House Committee: "Immunity? Really?"
Finally, some common sense. How uncommon.
In a 12th-hour plea today, key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee urged their fellow members to reject telecom immunity when legislation “updating” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) heads back their way after the Senate passes its bill. The letter, sent by Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Congressmen Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), really expresses the frustration felt by the committee and is a definitely worth a look.
The letter says, in part:
By tying the question of lawsuit immunity to questions of national security and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform legislation, the President has created a false choice for Congress. The issue of immunity for phone companies that chose to cooperate with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program deserves a separate and more deliberate examination by Congress. No special urgency attaches to the question of immunity other than the present Administration’s general eagerness to limit tort liability and its desire to avoid scrutiny of its own actions, by either the courts or the Congress.
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
If you're interested in the latest wheelings and dealings regarding FISA (there were several votes taken this last week), emptywheel is the blog to go. Marcy has been covering it extensively and exhaustively.
Alright, enough with the damn letters. They don't have any teeth. And I'm pretty sure all the Administration gets out of them is a good laugh. Until you start putting people in jail they'll be laughing at you all the way to November.
Where the hell is legislation to water board whistle blowers?
Someone needs a good kick in the nuts.
none of it really matters - bush has signing statements - so no law we pass is our law - first signing statements have to be eliminated - but any law written to eliminate the signing statement would be eliminated by a signing statement
Immunity is becoming a red herring. Whether or not the phone companies broke the FISA laws, the president certainly did.
Enough already. When do the impeachment hearings begin?
Shouldn't they be asking WHY these companies may even need immunity? It's like the White House is openly admitting these companies broke the law simply by asking for their immunity.
These three congressmen have noticed the false dichotomy Bush has presented, but I have to say that the false dichotomy technique pervades just about everything in the politics and government of our country. Was it part of Orwell? Politicians must read him as a manual as a matter of course.
By asking for immunity Bushco. is ADMITING that they believe they have commited crimes and are using the old "Terrorists will kill you all if you don't give the telecoms immunity" fear tactic to get people to cave.
So this week the Bush Fiasco has ADMITTED to TORTURE and SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS ILLEGALLY.
So, where are Pelosi and Reid? Oh that's right THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK!!!
All these two cocksuckers have done is lie throught their fucking teeth to the people that voted for them. The have done NOTHING and will continue to do NOTHING and when BUSHCO. is out of office they will continue to do NOTHING.
Any of you that hope that the next President will hold these people accountable should get ready for the inevitable dissapointment of knowing that if Obama or Clinton won't do ANYTHING about Bushco. because it might set a precident and then they would have to worry about whatever illegla activities that they PLAN on commiting once in power.
Dems and Repugs are two sides of the same coin. They only represent, and want, MONEY and POWER. They don't give a shit about the average person because most of them come from money and have never had to work a day in their lives to support themselves.
I'm Canadian and your electorial system is FUBAR. You have the popular vote, that is, the average person goes and votes for who THEY think should run for and hold office. But then you have this stupid fucking deleget/super-deleget system which says that only THEY are the ones that choose the winner. Is this a fucking joke? If not then it doesn't suprise me that the USA is as fucked up as it is today. What this system means is that the public's vote DOESN'T MEAN SHIT because their not the ones who's vote counts.
The ONLY way the USA will get back on track is if they remove this fucking retarded two tier voting system because, as we have seen in 2000 and 2004, it can be manipulated and removes the power from the people to the politicians who are 90% corrupt and who will only vote for whoever will grease their wheels.
End of rant.
Here's a 'Modest Proposal' to Solve the Telecom Immunity Dispute
As with any corporate or fascist criminal, the president is backing up the shredder trucks to the back door before he flees the scene of the crime .
.
Finally, some common sense. How uncommon.
" E.C. - E.B. Co-Operation "
E.B.A.. & Support Earth Balls can B made 4 resale by YOU - E.Cs.
Simply by creating a GREAT support E.Ball product.
Other Earth Citizens may want to help U or buy from U instead of building their own Earth Ball Homes and Greenhouses.
In other words, start your own...
" E.C. - E.B. Co-Operation "
More information how 2 nget it on at...
http://www.EarthBall.org
a project of ( www.OneGlobalCommunity.com )
another, Earth Citizen, 501 C 3 " Global & Local - Co-Operation "
.
If the telcoms do get immunity, couldn't this be used as an advantage in the investigation because the telcoms could not take the fifth and would not be concerned about punitive actions. They would just freely tell the truth (without hesitation).
Is this assumption correct?
Jeez! Is there anyone in Big Business that isn't corrupt?
You're missing one piece. If they have immunity, you can't sue them in the first place, so there's go the whole thing.
Mike @ 12:
assumption is wrong. it's bad pr if they tell the truth and they did break laws, even if they aren't prosecuted. worse, if they lie, and they will, they won't be held accountable.
I hope that Impeachment is put BACK ON THE TABLE at the Democratic convention this summer. That will help Democratics in their campaigns ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
All the negative comments are spot on...
But i'm proud to say that one of those guys is my Congressman. Hurray, i get to write a letter that isn't angry and bitter...though i'm not sure i remember how anymore.
"Nicole Belle @ 2:31 PM - PST
Finally, some common sense. How uncommon."
That's a canard, Nicole, and actually you know it.
The House Dems have NEVER offered immunity. The House Dem leadership has persistently refused any such offer, saying, with considerable common sense for over a year that there is no way to consider immunity for actions which have not been disclosed to the Congress.
So if you find House leadership (such as committee chairs) rejecting the 'logic' of such a sellout, then you're discovering object permanence. You're finding your shoes where you left them. You are not finding previously hidden evidence of the Dem House's opposition to such a giveaway.
Here's something we can do. Go to the ACLU and let your Congressperson and Senators know that you don't want telecom immunity and that you want your civil rights restored.
The House
The Senate
MagnificentAppendage @ 1:
The Congress does not put people in jail. That's the job of the Department of Justice, which Republicans have allowed to become a circus performance for criminals in the Republican Big Top.
Dictators have been laughing at democracy from Day One. Their mirth is not pertinent to the CONTINUING efforts to restore justice and democracy in the United States and elsewhere.
Hussein laughed as he slaughtered the Kurds. "A different poison for a different bug," according to 'Chemical Ali,' his henchman. Supposedly the monster has been hanged, and his laughter is ended. Some other human monster took his place as the murderer of Iraqi people. And he still laughs, but his laughter is exactly the same impunity that stopped when Hussein was stopped.
Sic semper tyranis.
ffff @ 8:
End of your lies. Speaker Pelosi has opposed telecom immunity ALL DOWN THE LINE.
Pelosi is one of the main reasons there is still a FISA act at all. Her version, authored by Reyes and Conyers --with the assistance of Murtha, who Pelosi tried to make the Majority Leader, has NEVER had any immunity offer in it.
It is the Senate Intel Com which is offering immunity, and ONLY the SIC (along with nearly all Republicans, who are the ones who don't give a fuck, for your news).
Mike @ 12:
Whistleblowers are given immunity -- this is not actually immunity, it is the blocking of the courts to public access. The Congress would still be able to investigate, and charges could still be refered to the DoJ. But Congress already has all the immunity power it needs to investigate; that won't protect the public right to sue.
BIG problem - it's the Judiciary (Conyers) and Intelligence (Reyes) committees that have responsibility for this bill. NOT Energy and Commerce.
the letter is important because it counters that damn blue dog letter.
but let's not fool ourselves about who's been in charge of this mess. and let's not forget why we even have a half way decent RESTORE ACT - it's because the house progressive caucus lead by rush holt (and perhaps others?) forced their own leadership to back down from a crappy bill and make some modest improvements.
the house leadership has yet to do one damn thing other than to cave to cheney's demands and fuck with the progressive caucus.
come monday - they are the folks to call (imo): pelosi, hoyers, conyers and reyes. and give holt a call to say "thank you" (as well as all the folks who signed the letter energy and commerce letter).
Paul in LA @ 21:
it's true that the house hasn't caved (yet) on immunity - but so far they've caved on everything else when it was time to pass a bill.
the RESTORE ACT has had plenty of problems - and the house leadership blocked Holt's much better bill, the bill the ACLU recommended (oh, why can't HE be chair of the intelligence committee?), while pushing through the much worse RESTORE ACT. and then manipulated their own members (maybe even lied to them) inorder to get the RESTORE ACT out of committee.
if you recall, that version of the RESTORE ACT failed to be passed by the house - because of an unusual alliance between the Rs and progressive caucus to kill it. since, in this case, the house leadership needed the progressive caucus to get the bill passed - the leadership was forced to make some modest changes in order to win support from Holt and the progressive caucus.
THAT'S the RESTORE ACT we now have.
and that, as far as i know, was the first and only time the progressive caucus fought their own leadership and won.
instead of giving credit to pelosi - who has far as i can tell deserves NONE - we ought to recognize the success of the progressive caucus and offer our support for the fight to come.
This whole issue does need more examination, sorry to repeat myself but;
If the war on terrorists is such an important issue why wasn’t the issue brought forth back by our government when Qwest’s former ceo was apparently refused warrant-less surveillance in February 2001 prior to 9/11?
Instead apparently the incident is revealed years later in an article in a Washington Post October 17th 2007.
Also, why is warrant-less wiretapping wrapped around 9/11 because it appears the procedure was introduced (& probably inacted) months prior to the incident.
selise @ 23:
That is counterfactual. The House Leadership has followed the production of FISA RESTORE the whole way, and NEVER needed Rush Holt to 'force the leadership' blah-blah-blah. That's just utterly false.
As for HJC and HIC being responsible -- you have that right, they wrote the bill (along with Murtha), and their leadership will be in the conference committee. Nonetheless, it is valuable for other committees to weigh in, and all of this is being orchestrated by the Speaker.
selise @ 24 "it's true that the house hasn't caved (yet) on immunity - but so far they've caved on everything else when it was time to pass a bill."
That's incorrect.
"the RESTORE ACT has had plenty of problems - and the house leadership blocked Holt's much better bill, the bill the ACLU recommended"
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The only difference in the Holt bill was the basket warrants. Those aren't the issue viz-a-viz immunity, which has NEVER been offered in either bill.
"(oh, why can't HE be chair of the intelligence committee?),"
(If you think Holt is your saviour, then why has his voting bill continued to suggest that touchscreen DRE voting is OK?)
"pushing through the much worse RESTORE ACT. and then manipulated their own members (maybe even lied to them) inorder to get the RESTORE ACT out of committee."
Flatout nonsense. "Much worse" refers ONLY to the basket warrants, and you know it.
"the leadership was forced to make some modest changes in order to win support from Holt and the progressive caucus."
The Speaker is part of the Progressive caucus, as is Conyers. Meanwhile, the hyperactive imagination has invented a parallel history, full of enemies.
It's hogwash.
no shit there's a false relationship and choice between telco lawbreaking and national security
selise @ 23:
And Rush Holt is NOT a part of the Progressive Caucus. He is a "New Democrat," which is the DLC offshoot, the Clinton wing of the party.
So Holt has NEVER "led" the Progressive Caucus, as you seemingly suggested.
Is this needed questioning of "planned immunity" in re FISA violations going to be applied to the "planned immunity" for the contractors in re martial law?
Please encourage Members of Congress to consider the questions raised in this comment thread.
There is no reason for anyone to be subjected to the same abuses Iraqis, Afghans, or others were subjected at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, or in Eastern Europe. Let's put pressure on Congress to get them to examine the apparent plans of the InfraGrid contractors to not be accountable to any laws. Blackwater shows us what US contractors will do when given immunity. It's time Congress oversees the InfraGard, and not let it get out of Control like Blackwater.
I'm a little fuzzy on this immunity... I originally believe that the immunity absolved the Telecomms of civil and criminal liability... But I recently read that the immunity only applies to civil liability... Is that true? If yes, then criminal prosecution is still a viable option even if the final FISA legislation has retroactive immunity in it... Right? Isn't that the real issue?
Paul in LA @ 26:
imo, basket warrants are a BIG deal.
but, let's look at the record...
from the progressive caucus:
and then on oct. 17:
see holt's statement from the congressional record or youtube.
the bill is pulled:
more from source watch.
and then the house leadership agreed to make the changes needed to get the progressive caucus to support the bill. see this youtube clip.
from the ACLU:
and don't forget what the house leadership did in august - they have not been on our side. and wanting to believe does not make it so.
Speaking of false choices. . . there is absolutely no reason to limit or do away with FISA. The reason they're trying to sabotage it is to get around it's ability to protect the american people
I wish PP would just let one einsyweensy criticism of Miss Nancy Pants to go by w/o comment or, maybe just wait until the end of the thread to gather up all the misinformed, lying, stupid comments about Dear Nancy and Brotha Reid - our poor, misunderstood patriots who man (woman) the barricades protecting biz as usual from attacks from misguided dff’s - and make one crushing post that would finally vanquish all those weak, idiotic, trolls-in-goats-clothing that have dared insult Mizz Wonerful, hmmm? Then you’d have them! Sure, they’ed laugh, make jokes, but you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist and if… well, we all know that commenting is a lonely job. It isn't easy to make decisions. Sometimes the captain of a ship needs help. And by help, I mean constructive loyalty. What I'm trying to say is, uh, a ship is like a family. We all have our ideas of right and wrong but we have to pitch in for the good of the family. If there was only some way we could help each other… like, maybe JUST ONE PRO PELOSI RANT PER THREAD!
PP = PelosiPaul, btw
Gosh, darn! They figured it out.
selise @ 32 "imo, basket warrants are a BIG deal."
Maybe, but not on topic, and not disclosed by your suggestion that FISA RESTORE is a much worse bill (suggesting, as you did, that there were several issues -- there are not).
"and then the house leadership agreed to make the changes needed to get the progressive caucus to support the bill."
Bullshit. Woolsey and Diane Watson ALREADY supported the bill -- they have supported it all the way down the line. They wanted to amend the bill, that's fine, but you are suggesting they opposed the bill, which is nonsense. And the basket warrants are still in the bill, so clearly the 'progressives' were not going to walk out if it was.
You are busy spreading myths, not least of which is your suggestion that R. Holt is a Progressive caucus member or its leader. Speaker Pelosi made him chair of the Intelligence subcommittee because he's a valued member, but you are trying to put wedges where they don't exist.
selise @ 32:
That's true, wanting to believe doesn't make things so. Like when Glenn Greenwald announced that Speaker Pelosi didn't go to Yearly KOS because Bush "ordered her not to, so she didn't," which was an outright scurrilous LIE, which TMK he has never apologized for.
Leftists expected the leadership to halt the adjournment, because leftists habitually refuse to acknowledge politics as a factor in Congressional action. They refuse to recognize the opposition; it's not surprising that they pretend that stopping the adjournment is no big deal, when in fact it's what the R were trying to produce by bringing that bill forward on the last day.
john in california @ 35:
You're not making a reasoned argument, no wonder you are using slurs.
This is a double barrel smackdown from Congress.
The above thread and Congress sending a missive to mukasey asking who ordered waterboarding. dumbass mukasey took this to mean the actual
sadisttorturer.It came from chimpy. he likes to kill fast and slow.
mukasey is not smarter than the devilish-smirking-gonzales.
another one of chimpy's waterboys
"We couldn’t have said it better ourselves."
Lets try this: The President maintains that legislation updating the FISA laws is necessary to decrease the chances of Americans being harmed or murdered. Yet, the President is willing to veto the updated legislation that the President indicates is necessary to protect Americans thus increasing their chances of being harmed or murdered, in order to extort from the Congress, civil immunity for the telecoms.
That's what I think is happening here. The letter is correct - the issue of telecom immunity should be examined separately. Things that should be resolved is whether the telecoms were acting altruistically in order to help safeguard the nation's security, or whether consideration has already been received by the telecoms for their actions, such as government contracts, or favorable FCC or Justice Dept rulings on certain mergers and acquisitions and so forth.
Bush doesn't want that kind of review, so he ties the issue to pressing legislation. Of course, I'm not so sure that the Dems want this kind of review either, because the larger issue here is to somehow insure that the national dialog is controlled by the corporations, and the end of net neutrality by the telecoms is necessary in order to attempt to force fit the broadcast media model onto the internet, (which uses restraint of competition by media consolidation to increase the price of mass communications so that wealthy corporations are the only ones being heard.)
MagnificentAppendage @ 1:
You are absolutely right. Subpoenas don't work either. So what's next?
I should have read your post before I posted.
It isn't a slur, Paul, it is a request (unless you think identifying you with Pelosi is a slur). It isn't that I wish to silence your opinion, just ask you to not make practically every thread you comment on a running battle between you and anybody that speaks ill of the dead dems. We all know your position just as many know mine on impeachment, so one cogent argument per thread should be adequate. Since it is not my blog, perhaps it is not my place to ask you to condense your critiques, even though I think your point of view would both be more effectively presented and less irritating to those with whom you disagree.
Why would they want immunity if what they did wasn't wrong?
How backward is that. This is preposterous!
what's the use of laws in chimpy's world
there aren't any laws
john in california @ 43 "It isn't a slur, Paul, it is a request (unless you think identifying you with Pelosi is a slur)."
Identifying me as "PP" was intended as a slur, now you're pretending otherwise.
"It isn't that I wish to silence your opinion, just ask you to not make practically every thread you comment on"
I only comment on a fraction of C&L posts.
"a running battle between you and anybody that speaks ill of the dead dems."
Yeah, I should stop rebutting the lies and misconceptions of people, and rather join you in your ignorance. What wonderful advice!
"We all know your position just as many know mine on impeachment, so one cogent argument per thread should be adequate."
And when will you be handing out the Ph.D.'s? This isn't exactly a debating society.
"I think your point of view would both be more effectively presented and less irritating to those with whom you disagree."
I see, you have my best interests in mind. I thank you so much for your kind concern.
Paul in LA @ 39:
I'm sorry, john, but I have to agree with the troll. A reasoned argument starts with the word "bullshit" and is completed by a paragraph that either misses the point or shifts the point on purpose. The key to making a reasoned argument is not listening to what the other person is saying, since the goal of reasoned argument is to appear clever, not learn or teach.
You need to learn how to argue, john.
JTM @ 46:
You’re not making a reasoned argument, no wonder you are using slurs.
Comments are closed on this entry