I don't get it. Why is everyone so upset about Dems reaching across the aisle to their GOP counterparts in a fine example of
bi-partisanship? Can't wait for the "post partisan" era to begin!

This is why Bush laughs when people call him a "failed" and "unpopular" president. He has succeeded in enriching the people he was sent to Washington to enrich (thanks to 9/11, beyond their wildest dreams) and is extremely popular with them. He will bask in their gratitude for the rest of his life, so what's the problem? A happy guy who fulfilled his potential and then some.

Since it looks like the Democrats are going to cave again anyway, perhaps it's time for a compromise.

How about we agree to telecom amnesty ONLY FOR ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=civilliberties_232

Has anyone watching the discussions about this even heard the pre-911 stuff brought up? Is it possible there are those who don't KNOW about the pre-911 requests?

Maybe they need a few phone calls/faxes/emails to remind them?

Hell, why should we respect any laws that impose obligations backed by monetary punishment? Thety are illusory when push comes to shove immunity will be given. Immunity necessarily dictates that our current laws deserve absolutely no respect for they are meaningless.

They are doing this on one of the biggest news day of the month. It provides cover for their actions.

Much of the congress is fixed, bribed or blackmailed - who knows, but there is an endless migration to do what Bush wants.

Anyone watching the congress can see that the public has no say, the system has been fixed.

Doing this under cover of Tuesday elections is a giveaway to what a sham is being perpetrated on us.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Oh, wait, scratch that. Nevermind, must have gotten the wrong country.

BP

While we are giving immunity to the telecoms for their patriotic duty, can't we ratify the State Department's questionable grant of immunity to Blackwater employees (and, okay, Blackwater itself). That way, we can eliminate two bothersome Constitutional distractions and Congress finally get back to Roger Clemens.

I must be awfully thick. I fail to see how it is a patriotic act to violate our laws and step all over our Constitution. Can somebody please tell me know what is the key to arriving at this conclusion.

The notion that violations of written law should be rewarded with amnesty is baffling. But with the shoe on the other foot, if any real American did this and vioalted the law, we would be laughed out of court if we "demanded" immunity.

What's happened to the "leadership" that they would believe rewarding this illegal activity is American? This smacks of the same arrogance which sparked the Magna Carta.

If the Congress does decide to cave, and reward the President for his illegal activity, let's discuss some new oversight for the US government.

This shows the Congress has missed the point of FISA:

WaPO: A key congressional aide said that the issue is one that must be reviewed carefully, and a balance must be struck between appropriate court review and avoiding "protracted litigation."

The intent of the FISA Court was to do just that: Balance. Yet, this Congress is, in effect, rewriting the Constitution and FISA requirements; then rewarding the telecoms and President for violating them.

Why is this Congress reluctant to permit the FISA Court to rule on the violations; and why is the Congress relucant to enforce the warrant requirement?

The time for "review" and "balancing" isn't now or then; the issue is the forum. Not the Congress, but court.

It was the arrogant defiance of written law which sparked the events of 1776. This Congress would have us remain under the despotic abuses of the British Empire. Do we no longer have a declaration of independence or a Constitution? Let's prosecute these members of Congress, not reward them.

This "basis for immunity" is absurd:

should those who stepped forward to say we're going to help defend America have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves

Where's the President's "love of the media" when they dared to come to the defense of the Constitution?

What about those who stepped forward to defend the Constitution with their reporting on the illegal activity of the NSA?

This President would use the crushing power of intrusive litigation to dissuade the media from reporting on his illegal activity. Conversely, this President has no respect for the law or the court: He refuses to cooperate with the Congress or the Court. He blocks oversight.

Down W's Rabbit Hole.

The Congress' action defy reason. Their actions raise reasonable questions about their fitness for office, and compliance with their oath of office. The Judiciary Committee hasn't yet received all the information, much less reviewed it.

[A] resolution has been delayed partly by the need for all members of the House Judiciary Committee to gain access to the letters and other relevant documents sent to the phone companies by the administration requesting their assistance. From

- Why is there a rush to approve this, but not give the Members of Congress time to review the data?

- What are the Members of Congress "negotiating" over when they haven't had time to review the documents, much less discuss their strategy?

- Why is the Congress negotiating in the dark, but they are rewarding with confirmations the President's refusal to cooperate on the US Atty firings?

The President and Congress must be challenged: They do not have judicial power to affect ongoing litigiation.

Why is the President and Congress unwilling to permit the judicial branch decide matters of law; and give the telecoms their chance to explain why they should not be held to account for their illegal activity?

Why are the Congress and President reluctant to permit the Courts to adjudiate this matter?

The President does not trust the "American values" that he says are at the core of the illegal American invasion of Iraq.

The President and Congress do not respect the judicial system enough to permit it to independently act, adjudicate, and review facts.

The President and Congress are the domstice enemies. Prosecute them.

Some of you may be wondering, "What can we do?" There's a rule the House Rules Committee must pass to permit this FISA bill from reaching the House Floor.

Call your Member of Congress and tell them you want them to oppose the rule that would permit this FISA immunity bill from reaching the Floor. ( Details )

The House is acting as if it has no option and must rubber stamp "something". Non-sense.

This is a leadership problem. Support this petition to remove Pelosi as Speaker, and force the House to confront the leadership.

The Congress has confronted the Constitution. The public must confront the Congress.

Putting aside whether this is true or not, take a look at this:

The real concern, he said, is primarily e-mail, because "essentially you don't know where the recipient is going to be" and so you would not know in advance whether the communication is entirely outside the United States. From

This would ask us to believe that an email account cannot be pinpointed. Conversely, it must mean that the NSA has been vacuuming everything, and then sorting through the data after they collected it to determine whether they should or should not get a warrant.

If they don't know "where the recipient is located," how do they know who to render, detain, or target for prosecution because of their "terrorism connection"? Oh, that's right: The entire world is subject to US law for purposes of violating rights; but the US government is above the law for purposes of holding them accountable for violation of those rights.

It is this double standard on the law which inspires the world's contempt for the American "model" of governance.

The US government has a problem when there are proven means to know the content of emails, and the recipients do not open the email. What's worse: Disclosing someone is the subject of intelligence gathering; or for that target to be able to communicate without the US knowing where they are?

This immunity bill will not provide the US government with better information; nor will it make people disclose information they're not required to disclose. This "technical problem" is an illusory crisis to prompt the Congress to quickly act without thinking. We saw the same thing with the Patriot Act, NSLs, and the POW abuses.

"Patriotism" means challenging false information, which did not happen before the invasion of Iraq. This is a false analogy and rings of the Stalinist Jingoism used to justify genocide in Siberia:

[A]ny company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service

The activity must be lawful, not simply justified on the assertion of security. Yet, the record is the opposite. Unreliable information, captured by the NSA, did prompt the Congress to rubber stamp an illegal invasion of Iraq. This decreased American security.

The NSA contractors, before the invasion of Iraq, didn't save lives, but they helped ensure tens of thoustands of innocent Iraqis were killed during an illegal invasion. The foreseeable consequences of this illegal warfare is a blowback against the United States. Again, this decreases American security.

The NSA contractors have been muzzled, and prevented from openly discussing how the illegally captured information has been used. The false, unrelablie information has been a pretext for illegal warfare, POW abuses, and other illegal activity that is contributing to less American security. Had there been a real debate, and challenge of the methods and source of inforation, the Congress might have credibly checked the President's absurd arguments. Because they did not, American's security has been substantially diminished.

It is not patriotic for the telecoms to silently permit their illegal activities support subsequent unlawful warfare and Geneva violations. Arguably, it is a subsequent war crime which the WH-EOP-DoJ legal counsel knows, or should know, would attach to the telecoms, President, and policy makers in Congress.

Only a frat boy would ask us to bend over and take it and then say "Thank you sir, may I have another".