House Passes FISA Amendments Act: Hoyer didn't hear anything in the Secret session
By John Amato Thursday Mar 13, 2008 2:12pm Good news! The Gavel:
The House has just passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, by a vote of 213-197-1. The revised House legislation to amend FISA grants new authorities for conducting electronic surveillance against foreign targets while preserving the requirement that the government obtain an individualized FISA court order, based on probable cause, when targeting Americans at home or abroad. The House bill also strongly enhances oversight of the Administration’s surveillance activities. Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed
Our Blue America fundraising push was awesome because some Bush Dogs flipped back to reality and voted for this bill including Boswell.
KagroX also gives Harry Reid some props--"Leadership maneuvers you'll actually like."
"I did not hear any new information tonight that dissuades me from my very strong belief that the FISA bill House Democrats have produced – and which the House will vote on tomorrow – is a reasonable, thoughtful, appropriate piece of legislation that will ensure that the intelligence community has all the tools it needs to protect our nation, while also respecting the Constitutional protections that Americans rightfully feel are so important. Tomorrow, I will urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation."
Nice going Rep. Blunt. What a waste of time and energy to call for a secret session. All his little stunt did was make him look weak and foolish.
Login or Register to post comments.
FOIST!!!!
And furthermore....WOOOHOOO!!!
Hooray!!!!!!
I think.
FINALLY!!!!
"but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed."
Hasn't this always been the case or am I missing something?
suck on this Bushies.....
ACLU...get your lawyers ready, we're suing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc...
Maybe in those secret meetings last night when the Cons went. . looky what we got here boys. Hee hee.
The Dems countered with . . oh yeah you think thats something well look at this. Ha Ha.
Class Action Suits anyone?
The American People versus the Telecoms?
Well, how bout those house Dems!
Looks like they grew some, at least for this afternoon.
DON'T STOP NOW!!!!!!
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 8:
I mean wouldn't you just love to see these suits sweat instead of us for once?
Yes! Wow thats great
Now all the telecoms will learn that you can't do something illegal just because King George said you can.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 9:
Lovin the new name LA!
Hells yeah I'd love to see the suits sweatin...maybe burnin a little too...ok that was harsh, sorry.
jharp @ 5:
The courts always have the discretion of not hearing a case if they feel there is no merit.
Each side must provide evidence, gathered via the discovery process, and present it to the judge to decide merit.
Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.
Thank god. Now let's hope "activist judges" don't throw out these lawsuits. The truth is out there. We need to know what happened.
B
Are the Democrats finally developing some balls?
McCain alert.
eBay CEO Whitman joining McCain
John McCain campaign says the outgoing eBay CEO will travel the country on the presidential candidate's behalf.
No more doing business with eBay for this guy.
DtX @ 14:
Lets hope so.
Every Democrat everywhere, especially those vying for the presidency needs to proclaim loudly and publicly that all W cares about is immunity for telecoms, protecting their profits, and making sure that if anything illegal did occur that evidence of it never sees the light of day. They need to repeat OVER AND OVER that these wiretaps would have continued for a full year if the bill didn't pass, they still will after W's veto, and any wiretap can still happen regardless of all that, all they need is a goddamn warrant.
Blocking Telecom immunity is the first thing to come out of Washington that has made sense in a long, long time. I'm tentatively hopeful that this is the beginning of a pivot back to reason.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 15:
GAAAAH!!! DAMMIT!!! What other ebay type thing is out there to buy and sell useless crap?
HEY NANCY: Guess what, you and your colleagues just raised the House approval rating!! You know what would raise it even more? If you took the same moral fortitude you used to stand up to W's fearmongering here and applied it to...oh I don't know...perhaps IMPEACHMENT?
Can you hear me now? How about now? Can you hear me now??
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 16:
It do or die baby!
The idea that Harry Reid should get any credit for today's (small) victory is beyond laughable.
You have about ten days to beat on your Senate DINO (if you have one). Those in Jello's state need not bother.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 22:
Now you sound like Bush on Telecom immunity!
Has anyone yet compiled a list of senators taking money from the telecoms in question? Big media investigates nothing, but it looks like we have a couple of weeks to shed some light on the senate's "bipartisan" protection of these corporations.
Finally! Congress just told the Prez to go fuck himself.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 22:
I'm not going to work in a munitions factory because there are no other options!
veto
and/or
signing statement. How will the courts rule if Bush makes this an issue of national security in a time of war claiming presidential authority.
JTM @ 23:
Times like this that make me glad I live in Massachusetts. Kerry and Kennedy will never approve a bill with immunity...but you know what, I'm so suspicious of this newfound backbone in the Democratic Party that I think I will make sure by calling both of them.
Liberal Traitor @ 24:
What I supposed to say "Okay Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain. Whatever, I dunno, just don't shove it in to hard."
No way man
Recall that Alito - SCOTUS - invented the argument that presidential signing statements ... work.
anon @ 28:
Oh yeah no doubt thats next.
I'm the Decider!
A tiny step in the right direction.
Next step, special prosecutor.
I see no sign that the spine seen in the House will magically transfer to the Senate. And it's all for one simple reason: Harry Reid. Watch while he assigns the House bill to both the SSIC and the SJC (again) and then brings the SSIC bill to the floor (again). Just watch. You know he'll do it. And you know how it will end up.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 7:
Right now, feds might be looking into your finances
Banks tip off government to possible money laundering, fraud
By Thomas Frank
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Each year, federal agents peek at the financial transactions of millions of Americans — without their knowledge.
The same type of information that raised suspicions about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is reviewed every day by authorities to find traces of money laundering, check fraud, identity theft or any crime that may involve a financial institution.
As concerns about fraud and terrorist financing grow, an increasing number of suspicious deposits, withdrawals and money transfers are being reported by banks and others to the federal government. Banks and credit unions as well as currency dealers and stores that cash checks reported a record 17.6 million transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in 2006, according to a report from the network, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department.
"I don't think Americans understand that their financial transactions are being reported and routinely examined," said Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union.
I'm happy about this.
Pelosi would be wise to continue treating "The President" with the same degree of disregard that he's given the country, the world, the military, veterans, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Iraqis, and everybody else he's s*** on.
If she doesn't, she'll be held accountable when he pulls his next stunt on the nation/world, because first and foremost, she's the "impeachment is off the table" Madam Speaker...and we can't forget that.
Well, that's great but you know how Bushco's Courts will decide regarding any law suits brought against big corporations. Especially the higher up in the judicial system they will go.
Can anyone provide a link to a list of who voted for the immunity laden bill in the Senate? I can't seem to get through Thomas.gov right now.
And to L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential, I was just joking about you sound like Bush. Sorry if there was confusion. The whole "It's Do or Die" thing was pretty much what he was saying about voting for immunity. Either the telecoms (and therefore W himself) are immune or we're all going to die!
JTM @ 23:
Luckily I am Illinois and I don't have much doubt Durbin and Obama are opposed to telecom immunity since they voted against it the first time. I may drop an e-mail just to remind them though.
Chalk up one small victory for us!
Can't believe we're celebrating upholding the secretive FISA court, which has its own constitutional rights issues. But it's better than what Bush wanted.
Nice. A big "thank you" to those who contacted elected officials about this.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 22:
From this point on I will be referring to the Democrats in the Congress as The Nads.
So...now...cheer with me!!
GO NADS! GO NADS! GO NADS! GO NADS!!
Is this what we wanted? Do the Bushies really have anything to fear from the courts or the D.o.J.? Didn't they already strongarm those institutions into submission?
Concerned -
The law that triggers a federal look-see when money moves around has zero to with FISA.
wtf
anon @ 28:
Well he definitely veto, but hypothetically if he signed it with a signing statement that basically nullifies what he is signing, then at least the PEOPLE could take him to court on the constitutionality of his signing statements since the congress seems unwilling to.
Man, I just thought of the perfect lolcats photo:
I little kitten looking sad with a flag lapel pin and a red tie.
Caption: I can has immunity? plskthxbye!
why didnt my other posts go through?
JTM @ 43:
I never said it did. Just showing how much good ol' Uncle Sammy KNOWS everything about you without those pesky courts giving permission.
I have been thinking abou tthis now for a bit. What I like about it is they are going to make Senate Republicans vote on this - and they will most likely vote against it. Does that mean they want Americans to die? This is very interesting strategy by the house. I can't wait to see how it plays out - and I pray that it does pass because the president will have to veto it then as he has sworn he will.
I would liek to see him try to talk himself out of that one. Immunity for the telecoms is more important than the safety of Americans.
Oh the joy of politics.
Bill
Kansaskowboy @ 37:
Ah, but it wouldn't be the SCOTUS that makes the decisions in this case.
Liberal AND Proud @ 42:
LMAO!!! GOOOO NADS!
anon @ 28:
The House and Senate must work a compromise or there is no bill to send to the President.
The Senate won't compromise. This is the House revision of their first bill. This is their compromise.
Someone here will certainly know more to explain.
If this is what they send to the Prez, he will veto it.
Telecom lack of immunity = BushCo lack of immunity.
That phrase has such a nice ring to it. They'll be making whoopee in the old courtroom.
Now get those feet closer to the fire!
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 48:
OK, so I provided you with no information (in the technical sense of "information"). Sorry about the implication. But I may have helped one other person.
You mean Pelosi actually got something done?
Well slap me silly, and call me a naughty boy.
The two Illinois bush dogs, Bean and Lipinski, voted for it too. Ya think Bill Foster's win to take Hastert's 14th district shook them up a little?
anon @ 31:
Wonder what that repuke will say we President Obama signs his first one. Hehehe.
More than likely, the Chimp Adm., the FBI, and the CIA will continue to break and bend the rules regarding so called national security surveillance as has been reported recently. Why there are no charges laid is beyond my comprehension. Anyway we are headed in the right direction and that is to be able to find Bush and Cheney guilty of running illegal wiretapping and such. The telecoms will be OK because they can say the Chimp Adm. directed them to implement same. Of course the taxpayer will foot the bill for all the hanky panky. What I want to see like many others through an eventual investigation is the extent of all this previous illegal spying. Did they spy on the Dems, Financial Institutions, or just anyone that got in their way ( Valerie Plame)? Get ready though for another round of missing documents. These people are desperate and have few morals.
L.A. Whosaneillary Confidential @ 15:
Well, that makes sense. McCain always sells out to the highest bidder.
I am not sure I understand what people are talking about here. I was under the impression that now that the House and the Senate have passed to different versions of the same bill, both bills would go to a conference committee to try to hammer out a compromise. Then both the House and the Senate would vote on the compromised bill. If no compromise can be reached the bill would die. Nether bill would go to the President, Reed doesn't have the option of trying to pass a bill different than the House bill and Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the option of trying to pass a bill different than the Senate until it comes out of the conference committee. What am I missing?
Alice is correct. And, as I wrote above, Reid will probably screw this up by having the SSIC (i.e., Jello's) bill be the base bill (again). So we'll be back to where we were yesterday in about a month.
If miracles happen and the Senate either passes the House bill (odds: 1 in 17 trillion) or sends back a half-way decent bill (odds: 2 in 17 trillion) and the Houses passes it, then Bush will veto.
In short, what was done today is a turning back of the Senate's bill. Nothing more. We are no closer to an actual loaw than we were yesterday.
Blue Lensmadinejad @ 53:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM-ubvZfEfo
"Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed"
Nice try but, Uh Oh I smell a HUGE RAT!
The Courts ..... and specifically the Supreme Court is controlled by Bush Lackeys!
I predict no more lawsuits and probably a veto for good measure followed by a press conference chastising the democrats for aiding Al-Qaeda and making our country unsafe........"I will veto any legislation that does not protect me and and my corporate cronies from prosecution for crimes we supposedly never comitted"
JayDog @ 59:
Spit take alert!!!
JayDog @ 59:
SNAAAAAAAAAAAP!
is hoyer up for re-election?
This whole fight comes down to one issue: probable cause.
Our government doesn't want to have to prove probable cause in order to get a warrant. Our government wants to sift through all electronic communication and wants the telecom companies to assist without asking questions. The whole point of obtaining a warrant is to prove that the government has probable cause to believe that a crime will be or has been committed. If probable cause is required, and therefore a warrant is required, then the government and companies who assist in breaking the law by spying on citizens must be held accountable.
George Bush is accustomed to doing whatever the hell he pleases, regardless of what the law may be. Bush believes that the government has no responsibility to respect the privacy of citizens, and that citizens should have no recourse when their rights have been violated by the government. Bush believes that if he or the government does it, then it cannot be illegal, regardless of what the law says.
Bush has failed to understand that the government is nothing more than an extension of the people, and therefore the rules are made by the people, not by the government. But this is to be expected from such and arrogant, ignorant turd as George Bush and the dipshits who follow his every word.
I know people who voted for him, some voted for him twice, and they failed to see what we all saw from the beginning, and now many of them are wondering how they got cheated. Pathetic.
RayC @ 60:
That no bill is better than a bill that grants the telecoms immunity.
RayC -
If differing bills automatically forced a conference, then we would have already had such, because the House passed a bill before the Senate did. Not only are conferences not automatic, but the Senate is free to completely ignore the new House bill and the Republicans in the House are free to continue to "demand" that the Senate bill be voted on.
In other words, Reid does have the option of ignoring the House bill and starting work on a new one. What happens in one chamber doesn't force anything in the other chamber. If you want to get things done, then you don't ignore what the other chamber has done, but that's requires that everyone wants to get something done.
Why did Kucinich vote no?
On a side note...I live on the Hill and was walking past the Capitol late last night and I saw limos and cops pulling out and heading towards the White House. The Secret Service people inside the cars didn't seem too happy to see me trying to peer in
ysbaddaden @ 55:
you making a move on elliot's girl?
And to think someone you were ready to throw Boswell under the bus.
JTM @ 61:
and that's a bad thing?
TakeOurCountryBack @ 63:
It would not be the SCOTUS that decides matters under the House bill.
I'm not saying that the FISC is perfect (mostly because we are not allowed to know what the FISC has done, which is one of Sen Whitehouse's complaints); I'm just correcting a misunderstanding of the House bill.
jharp @ 5:
Yeah. Civil procedure provides all types of methods to get a meritless case thrown out.
Sam @ 70:
Already answered: he has voted no on anything and everything that expands FISA.
Cointel -
No, it's a good thing that the House passed this bill, but mostly for political reasons. The pressure is now off the House to pass the Senate's POS bill. We've bought a month.
Liberal Traitor @ 38:
On the amendment to strike immunity:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
On the act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Stabenow MI voted no to strike the immunity AND no to the act. Very strange, she could have been covering for Obama who yes to strike the immunity but didn't show to vote on the act.
Hill didn't show on either one.
JTM @ 61:
That's cool. They can go ahead and play hot potato with this till Jan. 20 '09. Assuming we get a Dem in the White House, that's not a bad outcome.
JTM @ 76:
Once again, another reason why I like Kucinich
Wow, Mrs Pelosi has a bigger set of cojones than Mr Reid. No surprise. Here's the thing, we're all getting excited, but it's going nowhere. We have 2 opposing bills now, and the one that is going to be sent to Bush will be vetoed. Now is the time to press our legislators to overrule the veto so this bill becomes law. Remind the dogs and repubs that they may be held accountable during their election for serving the interests of the corps over the actual citizens that vote for them. This may be the beginning of a great movement if momentum is not lost. INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON YOUR LEGISLATORS TO REPRESENT YOU!!!
JTM @ 69:
Lets propose a bill that replaces Reid with Chris Dodd as Senate majority leader!
Liberal AND Proud @ 65:
BWAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Sam @ 79:
Exactly why he was always and continues to be my first choice for President of the United States, regardless of the fact that this dumbed-down corporate-owned-media controlled circus of a country would never let him have a chance in hell.
He recognized that this was a bad idea, not just the immunity, but the WHOLE DAMNED THING.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 82:
Really, Obama should use that against McBain once he's declared the nominee.
So the telecoms get immunity anyway. Remember, party judges will get to decide now, so no difference. They'll walk, simple as that, regardless of their violations of law. Just watch.
JTM @ 76:
And we'll be one month closer to the election, so the ante goes UP for all involved, including the despicable rockefeller.
CoIntelPro - against Divisive Democrats @ 66:
All of them every two years.
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 81:
Sounds GREAT to me! Where do I sign up?
JTM @ 61:
Do you think we need a new law? FISA as it exists is more than adequate in my mind. They want to and are data mining everyone foreign and domestic and look for what ever, and we are supposed to trust that they are only looking for terrorists. The only reason they don't want to go to a FISA judge is because what they have been doing is illegal, it has nothing to do with expediency, or new technologies.
Bush will have a hissy and veto the final bill rejecting telecom immunity, of course, so he'll be in the same boat as if he DIDN'T veto it. But if the Democrats can drag this out past January 20, the lawsuits can go forward, and the telecoms can show all their correspondence from the White House claiming it was legal. It will all crash around Bush's head, and of course, that's what he fears.
Of course, nobody should do any breath-holding...
RayC @ 89:
Exactly why I respect Kucinich for voting against the whole idea of the POS-Act...er...ahem...sorry the PAA.
Liberal Traitor @ 83:
I like that movie: "enemy of the state". it perfectly illustrates why there should be no FISA.
Alice Hussein @ 87:
NICE!
Liberal Traitor @ 88:
I like that idea... either Dodd or Feingold.
Here is the voting Tally...
The hang-tough Dems:
Jason Altmire (PA-04), Phone: (202) 225-2565, Fax: (202) 226-2274
Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Phone: (202) 225-3665, Fax: (202) 225-1891
Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Phone: (202) 225-6601, Fax: (202) 225-7986
Joe Courtney (CT-02), Phone: (202) 225-2076, Fax: (202) 225-4977
Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Phone: (202) 225-3915, Fax: (202) 225-6798
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Phone: (202) 225-2542, Fax: (202) 225-0378
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Phone: (202) 225-5614, Fax: (202) 225-1168
Paul Hodes (NH-02), Phone: (202) 225-5206, Fax: (202) 225-2946
Steve Kagen (WI-08), Phone: (202) 225-5665, Fax: (202) 225-5729
Ron Klein (FL-22), Phone: (202) 225-3026, Fax: (202) 225-8398
Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Phone: (202) 225-5792, Fax: (202) 225-3132
Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Phone: (202) 225-1947, Fax: (202) 225-4060
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Phone: (202) 225-2190, Fax: (202) 225-3263
Christopher Murphy (CT-05), Phone: (202) 225-4476, Fax: (202) 225-5933
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Phone: (202) 225-5456, Fax: (202) 225-5822
Tim Walz (MN-01), Phone: (202) 225-2472, Fax: (202) 225-3433
The Blue Dogs who were with us:
Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893
Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: (202) 225-4801, Fax: (202) 225-4392 [did not vote]
Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830
Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377
Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615
Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671
Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638
Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284
Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807
Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394
The Blue Dogs who were with the Republicans:
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038
Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594
Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035
Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172
Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996
Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422
RayC @ 89:
FISA should be repealed as unconstitutional. There are war powers that give intelligence tools that are needed to be one up on the enemy. All the reasoning that has been thrown around about FISA and it's necessity is BS. The dumbing down of America has been effective in that nobody challenges the original purpose of FISA. We have all been distracted into a numbing debate that really should be turned 180 degrees to having FISA repealed all together.
The credit for the tally goes to Kos -> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/14/15714/0966/292/476683
Chip
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 51:
HAHAHAHAHAHA GO NADS! GO NADS! GO NADS! GO NADS! GO NADS!
There are some changes that I'd make to FISA, if I were dictator.
Exclusivity. YES
Reports to Congress on FISC decisions, including copies of the claims made by the Exec Branch. YES
Clarity on whether data passing through the US (from outside to outside) are covered. NO
Do not forget the ability of the joint conference committee to strip non immunity from the house version.
The ability of setting up a smoke screen to hide individual accountability was perfected by the Republicans but is still utilized by Dems. Here also is where the REAL full court press begins with Bush Cheney and national press indicating that all protections are going to expire. We cannot afford to devote more time to legislation - We're all going to die. Or at least your children will and you will suffer crippling guilt for the rest of your life.
RayC @ 89:
CoIntelPro - against Divisive Democrats @ 93:
Steny Hoyer is solid, it seems to me.
When constituents pay attention the House pays attention. Especially at this time in the cycle.
Let them keep kicking the ball down the road while keeping the pressure up.
The Senate is a different beast entirely.
Bush can only sound more and more shrill.
95 Chip
Why do politicians from Tennessee have such funky sounding names?
The one who voted agin it.
Alice Hussein @ 87:
No 1/3 of them every two years.
They have six year terms.
ysbaddaden @ 105:
Hoyer's in da House. That's a two-year gig.
ysbaddaden @ 105:
Steny Hoyer is in the House, Maryland’s Fifth Congressional District.
tim shea @ 100:
Isn't it interesting how many little facts are being surfaced the last couple of days that benefit the arguments of all the Bush Admin. Like a high-profile Al-Queda target was captured last summer, or McCain spreading fear. Hopefully now Americans recognize the spin and ignore it.
I fully expected them to cave. I'm pleasantly shocked that they did not. Good. Maybe they are beginning to get the message. It's long past time that they did.
Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.
So now, Bush will just tell his pet judges to dismiss any lawsuits against ATT and the spooks.
This reeks of rotten corruption.
About freaking time.!!!
The next thing we need to accomplish in order to get our country back is to get the 60 Vote majority in the house so we can over-ride the idiots Veto power. Even at that, it will take a lot of time to get the Ship of State off the Reef where it has been aground for 7 years.
Alice Hussein @ 107:
I was going by the picture of Nancy Pelosi and the description beneath of the issues, but it seems y'all were refering to the House.
Liberalism was cleary the only place left to go after Reagan, but how can you even be a liberal after 7 years of limp rejoinders, failed political gambits, spinless concessions and that douche-queen Pelosi? For fuck's sake it's time to vote for the most extreme hard-liner who'll ruin everything, so we get to the next revolution faster.
One little victory.
F-U-C-K Y-O-U
G.W.B.
Jaycubed @ 33:
Spitzer?
Liberal Traitor @ 20:
Clever, blaming her for accomplishing the FISA vote and for NEVER offering immunity.
• Here's your reality check:
1) The bill is DEAD in the Senate.
2) The bill will be vetoed.
3) There are still no where near enough free votes in the Senate for a Bushco conviction.
4) Please go back to blaming Pelosi for everything you don't understand as soon as possible. It would be too freaky if people weren't wondering about her balls.
Left&Left @ 26:
Yeah, true. However, bush will tell Congress to "go fuck youselves" when he vetoes
any piece of legislation that is presented to him that does not include immunity for
the telecom industry...So what, pray tell, has been gained since there are not enough
votes to override his veto?
Lollimom @ 36:
She is responsible for the fact that they HAVEN'T attacked Iran yet.
A failed impeachment in February 2007 would have produced a war against Iran in March or April of last year (pre-NIE).
WOW is right, of course the Shrub has said he will veto it. They really don't want any investigation into this, otherwise we the people will find out what they the fascists have been up to all these miserable Bush years.
My latest cartoon is about this very subject, it's up on my website now.
www.whatnowtoons.com
Cartoons for the coming Progressive age.
Thank you Speaker Pelosi and all those who voted correctly to protect the American people by upholding the Constitution. It is your greatest strength. Don't ever forget that!!!!! Never concede. Otherwise you are subject to the whim of dictators.
wait...
bush will just veto this again, right?
i don't see why this is so celebrated when we have seen time and time again that the dem leaders ALWAYS cave in the long-term.
please correct me if i'm mistaken and this is solid, but don't they need 60%, and didn't they NOT get that?
Doggiebobo @ 117:
Why do ANYTHING? Why not just give up?
Tomorrow quite a few of your neighbors will be marching and standing with signs, shouting about justice, shouting about human rights. Why bother?
Why bother protesting? Why even PRETEND to have morality?
Holding the line in the House is good in and of itself. This House is holding open the possibility of change, even if it cannot force it through singlehandedly. And those protests are holding open the possibility of change, even if you don't get your ass on the color tv.
not to mention it won't pass through the senate anyway?
Ryan From Portland @ 121:
The bill they passed has not been vetoed yet. So, simple majority passed it.
Left&Left @ 26:
You trying to put kindanasty rice out of a job?
Jasper von Holywater @ 113:
I see Ralph Nader has decided to drop by.
Nice spitting on the Speaker for her accomplishment. That will bring in the Green votes!
Doggiebobo @ 117:
It forces the Senate and "W" to vote against and veto a bill that addresses the actual security concerns they've cited, and puts them on the defensive on the issue, for the first time.
Also allows for more of the fear mongering to be debunked as so much as since the Senate
passed their versionbetrayed us all.A lot of the public has been punked by the ads on CNN and other stations stating that congress has endangered us by not passing an "expired" bill, but fewer will rally when the only issue is telecom immunity.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 2:
Exactly the word outta my mouth when I read this!
PS: I'm not even American, and this entire process has greatly disturbed me.
If I may, I saved this (C&L) comment a few months ago, and would like to re-post it for all to read again. Thanks BigKAd.
---->>BigKAD @ 41:
OK.. I’m searching for some middle-ground here. I agree that our civil liberties must be protected. Technologies that allow us to communicate in so many ways keep improving and we have to find a way to act quickly to gather the intelligence necessary to stop these threats.
I don’t think just stating that in every case, we should just spend the time to get a warrant is an acceptable answer. That is, I think the problem is more complex then that.
How about some alternatives being put forth here, or describe what you think Democrats will do differently.
Thank you.
--->>(BigKAD here) You sound smart, but you got this all mixed up. You don’t give up your rights. Elite groups (like in the case of the failed Soviet oligarchy), and kings, lords, emperors, high priests, you name it, from the dawn of civilization have tried to get the peasants to shit their pants just hard as possible and give up all their rights.
And so you shouldn’t. You never get even the slightest bit safer for the loss of a right.
Governments don’t keep you safe, you keep you safe. If someone breaks into your house I’m afraid it will be all up to you to defend yourself and if your plane gets taken over odds are good it’ll be down to the moral courage of you and your fellow passengers to do something about it.
Your safety has always been your responsibility and you’ve done a fine job of it, so don’t let yourself be deceived that someone else has been looking out for you. The only thing that truly protects you are the laws of the land that are built on your Constitutional Rights. That’s it. Without them, some skeazy cop who likes your girlfriend could lock you up or tap your phone, rummage through your house and screw with your life. Nope, you have rights, rights that if violated will get people fired and sued and all of that stuff. And these are all good things that men died for on battlefields and everything — just so you could have some breathing room.
It is an illusion that giving up freedom will make you safer and it is one the founding fathers talked about over and over again. Always remember it is a cowardly thing to surrender a civil liberty and all it ever results in is more power going into the hands of the people who told you how scared you should be… and I hate to break it to you, but the reason these scum bag politicians, with rare exception, are into politics, is for power. And more is better when it comes to people who want political power. So, when you hand over your rights don’t be surprised that it makes perfect sense to them.
So, our founding fathers warned us to be very suspicious of those who would tell us to be afraid or hard sell us on how inconvenient our rights are. We are as Americans supposed to JEALOUSLY guard our rights and spurn people who would talk us out of them.
So, even if it seems like things are less efficient if we keep our rights, it is still far far far better to preserve those rights and not live in a hyper steroidal surveillance police state.
Wire tapping always gets abused always, already WAS getting abused. They should get a warrant from a thoughtful judge so that police don’t get used by corrupt politicians to demolish their enemies with wanton wiretapping and dirt collecting. The laws they are trying to undermine are all about circumventing oversight… without oversight in a Constitutional Republic you get tyranny guaranteed.
So, the most honorable patriotic thing you can do is resist the destruction of your rights.
Quote This Comment
October 11th, 2007 at 10:54 PM - PDT
Paul in LA @ 124:
I think we all know that it will take just a simple majority for Bill to be approved and
sent to bush, however, even if we assume 51 votes in favor(and of course that would
include LIEberman, an Independent voting "Aye"), there still are not 9, 10, or so Republicans that I know of who would "cross over" and vote to override bush's veto.
Doggiebobo @ 130:
obviously i was speaking to bush's coming veto, not a simple majority.
Alice Hussein @ 102:
Then you don't remember who it was who forced the Defense omnibus bill through in December (against the Speaker's will), funding Bushco and the Pentagon to the hilt.
The DLC, Hoyer being their leader, is tight(er) with the corporations than the Progressives, including the Speaker.
Sheehan succeeds in her stunt to replace Pelosi, and Hoyer is the next Speaker. He voted Yea, unlike her, on the Iraq Resolution. He voted Yea, unlike her, on the second supplemental with no withdrawal requirements last year. And he voted Yea, unlike her, on the omnibus bill after the blogs had gone dark for the holidays. Solid, he is.
Interesting, if the bill fails to pass out of committee, or if boosh vetoes it, telecom immunity and national security v litigation will likely become an issue for the November elections.
And here I thought it would be made-in-China flag pins and homosexual marriages.
That should read telecom immunity and national security v civil rights and litigation.
I'm not feeling too well today.
I could not resist posting this again.. I posted this yesterday relating to the same topic.
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.
Ryan From Portland @ 131:
The bill won't pass the Senate anyhow. However, the House is to be applauded. By changing the bill to go around the objections, they changed the discussion permanently. Not only did they save FISA, but they removed the issue of a blanket immunity entirely. And one will not be coming from the House in any case, as a result.
Brilliant.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 35:
Everyone switches to Euros. Dollar declines.
rcca @ 135:
That is correct. It's called COMMITMENT.
But you can wander around in your life pretending to be free.
I'm not yet convinced we should be cheering too loudly for this.
Link
rcca @ 135:
You're right -- there is no classified material they can't discuss in public. What are they thinking?
There's a frist: the right result came about!
web_geek @ 139:
Paul in LA @ 138:
Is your commitment to your party or to your country?
rcca @ 143:
Are YOU protesting tomorrow? Or are you taking the time off to talk with your dog?
I protest today, tomorrow, and next Wednesday. I have protested more than 700 hours since 2002. How much have you done? How much is your commitment to your country?
Paul in LA @ 144:
Answer my question..Country or party?
cg @ 141:
It just appeared from the heavens.
Conyers and Pelosi tried to stop it from coming down from heaven, and they couldn't -- the bastids!
And now all their hard work producing this result is SPOILED! It came about -- like magic. Where's the glory in that?
rcca @ 145:
Answer my question... Sitting on your ass, or protesting?
Login or Register to post comments.