Today’s the big day. Senator Dodd will take to the Senate floor and begin his filibuster of retroactive immunity for telecoms. Dodd will start talking and won’t yield the floor until he loses a cloture vote or Senator Reid takes immunity for telecoms permanently off the table.
Dodd’s Statement on FISA:
Last fall the American people gave this Congress a mandate to change the direction of the country and restore America’s security by ending the war and restoring our Constitution and standing in the world. Unfortunately, time and time again, Congress has been unable to fulfill that mandate. But our country can no longer afford to continue down that road; we need to restore the Constitution, protect our civil liberties and ensure that no one is above the law. It’s time for us to stand up and lead; not just say ‘enough is enough, but act on it.
Apparently Senators Feingold and Kennedy will help Dodd out by asking “questions” which can last up to twenty minutes in length. Who else will stand with Senator Dodd on the Senate floor? Clinton, Biden, and Obama all pledged to support Dodd’s effort. Will they follow Feingold and Kennedy’s lead?
Crooks & Liars and Firedoglake are collecting comments for Dodd to read on the Senate floor. And The Seminal and Open Left have created Thank You Chris Dodd as a clearinghouse for information about the filibuster as well as actions than can be taken.
Dodd has taken a lot of heat on this blog lately, some of it deserved some not so much. But whether you support him for President or not, whether you like having him as your Senator or not, I hope you stand with Senator Dodd on FISA. Telecom companies willingly aided in spying on Americans. They need to be held accountable and only Chris Dodd has the guts to make sure that they are.
32 responses so far ↓
>> I hope you stand with Senator Dodd on FISA
To do so is nothing less than an endorsement of terrorism.
How heroic. Perhaps he’ll find the time to visit Connecticut while he’s on the East Coast?
ACR said:
Not even close. We need to actually go after the bad guys, not spy on as many people as we can get away with for lack of a better plan.
>>We need to actually go after the bad guys, not spy on as many people as we can get away with for lack of a better plan.
Have it your way and the next encounter won’t be a few buildings in NYC and Wash DC; they’ll take out a whole city. Listening to terrorists phone calls is by the way a valid method to “ go after the bad guys“.
The entire Patriot Act has little or NO effect on anyone aside from terrorists.
Even the whiny liberals that are all upset don’t know anyone who’s been even slightly inconvenienced by any of it.
It’s a red herring.
A much larger constituency would be better served with a repeal of smoking regs; dump most of TSA and let those citizens with valid carry permits bring `em on the plane - and of course a complete repeal of open highway speed limits with Draconian measures for those that tie up the left lane. (Flogging?)
Yes, you are so right AT&T, Sprint, Verzion are the real enemy not Bin Laden and his Al Quaeda terrorist network.
Do you really feel paranoid enough to think they care what we say on the phone. Just my guess just don’t talk to suspected terrorists and you are fine.
Isn’t the problem that the bad guys are embedded with the good? They do send pregnant woman as suicide bombers?
A couple general perspectives. Since 9/11
1. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et. al. are arrogant, scary people whose “ends justify the means” attitude runs roughshod over the Constitution they swore to protect.
2. On the whole, the Democratic party and their members have utterly failed their responsibilities as the loyal opposition, lacking the courage, political skill or both to take appropriate principled stands. They gave Bush a blank check on Iraq, failed to oppose waterboarding/torture legislatively, etc. Instead they ineffectively pander to their base and fight battles by proxy, such as trying to arm-twist Mukasey in banning waterboarding instead of doing it themselves.
Regarding the FISA/telecom question. If allowed to proceed, the logical consequences are:
1. Enrichment of trial lawyers (a favorite Democratic funding source).
2. Major corporations, in addition to civil/contract and regulatory expertise would have to add constitutional law services to their cost basis.
3. The costs of 1 and 2 would be born by ordinary Americans, either through higher telecom rates or reduced returns for direct and indirect (mutual fund, pension) investors.
4. Future legal requests by law enforcement agencies will be delayed while the corporate lawyers determine legality. Some of these requests will be of a time sensitive nature. Given a choice between assisting law enforcement and minimizing legal exposure, many corporations will take the latter course. It’s likely additional citizens will be victimized as a consequence.
For me, it’s not about whether the taps were legal or illegal. It’s about government functioning they way it should. The Democrats have majority in both houses. If they don’t like something, they should get their act together and pass the appropriate legislation, not continue to attack by proxy.
Finally, it appears there are many who have let their Anti-Bush passion take over the thinking parts of their brain, and are just as guilty of the “any means necessary” mindset as those they rightly oppose.
This continued FISA smoke screen is idiotic. What Dodd is saying is let’s make sure telecoms can get sued for helping the government combat terrorism. It’s as simple as that.
The changes in the FISA law were made to adapt to new technologies and their use. Information is the greatest asset in combating terrorism, so long as it is timely and accurate.
These people being “spied” on aren’t randomly chosen. They aren’t even the Code Pink retards who crash Senate hearing. They are individuals, American citizens or not, found to have had some contact with terrorist organizations, and I want those people monitored. If M’balziz Hari is a terrorist and my next-door neighbor is in his Rolodex, don’t YOU want to know they are chatting about?
This effort of Dodd’s, which will get him a little attention, doesn’t protect Americans… it endangers them.
What Chris Dodd, and all of you who are backing him are essentially saying is that terrorists need their privacy. If you think you are saying anything else, you are deceiving yourself on top of it.
“Apparently Senators Feingold and Kennedy will help Dodd out by asking “questions” which can last up to twenty minutes in length.”
Maybe Paul Simon can help out too, by singing a reprise of his 60’s hit, “Homeward Bound” for a few hours, for our missing senator.
Al said:
Kennedy can eat up twenty minutes just trying to pronounce Barack Obama’s name.
The filibister isn’t about FISA, it is about the retroactive immunity for the telecoms who released data to the federal government at the governmments request. Just a remionder that some (QWEST as I recall) refused to do so. Arlen Spector - a tough former elected Philadelphia prosecutor - has offered up a compromise that makes a lot of sense: he has offered up that the federal government would accpet the liabilty (if anyone can actually show they were harmed) and then let the telecoms off the hook so to speak. That makes sense to me.
As for Rummy and Bush protecting Americans. Maybe ya all have never heard of the the MRAP story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-12-16-MRAP_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
And ratcheting down the rhetoric against Iran may be working out as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-12-16-iran-iraq_N.htm
Ah yes, Headless Horseman, we all know the terrorists are here. They could be your next door neighbors or local university professors. I understand - We do need to find them, etc. However - we still have a Constitution - and I agree that we have changes in technology that make things a bit more complicated while we try to preserve our rights. But, we must also not forget how easily certain technology can be used (or mis-used) and that in the process our rights, the rights of everyday people like you and me, can be violated. How do you know for sure that people are not randomly chosen - or will not in the future be randomly chosen? How do you know who or what they are monitoring? They search old ladies at the airport for Gods sake! What guarantee do you have that if you give the government more power, via FISA or any other laws that allow removing due process and need for warrants etc., that they will not abuse it in some way? When “protection of the public” and the “violation of the public’s rights” collide we shouldn’t let fear dictate and cloud that which our Founders knew to be of utmost importance. Liberty and Personal Privacy. Perhaps we need think about this quote:
“It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches us, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.”
- Justice William O. Douglas
Source: Henry v. United States, 1959
We have got to find other ways to “get the bad guys” then giving up our rights.
If we lose our liberty - don’t you think the terrorists have won in the end?
“The entire Patriot Act has little or NO effect on anyone aside from terrorists.
Even the whiny liberals that are all upset don’t know anyone who’s been even slightly inconvenienced by any of it.”-ACR
“These people being “spied” on aren’t randomly chosen.” -HH
ACR, the Justice Deparment released a report as early as ‘03 saying dozens had had their civil rights violated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/politics/21JUST.html?ei=5007&en=169d18cca2384f6f&ex=1374206400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=
HH, If by not randomly chosen, you mean everyone that went through Vegas for a one month period, then ok. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/etc/synopsis.html
Also, if you have ATT and used the internet, they’ve handed where you’ve gone and when over to the government.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619
BTW, the federal government (Bush Administration) ignored FISA when they asked the telecoms for the data in question. Let’s muddle the debate as best as possible here.
Hey, what’s with all the critism of the fine Senator? At least he is actually showing up for work today.
Too bad for his party he couldn’t make it over last Thursday to vote on HR2419, Klobuchar Amdt. No. 3810; To improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit. But I guess campaigning for President was more important.
Or lest Wednesday to vote on the Gregg Amdt. No. 3673; To improve women’s access to heath care services in rural areas and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery of obstetrical and gynecological services. This surely had to have been important to the fine folks he represents in Iowa, a rural state.
In fact, he missed many votes relating to farming in the past couple weeks. That may hurt his re-election campaign out there in Iowa. Oh, that’s right, his young daughter lives there but he lives in Connecticut. I get confused sometimes. But, as I said, at least he went to work today.
The program was secret until 1971, when an FBI field office in Media, PA was burglarized by a group of left-wing radicals calling themselves the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI. Several dossiers of files were taken and the information passed to news agencies, many of which initially refused to publish the information. Within the year, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.[3]
Further documents were revealed in the course of separate lawsuits filed against the FBI by NBC correspondent Carl Stern, the Socialist Workers Party, and a number of other groups. A major investigation was launched in 1976 by the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, commonly referred to as the “Church Committee” for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho. However, millions of pages of documents remain unreleased, and many released documents are entirely censored.
In the Final Report of the Select Committee COINTELPRO was castigated in no uncertain terms:
“Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that…the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”[1]
Yes, power does corrupt and we do need checks on power. But like I said Dodd’s filibuster isn’t anti-FISA per se.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
I encourage everyone to read this fantastic letter thanking Dodd for his actions and also calling out other legislators for their total inaction against (or full on support of) retroactive immunity.
It reads in part:
Yet here the Senate stands, poised to grant immunity to telecommunications companies for profiting from the warrantless and lawless spying perpetrated upon the law-abiding citizenry; here the Senate stands, poised to usurp the judiciary, the branch of government responsible for determining whether the laws of the land have been broken and meting out punishment where appropriate; and here the Senate stands, poised to usher in its own irrevelancy — and, worst of all, in exchange for nothing: no promises that this flagrant lawbreaking will cease, no testimony to be offered in the course of real and rigorous investigation.
“Give me liberty or give me death,” said Patrick Henry. “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither,” said Benjamin Franklin. Now the telecommunications companies lobby the lot of you, saying, “Give us immunity, or we’ll suffer the consequences of our lawbreaking.” Now the President comes before you, saying, “Give my partners in crime immunity, or there’ll be investigations and findings that taint my legacy.”
So I turned on CSPAN2 to watch and it turns out that I don’t have it anymore. Apparently it went digital and now you need a digital box (which I don’t have, but apparently every channel will be digital in 2/2009, and every tv will need a digital box by then) in order to get a free public service. Does that seem wierd to anyone else?
How does retaining the legal right to sue telecoms help the terrorists? Why would Al Qaeda give a shit about AT&T?
If we start giving up our rights in response to the terrorists, they win.
Good for Dodd and well said CGG.
There is a process for these things. A process long supported. W and the Bushettes decided to break that process (probably because they thought no one outside their own little circle could be trusted) and the telecoms helped them.
Absolutely, fight the terrorists. Collect the evidence, meet the burden and get the warrant. Then no one gets sued and nobody’s rights get violated…. and the bad guys get caught. But don’t give me bologny about expediancy or getting the courts involved. Our legal system exists for a reason, because we have learned from the abuses of the system in the past.
A federal warrant request is rarely if ever denied. Judges are on call and a warrant can be issued in a very short period of time. There is no excuse for going outside the system; and in the extremely rare case where national security is at stake there is a secret court; and even that part of the system was skipped. This whole mess is an example of the current administration doing whatever they want whenever they want to do it in the name of security and that is not America.
Both corporate America and the administration need to be reminded that our rights come first and that there are proper procedures for what they did; and that there is a cost for skirting those procedures.
TV is going digital to free up much needed analog frequencies for other uses. The digital signal is cleaner and gives a better picture. It just means we all have to invest in newer TVs to receive the signal or get a conversion box for our old TV. Regarding the primary topic of this thread — I can understand the phone company’s position when the federal government comes and says it needs help to fight the terrorist. What bothers me is that the current administration does not seem to understand the constitution or the freedoms granted to citizens in that consititution. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the Senate is not large enough to overcome the administration supporters and we will remain in this situation until after the 2008 election. I have seen bumper stickers with 01-20-2009 on them. I can hardly wait.
Yeah, but did they have to start with CSPAN2 (and, apparently, the GameShow Network)?!?!?!
CT_Bob said:
Well, you’re being logical and reality-based. The only thing Bush supporters understand is their own fear. Some people need Daddy to check the closet for monsters no matter how old they are.
If ever an Executive administration proved the need for checks and balances, it is the Bush-Cheney administration.
Gabe said:
They had to start somewhere. And the reality is, where ever they started they were going to piss someone off, this time it happens to be you. :p
I’m not so much pissed off (I’m watching it online) as shocked that they would start with a free public service and then turn around and say you can have access to the Senate again, on a network payed for with tax dollars in the interest of sunshine, by upgrading your service ($).
FWIW, my understanding from the Comcast Rep was that these are the only two channels that will be cut off before February 2009, when they will all be cut off. I may have misunderstood, but that seemed to be what he was saying.
Plus, I still have no access to ESPNU - I am pissed about that!
Gabe said:
I’ll give you the couple bucks a month that the cable box costs if its for ESPNU bro, I couldn’t live without it.
Thanks, but I would get the cable box if they were offering ESPNU - currently Comcast isn’t offering it at all.
Sadly, the only way to get both CSTV and ESPNU (thus ensuring that I can watch every possible UMASS game in every sport) is to get a dish, because the current lineup from ATT’s service does not offer CSTV, but I have no SW view.
If U ask i’m sure Williams and Donovan will propose a gov’t program to pay for those without digital.
>>If we lose our liberty - don’t you think the terrorists have won in the end?
We’ve already lost our liberty.
BUT seeing as it’s been more at the hand of liberal Dems no one’s said a word.
We had our annual sales meeting in Mexico because Las Vegas went no-smoking.
Mexicans can purchase brand new Chevrolets that don’t even exist here for as low as $5,000 (US) We however can not buy the same vehicle and bring it home - what’s wrong with THAT picture?
Mexicans can purchase Omeprazol (Prilosac) for 25% of the going price here.
But we should worry about some clown’s “rights” when he’s calling Syria from a disposable cell phone?
How about giving us some of our rights back first?
>>Thanks, but I would get the cable box if they were offering ESPNU - currently Comcast isn’t offering it at all.
ALL the cable companies suck.
Cox jacked our rate a buck a month and gave us the YES network; but it took them 2 more years to get around to giving us NECN.
Fox Business?
Forget it with Cox.
ACR,
I don’t have time to engage you in the smoking debate, but FYI I wouldn’t let your companies Health Insurance company know that you’re picking meeting sights based on where you can smoke.
I took a quick look at the Chevy Mexico website, and those cars are of the type that GM decided would never sell here. Sure there may be some saftey issues, but with the possible exception of recently they wouldn’t sell those here if they could, because American’s tend to like bigger cars. The Aveo is about as small as we can take.
As for prescription drugs, talk to the drug companies about that one, as you may or may not have noticed with the debate going on about drug prices, the government has no role in setting them.
Why does this have to be retroactive? Why should the telecom’s have to be held accountable for having honored the government’s “national security” requests (demands) for information? The appropriateness and legality of these requests from the government is a grey area still being debated. Get a clear legal ruling on these types of requests and if it is determined that these requests are illegal, sue the telecoms for future acts. Sue the government retroactively, not the telecoms.
Glidden said:
Exactly. What the hell kind of crusade does Dodd think he’s on?!?
You must log in to post a comment.