Jun 24 2008
Must watch. It’s scary stuff. It’s not just about the telcom immunity.
“That’s a farce and it’s political cover,” Feingold said, “Anybody who claims this is an okay bill, I really question if they’ve even read it.”
Are you listening, Senator Leahy?
Call the senator and let him know that voting against it is not enough. It needs to be stopped.
(802) 863-2525
I called earlier and they said they’ve been getting a lot of calls about this. Good.
Jun 20 2008
Like many of you, I’m still steaming over the Dem rollover on FISA. Now, none of our delegation is supporting it (nor, might I add, doing anything bold to throw a wrench in the works), but there’s something in Sen. Leahy’s statement that’s really infuriating (emphasis mine):
“With respect to the surveillance authorities, I believe the bill represents an improvement over the flawed legislation passed the Senate earlier this year. I applaud Representative Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller for their diligent work in negotiating this package. They added protections to the surveillance authorities that bring it closer to the bill the Senate Judiciary Committee reported last year. If the bill passes, I will work with the next administration to make additional improvements.
“I will continue to work to protect all Americans from the Bush-Cheney administration’s roll back of civil liberties of Americans and disregard for the rule of law. As the Supreme Court noted last week, ‘security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles.’ We can protect our security while honoring American values and respecting our freedoms.”
Two things: the only “diligent work” Hoyer and Rockefeller have done is to”diligently work” to do the bidding of the telcoms, especially Rockefeller. Second, if Leahy is serious about “protecting our civil liberties”, why isn’t he doing more anything to stop this?
This bill simply did not need to happen. FISA is fine without the telcom immunity, and they owe this president,who is less liked than a thawing dog turd on a warm Vermont March morning - nothing. Nada. And for those still inexplicably afraid of being labeled “soft on terror”… grow a spine. The public doesn’t want telcom immunity, and you have nothing to lose opposing it, except, perhaps that yummy telcom money.
Very disappointing, Senator. Would it be that hard to go the extra mile and take a bold stance? What ever happened to “terrifying” Bush?
Let him know about it: (802) 863-2525
Comments Off
Jun 19 2008
Ass hurt yet?
Cue sound of smacking forehead. This is getting old. From Kos:
That means, of course, de facto amnesty for the telcos. The federal district court would not be deciding on the legality of the program, they would be limited to determining if the White House showed the telcos a piece of paper saying that the warrantless program was legal enough–which we already know. They’re going to try to justify it with that “substantial evidence” business, as if defining that piece of paper as “substantial” somehow makes the fact that they are directing the court to make its decision, regardless of the law, not a travesty.
This did not need to happen. For more on this:
“A formal statement goes out making it clear that everyone — Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate — agrees that telecoms should have retroactive immunity.”
“I’ve now just read a copy of the final “compromise” bill. It’s even worse than expected. When you read it, it’s actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program with the “Protect America Act,” so it shouldn’t be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is”
You know what to do, folks. If you have a blog, please spread the word, or at the very least, get some friends to make some phone calls.
Contact Nancy Pelosi: District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-4862 -
Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965
FAX: 202-225-4188
Contact Steny Hoyer (who is to blame for a good deal of this happening): 1705 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone - (202) 225-4131
Fax - (202) 225-4300
Contact the Obama campaign: 866-675-2008
Contact Peter Welch: (802) 652-2450
Other congress members contact info can be reached here.
Mar 04 2008
Well, apparently that Dem strategy of talking tough for a bit, get everybody excited and still bend over for Bush is still in full swing. It seems like now, after holding fast on FISA, there’s talk of still passing the telco immunity obstruction of justice provisions, this time in two separate votes which enables the House members opposed to immunity to still somehow feel good about themselves, while failing to realize if they actually did something dramatic or drastic, they might feel good about themselves and stand up for the Constitution. But that’d be asking too much, now, wouldn’t it? It boggles the mind? It’s still truly baffling why some feel compelled to give in to Mr. Dogshit-in-Chief. Where is the pressure coming from? Oh, that’s right.. all that telco money. Silly me.
And I’d like to issue a correction, of sorts. A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece praising Rep. Silvestre Reyes for standing up to Bush on FISA, with his sharply worded letter that stated:
You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized…
I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.
We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.
Well, you can throw Reyes and his letter into the full-of-shit can, as well. TPM Muckraker has the goods on a CNN interview with Reyes from last weekend (emphasis mine):
And Reyes said yesterday that “we are talking to the representatives from the communications companies because, if we’re going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and we want to understand what it is that we’re giving immunity for.” When Wolf Blitzer asked him whether he’s “open” to such immunity, he answered “absolutely.” He said that he and the other House and Senate Dems working on hammering out a compromise would probably be finished “probably within the next week.”
Fucking disgusting. And they know they got us all by the proverbial balls right now. We need more primary challenges. Many more. I know, it’s not an end-all solution, but it’d be a good start.
Reyes on CNN :
Feb 18 2008
Kos has a good bit on the next GOP strategy to win on the telecom immunity, now that their little pants-pooping tantrum the other day got them nowhere, and the fearmongering doesn’t seem to work as well as it used to. I’m still stunned that the House actually stood up, aren’t you? Apparently, the Dems don’t want telecom immunity so the ‘trial lawyers’ can get richer.
So, after the trial lawyers strategy flops, we’re getting down to the bottom of the barrel. Next up, it’s “blame it on Bill Clinton”, and when that fails, they’ll insist that the so-called ‘gay agenda’ is indeed responsible for trying to hold the telcoms accountable. Or something like that. Remember, the “O” in GOP stands for “old”.
Comments Off
Feb 16 2008
Well, as you probably know by now the lefty blogs are all twittered about the Dem-led House actually standing up to Bush for real this last week, both in not caving on FISA and in issuing those contempt citations for Bolten and Meirs. And the word is that Bush was actually caught off guard because he (as well as most of us) was so used to them caving over and over again. What took ‘em so friggin’ long? I’m withholding excitement for now, because we’ve often seen a pattern of toughness followed by the inevitable backdown. It sure would be nice if they’re really getting that spine transplant we’ve been hoping for for so long.
Anyways, poking around reading about it, I came across this letter to Bush from House intelligence committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) via TPM. What he says, and with the authority he says it needs to be the de facto method of dealing with Bush from now on, and more importantly, it needs to be the public face that the Dems need to put on if they ever expect to be taken seriously by the public (emphasis mine):
If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda — that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.
You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized…
I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.
We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.
TPM has the whole letter. What I’m wondering is if that little light bulb went on somewhere after all of this and perhaps the House leadership might actually feel good and more importantly, emboldened by standing up to Bush. In the past, even when making feeble attempts, it’s always been with a modicum of embarrassment or something as though they felt like thy needed to be ashamed for doing the right thing. i’m not holding my breath on this one, but at the very least it’s a good development and they should be commended for it.
Feb 04 2008
It’s really amazing that we’ve made it this far. There’s more FISA stuff going on in the Senate today, with a variety of amendments being considered, and apparently some that could actually be quite detrimental to national security (see the latest on that here). So, if you live in a state that has one of these potentially flippable Senators, it’s not too late and very important that you give ‘em a call and ask them to do the right thing:
Comments Off
Jan 27 2008
Clinton and Obama actually returning to the Senate to vote no on FISA cloture. Seriously, didn’t see that one coming. I wonder if they’ll stick around if Dodd filibusters.
Comments Off
Posts
