Finding Ulysses

You’d think that, with less than three months to go before Election Day, there would be quite a bit of activism for Barack Obama going on in Trumansburg. Trumansburg has been a very politically active community in the past, with about half of the village’s population being very strongly progressive.

Yet, there are few signs of activism on behalf of Obama in Trumansburg right now. The official Barack Obama campaign web site shows no upcoming events in the town of Ulysses - not even any house parties. Meetup.com offers the following message: “Sorry, there are no Barack Obama Meetup Groups near Trumansburg, NY”. The Ulysses Democrats’ web site gives no news of any Obama campaign events.

There was a voter registration table outside Walmart in Ithaca yesterday - but no Obama material was at the table. On August 28th, the State Theatre in Ithaca will host a simulcast of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech - but people will also be able to watch the same speech at home on TV. That’s all - even in Ithaca.

Compared to 2004, there is a surprising lack of presidential campaign activism in Trumansburg and neighboring communities. What’s to account for the inactivity?

Today, the United States Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of the FISA Amendments Act, a proposed law that gives the Attorney General to declare unilaterally that government spy operations against the American people are legal, without any judge being able to rule to the contrary. The legislation places the President, through the Attorney General, above the law.

Yesterday, the Ulysses Democratic Committee sent a letter to our U.S. Representative, Michael Arcuri. On June 20th, Congressman Arcuri introduced a resolution to limit debate on this far-reaching law to just one hour, with less than ten minutes given for the law’s opponents to speak. Then, Arcuri voted for the FISA Amendments Act.

The Ulysses Democratic Committee’s letter reads,

Dear Michael Arcuri,

We, the Ulysses Democratic Committee, in the Town of Ulysses, County of Tompkins, State of New York, are very disappointed, in your vote for the FISA Amendments Act. While we were petitioning to get you on the ballot, you were working to undermine our Constitution, and give retroactive immunity to telecoms that are illegally spying on us. We hope you continue to support the Constitution and the voters in your district.

The Ulysses Democratic Committee also sent letters to senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Barack Obama has declared that he will vote for the FISA Amendments Act, even if amendments are not passed to improve the law. The committee’s letter to Obama reads,

Senator Obama,

We Democrats in the Town of Ulysses, County of Tompkins, the only county you carried in New York State in the primary election, are deeply disappointed over your support for the FISA Amendments Act. Senator Obama you have said that if elected you would investigate the crimes of the present administration. Passing the FISA Amendments Act would remove some of these crimes from consideration and further damage our rights as citizens as defined by the 4th amendment to the Constitution. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Obama, vowed that you would “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” It is essential that you declare his intention to honor this pledge now. We need 41 senators to maintain a filibuster of this seriously flawed legislation. Senator Obama, as the likely nominee of our party, you are the de-facto head of the party. We need your leadership in-order to find these 41 senators.

Senator Hillary Clinton has not been clear about her intentions with the FISA Amendments Act. The Ulysses Democratic Committee sent her the following letter:

Dear Senator Clinton:

Our community is very disappointed with the House for voting to pass the FISA Amendments Act. We call upon you to join our Senior Senator from NY, and Senators Dodd and Feingold, in acting to filibuster the bill in the Senate if telecom immunity is not stripped from the bill. We also question the need for increased powers for the Executive branch to spy on the American people without a warrant, which we understand to run contrary to our constitutionally-protected rights.

New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer, has clearly expressed his opposition to the FISA Amendments Act. Thanks to him for making that stand.

Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act. The name doesn’t tell you much. It sounds all technical and dry and boring.

Go to the Library of Congress. Read the law, and try to get over the obscuring legislative language, and you’ll find that the FISA Amendments Act is not at all dry and boring. It’s rather frightening, actually.

The FISA Amendments Act gives the President (through the office of the Attorney General of the U.S.) the power to conduct spy operations against Americans and foreigners alike. These spy operations can completely avoid judicial review and control. They can include electronic surveillance of our personal communications as well as physical searches of our homes. There need be no search warrant, and no proof of suspicion of a crime. The government doesn’t even need to tell you that they’ve searched your home or been reading through your emails.

Don’t buy the spin about supposed protections that the FISA Amendments Act provides. Read the law for yourself, and you’ll see it contains loopholes a mile wide. The Attorney General is given the power under the law to conduct spy operations that violate the law. The Attorney General only has to make the assertion that a spy operation is following the law, and no court, not even the FISA court, will have the power to disagree. These loopholes mean that any supposed limitation on spy programs can be easily nullified by the White House, and no one will have the power to stop it.

It’s clear to anybody who has studied the FISA Amendments Act that the law gives extremely dangerous power to the White House. What has not been clear, however, is where one of our United States Senators stands on the bill.

Charles Schumer is doing the right thing. He opposes the FISA Amendments Act and has worked with other Senators to try to organize a filibuster.

Our other senator, Hillary Clinton, has been extremely unclear. At first, Senator Clinton’s office stated that she opposes the bill’s retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that helped George W. Bush spy on the private communications of millions of Americans. Senator Clinton’s position on the other provisions of the bill, however, was not explained. Last week, however, Clinton’s aides refused to make any statement at all. When the time came for an attempted filibuster of the FISA Amendments Act, Senator Clinton didn’t vote yes or no. She just didn’t show up to work in the Senate that day.

Today, Senator Clinton’s aides are giving a very confusing description of the senator’s position on the FISA Amendments Act. They say that a statement has been issued, but only internally, to Senator Clinton’s offices - not to the public. The aide I talked to said that Senator Clinton opposes the FISA Amendments Act, but that it isn’t known how Senator Clinton will vote tomorrow.

That’s confusing to me, and suggests some lingering uncertainty. If Hillary Clinton truly opposes the FISA Amendments Act, then she wouldn’t have trouble saying simply that she intends to vote against he proposed law.

I’d like to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but given the way that 105 Democrats in the House of Representatives (including our own disappointing Michael Arcuri) turned coat in June and voted with the Republicans in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, nothing can be regarded as certain.

Today may be the last chance you have to make a difference. Please help Senator Clinton decide upon a clear opposition to the FISA Amendments Act. Call her office at (202) 224-4451 and ask her to vote NO on retroactive immunity and NO on the entire FISA Amendments Act.

A week ago, Michael Arcuri, our member of the U.S. House of Representatives joined forces with George W. Bush and the congressional Republicans by first limiting the debate on the FISA Amendments Act to just one hour (with less than 10 minutes given to opponents of the bill to express their concerns), and then voting for the bill himself.

The FISA Amendments Act extends the legalization of George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, by:

- Allowing massive electronic surveillance of emails, telephone calls and other electronic forms of communication. No evidence of suspicion of any criminal wrongdoing is required. No search warrants are asked for. The FISA court will have no power to stop the government from spying, and won’t be able to stop the government from using evidence obtained through spying, even if it concludes that spying has been done in violation of the Constitution or the law. Even if the loose terms of the FISA Amendments Act are violated, courts will have no power to stop the illegal activity.
- Allowing physical searches as well, without a search warrant, without court approval, and without congressional oversight.
- There is not even internal oversight of the spying programs. Under the FISA Amendments Act, the Attorney General of the United States runs the spy programs against American citizens, and the Attorney General is the only person with the power to certify that the spying is being done in accordance with the law.
- Telecommunications companies that violated the law by giving the Bush White House private files about the personal communications of millions of Americans - communications fully within the United States - will be given retroactive legal immunity.

These provisions of the FISA Amendments Act make it in clear violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The bill has gone on to the Senate, and debate on the bill has begun. Although unrelated legislation has delayed the final vote until Friday, yesterday a group of 15 Democratic senators attempted to block the legislation in preparation for a filibuster.

Yesterday, I called the offices of our senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and asked for information about how they would vote on the bill, and whether they would support a filibuster. The answers from both offices didn’t shed much light. Senator Schumer’s office refused to make any statement. Hillary Clinton’s office would only say that she is opposed to one provision within the bill - retroactive immunity - but refused to commit to opposition to the entire bill.

Yesterday, an important test vote took place, and the results don’t look good. The vote was on cloture, meaning that the question of the vote was whether the FISA Amendments Act should move forward to a vote on Friday. 80 voted yes. 15 voted no.

5 were absent - two because they were campaigning for President, two because they are gravely ill (Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd), and one because… well… that’s not clear. Hillary Clinton did not show up to work in the Senate yesterday.

Charles Schumer was present. He voted with the 15 Democrats, against the FISA Amendments Act.

It seems that the FISA Amendments Act, a piece of legislation that allows massive, practically unrestricted spying against Americans by the federal government, is likely to come up for a vote in the United States Senate today.

The FISA Amendments Act is plainly in violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. This legislation is an attack on our American freedom.

The FISA Amendments Act also provides retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped George W. Bush spy on millions of Americans’ personal communications. Why is that important? Retroactive immunity keeps lawsuits against the telecom corporations out of the courtroom, and thus prevents information about President Bush’s spying program from becoming public. Even Congress still does not know how far Bush went with his electronic spying.

Let me summarize: The FISA Amendments Act is a thoroughly bad idea. It opens the door to government abuse of power, and critically compromises our rights as American citizens.

What are our senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, likely to do? Will they vote against the FISA Amendments Act?

I can’t tell you. That’s because Senators Clinton and Schumer refuse to say what they’ll do.

I called their offices a few minutes ago. Senator Clinton’s aide only would say that Hillary Clinton opposes retroactive immunity. She wouldn’t say whether Senator Clinton would actually vote against the FISA Amendments Act or whether Senator Clinton opposes the other abusive elements of the law.

When I called Senator Schumer’s office, I was told that Senator Schumer will not comment about what he intends to do about the FISA Amendments Act.

Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have announced their plan to filibuster the FISA Amendments Act. Will Schumer and Clinton join them or leave them hanging?

We’re residents of New York state, not Alabama or Wyoming. We deserve senators who will take the lead in representing our state’s progressive values, and not just sit on the fence.

Please call our senators as soon as possible, before the FISA Amendments Act comes up for a vote, and tell them how you’d like them to vote on this legislation, and the attempt to filibuster.

Senator Hillary Clinton: (202) 224-4451
Senator Charles Schumer: (202) 224-6542

It’s not a cheery morning for me, seeing what passes for our “Democratic” representation in Congress. I have called Congressman Mike Arcuri’s office in Washington D.C., and the aides there confirm that Representative Arcuri will vote in favor of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304).

If you call Arcuri’s office (202-225-3665), you will be told by the aide who answers the telephone that Congressman Arcuri does not support retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations. You will be told that H.R. 6304 is a “compromise” bill that does not offer retroactive telecom immunity.

When you are told this by the aide who answers the telephone, ask the aide if he has actually read H.R. 6304. The aide I talked to admitted that he has not read the bill.

I have read the bill, and the assertion that it does not offer retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications corporations is laughable. But, I’m not a lawyer, so maybe you shouldn’t take my word for it. Consider what Senator Russ Feingold, who knows how to read a piece of legislation, has to say about the bill:

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.”

Or, you could take the word of attorney Kevin Bankston, who works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Bankston has read the legislation, and he concludes,

“Whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called ‘compromise’ on immunity is anything but: the current proposal is the exact same blanket immunity that the Senate passed in February and that the House rejected in March, only with a few new bells and whistles so that political spinsters can claim that it actually provides meaningful court review.”

Political spinsters - that’s what we’re getting in the office of Congressman Michael Arcuri. They’re counting on you to not read the legislation for yourself. Maybe Representative Arcuri himself hasn’t even read the FISA Amendments Act. He admitted that he didn’t bother reading the Military Commissions Act before approving it.

You can choose to go along with the political spin offered by Arcuri’s staff, or you can be one of the few Americans who has read the FISA Amendments Act. I don’t expect many people to bother to read it. I don’t expect many people to care that much. I don’t expect many Democrats to question Arcuri, and make this a campaign issue. We’ll hear the same old claims that it’s somehow our duty to support Arcuri because he carries the name of Democrat, and for most Democrats, that will be a good enough argument.

We are not living in an age of idealism. Congressman Arcuri knows that, and that’s why he’s confident that he won’t lose much support on account of his vote for Bush’s spying bill today.

You get to decide whether you’re willing to go along with that, and confirm Arcuri’s sad judgment of the character of our citizens.

Democrats of Trumansburg and Ulysses, is your member of Congress representing your values in Washington D.C.?

We disagree on plenty of things, but one thing I’ve recognized among all Democrats in the town of Ulysses is that they value free and open debate. Yet, on a significant piece of legislation that will be voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives today, there will not be free and open debate.

That’s because our Representative in Washington D.C., Representative Michael Arcuri, put forward H.RES.1285 yesterday. H.RES.1285 is a resolution to set the rules for debate for another bill - H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act.

Congressman Arcuri’s resolution limited the debate on the FISA Amendments Act to just one hour, with the debate under the control of the chairman and ranking Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee. Both of these people support the legislation.

Why should you care? Isn’t this all just technical legislative boring stuff?

No. H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, does some very unboring things, as you’ll see if you actually take the time to read the proposed law, instead of just accepting the CNN 30-second summary.

Here’s what you’d find if you read the entire proposed law (not just the headers and summaries):

- The law allows the White House to conduct electronic spying against whomever it wants, including Americans in the United States who are not suspected of any crime, without any search warrant or meaningful court oversight. This includes:
A. Reading your email
B. Tracking your movements if you have a GPS device or cell phone
C. Keeping records of which web sites you visit
D. Listening to your phone calls
- The law allows the White House to order physical searches of Americans’ homes, places of work, and persons without any search warrant
- The same official who has authority to conduct the searches, the Attorney General of the United States, also has the sole authority to certify that the searches have been done properly, in accordance with the law. No one else in Congress or in any court will have the power to contradict the Attorney General’s self-certification.

Whether you agree or disagree with these provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, it ought to be very clear that important and substantial issues are involved - issues that cannot possibly be properly addressed in a one-hour debate.

Mike Arcuri’s resolution to limit debate of this bill to one hour looks like an attempt to prevent meaningful discussion and review by members of Congress. It is a resolution that is against the values of open government and free debate that we Ulysses Democrats value.

The involvement of Congressman Arcuri in the effort to rush the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 through Congress without the opportunity for sufficient public debate is profoundly disappointing, and tarnishes his image at the very time when he is beginning his first re-election campaign.

When we have a lame duck President in George W. Bush, there is no excuse for this kind of spineless lack of resistance to the worst parts of the Bush agenda. Democrats were elected to a majority in Congress for a reason - it was to change the culture of Washington, D.C., not to go along with the flow as Congressman Arcuri is doing.

You can call Congressman Arcuri’s D.C. office at 202-225-3665.

We’ve got it better than they do down in Ithaca, where a friend tells me she filled up today at the price of $3.80 per gallon. Yet, we’re well above the national average at $3.75 per gallon of gasoline here in Trumansburg.

Actually, that’s $3.75.9 per gallon, to be precise. 24.1 cents per gallon of gasoline to go until we’re paying four dollars per gallon.

How soon will we make it to that point? It seems silly to predict, though gasoline prices typically go up during the summer time.

My family is not planning any long vacations this summer. I wouldn’t be surprised to see others staying closer to home as well.

It’s a national story, of course, and that means that we ought not to expect quite so many visitors as usual either… and perhaps a more local audience for the Grassroots Festival.

It wasn’t even two years ago that Hillary Clinton was asking us to send her back to the Senate for a six year term, to serve as our representative there. It didn’t take very long before she set her sights on bigger and better things, however.

Is Hillary Clinton still a U.S. Senator for New York State? Well, in name she is. In reality, she sure isn’t acting like one. Over and over again, Hillary Clinton is failing to show up to do her duty as our senator. She’s too busy campaigning off to become something else, to get what she thinks is a better job.

Today, the Senate voted on a series of amendments to the FISA Amendments Act. You won’t know much about the FISA Amendments Act if you get your news from the television, as the TV news channels would prefer to prattle away about Natalie Holloway than to pay attention to the details of important legislation that affects our lives.

Boy, does the FISA Amendments Act affect our lives. It makes the Protect America Act, passed in the dead of night on a Saturday in the middle of last summer, permanent. The Protect America Act allows the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct dragnet electronic spying against Americans without any search warrant at all, without FISA court approval, and without any meaningful oversight by Congress.

When I say “electronic spying”, think about everything that’s electronic these days. Financial transactions. Medical records. Emails. Telephone calls. The Protect America Act allows the federal government to look at all this whenever it wants without giving any justification, and without anyone outside of direct White House control serving as a watchdog to make sure the spying powers are not abused.

I’m among those who think that’s a bad idea.

Today, Senator Russ Feingold offered a series of amendments to the FISA Amendments Act to try to take away these outrageous powers of the White House to use electronic networks to spy against Americans. Hillary Clinton did not even show up to vote on them.

She was off campaigning for President. Apparently, she thinks that becoming the Democratic presidential nominee is more important than protecting us from outrageous government attacks against our fundamental freedoms.

Barack Obama did show up to vote. He’s running for the Democratic presidential nomination too, but he made a judgment about what was most important. He decided that he would rather give up an edge in the quest for political power than give up the freedoms of the Bill of Rights.

I wish our own junior senator had that same set of values.

In yesterday’s Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama won every district here in the town of Ulysses. Obama’s got 461 votes in Ulysses, and Clinton got 367. The breakdown by district, according to the still unofficial results from the Tompkins County Board of Elections:


District 1: Obama - 130, Clinton - 110, Kucinich - 3, Edwards - 1

District 2: Obama - 82, Clinton - 69, Edwards - 3, Kucinich - 2

District 3: Obama - 152, Clinton - 113, Kucinich - 7, Edwards - 3

District 4: Obama - 97, Clinton - 75, Kucinich - 1, Richardson - 1

John McCain won the Republican vote in Ulysses, with 168 votes. Mitt Romney came in second with 94 votes, with Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee coming in third and fourth with 26 and 24 votes. Fred Thompson, Rudolph Giuliani and Alan Keyes got 4, 5, and 2 votes, respectively.