Rep. Harman Takes Swipe at ACLU Over Terrorism Bill

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. took a shot at the American Civil Liberties Union today over its opposition to a terrorism-related bill.
The legislation in question, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1995). would set up a commission to examine the root cause of terrorism.
It is the bill’s reference to “homegrown terrorists” that irked the civil liberties group, which says the law could be used to crack down on free speech in the United States.
Not so, says Harman, chair of the Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence, in her sharply worded letter to Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU’s top lobbyist.
The bill, which has already passed the House, “is not about interfering with speech or belief – the hearing record makes that abundantly clear” Harman wrote.
She then questioned why the ACLU bothered to write to her with suggested revisions when Fredrickson made it clear that it wouldn’t support the bill even if the requested changes were made.
“This makes me wonder why you took the time to suggest changes … and, frankly, whether anything I and committee members have been saying for months is being heard,” Harman added.
She concluded: “it seems counterproductive to invest more time in further meetings or negotiations when you have announced your steadfast opposition in advance.”
The ACLU responded by saying it still has concerns about the legislation.
“Law enforcement should focus on action not thought,” Fredrickson said. “We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes, rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme.”

Specter's Counsel Tipped For The Top

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., predicted today that his departing chief counsel could eventually make it to the Supreme Court.
Michael O'Neill, who has worked with Specter for the last two years, is due to return to his professorship at George Mason University Law School, but Specter, for one, doesn't think it will be long until the respected lawyer is on the federal bench.
After paying tribute to O'Neill's work, Specter strongly hinted a nomination could be on its way soon.
He then added that he "wouldn't be surprised" if O'Neill made it to the Supreme Court.
"It might take a decade," he added.
O'Neill, a Yale Law School alum who has previously served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, also won high praise from the commmittee chairman, Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
O'Neill's background with the committee is sure to guarantee him a swift and smooth confirmation if the White House does choose to nominate him.

House Passes Attorney-Client Privilege Bill

Congress is a step closer to banning prosecutors from putting pressure on corporations to waive attorney-client privilege in criminal investigations.
The House passed the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act (H.R. 3013) this afternoon on a voice vote.
The Senate has not yet taken action on its version of the bill, which appears to have stalled in the judiciary committee, despite the efforts of Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a keen supporter.
The legislation would put a stop to the Justice Department policy, which was most recently updated by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in a memo issued last December.
The legal community is pretty much united in supporting the bill, but the Justice Department has so far held firm, despite regular interventions from Specter.

Feinstein Pushing Hard For Telco Immunity

Phone companies hoping to win legal protection from lawsuits filed against them over their role in the Bush administration's secret surveillance program would appear to have won around one key Democratic senator: California's Dianne Feinstein.
In recent weeks, Feinstein, a key swing vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been equivocal in her statements concerning whether phone companies should get immunity.
Although she voted for the intelligence committee's version of the bill, which includes an immunity provision, Feinstein had expressed doubts about it and had discussed in public the possibility of imposing damages caps as an alternative.
That changed this morning, when the committee took up the bill for the first time (although no progress was made as Republicans asked it to be held over until next week).
Feinstein read a lengthy statement in which she outlined why the phone companies deserve protection.
She said that the Bush administration is responsible for any incorrect calls as to the legality of the program and that the phone companies were merely trying to help prevent future terrorist attacks.
"I believe the continuing cases [against the phone companies] are not the right remedy," Feinstein said. "It was the administration that made the flawed legal determination."
She added that the phone companies are also prevented from defending themselves in public because the government has asserted its state secrets privilege.
"In effect, they are handcuffed and gagged," Feinstein said.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs suing AT&T for its role in the program, who were at this morning's meeting, questioned Feinstein's conclusions.
"It's disappointing," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We are hoping we can educate her."
It's still unclear what action the committee will take as both the chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking member, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., are skeptical about immunity.
At this morning's meeting Sen. Jeff Sessions, D-Ala., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah., both pledged to support a push for immunity, while Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., said he would oppose it.

Plaintiffs Ready For Immunity Battle

Attorneys challenging the Bush administration’s secret surveillance program have been talking up their chances of shooting down legislation that would grant immunity to phone companies.
With a key Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill scheduled for this Thursday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation are resigned to the bill making its way to the Senate floor.
But, said ACLU lobbyist Caroline Fredrickson in a conference call today, they are putting their faith in some Democrats, who they hope will scupper the White House-backed language that would grant immunity.
The ACLU and EFF are representing plaintiffs suing the phone companies for sharing private information in violation of existing surveillance laws.
Their standard-bearer in the Senate at this point is presidential candidate Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who has vowed to filibuster any bill that contains the immunity provision.
The other Democratic candidates in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, have also said they would oppose such legislation.
Fredrickson is hoping this will build momentum in the Senate against the bill because, from a Democratic point of view, it would be “not only good policy but good politics.”
She berated Democrats for failing to stand up to Republicans on security issues, describing them as being “paralyzed by fear.”
As for a possible compromise, which might include the government indemnifying the phone companies or a cap on damages, the plaintiffs are maintaining that Congress need not address the issue at all.
“In the legislative process there’s no need to do this now,” Fredrickson said, referring to the fact that the litigation is still at a relatively early stage. “There’s such a long road to travel.”

BREAKING: Feinstein To Break Tie On Mukasey?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is the first Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee to announce she will vote to confirm Michael B. Mukasey as the next Attorney General.
This could prove crucial, as we noted on the preceding post.
If all nine Republicans vote to confirm Mukasey at next Tuesday's judiciary committee meeting, then Feinstein's vote will be enough to send the nomination to a full vote in the Senate.
Feinstein explained this afternoon that her top priority is to restore leadership at the Justice Department following the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
"I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the Administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress," she said.

BREAKING: Leahy To Oppose Mukasey Confirmation

White House hopes that Michael B. Mukasey will be the next attorney general took a major blow this afternoon when Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., announced that he plans to vote against the nomination.
Leahy is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is due to vote on the nomination Tuesday.
He joins several of his colleagues on the committee in voicing his opposition, which is based on Mukasey’s refusal to declare whether the interrogation technique known as waterboarding is illegal.
Ted Kennedy, of Massachusetts, Joe Biden, of Delaware, Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, and Richard Durbin, of Illinois, have already announced they will oppose the nomination.
The committee vote now looks too close to call.
If 10 of the committee members vote “no” then the nomination is dead.
All nine Republicans are expected to vote “yes,” but if all the Democrats are in opposition then the White House will be back to square one.
Conversely, if Mukasey can win around just one Democrat, the nomination will proceed to a vote in the Senate.
In announcing his opposition, Leahy said he was deeply troubled by Mukasey’s failure to voice an opinion on whether waterboarding is illegal.
“Our law makes torture illegal, and waterboarding is torture, and it is illegal,” he said. “I wish that I could support his nomination. But I cannot.”

Stephen Colbert On Election Law

Readers may have heard that Comedy Central comedian Stephen Colbert is running for president. He's thrown out the usual playbook - his campaign is sponsored by Doritos, for example - which has prompted observers to suggest that he may be breaking federal election laws. Colbert addressed the issue on his show this week. "I would never knowingly violate any federal election laws," he said. "Luckily, I don't know any federal election laws." See below for the entire segment, featuring an interview with Massie Ritsch from the Center for Responsive Politics.