neptune

Boxer voted No...Feinstein voted one way in Intel, and the other way in Judiciary. No telling what she'll do here.

__________________

Holy Mudhead, mackerel! Morse Science High!
It's....disappeared!
-- Firesign Theatre

neptune

Feinstein needs to go.

__________________

Holy Mudhead, mackerel! Morse Science High!
It's....disappeared!
-- Firesign Theatre

cheapseats

As far as I'm concerned, there's no telling what ANY of them will do until the moment they do it. Talk is cheap.

I watched the farm bill committee have their coffee clutch on C-SPAN. Some asshole from Pennsylvania introduced an amendment that was an obvious Pandora's Box. They went 'round the table, one by one, agreeing that it would open a can of worms...bad, bad, bad...problematic, they all said.

Then they voted.

And they approved it.

The asshole from Pennsylvania had used the magic words..."We're already giving it to someone else."

NOT ONE SENATOR, NOT ONCE, suggested that maybe Someone Else should ALSO not receive the special perk. Rather, to be fair, they extended the special perk to another someone else.

Eighth graders could do this shit better than Congress does.

__________________

cheapseats

I am a BIG proponent of her recall from the Senate.

She is a disgrace...Pelosi, too.

__________________

neptune

Fact Sheet on Dodd-Feingold Amendment to Strike Retroactive Immunity
S. 2248 would require the courts to throw out lawsuits alleging that telephone companies broke the law by participating in warrantless surveillance. If the immunity provision became law, even if it could be proven that telephone companies clearly and knowingly broke the law, they would not be held accountable, and Americans’ privacy rights would be nullified.

The Dodd-Feingold amendment would strike this automatic, retroactive immunity provision and leave it to the courts to determine whether the telephone companies acted properly and therefore deserve immunity.

Myths and Reality Regarding Immunity

Myth: The bill’s provision is necessary to extend immunity to telephone companies that responded in good faith to a government request.

Reality: Existing law already immunizes telephone companies that respond in good faith to a government request, as long as that request meets certain clearly spelled-out statutory requirements. This carefully designed provision protects the companies and Americans’ privacy by encouraging the companies to comply with legitimate requests but not to comply with requests that don’t meet the requirements laid out in the law.

Myth: A vote against immunity is a vote for liability.

Reality: A vote against immunity allows the courts to decide whether liability is or is not appropriate, based on the facts of the case. If the facts exonerate the telephone companies, there will be no liability.

Myth: Telephone companies should not be expected to know whether the government’s request for assistance was lawful.

Reality: Telephone companies have a long history of receiving requests for assistance from the government. In the 1970s, they worked with Congress to devise a law that tells them exactly which government requests they should honor, in terms that are clear and easy to follow. And they have lawyers who are well-paid to compare government requests with the requirements of the law.

Myth: If we don’t pass retroactive immunity, the government will lose companies’ cooperation in the future.

Reality: The immunity provision in current law gives telephone companies an ironclad defense if they received a government certification that meets certain clear requirements. It holds companies liable for complying with non-compliant government requests precisely because we don’t want the companies to cooperate with illegal government programs. Preventing that kind of cooperation, and protecting Americans from illegitimate government snooping, is one of the main reasons FISA was passed.

Myth: The bill's immunity provision is appropriate given the heightened urgency and threat level in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.

Reality: The bill does not focus on the "immediate aftermath" of 9-11; it would immunize illegal conduct even if that conduct occurred five years after 9-11.

Myth: The common law immunizes private parties that give requested assistance to government officials.

Reality: If that were true, there would be no need for Congress to step in. The truth is that the common law sometimes immunizes private parties that give assistance to government officials where that assistance is compelled by law. However, the common law never immunizes private parties for providing assistance to government officials when that assistance is clearly prohibited by law.

Myth: The telephone companies will not be able to defend themselves because the government has invoked the state secrets privilege.

Reality: There is no precedent to suggest that a court would rule against a defendant when there is privileged evidence that could possibly exonerate that defendant. That simply is not how courts handle such cases. But even if that were a risk, the state secrets problem should be addressed directly, in a manner that is fair to both parties.

Myth: These cases could bankrupt the telephone companies.

Reality: If the companies engaged in such widespread illegal conduct that the damages would be enormous, Congress can intervene to limit the damages. That’s a far more appropriate response than simply giving the companies a free pass for any illegal conduct.

__________________

Holy Mudhead, mackerel! Morse Science High!
It's....disappeared!
-- Firesign Theatre

jdanton

Very good post.

I watched some of the discussion, and got angry at one republican taliing about the "wall" between the CIA and the FBI that had been "built", apparently by that memo from the democrat on the 9/11 commission.

I recall that memo. It didn't build any wall. It, as I recall, reminded those involved that the FBI can't prosecute anyone behind evidence uncovered via a FISA warrant, as different levels of "cause" are required.

__________________
Author: Memoirs of a Sleepless Mind, a book you CAN judge by its cover.

Teri B.

I'm watching (well, actually listening) to this on my computer too. I sure like Sen. Whitehouse.

neptune

Here's a link to the roll call from this morning's cloture vote. Too bad Clinton, Obama, and Biden couldn't be bothered to come to the floor of the Senate to cast a vote in support of Chris Dodd.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00435

__________________

Holy Mudhead, mackerel! Morse Science High!
It's....disappeared!
-- Firesign Theatre

cheapseats

Inexcusable.

__________________

bigbrowndog

Dodd seeks boost on surveillance bill

By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - While his Democratic rivals campaigned in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sen. Christopher Dodd took to the Senate floor on Monday in hopes of pumping new energy into his presidential bid.

Dodd, D-Conn., spoke for several hours, seeking to block a bill that would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for their actions helping the government tap American communications after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"So here we are facing a final decision on whether the telecommunications companies will get off the hook for good," Dodd said. "The president's allies are as intent as they ever were on making that happen. They want immunity back in this bill at all costs."

Dodd threatened to filibuster, vowing to use "all the tools" at his disposal to prevent passage. But Democratic leaders eventually pulled the bill, putting off consideration until next year.

******

He called on Congress to stand up to the Bush administration on a vital civil liberties issue, a move Dodd backers hoped would play well among the liberal voters who tend to dominate Democratic primaries.

Dodd abruptly canceled his scheduled events in Iowa, where he and his family have temporarily moved for the state's leadoff caucuses less than three weeks away, and returned to Capitol Hill.

"It was important enough to him that he left the campaign trail," said Colleen Flanagan, a spokesman for Dodd. "He decided to go back and fight this."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/...f0aUSXLZ9p24cA

__________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...antasleigh.jpg help people eat for Christmas http://www.freerice.com/index.php