Comments (43)

Crust wrote on January 23, 2008 1:58 PM:

Glenn Greenwald:

"Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.

To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/23/reid/index.html

JohnJ wrote on January 23, 2008 2:00 PM:

Reid to Chimpy: "please, please, please let me look like I can do my job".

Darth to Reid: "ha ha ha ha, on your knees dog. How dare you try to talk directly to the King".

ss wrote on January 23, 2008 2:01 PM:

Yesterday, Kennedy (with cosponsor Specter) announced a state secrets privilege modification bill (s.2533)... this is the privilege at the heart of the dispute over the fate of the TSP lawsuits... how much do you want to bet that the revised privilege would require the courts to dismiss lawsuits against the telecoms...

TheraP wrote on January 23, 2008 2:03 PM:

ooooh.... "selfishly wrecking havoc" on the schedules of Senators.... sworn to uphold the Constitution, the Rule of Law!

Go, Senator Dodd! Thank you Senator Feinstein!

These folks need to realize that We the People are depending on them to uphold their oath of office... and the Rule of Law!

Real Filibuster! Go for it!

LD82 wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

Thank God for Senator Dodd.

chabuka wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

I do hope that Senators Obama, Clinton and Biden will be there to support Chris Dodd...this time! I don't care how "busy campaigning" they are...!

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 2:17 PM:

Yep, thank God for Dodd. Now if only the rest of the dems could get some cahones!!!! Oops that might be considered sexist, how about guts? The orginal fisa law is perfectly fine. I really don't see the problem here. Let the bs expire.

Egypt Steve wrote on January 23, 2008 2:22 PM:

I'll be writing in Dodd in the New York primary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 2:24 PM:

Good for Sen Dodd. My hat is off to him.

gcs wrote on January 23, 2008 2:25 PM:

I agree, Dodd is a hero especially in a Senate full of snivelling whining weasels.

Let's also hope Obama appoints Dodd AG, so he can spend eight years prosecuting the entire Bush/Cheney cabal for their crimes.

JW wrote on January 23, 2008 2:26 PM:

I've made clear to my democratic representatives that if the Telcoms are granted immunity, my days of voting for that party are over forever. I mean it, too.

P J Evans wrote on January 23, 2008 2:27 PM:

If Clinton and Obama want to convince me that they can lead the country, then they need to go do their jobs, and that means supporting Dodd's proposed filibuster with their presence, and with talking until they lose their voices.

Otherwise they're just wannabe-Presidents with more flash than substance, and I won't vote for either one.

Daniel wrote on January 23, 2008 2:28 PM:

Will someone please stand up for the rule of law??! Senator Dodd, I salute you!

When do Dempoodles, like Harry Reid, get voted out?

biff diggerence wrote on January 23, 2008 2:30 PM:

Thanks (again), Senator Dodd.

I emailed David Bonior at Edwards campaign today.

If Edwards starts raising hell on telecom immunity, I'll send some more frogskins.

Slim wrote on January 23, 2008 2:32 PM:

People like Dodd are the only thing keeping me in the party at the moment. Let's hope they can take control of it!

blackstar wrote on January 23, 2008 2:34 PM:

O Chris Dodd! Silver-maned, stalwart defender of justice! may ye giant balls continue to grow in magnificence and never shrink from fear of conservative backlash! tho ye be old, ye surely has the heart of a young stallion in the face of bad legislation! may every Hillary Clinton mention of "experience" immediately link to your Senate website, even on TV!

hail Dodd!

Daniel wrote on January 23, 2008 2:35 PM:

Obama!! Speak up!! Support Senator Dodd! How many times can Democrats roll over and still maintain the appearance of opposition?

oldtree wrote on January 23, 2008 2:38 PM:

Thanks Senator Dodd. We, the people, appreciate it and will not forget

Mr. Purple wrote on January 23, 2008 2:47 PM:

Thank god for Chris Dodd! At least someone might stick up for the rule of law... I just don't get it? Why in the heck would a Democratic Congress bend to the President's will with such a cut and dry case of illegal activity? It's not right... this was the exact reason the American people voted the Dems into office to stop this kind of complete disregard for the rule of law.

Mr. Purple.

JohnJ wrote on January 23, 2008 2:52 PM:

Here's an obvious idea: can we give Dodd Reid's job? I am sure Chimpy can use another fluff girl so Reid would still be employed.

krb wrote on January 23, 2008 2:54 PM:

I am so sick of my party caving into a lame duck president and his corrupt cronies!!! No immunity for those who defied the law. Quest stood up to Bush, the other were cowards who knew they were breaking the law and did it anyway!! NO IMMUNITY!! EVER! Democrats need to grow some balls!!!!

phred wrote on January 23, 2008 3:09 PM:

THANK YOU SENATOR DODD!

I'm with PJ, if the Dem Presidential hopefuls don't lead on this issue, they don't get my vote.

There. Is that simple enough for them to understand?

eric wrote on January 23, 2008 3:10 PM:

I just don't get it? Why in the heck would a Democratic Congress bend to the President's will with such a cut and dry case of illegal activity?

Two reasons. First, the telecoms donate a lot of money to their campaign funds.

Second, they are legitimately afraid that some kind of terrorist attack will happen and that they will get blamed for not supporting this "anti-terrorist" legislation. They know what Dick Cheney is capable of, and probably suspect much more. Remember how that anthrax got mailed around after there was the slightest bit of hesitation on the patriot act?

Sid wrote on January 23, 2008 3:25 PM:

You can email Harry Reid here:
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

I sent him this short note:

Dear Sir,

You need to grow a pair. You let the Republicans slap you around.

You spend more time attacking Chris Dodd than you ever have attacking the President. At least he is willing to stand up for us. Can we give him your job? You clearly need to retire.

What is wrong with you?

A Citizen

pseudonymous in nc wrote on January 23, 2008 3:43 PM:

Better to have Reid gone from the leadership, Lieberman gone from the caucus, and Dodd in charge of the minority in a 50-50 Senate than this heap of shit.

I want his phones ringing off the hook. And I want Obama and Clinton doing their jobs in the Senate.

woody, tokin librul wrote on January 23, 2008 4:03 PM:

If Obama and Clinton do OT return to Washington, and do NOT join Chris Dodd in his filibuster, they are unworthy of the job--president--to which they aspire.

It is that fucking simple...

parrot wrote on January 23, 2008 4:21 PM:

How about we prosecute criminals and abusers of the Constitution...you know, rather than giving them immunity? Or is that too passé?

nofltwlt wrote on January 23, 2008 4:28 PM:

ME TOO!

THANK GOD FOR DODD!

What happened to the call to replace Harry with Chris? In light of the light pants that Reid seems to be wearing, we need someone who will back the enemies of Americans (BUSH, GOP and NEOCONS) down.

BSpa wrote on January 23, 2008 4:37 PM:

TheraP,

Its FeinGOLD, most definitely NOT FeinSTEIN!

Be nice if someone in the media asked Clinton, Obama and Edwards whether they're going to support - and participate, if necessary - Senator Dodd's filibuster. It would be hard for enough Dems to join a cloture vote if the three leading Dem candidates for President were in on the filibuster.

In the meantime, since I live in NY, I will be calling Senator Clinton's office - again - to ask her position on telecom community and Dodd's filibuster. 0 for 3, so far.

nogo war wrote on January 23, 2008 5:03 PM:

Coincidence?
Speaking of Telcoms...
On 8/16 CWA contract with QWEST is over..
Let's see Denver Convention wired for? MPLS Convention wired for? = QWEST

If folks thought the Writers Strike might
effect the Academy Awards...

Just a point of information...contact CWA, my info might be wrong....

Solidarity Forever!

ArthurKC wrote on January 23, 2008 5:26 PM:

I just called Edwards campaign headquarters at (919)636-3131 and the polite guy who answered said they had been getting a lot of calls on FISA and Sen. Edwards would be issuing a statement tomorrow. He said they fully supported Sen. Dodd, and believed that Senators Clinton and Obama should be present to vote to oppose telecom immunity.

It sounds as though progress is being made.

Adams wrote on January 23, 2008 5:39 PM:

My email to Obama & Clinton campaigns:

"I like your message as a Presidential candidate.

But you are also a sitting U.S. Senator, and you must show you can lead and act.

If Democrats cave on FISA again, you will look weak and indecisive.

Telecom immunity further damages our Constitutional rights, and further erodes the separation of the branches of government.

Please. Do not allow Bush and the Republican minority to bully the Democratic majority into impotence. Again.

Get in front of the opposition to FISA reauthorization and telecom immunity."

Feel free to use it or make up your own. For more ideas go to firedoglake, or digbysblog.blogspot.

Don't forget your own Senators if there's any hope, and Reid, who is much worse than spineless, but needs to hear from us.

Talk is cheap. Please do something.

judyinnm wrote on January 23, 2008 5:39 PM:

Exactly what would be wrong with simply allowing the (unconstitutional) law to expire? We'd get the Fourth Amendment partially back; and the Democrats who didin't put it on the agenda would be American Heroes!!

JimBob wrote on January 23, 2008 6:04 PM:

Thank Dog for Dodd. Why can't he be Senate Dem. Leader? Reid is the worst wimp ever to hold the job. How'd he get it, anyway?

moondancer wrote on January 23, 2008 7:08 PM:

Senator. My list of Democrats that I still respect is pitiably short. Please do not make it shorter. Thanks

Joyce wrote on January 23, 2008 8:22 PM:

If the Senate Democrats do not support Chis Dodd, it may be time for the voters to kick them all out and start with a new group of candidates.

Mary wrote on January 23, 2008 8:53 PM:

It says a lot about what the Democratic party really wants to accomplish when you have every Democratic member or ex-member of the Senate who was running for President all "nominally" at least aligned against Reid's push for the INtel bill over the Judiciary bill, and the Senate head of Intel having made public statements that he doesn't really know what the programs are and whether they broke laws or not (apparently he just like amnesty a lot?) --- and yet still Reid plows on.

The main thing it says is that there is only handpuppetry in action here. If the leaders of the Dem party really wanted Fisa immunity killed, Reid would not be doing what he is doing. Obama and Clinton are just playing along to get their lines right, while not really making it unattractive to Reid to shaft Dodd and the nation.

If the Clinton machine wanted the amnesty bill blocked, it would be blocked.

Of course, the real message both campaigns - Clinton and Obama - are sending to anyone who really believes that they are "against" amnesty, is that they are individually and collectively too weak to even work with their own party in a majority - how can either lead a nation if that's the case?

And they both talk about being able to make legislation happen, make changes happen, work with others to get deals done.

So now's their chance - show how you can close the deal.

But they won't.

Bruce Sims wrote on January 23, 2008 10:40 PM:

First, emails that aren't from 'constituents' usually get tossed; fax them like I did at:
Feinstein fax - Fax: (202) 228-3954 sent
boxer - 415-956-6701 fax
reid Fax: 202-224-7327 sent
Pelosi Fax # (202) 225-8259 sent
Davis Fax: (202) 225-2948 sent
hagel Fax: (202) 224-5213 sent
snowe Fax: (202) 224-1946
dodd | Fax: (202) 224-1083 sent
feingold Fax (202) 224-2725 sent
obama (202) 228-4260 fax sent
Clinton Fax: (202) 228-0282 sent
Edwards Fax: (919) 967-3644 sent
Second, Feinstein still hasn't given up on her idea to let the FISA court decide if the telecom's acted illegally.
Here's my letter;feel free to use/modify/etc:
I am writing to you, again, as your constituent regarding S2248 (FISA, amendments). I am also writing after receiving Senator Feinstein’s email dated 1/9/2008 at the time of 9:24AM, which spoke to the alternative offered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I am copying Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi as they are the Congressional leaders of the respective houses and think they should be aware of my writing. And I’m copying Senator Dodd, as it was his willingness to put Constitutional principle above practical regarding his Presidential bid that ought be the byword for how members of Congress engage in politics. The copies to Senator’s Obama and Clinton are to remind them of Senator Dodd’s example. And Senator Feingold as he has made comments I will be quoting.

There is a real need to mention certain points regarding this legislation and how it came about that do not pertain to the need to enhance surveillance regarding ‘terrorists’.
1. September 11th, 2001 did NOT occur because this legislation wasn’t in place; simply stated, it occurred because of the failure of the Bush Administration to act on warnings (especially those of foreign governments) and the lack of co-ordination between and within various ‘intelligence’ agencies.
I state this in particular because of the statement by Mike McConnell, Director of National Security, that, in regard to Mohamed Atta, “Terror network al-Qaeda understood that, and that's
why 9/11 happened, in my view.", referencing FISA. He asserted to a group of students in St.Mary's City, Missouri, that “the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, were caused by weak domestic wiretapping laws.” Such a blatantly false statement cannot go unchallenged and says
to me he is but another political hack installed by the Bush Administration because Congress would not challenge the appointment.
2. To think that ‘terrorists’ are not aware of the technical prowess of the United States to monitor communications simply ignores reality. Do any of you remember the United Nations scandal where the United States was ousted for planting bugs and tapping phone lines in the offices of the United Nations? And that an official of one of the countries bugged indicated that ‘everyone assumes that communications are monitored and take the necessary steps to ensure private communications?”
3. The ‘Protect America Act’ was pushed through by the Bush Administration as part of its strategy to avoid culpability for knowingly violating the law and, as you know, is EXTREMELY flawed legislation. And EVERY time civil liberties are sacrificed on the altar of ‘security’, that is but another victory for terrorism.
4. ANY legislation that Bush doesn’t concur fully with gets a ‘signing statement’ that according to his legal advice allows him the discretion to do what he please regarding legislation he signs. And NO ONE in Congress has taken him to court to regarding such legal reasoning. Adding amendments to legislation is inviting the Bush Administration to interpret such legislation as he sees fit and the ‘exclusivity’ Senator Feinstein has introduced will simply be swept aside via ‘signing statement’.
5. It is now been reported that the Bush Administration started the processes by which all communications in the United States –regardless of status or citizenship- just two weeks after taking office in 2000. This ‘should’ tell you all you need to know of the real intent in pushing for legal immunity within the changes to the FISA. How many times do you need to be lied to before you ‘get it’?

Putting aside the incredibly specious reasoning that allowing citizen lawsuits to proceed would bankrupt the telecommunications companies I would like to mention Senator Feingold’s statements he has posted online. “Granting this kind of amnesty is totally unjustified since these companies already receive immunity if they follow the law. And it’s not as if these companies don’t have lawyers to tell them what’s legal and what’s not – especially when these laws have been on the books for 30 years. It is particularly outrageous that companies think they deserve immunity for allegedly participating in an illegal program when we found out last week from the DOJ Inspector General that telecom carriers are perfectly willing to shut off wiretaps – including a foreign intelligence wiretap – when the FBI doesn’t make its payments on time.”

These telecommunication companies have very skilled lawyers and, given the example of Qwest rejecting such ‘assistance’, knew that such actions were against the law (or should have, given their expertise). And I also will mention that it has been drummed into my head since I was much younger that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Even the Unified Military Code of Justice has provisions within it for not following an unlawful order.

Senator Feingold also posted “But both the so-called Protect America Act (PAA) – the law we passed last year - and the Intelligence Committee bill go far beyond addressing that issue. They grant unprecedented powers to the executive branch to engage in widespread surveillance involving Americans, with virtually no judicial involvement.”

The ongoing assault by the Bush Administration on the U.S. Constitution’s system of checks and balances in the name of the “Unitary Executive Theory” MUST be stopped and it is Congress’ failure to combat this flawed theory that is part of the reason why citizens hold Congress in such low regard.

Again quoting Senator Feingold, “The Intelligence Committee bill doesn’t give adequate authority to the FISA court to do what it is supposed to do - operate as an independent check on the executive branch. “ Given that the House passed FISA update AND the Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill that does NOT include immunity for the telecommunication companies, one has to express wonder why Senator Reid brought the Intelligence Committee’s bill to the floor. Perhaps it was for the same reason Senator Reid refused to bring forth a bill to address removing the tax breaks from the hedge fund and private equity managers currently in force.

IF ‘bi-partisan’ means granting immunity to the telecommunications companies, then such is NOT ‘bi-partisan’ but strongly partisan in favor of corporate donors and a desire to avoid addressing the lawlessness that the Bush Administration has consistently engaged in.

The “Protect America Act” SHOULD be allowed to lapse and if you think that the Intelligence Community won’t conduct ‘much-needed surveillance’ on non-U.S. citizen’s outside of the country without authorizing legislation, allow me to remind you of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition and ‘black’ prisons outside of the country, both of which violate human rights and international law. As well as the imposition of torture in violation of U.S. law.

The one amendment to the Senate Judiciary Committee bill that makes any sense is that which extended privacy protections for United State’s citizens no matter their locale. An amendment turning over the legality of the immunity protection to the FISA court (a ‘secret’ court) is the last thing this country needs, specifically more ‘secrecy’.

The bottomline is that the House and Senate legislation that DOES NOT provide immunity but DOES provide the ‘tools’ the Bush Administration has said are necessary for the ‘war on terror’ (do any of you ever wonder why everything that is an issue in the U.S. becomes a ‘war on’?) are ALL –except the amendment that extends extraterritoriality- that needs to be passed.

If Bush wants to veto such legislation and Republican’s won’t join in a bi-partisan manner to override such a veto, then it is the Bush Administration and Republican Senators and Representatives who are to blame for not acting in a manner that supports ‘national security’. And the Democratic Party needs to be vociferous on that point.

The ‘message’ that is currently being presented to the citizenry of the United States is that, if immunity is granted, then, once again, Congress has failed in it’s responsibility to the citizenry in favor of corporate donors and a desire to avoid addressing the lawlessness that the Bush Administration has consistently engaged in. And no amount or type of amendments will overcome that idea.

The citizenry of the United States has even a lower opinion of Congress than they do of the Bush Administration and this current example of Congress putting ‘practical’ above ‘Constitutional principle’ and letting the Bush Administration ‘skate’ on it’s illegal practices is but the latest example of why that opinion is so low. If immunity is granted, it will only hasten the demise of this representative form of a republic.

And bluntly speaking, the chances of me or anyone else being harmed from driving on the California freeways is many orders of magnitude greater than being harmed by a ‘terrorist attack’. And people know that fact; governing from a basis of fear is no longer acceptable to the citizenry of the U.S. and Congress needs to realize that. It’s time to stop making a mockery of the words ‘land of the free and home of the brave’.

In closing, I implore you to NOT provide any immunity to the telecommunications companies (don’t they have enough help from the FCC already?) and put the onus on the Bush Administration and Republican’s of both Houses for not passing legislation said to be ESSENTIAL for ‘national security’.

I would also ask that this missive be read on the floor of the House’s and entered into the respective Congressional Record(s).

I would also recommend that everyone who receives this missive read David Cay Johnston’s book “Free Lunch: How The Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You with the Bill.”
The citizenry of the United States have ‘awoken’ and, paraphrasing the character in the movie ‘Network’, “We are mad as hell, and aren’t going to take this anymore!"
Sincerely,
Bruce Sims

Rory wrote on January 23, 2008 11:09 PM:

Times like this make me think how important one person can be. Not just Senator Dodd. I think of Paul Wellstone and how if he were still alive and finishing out his term in the Senate he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with Senator Dodd. What a loss!

Eric wrote on January 24, 2008 12:07 AM:

Rory,
Sorry, but Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. Only Feingold voted against it.

JA wrote on January 24, 2008 11:00 AM:

It's a done deal, the teleco will get immunity and Bushco will get everything it wants. America is dead! Our freedoms are gone. The only way to correct this is revolution!

Bob Gabel wrote on January 24, 2008 11:33 AM:

All my support has gone to Senator Dodd. I miss him in the presidential debates. There is an opportunity for the remaining candidates to show their gumption and to support the Constitution by strongly supporting Senator Dodd's efforts to prevent telcom immunity. RG

Rory wrote on January 24, 2008 12:58 PM:

Eric,
Wellstone was the only senator running for reelection in 2002 who voted against the Iraq military force authorization. He singlehandedly kept the awful bankruptcy bill from becoming law while he was alive. The Patriot Act which I wish he hadn't voted for didn't grant immunity to corporate lawbreakers. I think anyone familiar with Senator Wellstone's career and philosophy can make a good guess what his position on telecom immunity would have been and how hard he would have fought against it.