With all the commotion and hubbub surrounding the personalities and gossip of Obama's cabinet formation, and expression of everyone's opinion on how that should proceed, little has been said about the actual policies and actions (other than Iraq) that should be implemented right out of the gate. One area that has been neglected is that of the illegal wiretapping and surveillance policies and practices that were instituted in the country's name by the Cheney/Bush regime.

Our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have some ideas for the incoming Obama Administration in this regard, and they are pretty good.

President Obama can end the immunity process. Consistent with his previous opposition to immunity — then-Senator Obama voted in favor of Senator Dodd's amendment to strip the immunity provisions out of the FAA altogether — Obama could instruct his new Attorney General to withdraw the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuits based on the immunity statute. Or,

President Obama can temporarily freeze the immunity process until he has learned all the details about the NSA program. Consistent with his support of Senator Bingaman's proposed FAA amendment to delay implementation of the immunity provisions, Obama could instruct his new Attorney General to ask the court for a temporary stay of the immunity proceedings. That would give the Administration time to review the classified details of the NSA program as well as the FAA-mandated reports about the program that are expected by this July from the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the NSA, and other agencies involved in the program. After having reviewed all the facts, the new administration can then re-evaluate whether it wants to continue to press for immunity in court, or drop its motion to dismiss and let the cases against the telecoms continue. Or,

President Obama can choose not to appeal if the immunity statute is found unconstitutional. If, after the hearing on December 2nd, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the federal Northern District of California agrees with EFF that the immunity statute is unconstitutional and denies the government's motion to dismiss, Obama could instruct his new Attorney General to not appeal that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

All of these are things Obama could do — on his own and without any help from Congress — to stop the implementation of the immunity scheme that he repeatedly opposed during his presidential campaign.

These recommendations aren't EFF's alone: as part of the transition roadmap published yesterday by a broad coalition of groups including EFF, seventeen different civil liberties organizations signed onto national security surveillance recommendations that included the proposition that President Obama should "[d]irect the Attorney General to withdraw the government’s motion to dismiss pending privacy litigation brought against telecommunications carriers for assisting with unlawful warrantless surveillance, or seek a stay of those proceedings until such time as the Attorney General, based on review of the Inspectors’ General reports required by the FISA Amendments Act, determines that a grant of immunity is appropriate."

We at EFF — along with many of Obama's supporters — were sorely disappointed when he failed to uphold his promise to filibuster any bill that contained immunity, and instead reversed course and ultimately voted for passage of the FAA. But, as Obama himself said when defending his support for the FAA:

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

As we all know, those efforts to amend the FAA by stripping immunity out of the bill or delaying its implementation failed, despite Obama's support. But now, as President, Obama will have the power to make things right. By taking one of the above steps after he takes office on January 20th, Obama would prove that he meant what he said when he opposed telecom immunity, that he stands behind the votes he made against immunity, and that his claims of a coming "change" when it comes to reversing the Bush Administration's excesses are more than empty rhetoric.

If Obama truly supports change — if he truly supports a more open and accountable federal government, where Americans have the tools to demand accountability for past abuses — then he should end the Bush Administration's attempt to cover-up lawbreaking by the NSA and its telecom collaborators, and ensure that the judicial branch is finally allowed to rule on the legality of NSA program.

Some decent points. I would like to add a couple. The Obama DOJ could flat out withdraw allegations of "state secrets" in any instance that has been pled and is not absolutely necessary to national security. By what I can tell, that is going to be most of the cases. In a corollary, the Obama DOJ could declassify and otherwise release information and documentation that the Bush Administration wrongfully classified to brazenly obstruct justice and prevent plaintiff's abilities to establish standing and the prima facie burden for their suits.

In short, the Obama could reset the table so that the scales of lady justice are able to find their own natural balance, as they were designed and intended to do.

However, for all of those that think this will be an easy call for Obama and his DOJ, it will not. There will be a lot of pushback from intelligence and DOJ personnel that were involved in the Bush/Cheney programs, there will some instances where there really are operational details that must be protected and, quite significantly, there is the issue of liability for damages. Yes, money is a big time consideration. The potential for damage liability could extend into the billions. It is a factor, and there is a very fair chance that the government is on the hook for most all of it, not the telcos. In the financial straits this country is in, do not discount that as a factor.

In short, there are many things that Barack Obama can do to right the wrongs of the Bush/Cheney administration on illegal surveillance and, specifically, on the imposition of retroactive immunity by the Bushies and a complicit (near criminally) Democratic Congressional Leadership. But will he do it? Time will tell.

It is time to lead President to be Obama, and to do so for the right instead of from the right. Remind us what it is like to have an American Government that does the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing. Please.

I would have prefered a pick like Roubini, an economist who has so far shown an excellent understanding of the details of what's been happening, or perhaps Bair, who has been willing to buck authority to try and do what's right, but Geithner should do a decent job, if the Obama administration allows him to.  

Meanwhile, manufacturers large and small are creating cartloads of Obama souvenirs ranging from enameled presidential dollars and not-so-very attractive selections of commemorative plates to several kinds of soap, buttons and heaps of books including  The Obama Menu: Dinners With Barack Obama and Deciding the Next Decider: The 2008 Presidential Race in Rhyme.

And, since Joe may be busy working on his oeuvre, if you have holiday plumbing problems, there's "BARAK President Ultimate Plumbing," which has nothing to do with Obama or Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, but--thanks to the wonder of modern technology-- shows up on on Google mail between friends discussing politics because the repiping company, whose president is named Barak, has figured out a way to maximize his business's visibility. 

MSNBC:

MIKE VIQUEIRA:  Let me ask you this, Chris you know..I'm sorry, Ari.  Chris Cilizza, the Fix blog in the Washington Post, quoted a Democratic aide who said about  bloggers and the Lieberman vote, quote  "They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes."

You know, I work on the Hill and I've heard that sentiment expressed many times  over again, that the netroots -- the liberal blogosphere -- overestimates its influence.  What do you say to that?

ARI MELBER:   Well, number one you have to look at the source.  There you have someone who isn't even going to speak on the record, under their own name.  That would suggest some fear right there, hiding behind anonymity for a very basic claim to the Washington Post.  And someone who sees themselves potentially -- I don't know the person because they won't stand up for themselves -- but potentially a competitor with the liberal blogs.  Maybe it is from  a congressional office that has had conflict -- maybe it was a Lieberman aide, we don't know because that person won't say.  But I do think you have competition here.

Good one, Melber.

(video courtesy CTBlogger)

Gen. Jim Jones is close to getting the job, according to Dave Rogers at Politico. If so, it would be a good choice. With Hillary Clinton very likely to become secretary of state — I’ll have a big piece on that shortly — it’s important to have a national-security adviser with the stature necessary to impose discipline on a war cabinet filled with outsize personages. (See: Rice, Condoleezza.)

Also, Jones would be reflective of two huge Obama priorities. First, Afghanistan. As NATO Commander, Jones ceaselessly lobbied the European allies for greater assistance in the Afghanistan war. Second, energy security. Jones is widely known to be an advocate of alternative energy sources, and, as Politico notes, chairs an energy task force for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And of course there’s the good optics of such a well-respected general being Obama’s closest White House aide on foreign policy. (David Ignatius loves Jones!)

One has to ask, though: if Jim Jones becomes national security adviser, will we see Juelz Santana as energy czar?

Crossposted to The Streak.

A reporter for the Florida Times-Union asked him about his refusal to honor a subpoena in the Imperial Sugar wrongful death lawsuit. Chambliss can be heard saying, "You can take it away now" as he pushes the camera away.

Very dignified behavior from a sitting US Senator, isn't it?

Chambliss, getting increasingly desperate to hold on to his Senate seat, has also resorted to gay-bashing fliers.

While Chambliss himself hasn’t attacked Martin directly on gay issues, the National Republican Senatorial Committee mailed a flier claiming Martin should “take his show on the road” on “Left Wing Air.”

“San Francisco would hold a parade in his honor,” the flier claims, next to a cartoon rainbow, noting that among other issues, Martin “opposes banning gay marriage.”

 Support the Martin campaign.

"President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry's financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Obama's team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy- law firm to say that Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who heads Obama's economic policy working group, would call to discuss the workings of a so-called prepack, according to this person.

Since the election, Team Obama has become "trial balloon central" (if they were genuinely serious about firing the leaker, Rahm Emanuel would hit the Chief Of Staff revolving door post-haste).  They have been strategically using the media to test public opinion, but in this case I'd imagine they also did so with the intent to force the unions, bond holders and other stakeholders in the Big 3 into a more pliant negotiating position.

It was interesting to watch how quickly the chess pieces moved yesterday in the Senate.  As soon as the Senators from Big 3 states called a press conference to announce their bipartisan plan to repurpose the Energy Bill money as a bridge loan, Reid and Pelosi stepped on their press conference and said they were calling a special lame duck session to deal with the problem.  They usurped the cameras and demanded the delivery of a restructuring plan to Dodd and Frank's committees on December 2 -- something Obama had quietly called for in his 60 Minutes appearance only last Sunday.

If I was Waggoner, I'd be on a plane to China right now (probably coach).  The Chinese have announced their desire to buy the Big 3.  Why not?  It would allow all their debts to be paid off so their suppliers and other creditors won't go under in a domino effect, their stockholders won't get shafted (which should make Wall Street happy), and they could easily make both interest payments to bondholders and  the $35 billion payment to the VEBA fund that will take UAW pension and health care legacy costs off their books.

However, there are some long-term implications that could make this less than appealing for the US.  As Ian Welsh has pointed out, there's a reason the Chinese are so keen to buy a US automaker:

The moment when China becomes a consumer driven society is the moment when the US loses its leadership of the world, and when if it's economy isn't in good shape, it crashes out.

[]

Why?  Because the US needs massive inflows of money from nations like China and Japan in order to finance both the government and private consumption.  China and Japan, and other countries, for that matter, have amassed holdings of US securities, cash and so on, in the many trillions, as a result.  They have been willing to buy assets that they know they will probably not see a full real return on because the US buys their exports, and in China's case, is busily shipping American jobs to China, thus industrializing China.

The world needs the US because the US is the "consumer of last resort".  It buys everyone else's stuff, issues a pile of securities and dollars in exchange, and exports industrialization to China in exchange for deindustrialization and cheap consumer goods at home, which kept down inflation for a very long time.

[]

At the current time, China is not ready to have a consumer society.  As Stirling points out, it's about 2 economic cycles away from being able to switch to one.  If it gets to buy up a US car company, it's probably one cycle away.  Since the US is in a really really deep hole and currently digging deeper at a ferocious rate (the five trillion spent on the financial crisis will add to the US's outstanding debt) when this happens is a big deal.  Two economic cycles gives America longer to get its house in order and fix things so that when China does take off, it doesn't find itself unarmed with every major nation in the world able to annihilate its economy whenever they feel like and take only minor losses themselves.

I'm supportive of Obama's idea that there needs to be a plan going forward for Big 3 viability before they get a bridge loan, but "viability" may not mean "profitability." If we're serious about converting to a green economy, when gas prices are low people want to buy the gas guzzlers that Toyota and BMW and Mercedes are still making in Richard Shelby's right-to-work state.  You can't demand that the Big 3 be profitable and make fuel efficient cars that people don't want to buy, so you've either got to levy an unpopular gas tax or give people other incentives to make the cars attractive.  

The fact is that the Big 3 and the UAW  have already made a lot of the structural changes and compromises that they need to make going forward, and holding the threat of "organized bankruptcy" over their heads when a buyer is standing there waiting in the wings seems unrealistic.

If we're playing chicken here, let's let Richard Shelby and Jim Inhofe go back to their states and tell their constituents that Chevy is being sold to the Chinese (Inhofe visibly bristled at the very suggestion on CSPAN the other day).

That'll go over well.

Baker's plea joins those we've seen from Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini (video at right -- h/t Stoller) as well as 375 other economists signing a letter organized by the Center for Economic Policy Research. From Dean Baker:

We know how to keep the economy from collapsing. We didn't have this information 80 years ago. The secret is to spend money, lots of it.

CEPR just circulated a letter that garnered 375 economists' signatures arguing for a stimulus between $300 billion and $450 billion. This might be too small given all the bad news that we are seeing. We may need to spend $500 billion or $600 billion a year to get the economy back on its feet, possibly more. The key point is that we can get the economy back on its feet; we just have to spend the money to do it.

So where are Congress and the Administration? Despite the growing economist consensus on what needs to be done, today Congress was able only to pass a narrow bill extending unemployment benefits a few more weeks. The President says he'll sign the bill.

That's good, but this effort is trivial compared to what the country needs.

We've a severe recession rolling through and a possible depression staring us in the face; another 500,000 workers applied for unemployment comp last month while prices and markets are in free fall.

But Government is as frozen as the credit markets, primarily because an obstructionist Republican Party, already at its lowest disapproval level in decades, is still clinging to the delusion that they can resurrect themselves by restricting government spending while tanking the economy.

They can't be driven out of town fast enough.

What, you weren't invited to the bipartisan drum circle?

The least they could've done was keep him from parading his smug, sanctimonious face in front of the camera.

For those who would rather take action than fume, we're building a list now to hand over to Tim Tagaris and Matt Browner-Hamlin for 2012.

Oh and this?  Best post of the week.

Bloomberg had an article saying that Obama's team consulting on how to take the Big 3 into bankruptcy.  Obama's team is now denying it.  Barry Ritholz, who I usually agree with thinks that bankruptcy is the best option, but for once I have to disagree.  Folks won't buy cars from bankrupt companies, so even if you're ok with breaking the union, and see dumping other costs as a benefit, it's not a good way to deal with the problem.