Tag Archives: FISA

CA-36: Harman’s Magic Act

By a twist of fate, Jane Harman actually appeared at the AIPAC convention over the weekend, bringing full circle the recent controversy over her comments picked up on a wiretap offering help to get AIPAC staffers out of a Justice Department probe in exchange for help getting the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  She vowed to begin a crusade against illegal wiretapping and overreach from the surveillance state.

Harman has described the wiretap as an abuse of government power. But sources have told The Washington Post that she was not being surveilled; the tapped phone belonged to the suspected Israeli agent, who happened to talk to her.

“I will not quit on this until I am absolutely sure this can never happen to anyone else,” Harman told the AIPAC audience, which warmly applauded her. She said the incident was having “a chilling effect” on members of Congress who “care intensely about the U.S.-Israeli security relationship . . . and have every right to talk to advocacy groups.”

Later, she called herself a “warrior on behalf of our Constitution and against abuse of power”.  Which, coming from Harman, is utterly absurd, a magic act where she transforms herself from a vigorous defender of executive prerogatives on wiretapping to a civil liberties zealot who wants to take down the surveillance state.

Jane Harman is a warrior on behalf of the Constitution and against abuse of power — that’s the same Jane Harman who tried to bully The New York Times out of writing about Bush’s illegal spying program, who succeeded in pressuring them not to publish their story until after Bush was re-elected, who repeatedly proclaimed the program to be “legal and necessary” once it was revealed, who called the whistle-blowers “despicable”, who went on Meet the Press and expressed receptiveness to a criminal investigation of The New York Times for publishing the story, who led the way in supporting the Fourth-Amendment-gutting and safeguard-destroying FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and who demanded that telecoms be retroactively immunized for breaking multiple laws by allowing government spying on their customers without warrants of any kind.

That is who is a self-proclaimed “warrior on behalf of our Constitution and against abuse of power.”

As Atrios notes, Jane Harman is primarily concerned about wiretapping of People Named Jane Harman.  And her point that this represented a potential abuse of government power, which by the way is

entirely plausible, was the entire point of people like me when we decried an illegal wiretapping program that would be ripe for abuse.  You know, the one Jane Harman defended.

Worse, in the “Fact Sheet” Harman is sending around to supporters in the district, she characterizes herself as, among other things, a longtime critic of warrantless wiretapping in the most fantastical way possible:

• Harman has never supported so-called “warrantless wiretaps” on Americans.  “We must use all lawful tools to detect and disrupt the plans of our enemies; signals intelligence and the work of the NSA are vital to that mission.  But in doing so, it is also vital that we protect the American people’s constitutional rights.”  (Press release of Dec. 21, 2005 — four days after the President declassified the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program).  

• Harman introduced the LISTEN Act (H.R. 5371) with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to add resources to the Justice Department to ensure the issuance of individualized warrants under FISA.  (Press release of May 11, 2006).

• Harman, Senator Obama, and Speaker Pelosi supported amendments to FISA to expand protections to US citizens, and give limited court-reviewed immunity to telecommunications firms that prove they relied in good faith on what they believed was a valid order to produce records.  (Vote date of June 20, 2008).

She must think we’re all idiots.  That vote of June 20, 2008, the amendments to FISA to “expand protections to US citizens,” in addition to providing retroactive immunity for the telecoms for breaking the law, actually granted sweeping new powers to the federal government, including the ability to “conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.”  The fact that this lack of oversight or judicial review could lead to abuses of surveillance power has been confirmed by reports that the NSA overstepped its legal authority to wiretap by intercepting the private emails and phone calls of Americans, problems which grew “out of changes enacted by Congress last July in the law that regulates the government’s wiretapping powers.”  The fact that Barack Obama supported that bill, considering that he was massively criticized by progressives for that FISA vote, doesn’t exactly help the cause.

Harman’s record on wiretapping is well-known and her efforts to wiggle out of it are frankly laughable.  And the rest of her record, as demonstrated by Swing State Project today, shows her to be among the top 20 Democrats voting less liberal than what their districts would support.  That, more than this hypocrisy on civil liberties, is why she’ll draw a primary challenge next year, should she choose to run again.

Jane Harman’s Complicity in Illegal Torture and Warrantless Spying Programs

As it concerns the reports of Harman possibly being nominated to a post in the intelligence apparatus, it’s very important for everyone to remember how complicit Jane Harman has been in illegal acts by the Bush administration in allowing detainee torture to take place and in trampling on our rights as American citizens.  Because of her history, there’s no way she should get any of these jobs. (follow below)

From Glenn Greenwald’s post from July:

In December of last year, The Washington Post revealed:

Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

The article noted that other Democratic members who received briefings on the CIA’s interrogation program included Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman. While Harman sent a letter to the CIA asking questions about the legality of the program, none ever took any steps to stop or even restrict the interrogation program in any way.

Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress — including Rockefeller and Harman — were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) — assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away “to ensure that I have a record of this communication” — Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here’s what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:

Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California’s Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: “I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

Harman then went on Fox News and pronounced that the NSA program was “legal and necessary” and proudly said: “I support the program.” Even worse, in February, 2006, Harman went on “Meet the Press” and strongly suggested that the New York Times should be criminally prosecuted for having reported on the illegal program. And indeed, in 2004, Harman demanded that the NYT’s Eric Lichtblau not write about the NSA program. As Lichtblau wrote in his recent book about a 2004 conversation with Harman:

“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew — namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,’ she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated.

In light of this sordid history of active complicity, is it really any wonder that these leading Democrats are desperate to quash any investigations or judicial adjudications of Bush administration actions that they knew about and did nothing to stop, in some cases even actively supporting?

While I’d love to have the chance to replace Harman with a progressive Democrat in my solid blue 36th Congressional District here in California, I would gladly keep her as my congressional representative if that kept her from being in any of those positions of power over intelligence matters.  I think the most important thing first is to prevent her from getting named as DNI or CIA Director or DHS Chief.  That’s essential.  

CA-37: Richardson declared a “public nuisance” to Dems who don’t like being constantly embarrassed

Can you believe this?

First Rep. Laura Richardson was having problems making house payments, defaulting six times over eight years.

Then after a bank foreclosed on her Sacramento house and sold it at auction in May, the Long Beach Democrat made such a stink that Washington Mutual, in an unusual move, grabbed it back and returned it to her.

This week, in the latest chapter in the housing saga, the Code Enforcement Department in Sacramento declared her home a “public nuisance.”

The city has threatened to fine her as much as $5,000 a month if she doesn’t fix it up.

Neighbors in the upper-middle-class neighborhood complain that the sprinklers are never turned on and the grass and plants are dead or dying. The gate is broken, and windows are covered with brown paper.

“I would call it an eyesore,” said Peter Thomsen, a retired bank executive who lives nearby.

I think “embarrassing” is the best word for it.  Laura Richardson has no need or use for a home in Sacramento anymore, and in her letter to supporters trying to give an alibi for her recent conduct, she says that she isn’t rich and doesn’t have a second income to afford her lifestyle.  Then why the useless home in Sac’to that’s become decrepit?

If this was the only thing wrong with Richardson, it’d be enough, frankly.  But the fact that she voted to sink the Fourth Amendment and provide amnesty for lawbreaking to the telecoms in the FISA bill means that her votes are as embarrassing as her home upkeep.  It’s really unacceptable to have her as a representative of this state, honestly.

Feinstein’s Mukasey Debacle

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Today the New York Times reports on the continuing failure of the Michael Mukasey as Attorney General experiment. Back in November we at the Courage Campaign didn’t much like the notion of an Attorney General Mukasey, but Senator Dianne Feinstein strongly disagreed. She got a lot of pushback and defended her case in an LA Times OpEd that she might want back at this point given the way reality has actually played out. Let’s play point/counterpoint between Feinstein’s argument in November and the New York Times today:

Feinstein:

During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge.

Sen. Arlen Specter:

“I don’t want to use the word ‘disappointed,’ but he hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for”

Feinstein:

Judge Mukasey is not Alberto R. Gonzales. In our confirmation hearings (and subsequently, in writing), Judge Mukasey’s answers to hundreds of questions were crisp and to the point, and reflected an independent mind.



The Justice Department is in desperate need of effective leadership. It is leaderless, and 10 of its top positions are vacant. Morale among U.S. attorneys needs to be restored, priorities reassessed and a new dynamic of independence from the White House established.

Sen. Patrick Leahy:

But Mr. Mukasey is “letting the worst excesses of the Gonzales era stand,” he continued, “and that disappoints me. It’s like saying, ‘I’m going to be a place holder,’ and this is a man who certainly has the ability to be something more than a place holder. He doesn’t want to rock the boat.”

Feinstein:

In the hearing, Judge Mukasey clearly expressed his personal repugnance regarding torture. And in a letter dated Oct. 30, he reiterated his personal views and described in detail the analysis he would undertake if confirmed.

NY Times (emphasis mine):

From fending off calls to investigate accusations of torture to resisting a nationwide strategy against mortgage fraud, Mr. Mukasey has taken a go-slow approach that has surprised even some admirers, who see him as unwilling to break from past policies and leave his own imprint in the closing months of the Bush administration.

Feinstein:

I do not believe a president can be above the law, and neither does Judge Mukasey. In addition, Judge Mukasey explained that his view on executive power is based on an analysis of the Supreme Court’s 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer. Justice Robert Jackson wrote in that decision that the president’s power is greatest when he is backed by statutory authority from Congress, and at its lowest ebb when his actions are in conflict with a statute.

NY Times (emphasis mine):

But perhaps his biggest accomplishment has been the expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers under a bill signed into law by President Bush this month. Mr. Mukasey had little active role in the day-to-day negotiations with Congress, Congressional officials said. But he and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, sent a series of sharply worded letters to lawmakers, keeping the pressure on them to update the surveillance law and provide legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

After a months-long impasse over the surveillance measure, administration officials hailed its passage. But critics saw it as a continuation of the status quo under Mr. Mukasey. “I think he was determined to sustain the administration’s position,” Mr. Specter said, rather than work to scale back the White House’s claims to executive power after the controversy caused by the domestic wiretapping program.

Essentially, Senator Feinstein’s entire argument has been refuted by Mukasey’s actual performance on the job. While she wasn’t the only one involved, her proactive work to confirm Mukasey has done a major disservice to the rule of law and health of the Constitution in this country. But if we needed any further evidence that Mukasey is actually nefarious as opposed to lazy or incompetent, look no further than the week he’s delivering to us right now. Mukasey has embarked upon a campaign to compel Congress to pass a law altering the Constitutional right of habeas corpus, overruling the courts and the intentions of the founding fathers while also conveniently covering up the abuses delivered by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo Bay. He isn’t just failing to fix the problem, he’s now neck deep in trying to cover it up. The Attorney General is the lawyer for the government, but the law itself is supposed to still come first. Mukasey is actively seeking to subvert the rule of law, and we have, in part, Senator Feinstein to thank.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly what we’ve been talking about all along here at Courage. A fundamental breakdown of leadership. At the very least, she could admit it and try to push back. But instead, we get her rolling over on FISA, just like the anti-Constitution Mukasey told her to. This is not what California elected her to do.

Pelosi Passes the Buck; Gore Let Off the Hook at Netroots Nation

(I’m under a mountain of work, so I have a lot on Netroots Nation stored up, but this from our pal Paul about the Pelosi/Gore session is good.  And BTW, I asked the Iraq question. – promoted by David Dayen)

From today’s Beyond Chron.

It’s no surprise that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got a tough reception at Netroots Nation – as bloggers asked about the Iraq War, impeachment and (of course) FISA.  Pelosi passed the buck on all of these issues – saying that she’s let House Judiciary Chair John Conyers handle executive contempt, blamed Senate Democrats for selling out on FISA and said that only electing Barack Obama will get us out of Iraq.  When Al Gore popped in to make a surprise appearance, the crowd gave a hero’s welcome to the ex-Vice President – posing a sharp contrast with Pelosi.  Bloggers cheered Gore’s ambitious environmental agenda to make the United States 100% free of fossil fuel energy by 2019.  But nobody bothered to ask Gore why he didn’t push for this 15 years ago when he could have done something about it.  Meanwhile, Pelosi’s excuses frustrated the audience – but they each have an element of truth to them.  On the other hand, if Pelosi says she “doesn’t have the votes” in Congress to get what we want, she should start being more supportive of primary challenges that bloggers wage against bad Democrats.

“God bless the impatience of youth,” said Pelosi as she kicked off the Convention’s main event on Saturday morning.  “That’s what gives me hope.  I share your frustration in not ending this War.  We need to be persistent, relentless and unsatisfied at pushing us to where we should be.  And there are only 107 days until the Election.”

Everyone expected Pelosi would get a tough crowd, and about half a dozen demonstrators from Code Pink were there to heckle her about the War.  But liberal bloggers aren’t about direct-action street-level theater, preferring the tactic of asking hard-hitting questions that put politicians on the spot.  Gina Cooper of Netroots Nation even warned attendees at the beginning that anyone who disrupted the forum would be ejected, and the crowd cheered.

At the forum, Pelosi was asked questions like: (a) is impeachment back on the table?; (b) if Karl Rove is still in contempt of Congress, will he be arrested?; (c) if the FISA bill was a compromise, what was the gain? and (d) why hasn’t Congress ended the War?

For the most part, Pelosi passed the buck – saying that she agreed with the frustration of bloggers, but blamed others for why no action has been taken.  On the first two points, she deferred to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers – who is leading investigations of the Bush Administration.  “We passed a resolution of contempt on the House floor,” she said, “and I’m proud that we got every Democrat to vote for it.  But Mr. Conyers is in charge of the investigation, and we’re in good hands with him.”

On FISA, Pelosi blamed the Senate – where 17 Democrats voted with all the Republicans – for sending them a bad bill.  “Our options were limited,” she said.  “It was a moment of taint.  Was the final bill [which passed both houses] a bill that I would have written?  No.  Was it better than the Senate version that had passed?  Yes.”

Pelosi added that as House Speaker she has only had “two major regrets”: (a) the Senate version of the FISA bill that they had to work with, and (b) failing to get 60 votes in the Senate to end the Iraq War.  Later on in the forum, she added that the only way to end the War will be to elect President Barack Obama.  Eventually, moderator Gina Cooper turned to Pelosi and said what was on a lot of peoples’ minds: “it sounds like some of your colleagues must get with the program with the American people.”

There’s certainly truth to what Pelosi said: any effort to impeach Bush or Cheney will start at the Judiciary Committee, Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the Senate, and even voting to defund the War won’t end it until a Democratic President brings the troops home.  But while Pelosi says she is on our side, one conclusion we can draw is that she hasn’t kept her colleagues in line.  The netroots have always tried to hold bad Democrats accountable – and in recent years have waged primary challenges against entrenched incumbents who vote the wrong way on issues.  The bloggers could work with Pelosi.

But Pelosi has not generally supported these challengers, actively working against the netroots.  For example, Pelosi held a fundraiser for Congressman Al Wynn – while he was getting a primary challenge from netroots favorite Donna Edwards.  Edwards won that election, and attended Netroots Nation as a newly minted Congresswoman.  In what must have been an awkward moment, Pelosi acknowledged Edwards at the beginning of the forum.

It wasn’t the first time that a powerful Democrat came to a netroots Convention and faced a tough audience.  But unlike Hillary Clinton (who at last year’s Yearly Kos sarcastically mocked the crowd when they booed her), Pelosi kept her grace while saying much of what the bloggers didn’t agree with.  Whatever you think of her answers, she did not condescend.

While bloggers gave Pelosi a chilly reception, they enthusiastically cheered former Vice President Al Gore – who made a surprise appearance during Pelosi’s forum.  “We have a historic climate crisis,” said Gore.  “It’s connected to an economic crisis, and the national security threat it creates. Drilling oil we won’t use for 15 years to deal with gas prices now is like responding to an attack from Afghanistan by invading another country.”

Gore has always been a sentimental favorite of the netroots (“I feel right at home here,” he said), and the crowd eagerly responded to his challenge to eliminate fossil fuel dependency by 2019.  “I need your help,” he said. “You seek to influence, and I respectfully ask for your help.”  And with only 11 years to get there, we don’t have much time.

But nobody asked the former Vice President why he didn’t agitate on these issues in the mid-1990’s, when he was in a position to get things done.  If we had started this 15 years ago, eliminating fossil fuel dependency would be far more doable.  No doubt Gore is now using his “elder statesman” role to fight global warming – but the Clinton-Gore Administration was lackluster in responding to this climate crisis, such as reneging on their pledge to shut down an incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.  When Gore ran for President in 2000, Friends of the Earth endorsed Bill Bradley in the Democratic primaries.

If the netroots insisted on giving Nancy Pelosi a hard time, why didn’t they challenge Gore as well?

Sen. Obama, FISA, and the Solidifying Left.

Over at the Wall Street Journal, they want to talk about what the media narrative of the day: Obama Buyer’s Remorse from the Left. But here at the actual convention, there is quite a bit of enthusiasm here.  Perhaps people can be disappointed in their candidate without abandoning hope? Well, not if the media has anything to say about it.

Sen. Barack Obama‘s support of a recent overhaul of domestic spy laws that rankled many on the left still has them rankled if the opening session at the annual Netroots Nation convention taking place in Austin, Texas, is any indication. (WSJ 7/17)

Matt Stoller responds to this general argument of “Buyer’s remorse” at OpenLeft

At any rate, the whining from DC pundits about how the left was undermining Obama’s chances at winning was absolutely wrong.  His small dollar donor army wants him in that White House, and they are going to pay to put him there.  While it’s often impossible for consultants in DC to keep multiple thoughts in their head, it is possible for most of us normal bluggers and blug readers to get that we don’t like his vote on FISA but we want him to win the White House desperately anyway.

The small dollar donors and the netroots folks here in Austin can walk AND chew gum. It’s really quite amazing. That was seen in California in the latest Field Poll where Sen. Obama solidified the left despite FISA and the surrounding hubub.

FISA is important, yet it is not the only important item. Wow, who knew?

Amazing results on Feinstein censure vote



Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

There’s a lot of talk this year about more and better Democrats. Generally the “and better” part means primary campaigns and being selective in the candidates that we support with time, money and cyber ink. The other side of that is holding our representatives accountable in ways outside the ballot box, because sometimes we can’t just wait for re-election to get responsive representation; too much happens. It’s not always easy to find effective ways to get attention and movement, but passion and creativity can be combined into a potent mix.

Last week Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to give away our 4th Amendment privacy protections and grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who may have been illegally complicit in domestic spying on U.S. citizens. It was hardly the first time that Sen. Feinstein has given us reason for serious concern. Once before, her support of previous iterations of FISA legislation, Judge Leslie Southwick and now-Attorney General Mukasey inspired us to insist she pay attention to Californians. We asked you whether it was time to pursue censure again, and more than 12,000 of you responded with a clear message.

Rick Jacobs sent an email this morning running through the results, explaining where we go from here, and asking you to help:

The results are in.

Over 12,000 Californians voted on one of the most important questions we have ever asked our community: whether or not the Courage Campaign should re-launch a censure resolution against Senator Dianne Feinstein at the next meeting of the California Democratic Party.

And here’s the answer:

95.4 percent (11,524 people) voted YES.

4.6 percent (556 people) voted NO.

The consensus of our Courage Campaign community is crystal clear: we should push to censure the Senator.

And, driven by your mandate to take action, that is exactly what we’re going to do. From her FISA votes supporting telecom immunity to her shocking swing votes confirming Bush nominees Michael Mukasey and Leslie Southwick, enough is enough.

For this people-powered “Censure the Senator” movement to succeed, we need your support before the California Democratic Party (CDP) executive board meets again. To hold Sen. Feinstein accountable, it will take money to organize people. It’s as simple as that.

If you support pushing to censure the Senator, please contribute $20, $50, $100 or more now to launch our campaign for change within the Democratic Party immediately. If just 500 people contribute $10 (or more) ASAP, we can hire a grassroots organizer and get started now:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CensureMovement

For far too long, we’ve watched as congressional Democrats — the party in power — have failed to hold President Bush accountable for torture, war and warrantless wiretapping. 95.4% of our members and supporters say that it’s got to stop. As Annie from San Francisco wrote to us, in voting YES to censure:

We have to (censure Sen. Feinstein). It’s hard to have to call out our politicians on so many issues and votes, but they keep disappointing us over and over again. We can’t let these votes go unprotested.

That’s what a “censure” is — a protest. As Wikipedia describes it, censure is “a procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior.”

Other than voting in an election, a public censure is also our only recourse as citizens to express our condemnation of Sen. Feinstein’s votes last week to grant retroactive immunity to the Bush Administration and telecom companies for spying on Americans.

With Sen. Feinstein’s double failure on FISA, it’s time to take this accountability movement to the next level. Please contribute $20, $50, $100 — or whatever you can afford — to launch our campaign for change within the Democratic Party immediately:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CensureMovement

Last year, Sen. Feinstein was also the crucial swing vote on the Judiciary Committee to confirm two extremist Bush appointments — a torture-condoning Attorney General and a racist judge (Michael Mukasey and Leslie Southwick).

Those two Judiciary Committee swing votes mobilized 35,039 Californians — in just one week — to co-sign a censure resolution supported by the Courage Campaign, MoveOn, Progressive Democrats of America and 38 Democratic Clubs across California.

A few days later, at the Executive Board meeting of the California Democratic Party, both the Women’s Caucus and Progressive Caucus passed the censure resolution — an unprecedented and historic action inside the party. Unfortunately, the resolution got bottled up in the Resolutions Committee and was ultimately voted down.

If we’re going to build a movement in California for accountability inside the Democratic Party, it starts by taking on Dianne Feinstein. Can you contribute $20, $50, $100 or more to launch our “Censure the Senator” campaign before the CDP meets again?

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CensureMovement

Thank you for doing everything in your power to make 2008 a new era for progressive politics in California.

Rick Jacobs

Chair

P.S.  Frankly, a censure resolution is merely a piece of paper unless there’s a people-powered movement behind it. That’s why your contribution to our “Censure the Senator” campaign will be an investment in changing the Democratic Party in California and across the country.

It’s up to you. Please contribute what you can — even $20, the price of a movie, popcorn and a soda — and then forward this email to your friends:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CensureMovement

On The Weird Twists Of History, Part Two, Or, Why We Have A Fourth Amendment

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.