I don't think immunity should be given without disclosure of what the Telecoms already received, perhaps a regulatory environment lessening competition, for example. Also, net neutrality should be part of any trade-off

The Telecoms are troubling enough in our daily lives because of their arrogant business practices.

Imagine the future if they are granted immunity from violations of the constitution.

So Sayeth Preacher Boob, 'From 'God's' Lips to Your Ears'.

ok I signed....do you think Sen Reid will do anything about it?......for some strange reason...I can't put my finger on it.......I doubt it...but I did ask him politely......you get more flies with sugar

OT, House Votes 265-142 For Revised SCHIP Bill

What Edwin said at #6.

I signed the fucking thing. But I have to admit, I felt like ist was one of the most useless things I will do this week. Watching baywatch repeats would feel more productive than sending a petition to harry fucking reid. That prick is bought and paid for, he doesn't listen to us.

Q: Why do we have to sign a f*cking petition to our own f*cking party on this issue?

A: Because they are bought and paid-for corporate stooges with no more ethical backbone than the Republicans.

Iraq, Health care, Domestic Spying??? Cowards all! Reid and Pelosi et. al. have earned an early retirement....Vote em out, the sons-a-bitches.

No Immunity Period. Why do they need immunization against a "very legal act"? If it's legal then you don't need immunity. It's that simple.

OK, I'll try this a third time...

I don't, for the life of me, understand why Liberal websites are ignoring this story:

Democratic Lawmaker Pushing Immunity Is Newly Flush With Telco Cash

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html

We complain mightily about Nancy Pelosi taking impeachment off the table when we know Democrats can't win that fight without the numbers. When some Democrats voted against SCHIP, there was a hue and cry. We are angered every time Democrats cave in to the Bush regime, and rightly so. Now we have a money trail that implicates the Democratic Senator who is pushing immunity for the telecos for facilitating illegal warrantless wiretapping by the Bush regime and there is not a peep from any of the Liberal websites except Raw Story and BuzzFlash.

What's up with that?

It's all a verrry clevvver ploy by Reid to help his good friend Dodd raise campaign money and burst ahead in the polls. See, you think you know what Reid thinks you know you know, but IN FACT he knows you think he knows thinking and knowing. That is why he am a genius.

I think if we are depending on Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi to stand up for the Constitution and the will of the American people then we are in big trouble. I can't think of 1 time when they have stood up to this administration. So I suspect that they will cower down and go sit in the corner like the spineless cowards they have always been. At least there are still a few people like Sen. Dodd who will fight. Maybe the rumors are true and Sen. Dodd can take the Majority Leader job away from Sen. Reid.

My husband and I looked up the AT & T and Verizon donations to Hillary Clinton through the third quarter as posted by the FEC, and together they come to over $57,000. There are VPs who gave the maximum of $2,300, but there are also lower level managers giving up to $1,000. No wonder Clinton doesn't want to be forthright and call for a hold on the FISA immunity bill. There could be quite a few votes there as well as the money.

OK I signed the petition. Now where's the one to get Harry replaced?

Just signed the Petition to watch Harry Reid fold again.

Signed. Why the hell should anybody who claims to be worthy to hold office in the institution that makes laws EVER need to be told not to give criminals a pass? It's an invitation for similar, never-ending lawlessness. of crimes against the People.

madmac @ 15:

No Immunity Period. Why do they need immunization against a "very legal act"? If it's legal then you don't need immunity. It's that simple.

Yes. Thanks for the simple logic. If only our Washington Press Corp members had asked this simple question to Bush today about his comment about "legal" wiretapping.

I signed. BFD. It will do nothing. The bill will go through. Can someone please point to ONE FUCKING THING that BUSH hasn't gotten that he wanted as far as legislation?

HolyMotherofGod, if these republicans can come out smelling like a rose having blocked child health care, there is a fucking problem in this country. Why the HELL aren't the dems yelling shit like this from the rooftops?

Reid should lose his seat. Pelosi should lose her seat. Time for a woodshed moment.

i signed it.
even if simply to not have not signed it.

many of these comments reflect my own thinking, and also touch on other issues.
net neutrality among them.
and so on.

this petition or ones like it may well become illegal as promoting radicalization, and so we begin a clarification of the discourse at large...

where do i sign a petition against that? that i may continue to sign such petitions as this. where do i sign to keep this site from being endangered as promoting radicalization?? where do i sign to keep signatures mattering at all???

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://agonist.org/lj/20071025/violent_radicalization_and_homegrown_terr...

I called. You can too:

Senator Harry Reid
Phone: 202-224-3542

What the hey with a cell phone, takes at most 120 seconds, you're done, more imact than the 3 minutes it'd take to sign the petition.

eastcoasty @ 37:

I called. You can too:

Senator Harry Reid
Phone: 202-224-3542

What the hey with a cell phone, takes at most 120 seconds, you're done, more imact than the 3 minutes it'd take to sign the petition.

tell Reid he can read "the petition" next to his oath of office: The one that says the US Constitution. Prosecute him for defying his oath. If the weather if favorable, perhaps he'll bother to consider his legal risks.

naschkatze @ 23:

My husband and I looked up the AT & T and Verizon donations to Hillary Clinton through the third quarter as posted by the FEC, and together they come to over $57,000. There are VPs who gave the maximum of $2,300, but there are also lower level managers giving up to $1,000. No wonder Clinton doesn't want to be forthright and call for a hold on the FISA immunity bill. There could be quite a few votes there as well as the money.

Wow, putting "big cash donations" before one's oath of office. Why isn't the money returned? Hillary returned "tainted" money before. Accepting money from people who want immunity from accountability -- for allegedly clear violations of the Supreme Law, FISA, and other laws -- are arguably engaging in illegal activity: Funds transfers to ensure Members of Congress put "something else" before the Supreme Law. This is corruption to the highest order which Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolutionaries penned the Declaration.

Time for a public trial. Time for Pelosi, the telecoms, Reid, and the President to defend themselves. This "problem" is not one for We the People but for the small minded ones in DC who have contempt for their oath, their legacy, and their duty to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies. Pelosi, Reid, the President, and VP are alleged domestic enemies and should be treated as such.

I signed it too. Sadly, Harry Reid is about as likely to read a petition as Bush is, or anybody else in D.C. for that matter.

Targeting Telecom CEOs For Alleged Insider Tradining

Why would so many CEOs -- this many years after the "guarantee" of immunity -- openly lobby? It appears they relied on a promise of "no consequences". Let's suppose that some CEOs lobbying hard for immunity have another objective: They want to avoid costly litigation not because of the impact to their companies, but because of personal insider trading problems. Here's an example.

While Congress is "pretending" it is "concerned" about the Constitution, let's work with the SEC and state securities regulators to find out which CEOs and corporate officers on the telecom boards of directors made inside trades on the assumption that they would avoid litigation; or not face consequences because of an illegal agreement to keep quiet about FISA violations. Doesn't seem a little odd that this many members of Congress would sayt, "Gee, I'm not really sure if I want to enforce FISA." Let's presume Members of Congress have a financial interest -- to be understood, investigated, and disclosed -- that would motivate them to avoid taking legal action; or induce them to immunize the telecoms.

When someone makes a "Promise not to enforce the law" in exchange for campaign contributions; or there is an "agreement to avoid respecting a legal standard in exchange for an award of a valuable DoD contract", the question becomes: To what extent did the Congress and US government engage in fraudulent contracting: In exchange for promising not to enforce the law, CEOs were silent about known kickbacks, promises, or other agreements they received from the US government for other no-bid contracts. Recall the lesson of Martha Stewart: She didn't get into trouble just because of the alleged "insider trading," but because she was not candid over the issue: She avoided selling; and then she sold early to avoid losses. Same applies to the corporate officers involved in not just FISA violations, but also rendition, and the other prisoner abuse issue: Contractors -- companies that have publicly traded stock -- were on contract to get government money; and the CEOs knew of secret agreements to award contracts, not conduct investigations, avoid enforcing the law, and not follow the Constitution. Arguably, the entire agreement between the US government and contractors was based on fraud, not enforceable, and the CEOs have no legal basis to bring a claim against the US government for any contracts that are subsequently found to be illegal, and the Courts order those contracts to be null/void, and all funds returned to the Treasury. In other words, not only are the CEO's allegedly in hot water because of the insider training, but the corporations are at risk of having the money related to that alleged illegal activity stripped form their balance sheet: resulting in additional losses for investors as the market adjusts to the correct valuation level -- prompting additional securities litigation lawsuits under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Rules.

Again, DoD and the Congress may be silent on the issues of NSA-FISA violations; and the telecoms may have other reasons for immunity. let's quit playing around: Find out which States these companies are incorporated; and let's encourage the State Attorney Generals and securities regulators in those states to open investigations:

1. Did the CEOs of these telecoms engage in insider trading;

2. Were telecom CEOs, boards of directors, and others making trades on the assumption that illegal activity would never be disclosed

3. How much of the illegal activity was known to occur prior to the CEO purchase of those stocks; but the CEOs avoided selling -- avoided losses -- because they were promised that the violations would not be prosecuted?

4. Once the CEOs did purchase shares of the telecoms -- and the illegal activity was disclosed, and should have prompted selling to avoid losses -- how many of the CEOs bought shares on teh promise that the telecoms would induce Congress to grant immunity, in exchange for the telecom/CEOs granting campaign contributions to the Members of Congress?

naschkatze @ 23:

My husband and I looked up the AT & T and Verizon donations to Hillary Clinton through the third quarter as posted by the FEC, and together they come to over $57,000. There are VPs who gave the maximum of $2,300, but there are also lower level managers giving up to $1,000. No wonder Clinton doesn't want to be forthright and call for a hold on the FISA immunity bill. There could be quite a few votes there as well as the money.

I see that Jane Hamsher has a figure of over $87,000 now on FDL.

Seems to me the only time Harry Reid stands behind a fellow Dem is when he's getting ready to shove a knife into their back. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of him and Pelosi. The fact that we even need to have a petition to get his attention on this matter speaks volumes about him and the state of our party. WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it doesn't fucking matter. IF, and thats one huge if, any telcom is found guilty of breaking the laws they gladly and voluntarily broke, then chimpy, with darth lurking in the bushes, will sign a blanket pardon order for anyone involved. But it will never get that far because all the evidence that would be needed to convict these fuckers will be withheld for national security reasons. So nothing will be admissible in court.

You guys are pissing up the wrong tree. Impeachment first, then due process of the war criminals. You can't do it the other way around.

You want to stop this shit? Don't vote for HRC, she's up to her corporatist ass in telecom money.

Don't keep pissing your time away on all these 'sign a letter' requests. Just give Harry Reid a blanket Power of Attorney to use your name any way he wants to, and then get on to serious matters, like considering this List of The Top Ten Reasons to be satisfied with Harry Reid and the Bush administration:

Immunity (retroactive!) makes a mockery of the constitution. Applause to Chris Dodd.

If you feel as strongly as I do you want to kick Reid over to Iraq to tell the troops they can go home and stop listening to Bush the Incompetent already.