Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dems supporting retroactive immunity on FISA. Are you shitting me?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 11:04 PM
Original message
Dems supporting retroactive immunity on FISA. Are you shitting me?



At least Chris Dodd is reminding us what real Democrats stand for.

Nancy, Harry, and Jay Rockefeller, not so much, as they offer Bush and the telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their FISA violations.

I've been standing up for my party again and again. So when are they going to stand up for me and my Constitution?

Keep up with these critical issues as they unfold, with the invaluable Glenn Greenwald at Salon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. If enough Americans cared, they would care.
Many of us here care passionately. We've been out protesting and we keep up on the news and call or write our Congressmen and women. The sad truth is, there just aren't enough of us. Rallies of 10,000 people scattered across the country hasn't caused much of a stir. Hundreds of thousands or millions would get their attention. Until that happens, this is what we get. I'm so disillusioned. I used to think that if you cared enough, you could change the world. That has turned out to be so much bullshit, but even so, it's more pointless to give up than to give up hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I just keep repeating Darcy Burner's great line...
"More and better Democrats."

For the "better Democrats" part of the equation, be sure to visit http://www.openleft.com and join their campaign to replace Bush Dog Democrats with real Democrats. Like you, I refuse to give up hope. Thanks for your thoughtful thoughts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. If enough knew
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PretzelWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. I agree. How do you make people realize....
they've got to hold the money men responsible for this sh!t. If it hurts their pocketbooks to serve as accomplice to a president who would tear up the U.S. Constitution, their shareholders (who are also people from what I've heard) would revolt.

We've got to think about how far off course we are.....and at the same time, use the cold calculation of capitalist thinking against the Big Business types.

It is the activism of progressives which cornered Swarzenegger (sp?) into signing sweeping greenhouse emissions limits into law for California. IT is that large act and the associated patchwork of regulations across states which scare the crap out of big businesses like Alcoa and BP so that they march to Washington and beg to be regulated at the federal level.

Same strategies must be used against large telecom, data mining, and other internet age power broker companies that wield tremendous amounts of our private data and communications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to want immunity for phone companies.
``These are not individual citizens,'' Pelosi said. ``These are major telecom companies with a phalanx of lawyers who understand the Constitution and the law. If they have exposure, the courtroom is the place to go.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a3_Y9Q2dp9FQ&refer=politics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Pelosi was out-gamed by the GOP minority and the Bush Dogs
According to WaPo:

Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers.

The collapse marked the first time since Democrats took control of the chamber that a major bill was withdrawn from consideration before a scheduled vote. It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101702438.html?hpid=topnews
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Pelosi should keep the FISA bill off the floor permanently.
Go back to the FISA law we had before Bush.

The supposed need for a FISA bill is that the FISA court said that Bush officials need a warrant even for what seems to be international-to-international calls passing through the US.

Let them get warrants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Experts like Greenwald and Feingold...
... acknowledge there were one or two loophooles to fix in FISA, but the chosen "cure" has been to completely gut that law in particular and the rule of law in general.

That's the way it is with today's Repubs (and the Dems who are afraid of them), give them an inch and they'll take the whole Bill of Rights -- except the 2nd Amemdment, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. The same FISA court which grants 99% of the warrant requests...
...concluded that Bush officials should have to get a warrant when they want to tap into calls as they're passing through the US, even if they claim to be guessing that the call is strictly international.

I'm prepared to go with the FISA court on this one, though I appreciate blogger Glenn Greenwald and Senator Russ Feingold.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great cartoon! Glenn Greenwald has really been on top of this--
invaluable, as you say. And good on Dodd for standing up and taking on the burden of stopping the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. Do you understand what is going on here? It's Dem vs. Dem.
The democrats initially insisted on NO retroactive immunity.

To insure that Bush's warrentless surveillance was overseen by the FISA court, the Intelligence Committee made a deal.

But the Judiciary Committee disagreed and a version without the immunity was being drafted by congress.

Now it is all stalled.

The deal, reached Wednesday by the leaders of the Intelligence panel and the Bush administration, would attempt to resolve one of the thorniest issues in the debate over the spying program. Telephone companies would face no penalty as long as they proved to courts that they were participating in the program lawfully. In return, Democrats would ensure that the secret FISA court would review the administration’s procedures for warrantless surveillance.

Republicans have argued that carriers should not be hit with lawsuits because they were carrying through with a national security request authorized by the government.

“Immunity for the telecom companies makes sense because they were just doing what they were asked,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

But critics say that if the companies were truly acting within the law and had authorization from the Department of Justice, blanket immunity would not be needed.

More broadly, many Democrats in both chambers have said they will not consider immunity language until they see documents of the government’s surveillance program. The White House finally relinquished on Wednesday some of those papers to the Senate negotiators, Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Vice Chairman Kit Bond (R-Mo.).

When reports of the deal broke Thursday, liberal Democrats in both chambers promptly excoriated the plan.

Sen. Chris Dodd, the Democrat from Connecticut who is running for president, placed a hold on the bill over his objections to the immunity provision. He said he would prevent the measure from coming to the floor because of what he said was “amnesty” for telecommunications firms.

“I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have,” Dodd said in a statement to supporters of his candidacy.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) also condemned the deal, warning that the Intelligence Committee was “about to cave on this.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-cool-to-senate-fisa-deal-2007-10-19.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I do understand, and I agree with your reading
We have two problems: the Bush Dog Dems, whom we should be making every effort to oust in the primaries, and inadequate leadership from Harry and Nancy.

There are other problems, of course, notably today's corrupt, incompetent, valueless GOP and the media that loves them, but the aforementioned are the problems in our own house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. We need to support those fighting this
But please, don't lump all the democrats together here, this is really an inter-party fight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Harry and Nancy need to step up and school these Bush Dog Dems
Even with a majority, we lose on every important vote.

Chris Dodd is standing up. Where are our "leaders"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. That article in "The Hill" is misleading.
Edited on Fri Oct-19-07 07:28 AM by Eric J in MN
"Telephone companies would face no penalty as long as they proved to courts that they were participating in the program lawfully."

No one can be sued for acting lawfully. That isn't the issue.

What Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) wants is for AT&T to say that they gave our records to Bush officials after Bush officials claimed it was legal even if it was illegal, and for the courts to then throw out the lawsuits.

Rockefeller wants to make the lies of the Bush Administration more powerful than the truth.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. You really have to wonder...
... with all of the crimes and cover-ups of the Bush administration how any Democrat could support whitewashing the one case where they're caught red-handed and a case is proceeding right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC