home

Leahy, Feingold Oppose Steny Surrender On FISA, Obama Silent

Via mcjoan:

[Leahy]: I have said since the beginning of this debate that I would oppose a bill that did not provide accountability for this administration’s six years of illegal, warrantless wiretapping. This bill would dismiss ongoing cases against the telecommunications carriers that participated in that program without allowing a judicial review of the legality of the program.

[Feingold]: The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

Obama: crickets . . .

< New Laws Coming? | Taguba: Administration Committed War Crimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    At least someone spoke out (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Redshoes on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM EST
    Thank you Senator Leahy.

    Dems are spelunking their caves again (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    Feingold is one of the rare Dems I trust implicitly.

    Leahy's proved useless except to maw a few phrases for media before folding anyway. (That float decorated with rosettes from his disobeyed White House subpoenas is still roaring up and down his street with no-shows like Harriet Meiers hooting obscenities and TP'ing the front yard.)

    I'll fall right over if the Dems DON'T cave. This is their SOP for all their (spelunked) multiple caves.

    Send out different Dems for the official Edvard Munch Oh No! media appearance but work behind the scenes to give the Rethugs everything anyway.

    Later, if anyone's still keeping score (or interested) s/he'll notice the Repugs voted as a bloc but, weirdly, Dems still didn't hang together.

    Optional: periodic shows of Rahm Emanuel being a total @ssho!le again and saying it's our "fault" for not giving Dems more power (to be invertebrate jackwads.)

    What do I know? I'm a bitter knitter.

    Parent

    Scary Prospect (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    Rahm Emanuel being a total @ssho!le again

    Please you're talking about the next Senator from Illinois! Our local paper seems to think he'll be named if Obama wins.

    Parent

    Hey, Ellie, (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:55:20 PM EST
    Rahm Emmanuel inspired me to become a "bitter knitter". Picked up some yarn and some needles on Monday.  Watched an online video on how to knit.  I have a whole foot of scarf done.  I figure if I knit instead of watching the MSM shows, I'll at least have something to show for my time.

    Parent
    Personally, (4.00 / 1) (#133)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    I'm going to stick with virtual knitting and maybe some virtual crocheting if I have time.

    Parent
    Rahm in the Senate? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    geez, as if I needed another reason to refuse to vote for Obama....

    Parent
    to a certain extent, (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by sancho on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    the idea that a democratic party exists and exists in opposition to a republican party is a fiction that we at the "left" blogs like to tell ourselves.

    Parent
    Well since that's my chosen exit too ... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:56:09 PM EST
    ... I'd be happy to follow in your footsteps (but let's stick around for awhile.)

    Parent
    I don't think crickets will last much longer (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    though I don't think Obama will lead opposition either.  I imagine he is trying to craft some moral compromise as far as this bill is concerned.

    you know what that means right? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    hold on to you wallet.

    Parent
    well he'll say stuff like he said about (none / 0) (#130)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:28:25 PM EST
    Nafta, where in the primary he said it needed fixing, miraculously now, he says,what amounted to: in the heat of passion we say anything. I could not believe he said that.

    People pay attention before you give this guy your vote. I think it was in NY Times or WAPO

    Obama is flip flopping. His office is answering calls but not saying much just stuff like he said on Nafta, but he's also saying when he becomes president this won't happen. WTF is THAT supposed to mean?

    LEAD now senator Obama!

    Parent

    it was on CNNpolitics.com - political ticker (none / 0) (#142)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:02:29 PM EST
    Call Obama's Senate District offices (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    His DC number's hosed.

    District Office- Moline:
    1911 52nd Avenue
    Moline, IL 61265
    Phone: 309-736-1217
    Fax: 309-736-1233

    District Office- Springfield:
    607 East Adams Street
    Springfield, IL 62701
    Phone: 217-492-5089
    Fax: 217-492-5099

    District Office- Chicago:
    John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building, Suite 3900
    230 South Dearborn
    Chicago, IL 60604
    Phone: 312-886-3506
    Fax: 312-886-3514

    District Office- Marion:
    701 North Court Street
    Marion, IL 62959
    Phone: 618-997-2402
    Fax: 618-997-2850


    Nice of you to post these, but obama (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:09:51 PM EST
    should not have to be prodded into stepping up on this....no leadership on his part once again.

    Parent
    Not good enough. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    It's up to us to hold all of our elected officials feet to the fire.  No matter who the nominee is or who your specific congress people are--we should always push our leaders when we feel they are dropping the ball on an issue that is important to us.  They may or may not listen, but if we do nothing, we are complicit in their inaction.

    Parent
    I agree with this (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    After all, Michelle Obama said that "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."  I'm not sure that she meant we were going to have to work extra hard to get Sen. Obama to lead, but that is one interpretation.

    Parent
    he aint there to take the calls he's (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    campaigning for president of the USA- didn't you know? He has more pressing things to do than take your calls on the matter that will define the continued trashing of the US Constitution by a CongrASS who cares more for the lobbyists to fill their re-election coffers than the people who voted for them.

    Parent
    She does get to vote on cloture (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    of Feingold's filibuster.

    I'm sure he'll say something (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jb64 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    But I doubt he'll be on the Senate floor leading the troops against passage. If he does that, and it passes anyway, he'll look weak. Why waste the political capital?

    What capital does he have (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    if he cannot lead a winning charge on this issue?

    Parent
    Does he really consider it a (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    winning charge for him?

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#140)
    by mkevinf on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    moral integrity, rather than leading the winning charge?  Political capital?  My God, what's more important than defending Constitutional rights, something I think Obama, and everyone in government, took an oath to do.  And if their oath is worded differently, the Presidential oath requires defense of the Constitution.  Isn't that what is the most repulsive thing about the Bush presidency, its refusal to live up to his oath?

    Parent
    moral integrity (none / 0) (#155)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:00:58 PM EST
    and not politics for winning? From Senator obama? You are not serious--are you?

    Parent
    bslev22 (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    I thought personal attacks were not permitted here.

    Listen, I've been posting on and off for close to a year here, and I have never once mocked a HRC supporter, or even put HRC down.

    Perhaps you ought to get to know me better before accusing me of such stuff and pointing me in the direction of a circle-jerk.  (How is this stuff allowed here?)

    My point was merely this: there are a lot of heavyweight Dem Senators out there -- Obama and HRC being the two most obvious.  I'd like it is they were both standing against this, and perhaps this FISA-capitulation train can slow down.

    I'd like to hear Obama on this.  I'd like to hear HRC on this.  I want to know where both them, as well as any other important Dem Senator (Dodd?  Biden?), stand on this.

    Senator Obama, as the presumptive nominee (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. It's his JOB to lead. Not Hillary's job, Barack Obama's job. We want to see him get off his @ss and do it. That is what a leader does, he leads. So let's see him do some leading. If he can.

    Parent
    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#128)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST
    and I never said otherwise.  But I would also like to know how the other important Senate Dems stand on this issue.

    Parent
    then ask the Obama campaign.... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    ....in case you haven't noticed, Hillary has been practically invisible.  And that's because Obama wants her to be.

    I mean, that whole insulting Democratic "Ladies against Women" assemblage the other day --- the one where every female senator BUT Hillary appropriated the Clinton agenda, and treated it like it was the Obama agenda ---  do you really think that wasn't a Team Obama production?

    Clinton is being a "team player", and if and when Team Obama wants Hillary to speak out on FISA, she will do so.  

    But I strongly suspect that her silence on FISA is because Team Obama wants the Obots to be able to say "but what about Hillary" every time someone mentions Obama's lack of leadership...(you certainly seem to have gotten that memo)

    Parent

    you sure are making a lot of assertions... (none / 0) (#137)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    ... any sources to back any of that up?

    Parent
    Well, unless Hillary pulls an Obama (none / 0) (#131)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    and changes her stand, she's been against it.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    I find your comment to be somewhat obnoxious.  The post was not merely about the nominee of the party.  The post was about two Democratic senators speaking out in opposition to the deal.  The post went on to point out that there had been no word from Obama.  Someone responded that they wanted to know what HRC's position was.  I have been a Hillary fan since I was a freshman in college, the year Bill was elected.  In fact, I credit her with beginning my political renaissance from reflexive conservative to a liberal progressive.  Heck, I have a picture of me standing next to a cardboard cutout of her at the Clinton/Gore store from Hot Springs, Arkansas.  I still would like to know where she is on this issue.  I want to see the visible members of the Congress--both Democratic and Republican--stand up for what is right.  I am sick to death about the Dems' capitulation on this issue.

    I take DC Wonk at his word, and see no reason whatsoever why I should not.

    I always find it interesting how I read so many posts here about how horrible all the Obama supporters are about dissing Hillary all day, every day.  And yet, my experience in reading so many of the comments at this site has been one of reading constant criticism of Obama with many unable to give him credit, no matter what he says or does.  

    I think it is appropriate and correct that patriotic Americans ask the presumptive nominees of both parties to come out and take a stand on this issue.  I have no problem with noting, as part of this post, that Obama has said nothing as of yet.  But I find it ridiculous to then launch into a personal attack against a poster or posters who legitimately ask what Hillary has said about the issue.  I want to know what she has said.  She has so many supporters across the country.  I think it would be helpful to the cause if she came out against this and asked her supporters to call their Senators and Representatives and tell them to block this capitulation.

    I suggest that you look at DC Wonk's (none / 0) (#138)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:45:21 PM EST
    original comment (way down below)

    ALL he asks about is Clinton.  Nobody else.  Just Clinton.

    So, for him to show up now and claim that he actually wants to know where other important democrats stand (and note -- he doesn't seem to know the names of any other prominent democrats whose position he is curious about)...

    well, lets just say that "taking DC Wonk at his word" is either ridiculously naive, or Oborgian.

    Parent

    well, excuuuuse me (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    for thinking that Clinton at this point is the second most influential Dem senator on this.  That's why I asked about her.

    My original thought was that if Obama and HRC could provide a unified front on this, there might be a chance of stopping this train.  (And, yes, I do know the names of Dodd and Biden, et al)

    Check out my posts here or on any other blog in the history of the web.  You can take me at my word.

    And even if you refuse to take me at my word, you can at least refrain from personal attacks.  I've already been directed to go to a circle jerk on this thread (comment thankfully removed by the moderators).  Such comments are neither useful nor constructive.

    Parent

    Earlier today, Obama endorsed (none / 0) (#149)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:51:24 PM EST
    a Congressional candidate who is staunchly in favor of telecom immunity.  Forget his name.  Will post when I get home.

    Parent
    Thanks political press also (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    for getting answers from the candidate about the policy issue of the day.

    I guess they are too busy asking about Michelle's "makeover".

    Obama - silent - silent - silent (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    Is it too late for a brokered convention?

    Buyers' remorse - big time.


    Might his silence on this (none / 0) (#150)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:52:30 PM EST
    have been the price for the backing of SuperDelegates Pelosi et al?

    Parent
    Could be... (none / 0) (#158)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:04:15 AM EST
    If it walks, talks and smells like a duck....

    Parent
    My email to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Veracitor on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    Dear Senator Obama and related staff:

    Please use your influence to kill or postpone the pending FISA amendment until next year.  Let it be known that you fundamentally oppose domestic eavesdropping, and, if elected, will certainly be intent on rolling back or drastically revising failed Bush policies that have unnecessarily endangered our constitutional freedoms and rule of law.

    There is a new thread at Orange Hell urging people to call and write, and a number of people are pledging contributions to reciprocate.

    Welcome to an Obama Presidency (4.50 / 8) (#35)
    by SeaMBA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    Once again, Obama seems to be absent on a critical issue.  At least he didn't vote for it before claiming he hit the wrong button.

    This capitulation is why I am seriously considering a protest vote against all Democrats.  At least if I voted Republican I would know that they would stand up for what they believed in, even if I didn't agree with it.  Standing up for your supposed values counts for something.

    I am NOT voting Republican. However, (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    I am seriously considering not voting for the top of the ticket.  So far, I am not impressed.

    Parent
    so does... (none / 0) (#38)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    ... standing against the values you detest.

    Parent
    But they aren't standing (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by SeaMBA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    That is the problem.  I vote Democratic because I want to be represented by people who will (and who say they will) represent Democratic values.  Then they don't.  Or at least enough of them, particularly party leaders.

    Parent
    FEEL the leadership! Grasp the HOPE! (4.50 / 8) (#52)
    by tokin librul on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    listen for the crickets...chuy!

    Obama crickets. Netroots about Obama, crickets. (4.33 / 6) (#43)
    by jerry on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:00:52 PM EST


    Which speaks (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by TomP on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EST
    volumes.

    I find Obama much better than McCain and will support him, but when he is elected, there are issues like trade that I may be pushing him on.

     

    Parent

    LOL. Good luck with that. (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:43:36 PM EST
    I think Obama lacks principles.  He's stepped back from virtually everything he ran on in a matter of days.  New politics, same as it ever was.

    Parent
    Good luck with (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by TomP on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    your approach, which seems petulent to me.

    Obama is far better than McCain and the personal attacks on that you perpetuate ("Lacks Principels" instead of issue disagreements only serves to help McCain.

    I fundamentally disagree with your approach. Indeed, it reminds me of the very people I criticized who personally attacked Hillary Clinton as being "unpricipled."

    It's about issues to me.

    Parent

    I didn't say one word about McCain. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
    I simply find Obama to be unprincipled.  He has stepped back from virtually every position he has taken, within a matter of days.  No where do I say "McCain is principled".

    Parent
    virtually every position? (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:20:35 PM EST
    Taxes?  Privatization of Social Security?  Roe v Wade?  Global Warming?  Gas-Tax Holiday?  I haven't seen him step back from "virtually every position."

    A bit less hyperbole might be constructive.

    Parent

    He was out making windy staements on Const'n Law (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM EST
    ... re: Afghanistan, torture, habeas corpus (when he was safely in the clear for having to take a stand) and (fan)Club Obama was in a tizzy about the speechifying.

    Well, here's a shining opportunity to take an actual stand and leadership role on a hardcore Constitutional issue.

    Obama and his clubby throng will have to learn that he's well beyond where he can blow big wind about eg, his pious (but apparently missing on the public) wouldda couldda shouldda stance on Iraq -- that he used as a cudgel on Sen Clinton.

    Let's see him front and center of the push to stop the selling off by those "politicians in Washington" of our inalienable rights for political and corporate gain.

    Another speech after the fact won't do it, nor will whining that he's JUST like Sen Clinton. He's not fit to carry her White House key ring.

    Parent

    WHy aren't you pushing him now? (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by tree on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    When you have some leverage?

    Parent
    WHAT? Daily Obama didn't (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    spin this as a triumph for BO - he "stood his ground" in not being dragged into making a statement - or some other such nonsense?

    Parent
    On many blogs I see calls to call the House (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by jerry on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:07:38 PM EST
    But I've seen no calls to call Obama.  I just checked the Daily Orange and though they do have the top article mentioning how Obama could lead in this, they don't do anything like recommend anyone call the guy on this.

    Why do we lose people who think that liberals are gutless and afraid to fight?  Beats me.

    If we can't construct a winning argument at this time regarding wiretapping, I am not sure we don't deserve to lose.

    Parent

    Look again. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    That's because you didn't look. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by JayBat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    I did, so let me help.

    Here. (Kagro X, frontpage at Daily Kos.)

    Here. (Glenn Greenwald at Salon.)

    And here. (thereisnospoon, currently on the recommended list at Daily Kos.)

    And here, also. (eparrot, currently in the most-recent 50 diaries at Daily Kos.)

    And I'm getting tired of pasting URL's in, so I'm stopping now (Kalkaino, currently in the most-recent 50 diaries at Daily Kos.)

    He's a politician running for President, and I don't know what he's going to do. But his phones, e-mail, and fax machines are jammed, and he knows his supporters are mad.

    -Jay-

    Parent

    Neither Kos/Kagro nor Greenwald suggest we call O (none / 0) (#127)
    by jerry on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST
    Some netroots bloggers say that Obama could swing it.  But as I said, I've seen netroots bloggers listing Steny Hoyer's phone number, but no one has listed Obama's phone number.

    "We" seem to be afraid to actually demand anything of him.

    Near as I can tell, the Kagro article supports what I am saying to a tee.  Obama's voice is important, but doesn't suggest we call him.

    Parent

    I guess I don't count on anybody else (none / 0) (#135)
    by JayBat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    ...to look up phone numbers for me. :-)

    And I don't think most politically astute readers (like anybody who is likely to actually be reading any of the stuff I pointed to) need to be reminded that if you're convinced a politician needs to do something important, they're not going to figure it out via ESP. I called the local Obama campaign office here in Portland (he's my presidential candidate, not my Senator).

    But you reject that? People need to be spoonfed their call to action? Yeah, you're probably right. And thereisnospoon's #1 recommended diary on "Daily Orange" (as you call it) does just that.

    So now you have "seen calls to call Obama". A lot of his supporters are pissed. Make the call, and have a great day.
    -Jay-

    Parent

    It's not the missing phone number, it's missing .. (none / 0) (#144)
    by jerry on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:13:59 PM EST
    the call to make the call.

    Noting Obama can make the difference but noticeably NOT calling on the netroots to deluge him is remarkable, especially considering the demands to call Steny's office and the others.

    But I think you know that.

    Parent

    As posted above there have been many calls (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    on the Net to call on Obama.  All of his numbers were posted hours ago on dailykos.  

    But:  To me, this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to show he "ending politics as usual" slogan is more than just words, and to win over many Clinton supporters who, like myself, are on the fence about Obama because we don't feel we know where he really stands on issues.  This is a perfect opportunity for him to show us. I, for one, would be willing to vote for him in November if he were to defeat this reprehensible legislation.

    Parent

    They're not Liberals -- they run from the 'label' (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    Liberals don't run, they stand and fight.

    Fauxgressives coast, and don't.

    Core definitions. :-)

    Parent

    Exactly right, (none / 0) (#143)
    by mkevinf on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:02:53 PM EST
    as I found out when visiting the repugnant Andrew Sullivan's blog (he managed to find time to call the Clintons racist, though!), Matthew Yglesias, and HuffPo.  Nothing on FISA and Obama, and really nothing on Barry's big announcement of the day.

    I chose to follow Hillary's lead and vote for Obama in the Fall.  I hope I can make it that long.

    Parent

    BUT Obama is just a politician... (4.20 / 5) (#11)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    and he's going to make aN incredible president.

    It doesn't matter what he says or does...because if you believe a politician, you're an idiot.

    So, big deal!

    Supposedly Obama is reviewing the bill (2.14 / 7) (#101)
    by magster on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    and preparing a statement.

    rate me a 1 if you think this is BS, and 5 if you believe it (Informal poll).

    I'll Wait For The Pudding (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    But thanks for mentioning it, magster.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#159)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:11:16 AM EST
    I'll wait for the pudding.

    In the meanwhile, I would ask - he has to "study" the bill?

    Hello.

    Parent

    Why doesn't he say as much to callers? (none / 0) (#152)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    well you know he's busy (none / 0) (#160)
    by kimsaw on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:47:16 AM EST
    running for President. If he couldn't hold a committee meeting because he was running for President, you can't possibly think that he has time to read a bill and offer a statement in any timely fashion. He's probably waiting to see what Hillary will offer, you know he couldn't call her at 3am it just wouldn't look presidential.

    Parent
    Where's HRC on this? (none / 0) (#1)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    Has she stated any position?

    Who is the leader of the Party? (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    Classic (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    One wonders if for the next eight years, any criticism of President Obama will be met with a reflexive comment about how Hillary hasn't led, either.

    Parent
    If she came out (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    from her hiatus to oppose the bill, she'd probably be accused of attempting to steal Obama's thunder by some of the more idiotic members of our party.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    would have the vapors.

    Parent
    LOL ! prima donna brazilla (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    is that allowed? couldn't help it! time for a little levity or else I'd cry.

    Parent
    Maybe he'd copy her if she did! (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Burned on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    my question was not a reflexive comment (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    it was merely the hope that another important senator would stand up on this

    Parent
    I hear you. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Marco21 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    I didn't read it that way at first myself, but I can see how others might.

    it's them crazy internets, after all.  

    Parent

    thank you for (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    (being one of the few to) give me the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm hoping that Obama and HRC will both stand against this, and see if it's momentum can be slowed.

    Parent

    There has been so much of the (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    ...but, but Hillary did it too in the last 6 months that people on this site are quite annoyed. Obama's whole campaign was NOT Hillary and then his supporters keep dragging her name into this.  Interestingly, the Obama campaign spent their time sliming the Clinton administration only to announce their security team yesterday.  With one or two excecptions they were all Clinton heavyweights. So...the Clinton administration betrayed America, eh David Sirota et al?  Looks like same old same old, which by the way I always thought was very good for America.

    Parent
    No worries. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Marco21 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    After a vitriolic few months, many are a little on edge. Hell, I am on edge - made the mistake of thinking I could return to Huffpo today.

    Wrong. McCain is using some of the arguments Hillary  used against Obama (he's inexperienced - because John wouldn't have thought of that EVER on his won) and the posters are having a meltdown defaming the Clintons.

    Sorry, off topic. Erase if need be, but had to vent.

    Parent

    Yeah. Like the idea of talking about (none / 0) (#156)
    by Jake Left on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:48:09 AM EST
    Obama's experience was something the republicans could never think of on their own. HuffPoo is a pit. I think the average IQ there hovers around the sub normal.

    Parent
    Obama's a uniter, she's too divisive / polarizing (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    He should be the one pressured to lead on this.

    She's already suspended so that Obama can lead, so let's focus on that.

    So lets see him take a strong stand, in his own words (not cribbed phrases from better leaders and activists) and based on his own policies (not shadows of HRC's hard work).

    She's already said she'll do her part.

    WTF is Obama's?

    Parent

    the very first comment... (none / 0) (#139)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    in the thread is yours, and its "what about Hillary?"

    That's reflexive.  

    Amd oddly enough, the very first comment in a post that lambert did the other day on Obama's stunning failure of leadership on FISA was from a "DC Blogger" who did the exact same thing -- asked about Hillary.

    So humor me, since I'm paranoid... but are you DC Blogger over at Corrente?

    Parent

    I have no idea who "DC Blogger" is (none / 0) (#154)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:53:06 PM EST
    and I don't know what Corrente is.

    I am an honorable honest person who tries to do his best.  I don't do sock puppets.  (Ask Jerlayn for proof -- she knows my email because I've donated money here).  I am unaware of the lambert posting (I had surgery two days ago)

    True -- wondering where HRC stood was was a reflexive question -- but it was because, as I stated earlier, I think of Obama and HRC as the two most influential Dem senators right now.  If HRC had taken a stand and Obama hadn't, I'd have lambasted Obama.  I assumed that folks here would know whether HRC had taken a stand or not.  

    The fact that neither of them has gives me pause, but perhaps a ray of hope that maybe they are coordinating something to stand against it.  I dunno.  The silence is deafening, but as I am one to generally give the benefit of the doubt, I don't mind waiting a day or so if it means that Obama's or HRC's responses are well thought out.

    I hope this makes a bit of sense to help understand where I'm coming from.


    Parent

    I don't know that was DC's intent... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Marco21 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    but you can't discuss anything critically about Obama without "but, Hillary..." on almost every website.

    I am curious as to her position, though.

    Parent

    my comment was not a "but, Hillary" (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    I, like apparently you, are genuinely curious.  She's still a heavyweight in the party, and I'd be thrilled to see if she stood up like Feingold and Leahy are.  Perhaps I'm naive, but I'd like to see 40 Dems stop this.

    Parent
    Silence. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    fer crying' out loud (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    I was just asking if she stated a position.  This is completely independent as to who is the leader of the party.  HRC still carries a lot of weight, and I was wondering if she's made any statement on it.

    Parent
    So you want her to (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM EST
    make a statement ahead of Obama? Suuure.

    Parent
    Feingold did. (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:46:49 PM EST
    Feingold can get away with it (5.00 / 16) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    he is not an evil cackleing party destroying nut cracking republican lite harpy.


    Parent
    I wnat to know where they both stand on this (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    is that so hard to believe?

    Parent
    if she tried to make any (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    kind of statement on anything that would upstage O she would be relentlessly hammered.  again.
    perhaps she is tired of being relentlessly hammered.


    Parent
    yeah, perhaps, (none / 0) (#36)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    but I just wanted to know where she stands on this.

    Parent
    I get your point (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    and I would be interested as well.  but it is what it is.

    Parent
    Maybe you could start by asking where (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    obama's allies, Kerry, Sebellius, Casey, McCaskill, etc. stand on this...aren't they relevant too?

    Parent
    yes, I do (none / 0) (#65)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    ... want to know where they stand.  (And yes I have asked)  I'm hoping that there are 40 that will stand against.  But I don't think Kerry, Sebellius, Casey, or McCaskill are nearly as important as HRC, Dodd, and Biden on this.  I want to know where all of them stand.

    Parent
    obama doesn't want Hillary Clinton stealing (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:22:04 PM EST
    his thunder, so I don't think you will be hearing from her in the very near future.

    Parent
    McCaskill will more than likely vote with (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    the Republicans on this as she has in the past. Calls to her office on FISA and IRAQ generally get a response that the senator has not made a decision on this yet even right before the vote comes to floor. Cop out answer which ticks me off even more.

    Parent
    Dodd's with Feingold (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    as of my conversation with Russ Friday.

    Parent
    She would be tarred and feathered (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Amiss on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    if her opinion was different and seen as many as once again "being devisive". I think she is smart not to comment on this yet.

    Parent
    Today, Feingold. As usual. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    We wish (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    What's Gravel's position? That's what I want (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    to know.

    Parent
    According to Huff Post headline, (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    she is taking a one-month break from her Senate duties.

    Parent
    How much stock should we put in a HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    piece?  They don't exactly lead the pack in honest reporting.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    Strange.

    Parent
    Maybe that's what Obama and (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    Clinton discussed at Feinstein's house.  Would you mind just dropping out of sight for a month of so, say, until after the convention?

    Parent
    not that I believe anything (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    HuffPo says but why would it be strange for her to take a month off?
    she probably has not slept in about the last 14 months.


    Parent
    And didn't she look great at every event? (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    What stamina, what resilience.  Wow, what a woman.

    Parent
    I was looking for the Hillary haircut to be the (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    next fad.

    She did look tired and her voice got raspy. I was worried she'd faint at some point from fatigue, but she didn't.

    What a gal ! Damn I STILL want her to be the next pres. so bad.

    Parent

    Why is this strange? (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    Is it possible that in addition to needing some R & R (I would have collapsed a long time ago), she is allowing Obama the space and time to cement his position as nominee and party leader?

    I'm pretty sure that if she still had the microphone, was still speaking on matters of policy, they would be all over her for wanting to keep the spotlight on herself - she would be accused of not being able to let go.  Nothing says "letting go" like a month out of the limelight, so I see nothing strange at all about this.

    I think she made the decision in the interests of party unity - and isn't that what people want?

    Parent

    I'd still like to see her leadership (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    in the Senate. She is not as inconsequential as some people would like to believe.

    Parent
    I dont think anyone believes (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    she is in any way inconsequential.  quite the opposite.  that is the problem.

    Parent
    Don't you worry, she'll be back soon (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    I don't blame her for taking a little breather.

    Parent
    Hilary (none / 0) (#98)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    If she's being considered for VP or whatever, she would destroy it all by issuing a policy statement ahead of the Party Leader.

    There are 100 Senators and so far we've heard from 2! Not a great percentage for us to work with on this. I'm more curious to see where McCaskill is on this now that she's out campaigning for Obama.

    Parent

    3. Dodd signed Feingold's letter last week. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    The Sternly Written Letter (none / 0) (#115)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:49:06 PM EST
    The nuclear weapon of the modern Democratic Party's arsenal.

    Sorry, I know these three are the good guys on this, but I'm out of patience for every act of law-breaking and Constitution gutting act being met with a disapproving letter.

    Parent

    No one (here) is arguing she is (none / 0) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:08:04 PM EST
    inconsequential.  To me, actually, she is still of far more consequence than Obama.

    She is just in a spot right now where she has less freedom to come out strongly on an issue that half the rest of the party is caving one.  Ooops, correction, rushing to cave on, thank you Madame Speaker.

    If Obama, who's now the leader of the party, or any number of other Dems in the leadership came out against immunity, and she still didn't say anything, that would be a whole different story.

    Parent

    If she won't show up for work (1.11 / 9) (#26)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    she should resign her Senate seat.

    Parent
    And if that's your standard, (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    both McCain and Obama should also, right?

    Give me a break.

    Parent

    Not only do (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by NJDem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    McCain and Obama have among the worst Senate attendance records.  HRC's is very good--most absences occurred when BC was in the hospital.  

    Over the course of the year-plus primary season, somehow neither McCain nor Obama was able to sponsor a bill to Congress.  

    Hillary submitted four.  She never forgot her job as New York Senator.  

    (can't find a link, I think I read it on her web site a while back, but will try and locate one)  

    Parent

    I'm referring vto showing up for key votes. (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    Specifically this one.

    Maybe I'm spoiled, neither of my Senators has missed a vote in 6 years.

    Parent

    See Obama and the Kyl-Lieberman bill (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    and many more.  One of the worst voting records in the Senate.  Yet look how well it has worked for him.

    Clinton, of course, has a far better attendance record -- for all that matters in Dem politics today.

    Parent

    I agree this is important. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:09:12 PM EST
    Unless she is vacationing in the Antarctic, she should vote on this. I want her to take some time off, but this is too important.

    Parent
    Tough taskmaster. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    That is ridiculous....obama is in the senate, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    but you really wouldn't know it.

    Parent
    I gave his Senate numbers upthread. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    no doublestandard from me.

    Parent
    I saw that and acknowledged it....trouble (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    is after you going to all that trouble, will he listen?  I only ask because he keeps touting his leadership abilities, yet has to show any.

    Parent
    She's keeping an eye on things (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    and is not needed for any votes at this point in time. She did send a letter to the head of the ASC about investigating the billion dollar Iraq expenses in the last day or so. She's keeping a low profile, not laying in the sand on some beach afaik. Although, I think she's entitled  to a beach break, so hopefully she'll do it when the Senate breaks if not before.

    She's my Senator and I would prefer her not to resign, TYVM.

    Parent

    Single dumbest comment of the day. (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    Congratulations.

    Parent
    Obama and Sen. Clinton (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    have their joint fundraiser scheduled in DC next Friday. I'm sensing the key Senate votes will be right around then.

    Nope (none / 0) (#116)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    This is greased to get done sooner.  They don't want to give opposition time to mount.  Or criticism of Obama time to build.

    Parent
    Feingold can delay it that long (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:17:47 PM EST
    I was thinking a little more about this (none / 0) (#68)
    by eric on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    legislation.  The conventional wisdom seems to be that the reason that so many people are rolling over for this because of money and the power of the telecommunications industry.  Campaign donations from this sector are huge.  Probably true.

    But there is another way to look at this, as well.  That is, the liability here has the potential to be astounding.  From rumors only, it is possible that the government (and the telecoms) have been spying on millions of Americans, maybe tens of millions.  Can you imagine the liability for this, should the first few cases break this open for all to see?

    It would be litigation like we have never seen - potentially millions of claims.  People don't like being spied upon, so there would be no shortage of plaintiffs.  And there surely would be no shortage of lawyers trying to cash in - I know I would.

    This is why I just don't think that Obama, Dodd, or anyone can stop this, and why there is a sense of inevitability about it.  A massive wrong has been committed and to remedy it would lead to litigation and liability such that as never been seen.  I don't think Congress will let it happen.  I don't think they could.

    I agree to a point, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    but they are allowing retroactive immunity without making further domestic spying illegal!

    Parent
    I'm not concerned (none / 0) (#100)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    With money on this. If they can prove that the government assured them it was legal OK. Then go after the government people that said it was legal. I want this to go to trial so that we can find out what all has been done in "our" interest. I also would like a court ruling on executive power in this, so we can stop future abuses.

    Parent
    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    Then cap their liability or limit it to criminal liability only.  Don't give them a free pass.

    I encountered a similar problem when I sued RealAudio in one of the very first Internet privacy lawsuits.  It was a slam-dunk case, but the problem is, they had about 10 million customers and even a settlement giving each of them $1 would bankrupt the company.  So we had to get creative and work something else out - I believe part of it ended up being a large corporate donation to the EFF.  Point being, no plaintiffs' lawyer is going to bankrupt the telecoms, it would do their clients no good.

    Parent

    Good for you (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by eric on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    although you should have bankrupted RealAudio.  ;)

    Parent
    Limit liability, yes (none / 0) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:14:03 PM EST
    If they can grant immunity, then they can limit liability.

    And you know, I'm still not so happy about no liability as long as they evidence the government said it was ok.  Who cares?  The executive branch doesn't get to interpret the Constitution.  That's the judicial branch.  I really think it's an awful precedent to say 'oh, ok, well the government said it was ok.'

    Parent

    then the system is indeed broken as I've suspected (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST
    and the country is on its way to being a banana republic.

    a third world status awaits us. We cannot recover from this because there are other crimes waiting yet  to be discovered by this administration.

    What is the next administration going to do? Follow the rule of law? It is now becoming a sad joke.

    Feingold should filibuster and he should be our next president for doing so

    Parent

    it's not the money... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    that's the issue (at least for me) but the accountability.  The public has a right to know exactly what happened (primarily, so that the public will be so incensed as to demand legislation that it won't happen again).  That's why some would have allowed the govt. to indemnify the telcos.

    The goal (at least for me) is not to drive the telcos into bankruptcy, or to make them pay for what they've done, but, most importantly, to shed light on what exactly happened.

    imho

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    The reason I don't want immunity is because these private lawsuits against the telecoms are the only way we are ever going to have any hope of finding out about all the abuses.  The courts have already dismissed other actions brought against the government on standing grounds saying that the people have no real evidence they were ever illegally spied on.  Of course, they have no way of accessing the information to prove their claim because the government says it is all "highly classified" or a "state secret."  

    If money liability was the true concern of the Congress, they could cap the amount of damages.  

    Also, if I hear one more person talk about how we shouldn't "punish" these "patriotic" countries who cooperated with the government in the blatantly illegal surveillance, I am going to vomit.  These companies were as patriotic as Volkswagen was during the Nazi regime.  Secretly capitulating to the government's request to blatanlty violate the United States Constitution and federal statutory law by aiding and abetting the government's invasion of the privacy of millions of Americans is not patriotic.  It is about as far from patriotic as can be.  The patriots are the ones who said "No," and suffered the government's wrath for doing so.  

    Parent

    oops (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    I meant "'patriotic' companies," not "'patriotic' countries."  

    Parent
    Already capped in Wiretap Act (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    Statutory Damages of $10,000 per plaintiff. Problem is, there could be 150,000,000 plaintiffs.

    Parent
    As I see the liability issue (none / 0) (#82)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM EST
    Here is a synopsis and paraphrase of the relevant provision in the new legislation:

    This deal does not include explicit immunity for the telecoms.  It does, however, provide a standard by which a federal court can determine whether each telecom qualifies for the immunity provisions in the bill by verifying that they received requests and/or approvals from federal agencies that assured the telecoms of the legality of their cooperation.  Although it requires a court proceeding to grant immunity, it establishes a clear presumption in favor of the telecoms.

    This merely codifies a defense which already exists in the criminal law.  It is referred to as "reasonable reliance upon authority."  So, as a practitioner, this does not change much, other than now it is employed in a prospective civil suit.  Further, it creates a presumption of propriety for the telecom entities.    

    Parent

    No "reasonable reliance" in Wiretap Act (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    The Statute's too explicit, and the Telco attorneys knew it.

    Parent
    Well, there will be FISA now (none / 0) (#108)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST
    The problem isn't just with (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jake Left on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:04:13 AM EST
    letting the telecoms off, as bad as that is. The real kicker is the part that completely gives away an American citizen's right to privacy forever. Any president and his minions can spy on anyone for any reason they want. It would let presidents spy on their opposition. It would let a president's advisors have inside information about anyone they wanted. All it would take is a president with no morals. That doesn't seem hard to imagine.

    This may be the worst bill ever being passed for the worst and most selfish reasons ever. This is big. Returning favors, waiting for the polls, making sure you follow protocol - none of these should matter. Any principled congressman will vote against this. Those who vote for it (or duck the vote) are unprincipled swine.

    Regarding the thread above about Hillary's vote, I sort of understand her waiting to see what BO will do. But if she votes for the bill or stands by and lets it pass, I will have to regret the money and support I gave her. Howevr, this is Obama's call to step up. We will see this week if he has any of his rhetoric anywhere but his mouth. This is his call to leadership. If he can't gut it up for this, he simply is inadequate for the job.

    Parent

    Exactly!! (none / 0) (#104)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:20:44 PM EST


    Obama is definitely no Clinton :) (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:47:33 PM EST


    True (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    And the reason he's silent?  Because he's all for it.  

    Yelling and screaming at him isn't going to help.  He figures there's no way he will lose this election, so you're going to start seeing him for what he really is (and for what I've seen all along that he is).

    And yes, I'm laughing ;-).

    Parent

    I know, because I'm so bitter my butt (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    is unable to stay in a unity pony saddle.  If it wasn't for my bitter bottom I would be securely astride embraced by my super secret silver lining of hope saddle cantering about on my purebred unity gelding.  I'm a flawed human being.

    Parent
    You are on a roll. Had any sleep yet? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    It's so disappointing (none / 0) (#132)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:46:53 PM EST
    to see his absolute silence on this so far. His staff are now "literally reviewing the FISA issue as we speak"? Where has he been on this issue for weeks now?

    When it comes right down to it, all they care about is protecting party prospects for November. They know they won't pay a price for selling out our civil liberties because the media is presenting it (when they bother covering it at all) as little more than a way to protect those patriotic telecoms from masses of opportunistic lawsuits. The bipartisan cover is the icing. Also, Dems fear that any kind of terrorist act inside the US in the meanwhile would be pinned entirely on the Dems over this, and would be enough to turn the tide of the election. So they will all hold their noses and tepidly condemn, and the leadership will allow it to be brought to the floor. It's all structured to diffuse blame and let them all say they opposed it, and yet it will go through.

    An object lesson in why not to ever trust politicians to do the right thing - their interests and our interests just aren't the same.

    Any terrorist act (none / 0) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:49:45 PM EST
    is going to turn the tide no matter what they do about FISA.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#153)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    If Bush were seen as competent I'd agree, but as things stand it would be just one more disaster to blame on him. It would kill the R's more than it looks like they're going to be killed in November anyway. Not giving Bush pretty much everything he wants in the way of spying powers is the only possible thing that could let the blame be hung on Dems instead.

    Not that understanding this makes me condemn them any less. I'm sure that if they wanted to there's a million procedural ways they could have simply extended the existing law until a Dem administration comes in, and kept the other worse bill the Blue Dogs want to vote for from ever reaching the floor.

    Parent