home

FISA Reauthorization Vote

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM EST
Tags: FISA, wiretapping (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: Cloture vote fails, 48-45. They are now going on to a vote on the 30 day extension. The President has said he would veto a bill with an extension. The Republicans ask for a vote against cloture on the 30 day extension. Harry Reid is arguing for a 30 day extension. Cloture vote fails.

****

The Senate is voting on limiting debate and amendments to a substitute FISA bill. The Intelligence Committee bill provides for retroactive telecom immunity. They are voting now. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted "No."

Firedoglake has been live-blogging the hearing all afternoon.

< Tony Rezko Ordered Detained for Bond Violation | State of the Union Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FISA Reauthorization Vote | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hat TIp To Progressives (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    This is nice:
    I'm at a schmoozy event at the Senate today--Harry Reid gave an opening speech focusing on the areas where progressive loud mouths have really helped out the Senate.

    He spoke for a bit about FISA--repeating what he has said publicly (that if the Republicans won't accept a PAA extension, then it will expire). But at the very start of his speech he named some of the people who had helped most on the FISA bill. McJoan (from DailyKos) and FDL's own Christy were the first two people he mentioned.

    emptywheel

    I need an explanation (none / 0) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    I have no trouble understanding the argument(s) against retroactive immunity.  The Fourth Amendment is one sentence, and I can read.

    In spite of the fact that dozens of senators support retroactive immunity, I can't find the rationale for that support anywhere.  I am aware that they are being paid big bucks to vote this way, but even so, you're supposed to be able to provide deniability that you sold your vote, and that requires some statement as to why your vote is a good thing.

    Can anyone direct me to such a statement?

    Here (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:51:30 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    It's really pretty simple (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    Retroactive immunity protects companies that acted in good faith to cooperate with the government in defense of the country.

    I can see that you wouldn't like that.

    Parent

    Wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    it shields law-breakers from responsibility.

    There are those of us PPJ, who think the Constitution means something. You evidently think it means what W and his crew say. Sad for you.

    Parent

    Tell us again how (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:16:00 PM EST
    Padilla should be set free and the borders thrown open...

    I always enjoy blather.

    Parent

    Grow up (none / 0) (#11)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    I've never said that. You, like the cryptofascists you worship with their idiotic authoritarianism, lie, lie, and lie again.

    What buffoonery!

    The 4th amendment PPJ, read it sometime.

    As for blather, heal thyself and stop with the idiotic ranting.

    Parent

    Then all those posts about how (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    Padilla was innocent was just in fun? You didn't mean them?

    Wow. I mean, who could tell?

    As for open borders... if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck...

    it's a duck!

    Parent

    You must be really ignorant (none / 0) (#13)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    not to realize that P wasn't convicted on the dramatic charges originally tied to his name.

    enough of your bozo posts

    Parent

    He was convicted. (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    And you don't consider these dramatic?

    Good grief. You really do need help.

    MIAMI - Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3½ years as an enemy combatant, was convicted Thursday of helping Islamic extremists and plotting overseas attacks in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to clamp down on terrorism.

    But it was hardly a complete victory for the government. When Padilla was arrested in the months following the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorities touted him as a key al-Qaida operative who planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. That allegation never made it to court.

    Instead, after a three-month trial and only a day and a half of deliberations, the 36-year-old Padilla and his foreign-born co-defendants were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people and two counts of providing material support to terrorists.

    MSNBC

    Parent

    The clowns and thugs (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:40:00 PM EST
    in the WH  could have done it without shredding the Constitution, a fact you seem totally unaware of.

    Get some help PPJ, your Bush Sycophancy Syndrome is blocking contact with that part of the world we call reality.

    Parent

    See you and raise (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:20:53 PM EST
    Retroactive immunity protects companies that acted in good faith to cooperate with the government in defense of the country
    .

    If the cooperation was in "good faith" and "in defense of the country," then they are entitled to make that argument in court, where such things are decided in a democracy.

    Retroactive immunity denies the People the right to examine the government's actions, and I can see why that would bother you.

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    Under your theory the threat of lawsuits should be used to force corporations to NOT aid the government in a time of emergency.

    Way to go! But then your definition of torture includes NOT confining terrorists, because we know they wouldn't want to be confined.

    Define torture. (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST

    No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.



    Parent
    acted in good faith or caved in (none / 0) (#7)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    ir order to get favorable government help with business is more likely. worried your stock will take a dive huh?

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    Since I pay a huge amount of income and property taxes it is you that should be worried about my stocks.

    BTW - Do you own any or do you expect the tax payers to give you a free ride??

    Parent

    FISA Reauthorization Vote | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment