crossposted on five before chaos.
Like many of you, I'm still steaming over the Dem rollover on FISA. Now, none of our VT delegation is supporting it (nor, might I add, doing anything bold to throw a wrench in the works), but there's something in Sen. Leahy's statement that's really infuriating (emphasis mine):
"With respect to the surveillance authorities, I believe the bill represents an improvement over the flawed legislation passed the Senate earlier this year. I applaud Representative Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller for their diligent work in negotiating this package. They added protections to the surveillance authorities that bring it closer to the bill the Senate Judiciary Committee reported last year. If the bill passes, I will work with the next administration to make additional improvements.
"I will continue to work to protect all Americans from the Bush-Cheney administration’s roll back of civil liberties of Americans and disregard for the rule of law. As the Supreme Court noted last week, ‘security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles.’ We can protect our security while honoring American values and respecting our freedoms."
Two things: the only "diligent work" Hoyer and Rockefeller have done is to"diligently work" to do the bidding of the telcoms, especially Rockefeller. Second, if Leahy is serious about "protecting our civil liberties", why isn't he doing more anything to stop this?
This bill simply did not need to happen. FISA is fine without the telcom immunity, and they owe this president, who is less liked than a thawing dog turd on a warm Vermont March morning - nothing. Nada. And for those still inexplicably afraid of being labeled "soft on terror"... grow a spine. The public doesn't want telcom immunity, and you have nothing to lose opposing it, except, perhaps that yummy telcom money.
Very disappointing, Senator. Would it be that hard to go the extra mile and take a bold stance? What ever happened to "terrifying" Bush?
Let him know about it: (802) 863-2525