Jesus H. Christ. We have the sorriest bunch of democrats I have ever seen and I'm getting pretty old. Vote the bastards OUT!

Can Dodd Filibuster in the senate?

Press Obama for a stance against immunity. I called the Obama campaign today and asked Obama to come out publicly against immunity. The person who I talked to said he’d had several calls on this and would pass it along. Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone, although others say the line is busy.

866-675-2008 option 6

I sent a fax to his Senate office and got through an hour ago 10:30 pdst

His office Fax: 202-228-4260

Free online faxing: http://faxzero.com/

I don't know what to do now.

Maybe it's time to give up, get my own black shirt and jack boots and join The Party.

The Democratic Leadership in the House & Senate want to cave in to Bush. The threat of actual, enthusiastic testimony from telecoms in exchange for reduced prosecution has been the only glimmer of hope of finding out the enormity of Little Georgie and The Big Dick's massive spying on Americans.

I guess it worked very well. They found enough to silence the Democratic Leadership. I wonder what could be so horrible that they would sell out the 4th Amendment.

I hang my head in disgust...

What will Saint Obama do?!

Change We Can Believe In?

My Rep. is Ed Markey, who has been doing a good job opposing this from the beginning. I spoke to someone in his office today who told me the Congressman would be fighting this in anyway he could.
I don't know if this will help the ultimate result, but at least not everyone has sold out.

HF

Notice that none of the glowing reports of "bipartisan" compromise even mentions the words "telecom immunity".

Remember in The Princess Bride when that "Sicilian" character keeps saying, "Inconceivable!" till finally Andre the Giant says, "I don't think that means what you think it does."

I don't think "compromise" means what Democratic leaders think it does.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Solazzo, um, I mean Obama is key - he must make a very clear public statement against Cheney's Gift Basket -

866-675-2008 option 6

I think calls should be made to Dodd's office to encourage him to again make the 'last stand' to protect our constitution!

I have!

This is a travesty. We must NOT support Bush wiping his ass with the constitution by forgiving in a blanket-fashion all those that helped him squeeze this out.

Let's all put our money where our mouth is and support candidates that will not bend over for him and the thugs in charge.

Here's where: http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

Also, KUDOS TO WEXLER!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/19/1496/08210/539/538481

Wexler of Florida will NOT support this 'compromise'!

I think it is worth reading the text of what the proposed legislation says. It requires a Telcom provider to show a court that they received a written request from (a) the AG or head of an Intelligence Community Element, and that (b) the request included a statement that there had been a determination of lawfullness.

This seems to a fair statement of what has long been the law -- a good faith reliance by a citizen (even a corporate citizen) on a clear statement by the government of what the law is, should be prevent that same government from prosecuting that citizen, or allowing that citizen to be sued for accepting the Government's representation. Ordinarily, we want to live in a society where people can rely on "official" government statements of the law without fear of facing a civil suit.

The problem here is really that we have a government that we do not trust to behave in good faith in issuing such a statement -- but the remedy there is to vote them out of office. The alternative is difficult to conceive -- we would all be forced to rely on statements by the Executive Branch at our peril.

Imagining counterfactual hypotheticals illustrates the point. Would we want corporations to refuse to accept EPA directives regarding pollution, and expect them to litigate each one (or face a stockholder civil suit?).

My position outlined above, I recognize, is a bit legalistic, although I don't think that diminishes its validity. But there is a non-legal political dimension to this. I fear Republicans have (deliberately) set this up to distract Democrats, particularly our left wing, from the real issue: an Executive Branch that is out of control and untrustworthy (and a new Republican candidate who may follow that mold). They are betting that faced with the prospect of bashing "big business" we will lose sight of the real problem, and, mindlessly, spend our energy decrying the Telephone Company.

Again, read the legislation, and now we should focus on the key point: the language in the legislation which says that the request to the Telcom must have been "authorized" by the President, and "determined to be lawful." This is where the civil liberties fight really should take place: who, how and why made that critical determination of lawfulness?

Here we have yet another example of a profoundly broken federal system, an illness that persists regardless of which party is in charge. Obama may have cut the legs out from under the entitled dem big-money donors, but the key players remain entrenched.

And that leadership will not be changing next year. Steney Hoyer is criminally neglegent as far as I am concerned. You do not grant immunity until you know what the goods are.

A mix of greed and cowardice, where one drives t'other. Obama's grass roots org is now impacting this broken federal system.

Who will prevail?

Chris Dodd, your country needs you now more than ever.

Cowards!

Poltroons!

These lily-livered wimpocrats have outdone even themselves this time. What's the point of even acting as though they haven't given away the store? It would be better if they simply announced what they got in return for an agreement to completely capitulate to the Republicans? How dare they! Hoyer and Rockefeller have violated their oath to protect the Constitution and the laws of the land. Anyone who votes for this piece of shit does likewise.

Vote Green instead. Write your own name in on the ballot. Don't vote.

But stop enabling.

"Capitulation: the act of capitulating or surrendering to an enemy upon stipulated terms."

Well, I called Hoyer's office and sent the following email:

Speaker Pelosi,

Like many Democrats -- I suppose "most" would be more accurate -- I have
been disappointed by Congress's lack of action in ending the disastrous and
illegal war in Iraq. Despite my disappointment, I have preserved my respect
and admiration for what you have been able to do, since I realize that this
stuff isn't easy.

However, I cannot be tolerant or understanding or sympathetic or anything
other than enraged when I read that you are coming to what is laughably
called a "compromise" on the matter of FISA renewal, and in particular the
question of providing immunity for telephone companies for their past,
probably illegal, actions. What in God's name are you thinking? There is no
reason whatsoever to do anything except insist on maintaining the law.

If you in fact cave in on this, I will consider you to be equally guilty as
the criminal Bush administration, and I will certainly not support the
Democratic party any further. This is simply disgraceful, and it is yet
another very sad day for America. You should be ashamed.

** sigh **

Again, to clarify. The text of compromise is not, to be precise, a grant of immunity. It is outlining a defense, the proper assertion of which results in the dismissal of the suit.

Yes, I know this has the same practical effect, but the principle at the heart of this effort is profoundly different.

The compromise says: If a citizen (again, even a corporate citizen) relied on an official statement by the Executive Branch stating that the President had authorized the activity, and that it had been deterined to be lawful, that reliance will not be "second-guessed" by a court in a subsequent civil suit.

This is very different from a prosecutors grant of immunity in exchange for cooperation. In that case, we are saying: I will give you something of value (a get out of jail free card) in exchange for something else of value (your testimony against another criminal); that is very different from saying you wont have to defend yourself if your relied on the government when choosing your action.

I would underscore two core principle at stake here: first, that citizens should be able to rely (in most circumstances) on the Executive Branch to state what the law is; and (2) I prefer my law to be described by Government lawyers, not corporate lawyers.

A third corallary to the two principles: If you dont like the way the Executive Branch interprets the law -- vote them out

Strange Bedfellows Unite to Fight FISA Deal

Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU and liberal blogs are uniting
Contact: Liz Rose (202) 675-2312 media@dcaclu.org
For Immediate Release: June 18, 2008

DONATE: thestrangebedfellows.com

I have!

I just (3:53pm edt) called the Obama campaign. they said they've received "hundreds" of call today and are logging them all. I asked that HE filibuster the bill. Anyway, keep up the calls!

This is why I consider myself an independent, although I would never vote for a Republican. The GOP is evil and the Democrats are the sorriest excuse for an opposition party (even when they are in the majority) imaginable.

It many ways John "Jay" Rockefeller (WV), House Majority Leader Steny Rockerfeller (MD) just SHOT Barak Obama in the exact say way white men shot Martin Luther King, Jr., because anyway you look at it, it was still an assassination by White-men, every bit as bloodly and calculated. Rockerfeller and Hoyer were and are not Dems really anyway, - they were and are assassins that don't want change.

I guess Obama won't make it to promise land for a lot of African Americans, at least not this year or next few years. And I'm sure that partisan people like Josh and Kos will use every partisan BS in the book - but it's game over, it's game over.

Obama CANNOT lead and that is a fact in issue, and it is indisputable at this time.

The Dem Party HAS to get rid of the Rockerfeller's and Rockerfellers and Hoyers of the Party to make any difference at all. And the only thing to do is set your sites on 2012. That's all you can do.

The beginning of a real 3rd party?

.

Maynard,

You ask a great question. Until the passage of FISA (1970s), domestic electronic surveillance was conducted without any judicial process -- the Executive Branch made the decision alone. This authority was understood to flow directly from the President's Constitutional authorities (Article II) This differs from evidence-gather criminal wiretaps (often called "Title III" taps), which require a search-warrant-line judicial action.

FISA then created a judicial analogue to the Title III process for Foreign Intelligence. But the open question always was: what happened to the original constitutional authority of the President? Was it extinguished by FISA? Replaced by FISA? Did it still exist? This question was largely academic, but good, honest lawyers, debated it in the abstract.

Until this President tested it -- the non-FISA surveillance we are talking about here is the return of, and exercise of, that original power.

So the question is: does it still exist?

No court has definitively ruled on this. And it was this exact question that faced a TELCOM lawyer when handed the piece of paper asking for surveillance (paper that was not, on its face, a warrant).

I am not sure which way courts would rule (I know which way I would rule, but I am still waiting for my Supreme Court appointment). But the so-called "immunity" question is whether the question of what is the law should be tested in a civil suit between, in which the loser pays the winner damages (and neither is the Government)?

The compromise says: if the Government told you that the Attorney General had determined that surveillance outside FISA was lawful, you could rely on that without place you (or your company) in jeapordy.

I have registered my concern here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/mypolicy

It all takes us back to what Howard Dean said:

What do I own the Democratic Party - People, it's a meaningless label? Gore wasn't wrong, it isn't about Howard - it is about us.

I would continue to support Obama in a third Party status. I would support Howard Dean in a third Party status.

What say you?

What say you people for CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?

It is time, indeed it is past time to split the Democratic Party in two.

In the words of William Wallace I scream the same words "Freedom"! "Freedom"!

We cannot keep doing this shit, we just can't.

One way of looking at this is that the Telcos get off by dropping a dime on the White House for violating the constitutional rights of their subscribers. Evidence for impeachment proceedings?

Just heard this.

REID SPOKESMAN STATEMENT ON FISA DEAL

Washington, DC—Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made the following statement today regarding a new version of a foreign intelligence surveillance law:

“Senator Reid believes this version is better than the bill the Senate passed in February and much better than the Protect America Act signed by the President last summer, but he remains opposed to retroactive immunity and is reviewing the bill in its entirety.”

This is a compromise BUT this bill says the president has to produce documents that show who was being wiretapped. If they did pass it without the compromise, THIS president would just veto it. Once we get a new president, we can change this law!

Folks, if you think the Democrats in question are caving you are seriously missing what is really going on here.

Here's a simple question. What would motivate Sten Hoyer and David Rockefeller, et. al., to agressively push for this bill under a Democratically led congress with total control of what comes to the floor, and functional pre-existing FISA bill and what looks like a coming Democratic landslide in less than 6 months?

These people are dirty and that is what will come out should the lawsuits against the telecoms go forward. How dirty? I measure that by the level of effort they are putting forth to make this thing go away.

I am begging whoever is running this Actblue/Strangebedfellows thing to make this a primary and permanent project.

It is really amazing that these Blue Dogs don't recognize that what we did to the Republicans we will also do to them.

So let's do it. Outenzie!

Update: The House Dems may cave, but at least Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy have said they are unalterably opposed to the immunity provision. I'd be shocked if Senator Sheldon Whitehouse did not support the Leahy/Feingold position. Keith Olbermann covered this story tonight with Jonathan Turley, making it clear what was at stake and why House Dems are so pliant: they were complicit. We have not lost on this issue, at least not yet! (ACLU is also working overtime to organize opposition.)

Alexander Hamilton seem to be forgetting tha main point; law was on the books and used for such wiretapping; the Bush Administration felt itself above existing law(all one had to do was watch the CSPAN Senate hearings to understand).

Secondly, not only does this do away with the 'warrantless eavesdropping' that occurred AFTER 9/11 BUT also that which occurred before. It also precludes any State Court action AND allow sthe U.S. to sue anyuone bringing a suit on this issue(like Blackwater suing those who sued it). The pertinent sections of the bill follow:
‘‘SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY
DEFENSES.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the
intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that
‘‘(1) any assistance by that person was provided
pursuant to an order of the court established under
section 103(a) directing such assistance;
‘‘(2) any assistance by that person was provided
pursuant to a certification in writing under section
2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United
States Code;
‘‘(3) any assistance by that person was provided
pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4),
105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;
‘‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was—
‘‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was—
‘‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007;
and ‘‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United
States; and ‘‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of
an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that
the activity was—
‘‘(i) authorized by the President; and
‘‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or
‘‘(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.
‘‘(b) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—
‘‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS.—A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not
supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.
‘‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS.—In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification,
written request, or directive described in subsection
(a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).
‘‘(c) LIMITATIONS ON DISCLOSURE.—If the Attorney
General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28,
United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made
pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials
provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the
national security of the United States, the court shall—
‘‘(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and
‘‘(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such
certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.
‘‘(d) ROLE OF THE PARTIES.—Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and
shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified
information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court’s written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and
maintain such part under seal.
‘‘(e) NONDELEGATION.—The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.
‘‘(f) APPEAL.—The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.
‘‘(g) REMOVAL.—A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title
28, United States Code.
‘‘(h) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.
‘‘(i) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
‘‘SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No State shall have authority to—
‘‘(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider’s alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;
‘‘(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider’s alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;
‘‘(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or
‘‘(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose
information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.
‘‘(b) SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES.—The United
States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.
‘‘(c) JURISDICTION.—The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of this section.

This compromise is nothing but a self-protection act for the Democrats in Congress who went along with the President in breaking the law.

The articles of impeachment filed by Dennis Kucinich cannot be overlooked as a catalyst for this "compromise" suddenly appearing. The more it looks likely that legal accountability will be taken, the more people start to get scared - Republicans and Democrats.

The only question now is: will one Senator - who is not complicit in breaking the law - prevent this bill from becoming law?

==I do understand that the law was on the books, and I also understand that the Administration holds the legal opinion that the President still had "residual" power to engage in domestic electronic surveillance outside the statute.==

Where is this power mentioned? We are not in the middle of a civil war or an armed insurrection. Our rights, under the Constitution, to be free from unreasonable warantless searches appear to be still intact and active.

President's arguments as to his "inherent" unitary powers have been struck down again and again by the USSC. It is also quite well established in American law, that once a statute is passed by Congress regulating a power of the Executive branch not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the executive branch has to abide by this law and see that it is executed faithfully.

So, no, I really don't see any real legal argument here. One can twist the plain legal meanings into a pretzel, much like some who claim that possible violations of a non-related 12 year old cease-fire UNSC resolution gave us the right to attack Iraq in 2003, but one should not confuse political legalisms with actual legal analysis and viable argument. One only has to survey the current legal history of the related attempts by President's lawyers to establish an "inherent" war-power doctrine to recognize it obvious legal failings. The domestic surveillance power grab will surely meet the same fate. It would be to the shame of the people who have supported it.

Today I emailed Pelosi and Hoyer. I called my Rep even though he is a republican, my two Senators, the Obama campaign, Dennis Kucinich, Tim Ryan, and John Conyers. I was very forceful with letting them all know that they need to take their oath to the constitution seriously.

I told them how I had contributed money to the actblue campaign against Steny Hoyer already, and why. Tomorrow I will call them all again at least once.

This is an abysmal moment in this country's history. Can't we citizens arrest these crooks for violating our constitutional rights? Can we start a constitutional ammendment to double protect us from warrantless searches? It already is in our constitution!!!

WTF else is there to do???? I think we need to be in the streets in Washington when the Senate is considering this. Maybe Harry Reid is our only chance, and he doesn't really seem to care.

I will not forgive or forget. You too Obama, you will not get any more money from me if you chicken out.

This is why people vote for Nader, plain and simple.