FISA Vote In The House Now
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Mar 12, 2008 2:04pmYou can stream video at C-Span
House Democratic Leaders Respond to the President on FISA
There is a vote likely today on the House re-draft of FISA legislation -- labelled at the moment "AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3773." I am hearing rumors of GOP maneuvers -- Blunt trying to call the House into "secret session" and/or adjourn before voting anyone? Lots of rumors swirling around the Hill, and there has been a GOP procedural motion to force a vote on the Senate bill before considering the House Dem amendment (obviously, we are encouraging a "no" vote on that one).
The votes won't likely be until later this afternoon, maybe 3-ish -- but calls to Representatives need to be made now to emphasize standing up for the rule of law and the Fourth amendment, and against Presidential/telecom immunity.
We are still taking votes on our Blue Dog accountability poll -- please cast your vote today. [..]
These are not partisan issues -- they are American ones. They raise questions about priorities, about legitimate limitations on governmental power versus allowance of substantial overreach. As the CATO Institute (a conservative/libertarian think tank) puts the ultimate question:
...civil liberties won’t be preserved through compromise. The partisans of ever-increasing executive power aren’t likely to go away any time soon. If Congress compromises and agrees to further expand executive wiretapping powers, a future president will come back to Congress and argue that the law is still too restrictive and still more compromises are needed....At some point, Congress just has to say no.
Former Reagan Administration DOJ official Bruce Fein agrees. As does Bob Barr. None of whom can remotely be called liberal partisans, as President Bush tried to cast all opposition in his petulant Cartman-channelling presser this morning.
Now is the time to contact your Representative and say that they must stand up for rule of law and say no to Presidential/telecom immunity. At some point, they really do have to stand up and say "no."
KagroX has more. As does emptywheel. And Glenn. And Ryan Singel from Wired. Here as well. And cboldt walks us through the bill/amendment niceties.
McJoan at DailyKos has a list of numbers if you want to call your Representatives to remind them who they are supposed to be representing.
UPDATE: Per Christy: And CongressNow has a bit on the potential for a "secret session" (subs. req.) that some GOP folks are pushing -- but I haven't been able to confirm anything with any leadership or other House Members or staffers on this. Also, there is a rumor that the vote may not happen now until tomorrow, but I'm also hearing much later this evening, too -- so keep those phones ringing, gang.
Login or Register to post comments.
No to retroactive telecom immunity.
If they get retroactive immunity I want retroactive immunity too... for anything I may or may not have done!
danger hussein @ 2:
Me too...
thoughts @ 3:
and all the rest of the citizens of the U.S. of A. too!
CSPAN'S got a Boner on right now.
Let's see if I got this right.
US bombed Afghanistan killing women and children. Dems did? Nothing
US bombed Iraq, then invaded, killing women and children. Dems did? Nothing
US continues to kill Iraqis. Dems do? Nothing.
US threatens Iran. Dems do? Nothing.
US officials refuse to testify under oath at any hearings. Dems do? Nothing
Oh but wait, telecomm immunity? Time for the Dems to act. Seems a little inplausible. They haven't done anything in 7 years, they aren't about to start now.
Maybe what they're REALLY worried about is setting a precedent on retroactive immunity....for themselves....
Seriously though - they've been trying to spin opponents as "pro-terrorist" just like the Bad Old Days of yesteryear.
But maybe, finally, honestly and truly this kind of propaganda no longer works. (cue the music, the sun rises, the chorus sings "hallelujah").
Eric
www.changeany1thing.com
We must remind ourselves that the Republicans want to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies in order to prevent Bush's crimes against our civil liberties from being fully exposed. Shame on them for putting their party's interests over their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States!
Apparently they want a closed session on the FISA bill.
Retroactive Immunity is not only SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN by the Constitution of the United States, but is the most sure-fire way to ELIMINATE "the safety of the American people".
And by "American people", I of course mean the telcom companies...they are "people" too, right? Passing this legislative pro-fascism abomination WILL make "homegrown terrorists" out of everyday citizens...people who are PISSED at the willing and knowing destruction of the "USA" we were all raised to believe in.
At that point, only random acts of violence against every "yea" vote, and every participating telcom company's assets, is patriotic. And I for one will be watching the fires and riots with a bowl of popcorn and a smile.
"The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." - Senator Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872, The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, pg. 1287
Often mis-quoted by the neocons as an endorsement of blind jingoistic patriotism, when in REALITY it is an endorsement of FORCING the government to act in accordance with the conscience of the populace!
How about THIS one?
"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson (you know...the former PRESIDENT!)
A vote in favor of retroactive immunity is a vote in DIRECT violation of the conscience of the populace, and for tyranny.
Old School Patriot @ 10:
What? Citation, please.
danger hussein @ 2:
Yeah meeeee too!
Everyone and I do mean EVERYONE who votes for immunity for telecoms needs to be voted out!
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 12:
... or plan on doing later.
earl @ 14:
....or end doing spontaneously whilst inebriated!
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 15:
Hehehe...stupid fingers!
Bush is irrelevant, He is the lamest of lame ducks. Why the continued capitulation on the part of the "opposition" party?
I'm guessing his illegal wiretaps unearthed some dirt on these spineless legislators and he is holding them hostage.
What a frickin' irony.
O'Reilly synonyms-windbag, blowhole, jackass, moron. What else is there to say?
Old School Patriot @ 10:
Ah, that's some good stuff ya got there!
JTM @ 11:
14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Emphasis mine. Providing retroactive immunity to ONE GROUP of "citizens" by definition abridges the immunities of OTHER citizens, by not providing them with EQUAL PROTECTION.
I would like to contact my Representative, but my repesentative is John Doolittle (R-CA). So, you can see it would be a lost effort.
Face it, Big Brother has us by the balls and continuing to spy on us. Be careful you might find yourself sent to ReEducation Training".
PRAISE THE GLORIUOS LEADER!!!
Old School Patriot @ 20:
This line of reasoning has already been debunked. The two keys points are (1) bills of attainder are the opposite of immunity, so the ban on the former says nothing about the latter, and (2) what we are talking about here are civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions.
I wish I had a real representative.
They're spying on us? Well, in that case, I want to go on the record that George W. Bush is the greatest president we've ever had.
retroactive telecom = treason
Old School Patriot @ 20:
Excellent!
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 16:
My 'representative' thinks the Bagdad markets are just like the farmer's markets in Muncie.
Anyone thing it'd do any good to call this brainless fuck-wit? I'd like immunity for what might happen to him in a dark alley.
Rufus @ 25:
Ditto and Condaleeza is a saint.. a saint I tell you... heart o' gold.
Rufus @ 24:
Are you supporting Charlie Brown? My rep is Doris Matsui and I call and or write her at least once a week. Between John Doolittle and Dan Lungren I am surrounded with some of biggest crooks in the GOP.
What happens if this bill goes thru the way Pinnochio wants it to?
spying on Americans = blackmailing politicians and others
JTM @ 23:
Odd...the 14th-amendment makes NO distinction between CIVIL and CRIMINAL law...you are injecting that meme in order to support your position. Rather than "debunking" the point, you are only revealing your ignorance of it.
Now for the REALLY laughable part: Bills of Attainder. The Constitution says (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3) "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." Btw, "ex post fact" is Latin for "from something done afterward". The key point here being the OR in that quote...we are referring to two sides of the same coin! It states (which is specifically clarified in the minutes, btw) that no law can be passed to RETROACTIVELY MAKE ILLEGAL PAST ACTIONS OR RENDER THEM LEGAL AFTER THE FACT!
Yes folks, that right, the "Civil vs Criminal" argument is a red herring, and the "Bills of Attainder" argument CONFIRMS THAT RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! lol
But hey, don't take MY word for it...since every Constitutional item and argument I have posted here comes straight from my high-school civics book. Argue with Magruder's "American Government" ;)
But hey, I can understand how JTM could resist these ideas so strongly, after all "the facts have a liberal bias" roflmao
EliteLemming @ 30:
A heart o' gold....and feet like sasquatch! HA!
Old School Patriot @ 20:
That is a limitation on the power of the States, brought after the civil war (and which was hijacked not long thereafter to confer person hood on corporations). It doesn't apply.
I understand how they could be confused to be germaine.
US Constitution Art. I Sec 10 is the original limitation of the powers of the States. Found therein is the prohibition of ex-post facto laws. This also doesn't apply.
The Congress, I believe could indeed, grant retroactive immunity. What John Conyers is saying, I believe, is that there is no precedent for it.
Let's hope they do not set the precedent. It would be a very dangerous one. As Jonathon Turley said, 'it would be difficult to make this cat walk backwards'.
Old School Patriot @ 34:
Next your going to tell me that the Federal Reserve and Income Taxes are unconstitutional.
The sarcasm helps a lot.
Look, there have been myriad retroactive immunity bills. The one and only difference that I can find between this one and all the previous is that this one does not include a compensation package for the people who no longer can sue. That's where the 5th Amendment comes in.
If that was your argument, then I guess I can buy it. But that didn't seem to be your story.
RayC @ 37:
Nice facetious disregard...presupposes the evidence you want to be there, with no actual examination or inquiry. Now I am supposed to defend myself from your baseless accusations, so that you do not have to address the point? Then you can act like the injured party, and accuse ME of distracting from the conversation...
...Sorry but I'm not falling for it. I have an IQ above dishwater. I can however play this game as well: when did you stop beating your parents? How does screwing dead dogs make you feel? How do you justify your eating the brains of kindergarten kids? Take your pick, lol.
I just went out to my kitchen and said "does anyone here know the difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments?"
A voice from inside my sink said, "yes."
Thanks for suggesting where I could go for better discussion than your posts.
JTM @ 38:
I've found several times in the past that the best medicine is delivered with humor, especially when the patient does not know they need it. Hence the sarcasm whenever I am shown a particularly brilliant piece of sound-byte stupidity ;)
There have also been laws passed to incarcerate people in camps based on their ethnicity...here in AMERICA. Later on the law was repealed, and (eventually) even formal apology given, on the basis of the law being unconstitutional.
Just because a law was passed, does not make it Constitutional. Not violating the prohibitions and permissions set down in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) makes it Constitutional. Passing a law that does otherwise only makes that law...embarrassing.
I just called my rep (Tim Johnson, IL - R). The friendly staffer told me that they've received about equal calls for and against retroactive immunity versions, from this mostly conservative area.
If you haven't called yet, do. It's fun and easy, and will give you a sense of doing all you can, even if you're represented by a Repug.
Old School Patriot @ 41:
Wow. I've not seen such pompous arrogance since Bush's last presser. Am I going to be billed for this?
thoughts @ 3:
Retrowhat?
Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Ex post fact law:
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively,
I don't know what these dipshits are thinking; but, I will tell you what I am thinking.
HOW THE HELL DOES SOMEONE MAKE IT TO THE PRESIDENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE SENATE WITHOUT EVEN READING THE CONSTITUTION. I READ THE DAMN THING IN THE 6TH GRADE.
I propose a simple solution to this problem.
Instead of taking an oath to the Constitution when they enter office; we should make our elected representatives recite the Constitution.
This who thing is a great big farce. The Federal Courts are going to fry this piece of legislation. It's in black and white. Word for word. The courts do not have to interpret anything. The morons have to know the courts are going to rip apart this FISA law.
Hussein Hussein @ 42:
I have a hard time believing ordinary citizens are calling his office in support of immunity for telecoms. I call B.S.
Republicans own the Courts. No help there.
goat hussein sage @ 45:
It is a cover story. To cover their ass when they vote for immunity.
OK...did that for the cause, called Feinstein and Boxer... Even though I promised myself several months ago I was through with DiFi.. I made it clear without any ranting that I was against retroactive immunity for the telcoms.... Voicemail for Babs and remarkably enough a breathing grunt at the other end of Feinsteins line...
Wish I thought it would actually do any good but I've seen this same movie over and over and I know how it ends... And the word 'cavein' is part of the storyline.... And the phrase 'we are soo fucked' is part of the fallout.... I hope I'm wrong.. but I don't think so...................JD
jack damage @ 48:
Jack, need to call your House member. The Senate voted for immunity, thanks to DiFi. It's being debated in the House right now.
The irony of this is;
I wonder how many Congressmen or Senators are going to become victims of this warrantless surveillance. They are basically handing a blank check to the Justice Department to dig up dirty laundry on them. People rarely get to positions of power by being fine upstanding law abiding citizens.
jack damage @ 48:
Exactly right.
The important question is why Dems always cave...
Alice Hussein @ 47:
No doubt he'll go with his party, even though he occasionally crosses over.
What really bothered me were the misleading pro-immunity ads that ran on CNN the past 2 weeks, while the network ignored the issue otherwise. They are whores.
Chuck @ 44:
I am far from being a legal scholar so I may get shot full of holes. You get way you pay for.
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
Bills of Attainder were brought in England by the King or Parliament against specific individuals or groups to convict them without trial. The first was in 1321, the last 1798. They could still happen, England has no constitution to prohibit them.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
A law ex post facto would seek to prosecute someone for an act committed before it was made illegal.
An act that was legal can be made illegal, as in 'there ought be a law', but you cannot be prosecuted for the prior commission. If you are prosecuted successfully after the law takes effect you might challenge its constitutionality.
Making something legal after it has been illegal has happened many times.
Prosecution not under way for a prior commission in such an instance would become moot. Assuming the new law was constitutional.
Congress enacts laws, they have staff to help advise on the constitutionality of those laws. The courts are the arbiter when citizens think the law is not constitutional. The Supreme Court is the last stop.
Congress thinks they can grant retroactive immunity. Let's hope they don't.
Kucinich is currently on the floor & kicking ass on why the hell the republican's need a "secret meeting" on this
oh snap! he just said (basically) "go ahead & have your secret meeting, i won't be there, that's not how a democracy works!" i can't think when he's not done exactly what i would have done in his situation.
euthyfro @ 55:
That's why Kucinich is a great American, and a patriot. Most of the Crooks and Liars in that chamber will never appreciate that.
Nicolle Belle@49;
OK Nicolle, did that, got the breathing person at the other end of Pelosi's line. Said my peace... Guess we just wait now.... thanks for the reminder about the house.....JD
Rep. Blunt-object waaaants a secret session. What ya gotta hide there pal??
euthyfro @ 54:
you know, that guy should consider running for president one of these years
Big John @ 51:
Cuz they are guilty, and part and parcel to the whole treasure chest access their election brings to them.
The why has been established since the '06 election and their subsequent behavior and voting actions.
The real question is when will the voting public, who's geting HAMMERED top to bottom class wise, demand better and hold them accountable for each and every action NOT for the good of 'we the people'?
When the PEOPLE raise their voices at ALL of them, who are guilty, then change is possible.
As long as people vote and follow blindly behind this 'party line' spin, the dems we elect get the keys to the treasure chest, and won't be for US.
It's all the same party, really. And the key to our treasure, the fruits of our labors, the value of our work, is theirs to do with what they will, once elected. Both party's have proven this repeatedly.
They get the key, we get the shaft. And so it will always be, unless the people en masse, raise their voices. And by en masse, I mean MILLIONS of folks in the streets, protesting FOR the middle class, nothing more.
No gay protest. No political party protest. No religious, or agnostic protest.
A protest for the middle class. Period. Millions strong. Work strikes.
N that my dear We The People, aint gonna happen, is it?
if enough members rise in objection to this secret session they could create a House style of Filibuster, dragging on until they got back on vacation. i'm fine with there being no new "compromise" bill passed.
nope, they're headed into secret session as i typed that
euthyfro @ 62:
The Republicans want to feed the Dems a load of bullshit. Try and scare them into voting on this.
How about this compromise? Grant immunity from 9/11/01. Anything before 9/11/01 take them all to court, including the biggest liars, GWB & Co. As part of the agreement, GWB and his gang will have to testify before the American people, under oath, in public. They will also have to provide any requested documents. Let’s hear their excuses about spying prior to 9/11/01, or why immunity should be granted for time prior to 9/11/01. They don’t have the balls to face the citizens of our country. In my opinion, our spineless congress will go closed door so that they can find a way to give GWB what he wants without the Democrats looking bad, or weak.
Why else do they have the debate in a closed session?
Just a passing thought, our VP DC went to the Middle East to prepare for GWB’s attack on Iran. Thank you for Senator Clinton for helping GWB & DC get what they want.
Ask the presidential candidates the following questions:
Will restore our Constitution?
Will they pardon GWB & CO?
Will they stop using Blackwater?
Will they cancel the no-bid contracts?
Will they release the GWB and DC papers?
Will they return our country to its' citizens?
Will they take all George's signing statements and cancel them?
Will GWB & CO be allowed to stand trial for war crimes?
Will they outlaw any torture, including waterboarding?
I am sure there are more.
More passing thoughts.
We still have the freedom of speach for the moment. We have to watch what is going on very carefully. There could come a time when the telecom companies end our internet communication with each other. I would not put it past them.
They already listen to our calls and monitor what we say and do on line? Am I getting too far with this?
Non-violence is the way.
Do we really expect elections to be held in November?
To Paul in LA, you may not be reading now, but you like to comment when I put down the Democratic party. Your blind devotion to the “party” is a reason why Democrats do not have to worry about being re-elected. They can always count on your vote. The Democrats have to worry about registered Democrats that will vote across party lines and vote for the best person who will do the best job. Keep your C-SPAN stats. I will support progressive and liberal candidate that will restore our constitution. I will not support any Democrat that continues to help destroy our country. Screw the spineless Democrats and the people that continue to blindly support the destroyers of our country.
rcca @ 64:
Hey...rcca....right on.
Retroactive immunity from what? According to Chimpy they didn't break the law.
so Isn't asking for retroactive immunity a virtual admission of guilt.....WTF!
Login or Register to post comments.