FISA Fight: Stalemate?

On the heels of the House victory in passing solid FISA legislation in defiance of Bush and AT&T, the picture for the legislation looks murky. If you can believe Politico (and sometimes that is a admittedly a stretch), there might not be further action on the bill this year.

After months of debate on a controversial electronic surveillance law, Congress heads into a two-week spring break deadlocked with the White House on the issue, raising the possibility that resolution could be delayed until after the November election....

House Democratic leaders stiff-armed Bush, however, arguing that existing laws can adequately protect the country while they deliberate the FISA overhaul. And now, having stared down the president on a key national security issue and enjoyed a week of largely positive headlines, congressional aides and outside experts say there is less of a sense of urgency surrounding the issue....

After allowing a temporary electronic surveillance law to expire on Feb. 15, there are no hard deadlines to meet until August, when the surveillance orders authorizing the government to spy on potential terrorists expire.

"I don’t know if there is a dire need to get it done tomorrow," said one Senate Democratic aide. "Obviously we would like to see a resolution on this, but that is really hard to do when the House is voting on legislation that won’t pass the Senate and Republicans won’t even come to the table."

The Senate has a stacked deck of issues to push in April and May, including addressing the housing crisis and the reverberations it's had through the entire economy. They're also expecting another push on Iraq, with Petraeus scheduled to testify in early April and another defense authorization bill looming.

In the meantime, however, we can't count on the issue just going away. Your federal representatives should be rattling around your area in the next couple of weeks. Find out where they have town meetings, or schedule appointments with them while they're home, and let them know that their constituents are paying attention to the issue.

•  "House Democratic leaders stiff-armed Bush"

  Hmmm, poetry in the form of prose.

  Seriously, Democrats, see how nice it is to be reading stories like that instead of "Democrats bow to Bush on..."

  by bosdcla14 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

  •  Wasn't that nice to read? (n/t)

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:08:19 AM PDT

    •  Yep. And I especially liked...

      and Republicans won’t even come to the table."

      Let's keep them away from it for a long, long time.

      by moosely2006 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM PDT

      •  The weird thing is

        they seem to think that they lose nothing from the status quo.  They are betting everything on immunity and are fine with letting their old bill expire.

        Until something else passes, Bush has to go through FISA and we won. But does anyone think that the Bush Administration is actually following the law?  

        What are they up to exactly? Ignoring FISA again, assuming that they won't be brought to justice? Engineering a crisis that proves that they need permission to ignore FISA?

        by Jonathanonymous on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM PDT

        •  I doubt that they are ignoring

          FISA.    They would need to have the brassest of brass balls to go back to these felonies after being revealed.

          I want these bastards to do one day for each violation of FISA....

          by kevinofburbank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

  •  Harry Mitchell--Profile in Courage!!!

    Freshman Rep. Harry Mitchell, representing a Republican district in Scottsdale/Tempe, Arizona, was subject to a withering assault by way of the well-known 'ads'.  His principled and resounding rejection of immunity is detailed in a My Turn column in yesterday's Arizona Republic (azcentral.com)  

    Sorry, I'm link-challenged, but this is an inspired and inspiring retort by the former Tempe Mayor who taught Government for more than twenty years.

    If someone can link this, you won't regret it!!!!

    by serrano on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM PDT

    •  Wa la !

      linkage

      by jnhobbs on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM PDT

      •  hate to be a pest but...

        unknown to some, it's actually spelled "viola!" pronounce it as if you were french.

        by Ab2kgj on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM PDT

        •  Uh, It's Actually Voila!!!

          Viola is a fine instrument, but the o-i forms the 'w' sound....

          by serrano on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:38:37 AM PDT

          •  wa-la!

            by voila on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:27:59 PM PDT

            •  heh nt

              by jnhobbs on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

  •  I prefer "clotheslined"

    Better mental image for me.

    by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM PDT

    •  But It Was a "Stiffarm"

      "Clotheslining" someone means suddenly holding out your arm across their face or neck as they run past, unsuspecting.

      Stiffarming someone means punching them with elbow locked, so there is no possibility of your yielding, which further uses their heedless onward rush into you against them.

      What Congress did this Winter to oppose telco amnesty wasn't really a surprise to Bush (though its success might have been). It was a head-on confrontation, not an ambush as Bush rushed attack someone else. And it was notable mainly in its refusal to yield, which let Bush's further attacks beat his own face against the Democrats' fist.

      Stiffarm is a more accurate image.

      by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:34:53 AM PDT

      •  Listening to Shrilly McWhineypants on FISA

        the last few press-conferences, it sounds like he got a dose of both.

        After all, this is all about his immunity, not the telecoms.

        by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM PDT

  •  Music to my ears

    Best thing I've read today.

    Let this be a recorded as a rare sighting of Spinus Democraticus. Maybe we can bring the species back from the verge of extinction.

    by The Raven on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:49:57 AM PDT

  •  Funny how the press didn't put it that way

    when it was Bush and the Republicans stiff-arming the Democratic Congress.

    by lysias on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

•  Stalemate

  is WHAT WE WANT.

  The Senate is still afraid of the Bushites tying this to its tail, so stalemate is what they obviously want, rather than repudiation.

  It'll do for now as far as I'm concerned.

  by dabize on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:55:17 AM PDT

•  Stalemate.

  Or, in other words, win.

  by Moody Loner on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:55:57 AM PDT

  •  MAD(Mutually Assured Distraction). nt

    by JML9999 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

  •  As I said above

    Legally we win. But George Bush broke the law with impunity until this came into the light and got away with it.  Does anyone think that he will actually go through FISA now?

    He is holding out for immunity because if he doesn't get the bill he wants, he will keep doing whatever he wants without it.

    by Jonathanonymous on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM PDT

    •  True dat.

      What I want isn't stalemate. What I want is the Chimp impeached and his ass in the docket for war crimes and violation of the Constitution and FISA.

      But at this point, I'll take stalemate - at least he and his telco co-perpetrators don't have immunity. Yet.

      by Moody Loner on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:33:33 AM PDT

      •  I could care less about Impeachment now....

        except perhaps next year it could be fun, but the political cost may not be worth the effort.

        Now, I would like very much criminal prosecution of Bush and Co. after they leave office...

        by kevinofburbank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:25:49 PM PDT

•  Better no action than bad action.

  by bluewombat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

•  We really don't want this worked on this year.

  A stalemate is just fine.  If the surveillance orders begin to expire in August that may mean the Republicans get more "reasonable."  However I doubt it, I think all the actual intelligence stuff is merely a front for the immunity Bush wants for himself.  The underlying FISA law is in operation still and while it has some gaps due to the growth of technology, the FISA judges who pass on the warrants are easily capable of dealing with that.  Let's wait until 2009 when we presumably will have a much better congress and president.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:01:08 AM PDT

  •  it's about the immunity, stupid!

    think all the actual intelligence stuff is merely a front for the immunity Bush wants for himself.

    Amen.

    by lisastar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:08 AM PDT

  •  Only one gap, really

    Foreign to foreign calls routed through the US.

    But it's all about no amnesty.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

    •  What's the prob w getting warrants for those?

      While there's no 4th Amendment right involved, only statutory, is it really necessary to spy on ordinary Canadians?

      by ben masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM PDT

      •  I don't have a problem with it

        Have you talked to Feingold about that?

        by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM PDT

        •  Not yet.

          He gives me about 2 minutes per event, I used my last to invite him to the Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, May 20-23 in New Haven.

          You really should try to make it, pretty sure you'd qualify for the journalist scholarships, deadline soon.

          by ben masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM PDT

          •  Just curious to hear what he'd say to you

            Every time I've heard him speak publicly about updating FISA, he always brings that up as the one thing that needs to be addressed. But I wondered whether he'd said anything to you.

            Thanks for the reminder on the conference. It's a tough time for me, schedule-wise, but I'm going to try.

            by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM PDT

•  The only problem is GWB

  has already demonstrated he will go outside the law, will break or ignore the law and generally do as he pleases.
  The lack of legislation may have no real world impact on what the administration is currently doing.

  by entlord1 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:01:38 AM PDT

  •  But it allows discovery to "press on"

    in the Civil Cases against the Phone companies.

    by JML9999 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM PDT

    •  Precisely

      Right now it's all about preventing amnesty.

      by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:24 AM PDT

•  Here's how this will play out...

  Terrorist attack sometime in the next few months..

  Administration shakes it's head while blaming Dems in Congress (specifically naming Pelosi) for leaving the country undefended.  (It doesn't have to be true, of course.  Remember, folks... perception is everything in politics!)

  Congress quickly passes Senate version including amnesty.

  Dems take a hit in November.

  by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:05:25 AM PDT

  •  Here's how we pre-empt it

    Reid and Pelosi give a press conference in which they state, "At some point in the next few months, one of the dozens of terrorist attacks that take place somewhere in the world every day will be cynically used by Bush. He'll use it to blame us for not giving him more blank checks on warrantless wiretaps.

    We know he's planning to do this and we won't fall for it. Neither should the American people."

    In fact, once a month predictions on the dirty tricks we expect from Bush and the Republicans might not be a bad idea. Let's take all the (hot) air out of their sails by predicting every ploy.

    by ibonewits on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM PDT

    •  He's going to rob that bank, he's going to rob

      that bank.....say that enough times in public about a would-be bank robber and he probably won't rob that bank.

      We need more congress people willing to speak their deepest fears about just what this administration is capable of doing....In fact we all need to scream it from the rooftops to hopefully prevent them from doing it.

      by Rachel Griffiths on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM PDT

•  No need to give all future administrations

  unchecked power at the request of a lame duck administration.

  This administration has struggled with ethics, morality and simply telling the truth. I'm not sure on what merits congress should grant any more requests handed down by the White House.

  Bush burned all his political capital and then some. Congress, the American people and the rest of the world will be far more skeptical and perhaps cynical of the next president. It will be an uphill battle to regain the trust and confidence of the people. Having unchecked powers will only hinder the process.

  by SpiffPeters on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:07 AM PDT

•  I am having a hard time understanding

  my federal representative's stand on this issue. I've just received a reply from Jim Cooper ( TN-05) re: his voting with the republicans:

  I voted against the House version of the FISA bill last Friday because I do not think we can risk our national security any longer.  The House version accepted nearly all of the provisions contained in its Senate counterpart.  It does not achieve more than the Senate version, but is instead the product of a partisan political contest. This contest does not make us safer and it does not protect our liberties.  We should put this false dispute behind us and accept the Senate's language.

  OK, I get that, he is a bluedog DINO. I don't get what this means:

  The House version may not use the words "retroactive immunity" for telecom companies, but it does let these companies off the hook.  
  Likewise, it will also not bring the Bush administration's wiretapping activities of the last six years out into the open.  Anything the administration provides may only be reviewed in closed, secret court proceedings.  

  ???

  by jnhobbs on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:55 AM PDT

  •  That's total bullshit

    Cooper had that in his letter to you? They are not let off the hook, they are given the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. And it creates a commission, like the 9/11 commission, to investigate warrantless wiretapping.

    He's flat out lying.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:10:53 AM PDT

    •  Yes , the blockquotes are the

      middle two paragraphs. Thank you for the information. I intend to attend any and all town hall meetings that Cooper has scheduled .

      by jnhobbs on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:13:29 AM PDT

  •  Would you forward that e-mail to me? (n/t)

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM PDT

    •  Yes... nt

      by jnhobbs on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM PDT

•  It's much more extensive

  Domestic surveillance is far more extensive than most people think.
  -Trevor Wynne
  www.atimelikethis.us

  by Trevor Wynne on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:08:57 AM PDT

•  The Court Cases Proceed?

  To paraphrase Rummy, you don't go to court with the law you want, you go to court with the law you have.

  With no immunity, it seems a lot of legal headway could be made between now and having a new president...

  by Taylorbad on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM PDT

•  Expect Orange

  Seriously, who doesn't see the Terrah Threat Level going to Orange or even Red any day now, based upon unspecified 'intelligence', especially while Congress is out of session?

  Bush would have a PR field day, lasting weeks hammering Dems on "security". McCain gets a bump, GWB looks good again, pull Congress back from break and he gets his amnesty.

  Stalemate only lasts so long as both sides play the game. It's over when one side (usually the one in weaker position) leaves and pulls the fire alarm.

  by OWCH on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:09:22 AM PDT

  •  It only goes to RED when there are DEAD people.

    that's not to say that a "Dramatic" arrest won't happen.

    by JML9999 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM PDT

•  I feel proud

  The fact that a stalemate is even a possibility makes me really proud.  If not for Sen. Dodd, and the pushback from the netroots, this would have been "compromised" away long ago.

  Also, it's nice to see that calling, faxing, emailing, and donating do have the power to make a difference!

  by mffarrow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11:53 AM PDT

•  Stalemate not a problem for me

  I agree with Glenn Greenwald on this one.

  We do need to get that one loophole created by the court decision regarding foreign-to-foreign communications incidentally routed through the US fixed, but even that's not all that pressing, since warrants can be obtained in the interim.

  by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM PDT

•  if this is all we can save

  after all we have lost in the last 7 yrs, and it allows us to investigate Bushco, then we can pick ourselves up and fix the rest.

  by lisastar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:13:31 AM PDT

•  I asked Dave Obey about FISA

  On Monday I saw my congressman Dave Obey at a book signing. I asked him about the FISA bill. I wish I had good news to report.

  The conversation went roughly like this:

  Me: I want to thank you for all the good work you've done in Washington. I was especially proud of the house vote on the FISA bill.

  Obey: (vehemently) I once had my phone tapped by the Reagan administration. When that happens to you you never forget.

  We're going to lose this fight. The senate has already caved.

  Me: Any chance of stalling the bill? Running out the clock for another 10 months?

  Obey: (shaking his head) No. If the senate version of the bill comes to the house the southerners will vote for it.

  I didn't get a chance to follow up on this. I admire Dave but I hope he's wrong on this one.

  by ddshostakovich on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:20:39 AM PDT

  •  We just gotta keep up the pressure

    Back in December, we thought we lost. But Dodd held tough. Then in January, and then again in February they didn't cave, when it looked like the Senate had lost it all for us, they figured out how to jujitsu procedure in our favor. We're turning a corner on this, it's just going to take continued pressure.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM PDT

    •  well said, and to wit . . .

      here's my letter to Herb Kohl, my straying senator.

      Dear Senator,
      I was bitterly disappointed in your vote for a FISA bill that contained retroactive immunity for the telecomms. Your colleagues in the house produced a far better bill, one that modernized FISA while protecting individual constitutional rights.

      In a conversation earlier this week my congressman Dave Obey told me that "We will lose this fight. If the senate version comes to the house, the southerners will vote for it."

      The senate version MUST NOT go to the house. As your constituent, erstwhile supporter and loyal Democrat I implore you in the strongest terms to support the house version of this bill.

      If for some reason you cannot do so, please do what you can to see that no vote takes place until 10 months from now when a new administration is in place.

      Hopefully and respectfully,

      Your constituent,

      This is the second time I've written him on the subject. I'm hopeful of a better result this time.

      by ddshostakovich on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM PDT

  •  only 8 months.

    Presuming a Dem wins the Pres election, I can't see lame duck Republicans continuing to press for expanded presidential surveillance powers. indeed, the lame duck session may be the best chance to pass legislation creating new privacy protections.

    by ben masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:49:03 AM PDT

•  Dems who stood up for us need our thanks

  Some of them are getting hammered with calls from the other side.

  If your representative voted the right way on the FISA bill, call his or her office to say thank you.

  by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

•  But of course

  BushCo will just go ahead and do whatever they damn well please anyway...

  by rdbaker43 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:25:10 AM PDT

•  Check the NSA for local locations and numbers.

  THey have all the info you need.

  by Skid on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:28:23 AM PDT

•  They Will Betray Us

  The Senate has a stacked deck of issues to push in April and May, including addressing the housing crisis and the reverberations it's had through the entire economy.

  The Democratic Congressional "leadership" wants to get back to their campaign agenda of passing a "bipartisan voter bribe" package to send each taxpayer about $600 (or less) to somehow help us out of an economy that's maxxed out on over $30 TRILLION in debt. Which is about a a quarter-million dollars per taxpayer. It's a joke, a cruel one that will further bankrupt the government by another $75 BILLION in extra debt.

  Amidst all that smokescreen, they are hoping that all anyone who cares will remember is that they "stopped amnesty". Meanwhile, as we are all distracted with stunts like that rebate bribe and other grandstanding generated by hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the campaigns... they'll cave and pass something that gives the telcos amnesty.

  Unless we hound them into doing their job. Like threatening not to vote or donate to them when they cave.

  I've got a little hope for amnesty prohibition, inspired by the successful stalemate this month. But that just gives me hope that hounding them will keep the stalemate. All the rest of the track record shows that letting them keep the stalemate as a "victory", without committing legislation that prohibits amnesty, will see them sneak back to surrender.

  As usual, it's up to us to keep them at their jobs.

  by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM PDT

•  I did this last night!

  Your federal representatives should be rattling around your area in the next couple of weeks. Find out where they have town meetings, or schedule appointments with them while they're home, and let them know that their constituents are paying attention to the issue.

  My Congressman, Steve Rothman (D NJ-9) had one of his frequent "Listening Sessions" in my town (where he lives) last night.  I told him that I was glad that the House showed some spine and stood up to Bush on the Telecom Immunity portion of FISA.

  He explained FISA and the Telecom Immunity issue to the audience, then went on to say that it wouldn't pass the Senate and if it did, Bush will veto it.  He indicated that the House was fairly firm on the issue - but offered no guarantees.  He is dead set against it and explained why.  He also assured everyone that the original FISA law is quite sufficient.

  He said that he learned absolutely nothing new in the private/secure session, and he said it was basically much ado about nothing.

  He also said that he is for universal, single payer health care (Go Congressman Rothman!) and that he can't support John Conyers bill because he would raise payroll taxes to pay for it.  He thinks there are other places where the money could come from.  He didn't elaborate, and since I'd already had my turn, I didn't get to ask.

  I'm going to try to do a diary on this session tonight.

  by Cyber Kat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for taking the opportunity

    to education your neighbors!

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:12:36 AM PDT

•  Bushco will STILL claim State Secrets

  To cover their own crimes. They'll just have to throw the telcos under the bus to do so if the immunity/amnesty doesn't pass.

  by nytcek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM PDT

•  spelling / grammar police

  ... and the reverberations it's had through the entire economy ..

  "its had" isn't quite right as it is the possessive of "it".

  "it's had" is wrong since it is the contraction of 'it is'.

  "it has had" is correct, but on the other hand the phrase could be rewritten as:

  ... and its reverberations through the entire economy ...

  which is simpler, and the use of possessive makes sense this way

  by GeeWhizBang on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM PDT

  •  Nooooooo

    I was about to congratulate McJ on "it's had" because it's correct to say "it has had" and use its apostrophe!!!!

    by JG in MD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

  •  I like it when people correct my grammer.

    I always appreciate it because I want to learn how to write correctly.

    by swtexas on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:33:21 AM PDT

•  Stalemate means law reverts to old FISA.

  I can live with that.

  And, if the country survives with that for the rest of the year, I think the case for our having to change FISA more or less evaporates.

  by lysias on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM PDT

•  Senate will tack FISA onto Defense bill

  This is my bet (not my wish): the Senate has the Defense authorization bill scheduled for this spring; someone will tack the FISA renewal & immunity language onto it thus forcing the old argument: "the Dems don't support the troops; they're withholding funding if they don't pass this bill!" And it will very likely pass. It's an election year and they haven't withheld funding yet.

  by zydecodependent on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM PDT

  •  God I hope you are wrong, ya know? n/t

    by swtexas on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM PDT

  •  I Wonder ...

    I wonder if the wind tunnel is being outblown by the truth here and there. Millions listened to Obama yesterday. Keith is the highest news rating for his hour, and on other parameters that I'm not sure of.

    Truth beginning to be heard? Downline candidates making slightly more courageous speeches because of the examples being set by Congresscritters, candidate(s), et al. Rachel Maddow given a bigger megaphone? Others speaking out more?

    Maybe?

    by JG in MD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM PDT

•  Seems like good news to me.

  But as far as my federal representatives rattling around, I think the LAST thing they want to do is pesky town hall meetings and meetings with their constituants.  They have more important rich and powerful to meet with such as telecoms, oil, energy, Gov. Rick "tollroad" Perry.  I'm talking about Kay Granger, Kay B-huchison and John Cornyn- I'll give ya three guesses what THEY think about FISA.

  by swtexas on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:28:14 AM PDT

  •  P.S.

    I am now more worried about President Cheney and his puppet bush jumping on Iran before the GE!

    by swtexas on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM PDT

•  Has Anybody Heard About NH?

  New Hampshire is working on an impeachment resolution. Apparently the executive branch can't ignore it when a state tries to impeach. I don't have a link to the law though.

  by JG in MD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

•  They're legislating it in pieces. intro'd Friday,

  HR 5607, the State Secret Protection Act of 2008, is a bipartisan effort to create a process for civil trials similar to that for dealing with Secret evidence in criminal actions. At first reading, I'm okay with it.

  Sponsors: Nadler, Conyers, Delahunt, Petri. A Similar Senate measure comes from Kennedy and Specter

  by ben masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM PDT

•  Now about that recess

  Has anyone heard whether or not the Dem leadership is going to repeat their pro forma sessions throughout the recess to prevent King George from making recess appointments?

  by ibonewits on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM PDT

  •  Senate Only

    I'm pretty sure they're gaveling every three days. But there's a whiff of appointee capitulation in the air. I'm trying not to think about it. Recess is a chance to avoid CSpan.

    by JG in MD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM PDT

•  Impeachment proceedings from a State

  I thought it was the House that can't ignore it (as opposed to the Executive branch...who ignore everything they don't like).

  by zydecodependent on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:43:55 AM PDT

  •  You're Right

    I have a cognitive problem. If I were a successful professional it would be called being a "big picture person." But I'm just me, and I'm used to getting the details wrong.

    by JG in MD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM PDT

•  Just Their Own State Supreme Court Justice?

  Who are they trying to impeach in NH?

  I've had a very bad day, okay? I shouldn't comment on anything if this confusion is going to be the result.

  ::JG removes fingers from keyboard::

  by JG in MD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM PDT

•  Even the experts agree....

  We recently had an interesting discussion with several of the security experts at one of the companies seeking immunity.

  To a person, these experts are personally supportive of the OPPOSITION TO IMMUNITY. They literally had to say nothing about the company position, which I respect.

  But all of us in the business of telecom security truly believe in privacy and the 4th amendment - and this includes former senior level military folks. We believe that when a wiretap is indicated a subpoena is a wonderful and legal tool.

  It's about time that Democratic leadership keep that stiff arm extended against Cheney and Bush.

  by IdaMena2 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM PDT

•  Bout time the Dems got a clue.

  And now, having stared down the president on a key national security issue and enjoyed a week of largely positive headlines, congressional aides and outside experts say there is less of a sense of urgency surrounding the issue....

  by dkmich on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

•  Jim Cooper

  I received this message from Rep. Cooper last night:

  Thank you for contacting me about the Foreign Intelligence
  Surveillance Act (FISA).  

  Balancing our safety and the safety of our children against our
  liberties while enforcing accountability of the Bush administration is a
  difficult endeavor.  But that is what Congress must do in this case.

  I voted against the House version of the FISA bill last Friday because
  I do not think we can risk our national security any longer.  The
  House version accepted nearly all of the provisions contained in its
  Senate counterpart.  It does not achieve more than the Senate
  version, but is instead the product of a partisan political contest.  
  This contest does not make us safer and it does not protect our
  liberties.  We should put this false dispute behind us and accept the
  Senate's language.

  The House version may not use the words "retroactive immunity"
  for telecom companies, but it does let these companies off the hook.  
  Likewise, it will also not bring the Bush administration's wiretapping
  activities of the last six years out into the open.  Anything the
  administration provides may only be reviewed in closed, secret court
  proceedings.  

  I recognize your concerns and hope you will support me in my
  decision.  I believe I did what is best for our nation.  I will continue
  to work to hold the administration accountable as we try to change
  the discourse in Congress.
  Sincerely,

  Jim Cooper
  Member of Congress

  Sounds reasonable to me.  Apparently he voted against FISA because he thought it did give telcos retroactive immunity.

  by TDDVandy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:08:52 PM PDT

  •  What an Ass!

    Meaning Cooper, of course.

    by RenMin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:29:54 PM PDT

•  TGIF

  It's great to have one day off a week! Well, it is by choice. Anyway: for some good ideas! Those, I would like. But, who is to judge the "goodness" or "badness" of "ideas" forwarded to "solve" this that and the other thing. Why is it that so many "solutions" --accepted-- don't solve? Human falibility, I suppose... and maybe the desire to "solve" overcomes good sense sometimes... ... just rambling... never mind (ah, Good advice... lol...)

  by uchuunoshinpi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:24 AM PDT