolution Will be Tweeted edition of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable.

I found this aspect of his post to be particularly poignant:

“when citizens are included in the decision making process, at least in terms of seeing it transpire and having a clear opportunity to engage with government leaders in the process of the policy formation, they become more connected and more supportive……at the core, democracy is about compromise and working together to solve problems for the good of the whole society. When the whole of society feels they are part of the process for solving the problems of the day, they become shared stakeholders, rather than opponents.”

Personally, I know that Obama’s direct engagement with the Get FISA Right community and recognition that we were “shared stakeholders” made me a greater supporter of his, despite any of our ongoing disagreements. I privilege the discovery of new methods for citizens to engage their representatives extremely highly, especially in light of my wholesale agreement with Chris Bowers’ The Medium is the Movement concept. The Get FISA Right experience inspired me to engage with other efforts to communicate in this manner, including Change.org’s Ideas for Change and the collaborative Ask the President effort, and I view the relaunch of Get FISA Right to be an extension of this ongoing effort to improve the way our country engages in democratic discourse and makes decisions.

As we take steps to follow up on our open letter with a new one, we must recognize that we are not only pushing to reclaim our civil liberties. Rather, we must see this as another opportunity to, once again, lead the way in helping innovate new means for citizens to engage their elected officials through tools that our founding fathers only could have dreamed of!

By: Harry Waisbren

Check out our latest Tweeting points below:

@RepHankJohnson @RepJacksonLee: thanks for sponsoring #PatriotAct and FISA reform! (Please RT) http://act.ly/R19

@RepJaneHarman thanks for sponsoring #PatriotAct reform, please also sponsor H 3846! (Please RT) http://act.ly/R1a

I’m not a terrorist–stop spying on Americans! Fix the #patriotact. http://act.ly/Rf Pls RT

Thanks to Reps Conyers, Nadler, and Scott for Patriot Act and FISA reform bills http://bit.ly/2nKcOE #patriotact

Dialin information and a draft agenda is at http://bit.ly/oct27call, which is also where we’ll have the online chat during the call.

Candidate goals:

1. Agree on short-term goals, priorities, strategy
2. Plans, owners, and next steps for Twitter, OFA, Care2, Facebook, blogospheres (tech/new media/libertarians./progressives/moms)
3. Social network activism recommendations for civil liberties organizations and bloggers

If you’ve got a few minutes between now and then, please have a look at Jessica Pieklo’s Justice not dead yet, Harry Waisbren’s Next steps and open questions, and my Social network activism and the Patriot Act (DRAFT).

And let’s use this thread for some pre-meeting brainstorming and discussion about various topics.

For example:

• Who are the right politicians to target?  I’ve got some thoughts from a Twitter-centric perspective in the first comment
• What’s the best timing for an open letter/media release from Get FISA Right?
• What kinds of techniques could work better on Facebook and MySpace?

Or anything else that leaps to mind!

jon

By: Harry Waisbren

Our latest Patriot Act/FISA organizing call exhibited the tidal wave of passion and growing momentum to act amongst civil libertarians of all stripes. A quick summary has already been posted and the complete chat log is available here, but now we must cauterize the flurry of fantastic ideas into action!

Our timing could not have been better, as mere hours beforehand Representatives Conyers, Nadler, and Scott introduced bills to reform the PATRIOT Act (HR 3845 and 3846). Marcy Wheeler has provided a detailed analysis of what is being proposed, and below you will find the next steps and open questions laying before us as we strive to make an impact on this integral issue.

First off, our short-term priority is to ask House Judiciary Committee members (and other Representatives) to sign on as co-sponsors for the bills. We will be complementing the ongoing efforts from other organizations through both our social media perspective in addition to more traditional forms of activism, and are already thanking the politicians courageous enough to stand up for civil liberties with the following tweet:

RT @GetFISARight: Thanks to Reps Conyers, Nadler, and Scott for Patriot Act and FISA reform bills http://eff.org/r.4at #patriotact

The first question before us is how we transition our theme away from the JUSTICE Act while learning from our prior experiences supporting it. One essential lesson is that we must push back against the closed door briefings being cited ominously as a rationale for why civil liberties infringement remains necessary, especially considering some of the members of those meetings (especially Senator Feingold) are directly contradicting that argument. We have to encourage such dissent while working to find ways to make it easier for them to speak out.

This is especially important considering the lingering and widely held notion that relinquishing liberty in order to “stay safe” is worthwhile instead of inherently un-American. Combating this meme is essential, as although it is constantly cited by our mainstream media, if it is explained in simplified and personalized terms Americans will recognize the antithetical nature of the argument to citizenship.

During the call, a consensus emerged during the call that targeting the media has become increasingly essential. We are beginning to discern our narrative as part of our pitch to these opinion makers of why they should cover this, and when we do we will conduct all sorts of new media and more traditional letters to the editor campaigns to try to break this ongoing silence.

Fortunately, the model we utilized last summer did just that, and we will be building upon past practices even more so moving forward. This will be most manifest in our decision to release another open letter to Obama, and we are hoping for as much input as possible as we collaboratively produce this document. However, the more general narrative of our previous campaign also is one we can replicate, as the “democrats vs. democrats” story was one that held a great amount of salience amongst mainstream media members who otherwise would not cover this issue. Unlike last summer though, we have a better understanding of who might become champions in this fight including Arlen Specter (particularly in light of how he has already been pushed to the left due to his primary battle with Rep. Joe Sestak), Rep. Alan Grayson, Rep. Ron Paul, etc.

Despite any congressional targeting though, as we push forward on our open letter we need to transition our sights to president Obama. He, more than anyone else, inspired our nation in large part by his calls for change, yet his capitulation on FISA last summer remains a point of dismay amongst even his most ardent supporters. This is why our fight is part and parcel of Mike Lux’s argument that Obama must fight for regular people, and we must continue our effort to show our president the way.

Americans are not frightened sheep willing to give up our citizenship and become subjects. Our most recent organizing call and this effort in general exemplify this truism, and it is precisely why our fight is about ensuring that the ideal of America will persevere.

There is much left to do, and we hope that you will join us both on our upcoming call next Tuesday (2pm PST/5 pm EST) and throughout the week as we develop new means to make our voices heard!

Harry will have more details and the full transcript later, but I just wanted to give a quick update on today’s excellent phone call.  Our timing was perfect: earlier today, Representatives Conyers, Nadler, and Scott introduced bills to reform the PATRIOT Act and FISA (HR 3845 and 3846).  House Judiciary Committee markup is expected in two weeks.

The short-term priority is to ask House Judiciary Committee members (and other Representatives) to sign on as co-sponsors for the bills.  My guess is that as with the Senate, a lot of organizations will be have phone and email campaigns.  Kevin Bankston of EFF pointed out that we’re uniquely positioned to complement these via Twitter and Facebook.  New members like Judy Chu could use some encouragement; other names tossed around included Wexler, Grayson, and Ron Paul.  As a first step, let’s continue to thank politicians who are courageous enough to stand up for civil liberties.  If you’re on Twitter, could you be kind enough to retweet?

RT @GetFISARight: Thanks to Reps Conyers, Nadler, and Scott for Patriot Act and FISA reform bills http://eff.org/r.4at #patriotact

Another potential opportunity is to couple online activism with traditional letters-to-the-editor campaigns.  Jim C volunteered to write up some bullet points; with additional suggestions from Jon, Sally will help turn this into a blog post.

Read the rest of this entry »

If we’re going to have any significant impact on the Patriot Act and FISA debates in the rest of 2010, we’ll need to build on whatever momentum we’ve achieved so far, learn about what has and hasn’t worked, and continue to organize.  The goals for our next phone call include an update on the legislative situation, pooling knowledge about learnings from SJC battle and upcoming activism plans, and deciding on our next steps.   

Please join us!   More information at http://bit.ly/oct20call.

Between now and then, let’s continue the discussion that Sally, Gavin, and Harry have started in Questioning Obama and the Patriot Act.  Get FISA Right’s claim to fame is our dialog last summer with then-Senator Obama; now is the perfect time to continue it.

Please to use this thread to share any thoughts on lessons learned and next steps.  The first comment has some thoughts by Marcy Wheeler to kick things off.

jon

By: Harry Waisbren

Leslie Harris, President and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, posts about Obama versus Obama on the Patriot Act:

Disturbingly, Obama Administration officials played a significant behind the scene role in opposing stronger civil liberties protections, directly contradicting Obama’s positions as a Senator.

Marcy Wheeler has also been covering Obama’s role in the watering down of the Patriot Act, and it is something we at Get FISA Right should be taking very seriously.

Previously, I posted about Attorney General Holder’s discussion of the “conversation to be had” about modifications for civil liberties concerns. Our open letter to Obama last summer turned precisely into this sort of conversation through his follow up post directed to us, and his continuing support for such unsupportable actions has me contemplating whether we should go down this route again—-if only to make sure he knows we are paying attention.

Commenter Sally G agreed with this notion and wrote:

Yes, I definitely think that we should follow up on the earlier discussion. The president (then candidate) explained his position quite clearly in the follow-up blog post, we expressed our support at the inauguration with the TV ads, and now that the tone seems to have changed, I think we have the right and responsibility that he gave us in that post. To paraphrase, he said that although we might respectively, grassroots activism was part of the reason for his success, and that he expected to be held accountable. So let’s draft a letter pointing out how administration actions today are in many ways the continuation of Bush’s policies that now-Pres. Obama himself warned us we could expect from John McCain. It is time that we asked him to deliver on the promises he made—especially after the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize, which sets a high standard for his current and future actions.

I agree with her particularly about the Nobel Peace Prize providing an even greater impetus for beginning this conversation. Please provide your thoughts as well!

By: Harry Waisbren

Emptywheel, aka Marcy Wheeler, of Firedoglake once again is covering the effort to fix the watering down of the Patriot Act in a comprehensive fashion.

First off, her post on Obama’s bipartisanship: hiding up Jeff Sessions’ skirts when eliminating privacy protections:

The whole thing is disgusting: Obama sneaking these in in a last-minute classified briefing. Doing so under cover from Jeff Sessions (what? DiFi and Pat Leahy don’t want responsibility for this??). Pat Leahy letting that happen. A voice vote, so no one will ever hold Leahy and DiFi and Whitehouse and Franken and others responsible for doing this.

She follows up on this assessing a different “Sessions amendment” from Obama as well.

Wheeler posted further on how the Obama DOJ Declines to Support Legality of Bush Surveilance Program:

In short, once again the Obama Administration is, in yet another forum, adopting lock, stock and silencer fitted barrel the policy, tactics and arguments of the Bush/Cheney Administration to shield wholesale illegal and unconstitutional conduct by way of executive classification and secrecy.

…and here she is expanding upon Wired’s story from Ryan Singel headlined Telephone Company is Arm of Government, Feds Admit in Spy Suit in a post she titled The Blog that Passed Telecom Immunity.

Her latest post on the subject so far assesses White Supremacists with Hydrogen Peroxide and this disturbing reality:

Now, interestingly, these guys might not even qualify for the new language (or even the old language) in Section 215 allowing the FBI to now check all the hardware and beauty supply stores in Lake Elsinore for others who have been purchasing TATP precursors–unless the Nazi propaganda qualifies as “international terrorism.”

That’s the latest for now, but presumably she’ll have much more for us soon!

By: Harry Waisbren

Marcy Wheeler has come out with a variety of posts today on the Patriot Act over at her Emptywheel blog hosted on Firedoglake.

First off, her liveblog of the hearing exemplifies her trailblazing in the medium. I doubt there is a better or more comprehensive report available. She followed that with a post confirming her initial hypothesis that our government is tracking hydrogen peroxide and acetone purchases mostly by “searching some subset of the country for their beauty, home improvement, and cleaning supplies.”

Next, she blogs about this Feingold video–which I posted about earlier here–highlighting the 17 second mark where Sen. Leahy presumably sighs, “Oh boy” in response. She followed this with another post about the contrast between Sen. Franken questioning David Kris about the 4th amendment to….voting to implement exactly what he was critiquing Kris for supporting:

Of course, two weeks later, Franken voted with eight other Democrats to continue to allow the government to collect information–things like shopping histories–about people without first identifying whose information they want to collect

Lastly (at least so far today), she posts about Bush’s Illegal Surveillance Program and Section 215:

In other words, it appears they may have started using Section 215s for something they had been using the illegal program for. And it appears that the March 2006 PATRIOT reauthorization, which was partly an add-on to the 2005 reauthorization in 2005 designed to overcome the filibuster that had started in response to the revelation of the program in December 2005, found ways to put some of the things they were doing into other parts of PATRIOT. Combo orders, for example, became regular parts of trap and trace devices.

All of which is a very vague way to say we probably ought to be thinking of four programs–Bush’s illegal domestic surveillance program and the PAA/FAA program that replaced it, NSLs, Section 215 orders, and trap and trace devices–as one whole. As the authorities of one program got shut down by exposure or court rulings or internal dissent, it would migrate to another program. That might explain, for example, why Senators who opposed fishing expeditions in 2005 would come to embrace broadened use of Section 215 orders in 2009.

She ends by citing an upcoming post that delves more deeply into this. In particular, I’m looking forward to hearing more about the concept of looking at these programs “as one whole.” Such an approach would de-wonkify our campaigns—making it easier to discuss civil liberties in universally understood, moral terms.