Comments (34)

hoppy wrote on January 28, 2008 6:22 PM:

If the Republicans won't permit the senate to vote on a 30 day extension, I see no reason for any further action. That law is a bad one at best, and should just expire. Of course the news media would report the story as the Democrats refusing to be reasonable about extending the law, but that type of spin is what we need to get used to. As far as the MSM goes, everything bad is the Democrats fault anyway. The good side of this is that it won't actually be bad if the law expires.

Judyinnm wrote on January 28, 2008 6:25 PM:

The best thing that could happen - no extension and no making it permanent. Shit can the entire bill. The Fourth Amendment (partially) survives. I'll take it.

Milton Wiltmellow wrote on January 28, 2008 6:26 PM:

A short extension?

Why not just forget it? That's the point of a no vote: We don't want it.

Instead, like a five year old, they keep whining and pouting and insisting until they get what they want.

That's the problem with totalitarians. They can't accept "no" as an answer.

Dave Adams wrote on January 28, 2008 6:38 PM:

Somehow we survived being invaded by a foreign army (Britain) and a Civil War without suspending our Constitutional rights. So what are we afraid of now? Oh yeah, a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalists that we're so worried about that we're not even willing to go after on their home turf- Afghanistan.

If they really want to Protect America they ought to stop spying on us and go after Al Quaeda -the real Al Quaeda- in Afghanistan.

gauss wrote on January 28, 2008 6:42 PM:

How about not renewing the PAA at all? Better no law than a bad law. Would the law then revert to the existing FISA law? This seems like a good situation for the country and the Dems.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 28, 2008 6:51 PM:

Yes, it would revert to the pre-existing FISA and that's the best outcome by far. After all we know about how Bushco abuses any authority it's given, it boggles the mind that the Dems would even consider extending a horrible law that never should have been passed to begin with. But I suppose in the will-the-Dems-grow-a-spine watch we have to be content with baby steps like not getting rolled on telco immunity.

wengler wrote on January 28, 2008 6:59 PM:

In the end the government isn't scared about either bill not passing because it would simply legalize something they had been doing already. Considering that there is an entire system of detention worldwide based on the whims of the executive discretion rather than any evidential findings in a court of law, this government will keep listening in, picking people up and throwing them down a deep dark hole somewhere.

This bill is for the telecoms that can still successfully be sued in court and lose a ton of money. Rampant criminality will only be punished by financial sanction. That this is the best I can hope for shows just how far this country fallen in the past eight years.

EH wrote on January 28, 2008 7:05 PM:

The best part by far would be the death of telco immunity.

Dave Adams: Your awareness of history is on shaky ground, at least as far as the Civil War is concerned.

lestatdelc wrote on January 28, 2008 7:05 PM:

hoppy wrote on January 28, 2008 6:22 PM:

Of course the news media would report the story as the Democrats refusing to be reasonable about extending the law..

But that spin would not hold up and is easy to rebut. Simply point to the GOP refusing to give the temp. extension vote this afternoon that would have prevented it from reverting to the old FISA law. The GOP refused the extension so a reasonable bill could be passed. Dems just need to stick to that point and not budge.

paul wrote on January 28, 2008 7:30 PM:

Having the Senate hold the vote after the House has already voted to pass a 30-day extension is probably best for the democrats, because it's hard to spin that as anything but "The GOP voted to kill a bill that would have permitted continuing surveillance of foreign terrorists."

BC wrote on January 28, 2008 7:48 PM:

The House has passed a FISA bill without telecom immunity already. Reid could just put the House bill up for a vote and bypass both Senate bills. This would negate the need for conference committee, etc. I don't know why Reid doesn't do this - he can just bring up House bill and if it passes, send to president for signature. If Bush vetoes, well that's what Bush does.

David in Burbank wrote on January 28, 2008 7:56 PM:

Dems grow a spine one vertebrae at a time.

David in Burbank wrote on January 28, 2008 8:00 PM:

Or, the dems don't have 51 votes to actually pass anything related to terrorism. Heck, they can barely muster 41 votes to block cloture. And once all the rest of the amendments get blocked, they will fold and vote for cloture and the 12 dems we can't count on will help the republicans pass the bad bill.

And that is why there needs to be more control in the committees. This bill should have never have seen the light of day. Rockefeller should be relived of his position.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 8:16 PM:

lex dubia lex nulla

cjop wrote on January 28, 2008 8:25 PM:

1. Let the bill die.
2. Haul the cooperating telco execs in front of Congress. Preferably the House.
3. Investigate how the administration is threatening Qwest.
4. Pay Qwest a bunch of money out the the White House budget for f'ing with them.
5. Impeach Bush and Cheney for breaking the law one too many times.

digit wrote on January 28, 2008 8:45 PM:

Retroactive telecom immunity is not about getting out of jail free…

It’s about elimination of pretrial discovery and being on the witness list.

Oh..., and about money, can’t forget that.

larrymo wrote on January 28, 2008 8:53 PM:

Two suggestions:
1) ONLY a Senator who read the "P.A.T.R.I.O.T." Act before voting on it can vote on this extension.

2) Any wording relating to "immunity" should refer to "immunity starting at 12:01 A.M. EST, 9/12/2001"

#1 would reduce the population of voters to (perhaps) 5.

#2 would put tie the Geriatric Ogre Party into knots, and produce no votes in favor.

Come November, it is way past time for reviewing which Democratic Senators are actually members of that party.

DebMO wrote on January 28, 2008 9:22 PM:

Telecom immunity is not the only bad thing about extending the PAA.

Let the PAA expire. The too-lenient FISA bill will still go on anyway.

Right to privacy and the need for search warrants are basic constitutional rights that we should be counting on conservatives to defend. Everything is upside down when progressives have to be the ones to fight for preserving the Constitution.

I'm wondering if Bush's electronic surveillance has been targeting both sides of Congress, in search of blackmail material.

Hey, Nixon was doing it. The unquestioning compliance with Bush's wishes and blindness to his criminality by both sides of Congress has been unprecedented and extremely creepy. The motives being dreamed up for their loss of backbone just don't fly.

E Apps wrote on January 28, 2008 9:28 PM:

Dave Adams: "Somehow we survived being invaded by a foreign army (Britain)...without suspending our Constitutional rights."

Time to pick up a history book. America was never invaded by the British. It was a British colony when some of its people declared independence and fought what today would be called an insurgency against the King's rule. And since there was no constitution until well after the Revolutionary War was over, there were no rights to be suspended during it.

brian wrote on January 28, 2008 9:41 PM:

Would it be fun to move to Kentucky for a couple of months this fall to work on getting McConnell shoved out of his Senae seat ?

I am considering spending my personal time and money to do something concrete to help our country.

Volunteering is as American as Tobacco !!

Kentucky ... in the Autumn ... I like it !!

Christopher wrote on January 28, 2008 10:00 PM:

E Apps, you're a little too quick to take Dave Adams to task and tell him to "pick up a history book. America was never invaded by the British." I would recommend picking up a history book and turning it to around 1812.

E Apps wrote on January 28, 2008 10:09 PM:

Christopher:
from Wikipedia, War of 1812 entry:

'The Americans declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812..."
"The war started badly for the Americans as an attempt to invade Canada in August 1812 was repulsed by Major-General Isaac Brock..."

I suppose technically the British could be said to have invaded the U.S., but they did so in the course of repelling aggression. The war ended with no territory changing hands.

correctnotright wrote on January 28, 2008 10:12 PM:

E Apps:
The ritish invaded and burned Washington DC in 1812 - did you lose your history book somewhere?

George Washington (that noted liberal general) decided that even though the British were treating americans as traitors and using torture - we would NOT do that.

Remeber, at the time we were outnumbered, outgunned and facing the strongest military in the world. Yet we did not condone torture even then.

Now - facing a small cadre of terrorists holed up in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan we NEED to have torture.

Ben Franklin said that a state that chooses security over liberty deserves neither.

Now who are the real patriots of our day?

phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 10:41 PM:

E Apps wrote on January 28, 2008 9:28 I suppose technically the British could be said to have invaded the U.S., but they did so in the course of repelling aggression. The war ended with no territory changing hands.

Hey Apps are you a member of the original neocons? They were repelling aggression just like we repelled Iraqi agression by invading their country and burning (shock and awe) their capital. Nice rewrite of history. George Bush needs you to write his fictional legacy next.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 11:01 PM:

I remember reading in my history book that Lincoln put the country under martial law during the Civil war.....
particularly suspending habeas corpus.

phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 11:17 PM:

Hey Anonymous. The next time the several Confederate States (you know, like SC that still flies that "other" flag over their capitol) decide to secede from the United States and starts lobbing mortar rounds into Northern Virginia I hope our good Democratic president (whoever that is) sees fit to suspend habeus corpus if such action is warranted among many others to save our country. I suggest that situation might be just a wee bit, just a tad, different than forcing captured "alleged" Islamists to rot in prison year after year without charges being filed until Bush is shown the door. Bush doesn't have sufficient stature to be worth scraping off Lincoln's boot.

Clay wrote on January 28, 2008 11:29 PM:

I personally lived through the cold war where complete destruction was a 20 minute missle ride away over in the good old USSR. I think the KGB was much more capable than Osama's guys--but maybe that's just my opinion. The point is--we didn't use that as an excuse to torture, spy on our own, rape the Constitution. We won the cold war by showing the world that we were better than our enemies. By becoming like our enemies, we have already lost this war. As Bush said, the terrorists hate our freedom.

Republicans used to drive around with "live free or die" bumper stickers. What happened to those guys?

Otay wrote on January 29, 2008 1:22 AM:

Um anyone forget Obama and Clinton had no intention of showing up for this vote. They were forced to vote by people paying attention.
Other members were swamped with calls and emails to their offices.
This vote hung by a thread and it was those two darlings who would have sunk our freedoms along with 12 bluedogs. Only one of them was frightened enough to act like a democrat.

Dave Adams wrote on January 29, 2008 1:55 AM:

E Apps:

During the War of 1812, the British occupied Washington D.C and burned the White House to the ground. Gee, I suppose _that's_ technically an invasion. You might want to look for sources beyond Wikipedia.

EH, Anonymous:
Lincoln attempted to suspend Habeas Corpus and was blocked by the Supreme Court. The SC upheld our rights, something they are loath to do these days. Do you get that? And as Phil James notes Washington D.C. and other Union-held areas were under constant threat of attack. What's Bush's excuse? That he can't find the terrorist brother of one of his Dad's business partners?

Notice the these Neo-Cons want to nit-pick (actually nitwit-pick, since they're getting them wrong) the historic details and dodge the question of why if Al Quaeda is so dangerous we're not going after them in Afghanistan.

Anonymous wrote on January 29, 2008 8:12 AM:

if Reid had any cujones, he wouldn't even bother with a 30 day extension -- He'd submit the House version of the bill, and then use the arguments that the GOP used all day yesterday about how important it was to pass the bill without further discussion or amendment. With this approach, he can also argue that its the only way to get a bill to the President by Friday, because it won't require a conference committee.

....and he'd make the GOP actually filibuster the House bill, using it to make the point that its the GOP that is not merely allowing the old act to expire, but preventing the Senate from considering the anti-recession package...

hope4usa wrote on January 29, 2008 9:08 AM:

ok so here's the important question:

Where do the lawsuits stand?

Let's assume that PPA sunsets later this week. Do the current bills build upon and amend PPA or are they separate and distinct legislation, replacements? IF PPA sunsets, do they have to write an entire new bill? How long will that take?

thomas wrote on January 29, 2008 9:18 AM:

phil james @ 11:17
I have a better idea. the next time South Carolina and the other traitor states want to leave, let them!

keith wrote on January 29, 2008 9:52 AM:

"if Reid had any cujones, he wouldn't even bother with a 30 day extension"

Won't happen because Reid and Rockefellers cujones currently reside at AT&T who is in the top 20 of both of their contributors...

NicoloM wrote on January 29, 2008 12:05 PM:

Immunity? Why aren't we demanding an independent counsel to prosecute these crimes?