Today Is Accountability Money-Bomb Day

I have had the “StrangeBedfellows” August 8 Money Bomb ad up in the left column for a while. Well today is the day. Go donate!

August 8, 2008—this is the date for our Strangebedfellows MONEYBOMB on behalf of constitutional rights and civil liberties in America. Let’s remove from power the key enablers of the tyrannical and lawless FISA ‘compromise;’ we can end the Patriot Act—and so much more. Join with us by pledging now—right here at AccountabilityNowPAC.com. Become a part of our transpartisan alliance of freedom lovers! Be a Strangebedfellow!

Richard Blair at All Spin Zone has a great writeup on this project:

A few weeks back, the Democratic Party leadership, in both the House and the Senate, capitulated to the petulant demands of George W. Bush, and passed the revised FISA bill. The bill not only codified warrentless wiretapping, but retroactively provided telecommunications companies with immunity from civil lawsuits on the behalf of U.S. citizens who have had their privacy violated at the behest of the Bush administration.
Accountability Now was formed by online activists from across the political spectrum in order to create public education campaigns (TV, print, and internet advertising), and to hold politicians accountable for their actions that run counter to constitutional principles. More information on the organization is available here.
Progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are being asked to contribute today to the effort. Whether it’s $5, $10, $20, $5000, or simply a show of support by whatever means available, today’s “money bomb” (similar to the fundraising efforts that drove Ron Paul’s presidential campaign earlier this year) is key to the success in holding our political leaders accountable to we, the people.

Please go read Richard’s whole post and PLEASE go throw a few bucks to this great project.
Become a StrangeBedfellow!

The Spying Started BEFORE September 11 – That’s The Whole POINT

In the LA Times today, A good-enough spy law,

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance — the administration’s effort to do a better job of “connecting the dots” to prevent terrorist attacks.

No, it started a few weeks after Bush took office – a time when the Bush administration was ignoring the terrorist threat. So it was about something else, and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition. (Can you say “political spying?”)
One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest’s CEO on trumped-up charges.
The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused – refused because it was illegal – is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity. The President can’t spy on people without warrants, and the telecoms knew that. They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it. Why? Why didn’t they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?
Don’t forget that Watergate was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats. Don ‘t think they don’t do it.

Eavesdropping Without Warrants — It’s About Following the Law

Earlier this month I asked, Was Bush Wiretapping the Kerry Campaign? The problem is, we have no way to know.
Let’s get serious for a minute about Bush’s assertion that as Commander in Chief he has the “wartime” right to do anything he feels is necessary, without warrants and regardless of laws. Asking if they are wiretapping political opponents is not a far-fetched question because without warrants there is no check or balance on what they do. THAT is why our Constitution requires warrants – so a judge can look over what they are doing. It’s like asking us to trust Nixon, and we know how that worked out, don’t we? Or Reagan and we know about Iran/Contra, or Bush’s father, and we know about how many he had to pardon to keep himself out of jail. We’re not supposed to trust our politicians – that’s why we require warrants.
In the previous post I wrote,

Continue reading