Comments (29)

Clay wrote on January 23, 2008 10:57 AM:

So, the telecoms haven't done anything wrong, according to the President, but it is still vital to grant them immunity. In fact, so important to do this that the security of the U.S. will be held hostage to the immunity deal.

When the smell gets this strong, you know there's a body there.

Crust wrote on January 23, 2008 10:59 AM:

It's pretty clear which side Reid is really on, his rhetoric notwithstanding. He ignored Dodd's hold (what happened to even a single Republican's hold being sacrosanct?) and went with the version of that includes retroactive amnesty for the telcos. The only way this can realistically be stopped is if one or more of the big three Dem presidential candidates picks this up and runs with it. Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher and others are trying to pressure Edwards to do it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/22/democrats/index.html

[Repeating comments from another thread:] This is a very big deal. Because we're talking about civil offenses (unlike FISA violations by the admin itself which are felonies) they are NOT subject to executive clemency. So Bush cannot let the telcos off the hook by issuing a blanket pardon as he can his own administration.

Crust wrote on January 23, 2008 11:01 AM:

Paul, what's up with your phrasing "Civil liberty advocates say that move slants the debate in favor of a bill with immunity"? Civil liberty advocates also say the Earth is round. Both are objective facts.

oldtree wrote on January 23, 2008 11:03 AM:

I would have to advise anyone pretending to represent me that it is time to say NO. It would be a lot better to see the scumbags beg to kill more people.
Wonder what a trillion dollars would do for free energy, health care, you know, what the people want?

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:04 AM:

any word on another dodd filibuster?

any word on barack and hillary making good on there promises of support?

chisholm wrote on January 23, 2008 11:20 AM:

As much as I loathe the Republicans, it really is inspiring to see people fight hard for what they believe in. I'm starting to think that Democratic weakness and passivity are congenital.

heh wrote on January 23, 2008 11:25 AM:

between a recession that won't be pronounced therefor we're not there yet, vs. the realityof Americans KNOWING we're in one and this assault on liberties in favor of the monied who lobbied (or bought, take your pick)Congress hard and, this once great nation is gettin to be a distant memory of what it was. SAD indeed.

MNSpectator wrote on January 23, 2008 11:36 AM:

Question: If immunity can be granted retroactively, can't it be taken away retroactively as well?

In other words, let the cowards have their 360 or so days of thinking they got off the hook, then Fsck them over. Hard.

Slippery Slope wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:

Common...

We've all heard this before and would not likely to be here on the site if not already politically active, BUT here goes again.

Write, call AND fax Reid and your Senator now.

http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

We the People must stand up.

SC Independent wrote on January 23, 2008 11:48 AM:

I got a call from the Democratic Party asking me to give $$ again (I gave a lot at midterms). I told them No, not this time. Perhaps I will if telecom immunity is NOT part of FISA reform. Am I the only one sick of this trend to cave in to the criminals?

EdNSted wrote on January 23, 2008 11:51 AM:

Tick. Tock.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 23, 2008 11:59 AM:

Oh good . . . Another oppurtunity for Barak Obama to make a statement that human rights aren't worth him voting for them and saying that his voice is worthless on the Senate floor.

Maybe Clinton can fly to Alaska so she won't have to go on record.

Dave Bowman wrote on January 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

Good idea, MNSpectator, however, the problem is that the telcos are bipartisan spenders, and they have been investing in the Dems as well, so those who have been taking $$$ from the telcos would not be keen on seeing their gravy train derailed.

steev wrote on January 23, 2008 12:49 PM:

Here's how our two-party politics seems to shake out these days: The Republicans break every rule in the book, lie, cheat and steal to advance their policy priorities and to appeal to their party's base, without even pretending to give a damn about what the political left thinks. The Democrats, meanwhile, do everything they can to promote policies with cross-over appeal to the same Republican party base, all while publicly distancing themselves from, if not outright ridiculing, their own base. It seems the Democrats rarely take any initiative of their own on any policy matter--they just spend all their time trying to damage control the negative consequences of right-wing policies we all just take for granted the Republicans will successfully push through, regardless of how little popular support there may be for the policies. Meanwhile, any Democrat who shows the slightest trace of holding original, principled policy positions is marched over to the corner and forced to put on a dunce cap. W.T.F.

Jim2445 wrote on January 23, 2008 1:27 PM:

I called my Senators, Senator Durbin, this morning. Talked to one of his aids.
Basically the conversation went as follows:

I was wrong in that I thought that Retroactive Immunity was still in the
the bill on the floor.

Retroactive immunity will be brought up as an amendment to that bill.

Senator Dodd will filibuster that amendment.

Senator Durbin will vote against both the
filibuster (thereby allowing the amendment to reach the floor for a vote) and then vote against that amendment.

I asked what was the difference between voting against the filibuster and voting for retroactive immunity.

The aid said that I was assuming that the Senate would vote for retroactive immunity. I said that several Democrats would vote for retroactive immunity. He said who? I said Nelson, Feinstein and Lieberman (not really a Democrat, I know).

He seemed to agree then used a different argument. He then asked if I wanted to stop all Senate business, because that is what a successful filibuster would do. Of course I said yes.

I told him that if we are a nation of laws then we cannot give retroactive immunity to a few law breakers.

He then suggested that I work to elect more Democrats. I told him that I was working for Pera against Lipinski. We need more Democrats but we also need better Democrats.

I them had to cut the call short because I had another call on the line.

So that is that. It seems that even the moderately progressive Senators are capitulating.

Senator Durbin at least will pretend that he is voting against retroactive immunity when just standing by and letting it happen.

Depressing.

Kirk Spencer wrote on January 23, 2008 1:30 PM:

MNSpectator, the answer is, "no". Once something is made legal, you cannot go back and make it retroactively illegal. Ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

TheraP wrote on January 23, 2008 1:34 PM:

Just got an email suggesting there is a campaign afoot to insist that the candidates all go back to Congress and prevent this from passing.

OK by me.

Sean Eric Fagan wrote on January 23, 2008 1:53 PM:

I'm just about ready to give up here. The only reason I haven't is because I don't know what to do next -- move to Canada? New Zealand? Australia?

I've given money. I've made calls. I've *withheld* money and made calls explaining why -- most notably, to my rep (Lofgren), and Boxer and Feinstein, explaining why the California Democratic Party would not see a single penny from me as long as Feinstein is around.

But we *won*, and nobody gives a crap. So what's the point? What else am I supposed to do?

jayackroyd wrote on January 23, 2008 2:05 PM:

An anonymous above asked what happened with the Dodd filibuster.

As things stand, the Senate would resume from where they left off, in the midst of the procedural issues Dodd had raised.

First indication was next week was when they would look at this.

But the firestorm is starting--the Credo email action (see firedoglake.com) has shut down candidate mail servers and I just spent 15 minutes in a hold queue with Clinton's office--and so they don't want to give the blogosphere the weekend to get organized. And they want to give Obama and Clinton cover. Matt Stoller over at OpenLeft has heard that Obama will be in DC for a fundraiser on Monday. Given that the current fight on the trail is who the true progressive is, it would be bad for Obama to be in DC, and not stop by the Senate.

So make as much fuss as you can. Firedoglake is coordinating this, as I said.

brian wrote on January 23, 2008 2:14 PM:

The new paradigm for government breaking the law : tell a corporation to break the law, then refuse ( or promise or fail ) to prosecute the corporation.

Can our republic survive this sort of thing ?

Restore the constitution.

jayackroyd wrote on January 23, 2008 2:17 PM:

Whoever spoke with Durbin's office--the aide lied to you. From GG:
Now, it is possible we could finish it fairly quickly. We are going to work from the Intelligence bill, and if amendments are offered that people don't like, I would suggest they move to table those amendments. Because if people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

The Intelligence bill contains the Telecom amnesty provision. Any amendment will be to remove it. Part of the point in choosing this version over the judiciary version is that it would have taken 60 votes to add immunity. Now it's gonna take 60 votes to get it out.

Centerpunch wrote on January 23, 2008 3:22 PM:

I've called several senate offices and have been brushed-off with the "amendment" bullshit line, too.

Both houses are lost to corporations and greed and only one senator need stand-up for America to turn the tide on this bill and others. Will Dodd hold his ground? Who among these distinguished few will stand for truth? If immunity passes, all is lost... without law we are lost. This is truly the beginning of the end of Justice in this country. If you stand by and do nothing, YOU are to blame. Once immunity is granted, the floodgates are open and forever so. There will be no end to what can be justified "in the interest of national security". We are fucked.

We laughed at the "Contract with America". We laughed at Obama for saying the Repukes are the party of ideas. WAKE UP! The f-ing Dem's do nothing for us and we just keep sucking! Dem's have no balls! We need to get rid of the Rangles and Reids and Pelosi's and start fresh. These bumbling buffoons have the telcos so burried in their asses they can't see straight! Hillary and Bill need to head on down the road with the rest of them. They will do nothing but create more anymosity and gridlock and accountability will be a worse joke than it is now.

Who-TF voted for Reid??!! Thanks-a-lot!!

Jim Webb needs to kick him in sternum and take leadership now!

Paulie wrote on January 23, 2008 4:31 PM:

Our traitorous government has failed us yet again. I don't know who is worse, the repukes for pulling this shit or the dems for doing nothing even with a MAJORITY!

TexModDem wrote on January 23, 2008 5:02 PM:

Hey, maybe Obama can work his consensus magic and get a bill that both sides can support and which does the right thing.

After all, that's his forte right?

That's what he's promising to bring to the table as president, so why not take this opportunity to show the electorate he has the political power to produce such consensus legislation?

I guess he's too busy filing frivolous claims of alleged election violations by the Clinton campaign in Nevada and whining about so-called lies about his record to actually demonstrate the skills he claims to have in a concrete way that would show he's ready to lead.

Now when did that consensus legislation on the war in Iraq that Obama is supposed to have proposed get passed?

I mean, if you can't get legislation passed on the single most important and defining issue of our day and his campaign, according both he and his supporters, if you can't build a consensus on such an issue, exactly what is Obama bringing to the table?

At some point don't you have to demonstrate that your politics of hope and consensus is more than just a promise, that it is something you can actually deliver?

Or are we just supposed to accept his demand to "trust me?"

(Now, where have I heard THAT before!?)

TexModDem wrote on January 23, 2008 5:10 PM:

Paulie: "I don't know who is worse, the repukes for pulling this shit or the dems for doing nothing even with a MAJORITY!"

Obama is part of that majority, so why hasn't he done anything to force accountability on the Telecoms - like push consensus legislation through the House and Senate?

Why hasn't he done anything to force accountability of the Bush administration - like push a consensus bill of impeachment through the House and a trial to conviction in the Senate?

Why hasn't he done anything to force the return of our troops and an end to the war in Iraq - like a consensus bill defunding war?

I have it on good authority (from Obama supporters no less) that you must PASS LEGISLATION to demonstrate the necessary experience, skill, and credibility for the job of president and that Obama's just the guy to build the consensus coalitions necessary to pass such legislation.

Waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . .

You mean he has to be elected president first before he can accomplish these things?!

Now, that wasn't a good enough excuse for Clinton or the Democratic leadership, so why is it a good excuse for Obama?

Centerpiece-without-a-table, Nader-lite, Ganja Guy, Kumbayah Candidate Obama.

It has a nice ring to it.

Votaire wrote on January 23, 2008 5:12 PM:

What is this "Constitution you people keep mentioning?

CybScryb wrote on January 23, 2008 5:24 PM:

Harry must have something lined up on K-Street as he's lost my vote and the vote of every progressive GOoPer I know. Not sure he'll even get a majority of Dem votes next time out.

His son, Rory, won't stand a chance as he's a chip off the old block, both in appearance and politics.

The thought of Senator Porter has me thinking of relocation to a state with more sanity.

brian wrote on January 23, 2008 6:32 PM:

The constitution is the rule book for our republic.

When the government breaks the rules specified in the constitution we are heading towards mere despotism.

The most serious issue for our country now is the restoration of the constitution to pre-eminence.

A president, however wise and well-intentioned, who defies the constitution is a despot.

A president, however dull-witted and incompetent, who adheres to the constitution is limited in the damage he can do.

MNSpectator wrote on January 23, 2008 7:51 PM:

@Kirk Spencer: This would be the same Constitution that the current administration has been spitting on/ignoring/shredding for 7+ years now? That Constitution, is that the one we're talking about?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.