Leaking: Reid will not push telecom immunity !!

This is the first I've heard of this:
The Wall Street Journal suggests today in an editorial that Harry Reid

is saying privately that he now won't attempt to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on the wiretapping of al Qaeda suspects. Instead, he'll merely support another 18 month extension of the six month old Protect America Act. Among other problems, the temporary bill includes no retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that cooperated with the feds after 9/11.

Bravo to Chris Dodd for his principled stand on this issue. If the rumor is true, congrats to all those who have deluged their congresscritters with email, calls and letters. Somebody has found the right buttons to push.

The Wall Street Journal suggests that Mr. 33% can just stamp his feet and break more laws:

If Democrats fail to honor their promise to modernize FISA in a way that protects American security, Mr. Bush can act on his own authority and hold Congress responsible for not cooperating.

Yeah, like the telecoms will go for that.....

or alternatively, the Journal suggests, Bush can veto such an extension, and then wait for the fearful Congress to cave again. I'm not so sure that will work on this issue...it's a little different than "supporting the troops."

This may be a real helpful campaign issue, perhaps one that will sort out the triangulators from the fighters.

•  tips/taps n/t

  by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:59:17 AM PDT

  •  Obama already came out on it

    Barack Obama's campaign has just sent us a statement condemning the Senate FISA bill granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms:

    "I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start."

    http://tpmelectioncentral.com/...

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:06:26 AM PDT

    •  Yeah but will he show up for the vote?

      And vote against it?
      It would be nice to get a real answer

      by exlrrp on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:10:02 AM PDT

      •  Don't

        hold your breath.

        by TXsharon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:25:27 AM PDT

        •  This is just

          unfuckingbelievable, especially when read in the context of another diary on the recommended list regarding bush/co's plan to finally take down social security and medicare.  Check out LondonYank's diary.  I feel sick.

          by vigilant meerkat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:30:37 AM PDT

          •  Do you have health insurance???

            (couldn't resist)  ;)

            by gdwtch52 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:41:55 AM PDT

            •  LMAO in a sick, twisted way

              by TXsharon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:23:36 AM PDT

          •  The Democratic Party

            is now the money party.  The people really will be having their voice taken away so that there will be no revolution.  

            They all talk pretty but they keep us paying for their power games.

            I feel sick too.  I see that the plutocracy has won.  It is just which elites get the contracts.  They fight among themselves and through us a few rhetorical flourishes to think that we have control.  

            We have been infiltrated.  

            by pioneer111 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:02:59 AM PDT

            •  Read this

              Stay Classy, Mike Huckabee

              by TXsharon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:24:35 AM PDT

      •  If this diary is correct

        that question is moot.

        Apparently, telecom immunity isn't even going to make it to the floor.

        Dodd gets the lion's share of the credit for that, but you can't rule out Obama's public statement of opposition as a factor in changing Reid's mind.

        by litho on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:31:46 AM PDT

        •  Cheap Shots Here Notwithstanding!!!

          by serrano on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:57:49 AM PDT

      •  when is the vote scheduled? And will Harry

        change it at the last minute?

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:16:53 AM PDT

    •  ok nice but

      seriously, he didn't support Dodds effort when he could have easily been there.  Obama's move now is good, not too late, but lacks integrity. Sorry.

      by DrKate on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:33:47 AM PDT

  •  Congress should offer immunity to the telcoms...

    in exchange for testifying against Bush, the FBI, the NSA, etc...; )

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:10:35 AM PDT

    •  I see Ashcroft got a 50 Million dollar deal

      no bid contract from Bush's NJ US Attorney. I guess his mouth is now permanently sealed.

      by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:14:00 AM PDT

      •  Maybe not

        This contract, granted by Chris "dog-poop" Christie will be investigated with all the vigor Mr. Christie reserves for prosecuting democrats.

        by M Sullivan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM PDT

    •  A little truth-and-reconciliation, wot...

      by Alden on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:25:48 AM PDT

    •  no, no...

      If congress passes any legislation in connection to the illegal wiretapping, it is giving Bush a pass...as in ratifying the illegal behavior.  The way the Supremes are set up now they will go with that precedent.

      by gdwtch52 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

    •  NO!

      no more immunity, because the investigation is faked and the people who will do the investigations are all in it.

      Wait few more months, change everybody in there, particularly DOJ. Congress included.

      Then do proper investigation. At the moment the system is brain damage. No clean investigation is possible.

      by opedn on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:29:41 AM PDT

  •  Next we need to go after the "pocket" veto

    Especially when Congress is in session.

    Perhaps it is a "pseudo-" veto or some other mythical beast.

    by polecat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:52:24 AM PDT

    •  I think we can count on

      Republican support to get rid of the pocket veto.....as soon as a Democrat takes the Presidency.

      by cato on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:05:06 AM PDT

  •  Thank you

    sooooooooo much Senator Reid.  You really are a true American Hero, never afraid to take on this administration, or to stand up for what's right.......

    .....Or maybe you suck as Majority Leader and should permanently get the eff out of Dodd's way.

    by cato on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:02:46 AM PDT

•  Interesting...

  I say bravo to Sen. Dodd for fighting for our rights and standing up for us all.

  Now let's see if the remaining candidates that are still campaigning will do more than issue a press release supporting no telecom immunity.

  by HermesTrismegistus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:01:27 AM PDT

  •  Ditto Kudos to Sen. Dodd.

    by Redstateresident on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:21:13 AM PDT

  •  say what?

    if it doesn't come to the floor, what exactly do you want them to do? Just curious. There's no vote to cast.

    A public statement is the point. It exposes what Reid is holding and boxes other senators.
    And makes it harder for Reid to put Democrat Senator's feet to the fire if his own caucus members are publicly turning against it. It forces Reid to openly choose bringing it to the floor relying on Republican votes, without the full support of the D's. That raises the stakes on not only that, but any other business Reid wants done. Does he want to risk doing anything else for this? The more press releases the better and it goes away for 18 months and buys time till we get a decent president.

    Incredible that Reid respects Republican holds on bills and not Democrat holds.

    by annalivia on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:48:19 AM PDT

    •  Well they can issue press releases

      USING ALL CAPS LOCK FOR EMPHASIS.  LIKE THIS.

      by cato on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:06:45 AM PDT

      •  ha n/t

        by annalivia on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM PDT

•  Who has EVER expected Reid to stand

  up for our unalienable rights? Or against the war? Or for anything at all?

  (crickets chirping...)

  by Rayk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:01:31 AM PDT

  •  No one at all.

    The suggestion was absurd.

    by lgcap on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:24:02 AM PDT

  •  I Don't Trust Harry Reid....

    I sincerely hope he proves me wrong, but I have no idea where his true allegiance lies. He has shown himself to be a doubletalking chameleon.

    by frandor55 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:27:22 AM PDT

  •  The big let down

    Harry Reid is a symbol of business-as-fuck-you-voters-usual in Washington now.

    I was so hopeful, and so willing to give this guy chance after chance to prove me wrong, and he fucked us again and again.

    We need primaries, bad.

    by StuartZ on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:37:57 AM PDT

  •  I would suggest

    that the expectation was met when he refused to put Congress in recess, thus thwarting Bush's desire to use recess appointments.

    Before I get flamed, I agree, Reid has not been the best, and there have been days that I have cursed his name from sun up to sun down, but what he pulled over Thanksgiving and X-Mas was absolutely necessary and brave, and I salute him for it. He does not get enough cred for it.

    by belly on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:56:58 AM PDT

    •  No flaming needed.

      You accurately pointed out something good that Reid has done. I might note, however, that it was far too little and far too late.

      He's sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But he literally does nothing (or even supports) the worst abuses of this President.

      Frankly, I think the most impeachable offense is violation of the oath of office. Bush and Cheney should serve in prison for a long, long time for their crimes. But Reid is an accomplice.

      by Rayk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:34:32 AM PDT

    •  That was a relief

      I wish he'd done it last August, too.  But better late than never!  Though that "temporary" appointment of Stickler over mining when his recess appointment ended shows that BushCo will go to unprecedented lengths to end run the Senate.

      It would be nice to see more Senators take a stand on this strictly on the checks and balances aspect.  Stand up for their own turf!

      by Land of Enchantment on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM PDT

•  No telcom immunity

  No
  No
  No

  by Lahdee on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:01:52 AM PDT

•  Let's hope Harry does the right thing

  this once.

  by funluvn1 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:02:23 AM PDT

  •  Ha!

    Let's do more than that--let's hold his feet to the fire!

    Does Reid have any likely primary opponents?  Also Jello-Jay Rockefeller?

    by amitxjoshi on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:49:35 AM PDT

•  Nice tip on Reid's change of thought

  But I think we all could have done without the backhanded cheap shots at Sens. Clinton and Obama.

  by Niniane on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:02:48 AM PDT

  •  you would prefer my forehand topspin lob?

    just sayin....

    by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:05:49 AM PDT

    •  Your Backhand Topspin Lob Has Such Disguise,

      and finesse. It's a winner!  Game!  Set!  Match!

      by leonard145b on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:16:01 AM PDT

    •  Cheap

      dropshot?

      by Upper West on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:36:32 AM PDT

  •  Looked like a solid forehand down the line

    hurts when the ball can't be hit and its within reach I guess

    by Redstateresident on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:22:45 AM PDT

•  good news indeed!

  perhaps some scrap of justice is possible after all. Can Bush pardon the Telecoms?

  by MantisOahu on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:04:43 AM PDT

  •  Justice would be to have the telecoms cough up

    ...billions in compensation.  And squealing like pigs about the Bush mafia criminals who instigated their crimes.

    Just, and fun too!

    by amitxjoshi on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:02:16 AM PDT

  •  Civil Suits

    are the main issue, at least right now.

    by Upper West on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:37:02 AM PDT

•  Slightly good news.

  I won't be happy until they sit on their hands.

  by overlander on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:05:01 AM PDT

•  WHAT! the bastids... n/t

  by Lipstick Liberal on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:05:02 AM PDT

•  Senator Dodd made a heroic, historic stand

  on this issue.

  And if true, I certainly wonder about Senator Reid's motivations for the change of his position.

  by attydave on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:05:06 AM PDT

  •  yup n/t

    by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:09:46 AM PDT

  •  'Cause we would have guaranteed

    He would lose his leadership position and worked against any re-election bid.

    by M Sullivan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:15:06 AM PDT

    •  don't put away the torches and pitchforks

      we may still need them.

      by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:20:01 AM PDT

      •  Okay--

        Young Frankenstein visuals are now swirling in my brain.

        by M Sullivan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM PDT

•  Oh, Good Grief!

  Please, people, read the rest of the article on the link provided.

  Those SOB's who wrote the Wall Street editorial actually believe a president has the right to illegally spy on us and they're pushing Georgie's and Dickie's lying propaganda hook, line, and sinker!  So much for the Fourth Amendment...!

  The "compromise" that Reid is allegedly favoring - to extend the current FISA fix for 18 months - is also a crock of shite.  The current bill needs to be allowed to expire and then left alone.  Period.

  I do so wish our Congress Critters would get their heads out of their arses.  Right now most have shit for brains....

  by NonnyO on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:15:20 AM PDT

  •  As I Remember

    even without any telecom immunity, the "Protect America Act" of last August was awful enough that most of us were screaming bloody murder about the Democrats' capitulation that led to its enactment.

    And now we're supposed to consider an 18-month extension to it as a good thing and a victory?  Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations!

    by The Maven on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:19:31 AM PDT

    •  its the coward's solution, I agree, but...

      much better than passing a law that would require 60 votes to change.

      by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:22:16 AM PDT

      •  Actually, not a good solution

        The current FISA fiasco is due to expire in February, it should be allowed to expire and not be extended.

        Kagro X has a Front Page diary about this very thing right now, too.

        by NonnyO on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM PDT

      •  And it's even easier for them

        to do absolutely nothing and just let the piece of shit "Protect America Act" to expire.

        by MichiganGirl on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:56:42 AM PDT

    •  All they needed was a damned warrant.

      Why do they need to fix something that wasn't broken?  Except for the fact that Bush didn't want to be bothered with following the law (or any law it  seems)...the telcoms should have known better and should get no immunity for what they did.  Some didn't.

      Hearings/Impeach NOW!

      by gdwtch52 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:59:53 AM PDT

  •  You've stated the salient point.

    The current FISA "fix" is still a Bill of Rights dismemberment. WTF? Like having joy that they've decided to cut off only 2 limbs.

    by Jim P on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:26:49 AM PDT

•  I will wait and see

  Reid is quite good at leaking things like that, then caving in to the Republicans at the last minute.  So I will wait and see.

  sPh

  by sphealey on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:15:38 AM PDT

•  I'll believe it when I see it.

  I don't trust Reid and I really don't trust anything that the WSJ claims to know about the inner workings of the Democratic Party leaders on the Hill.

  by inclusiveheart on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:16:37 AM PDT

  •  I imagine that the telecoms told the WSJ

    that pipeline is pretty clear.

    by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:24:00 AM PDT

    •  Well, the telecoms don't actually need immunity.

      The law already protects them from a predatory government action - in other words if they have good reason to believe that the government is acting within the law and they meet government requests on that basis, they aren't actually responsible.  Apparently the immunity would serve to immunize the government officials who were acting in bad faith.  More and more I get the feeling that Reid would be perfectly fine with that.  In fact, I get the feeling that there is no fight left in any of the key Democratic leaders including the top two candidates for president.  None of them really give a damn about preserving the integrity of this government or the rule of law.  It is all about sweeping stuff under the rug and just pretending that it will all be okay if we are nice to each other and work on public education instead.

      by inclusiveheart on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:29:48 AM PDT

•  Well, my wish is that Bush vetos

  the bill -- leaving no time to reconsider before the "Spy on America Act" expires.

  Since the feds can't pay their bills to the telecoms, why does Congress need to consider anything BushCo wants?

  by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:18:20 AM PDT

  •  He might act petulant during a press conference

    ... you know how that humiliates them into capitulating.

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:39:47 AM PDT

•  Reid noticed strong voter discontent

  and calculates that for the moment ..it is to his advantage to leak that he is thinking of standing up..., but he's still has the option to go either way.

  Our dogs bark and growl much more than they actually bite and weather vanes don't take a stand.

  by crystal eyes on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:32:48 AM PDT

•  Oh yes it will

  This will definitely sort out the triangulators from the fighters, and I'm afraid that none of the candidates will fight for us on this one.

  I just hope that I'm wrong.

  What will be terrible is if a candidate fails badly, and triangulates mightily, and then their sock puppets and supporters here run around screaming racism and sexism in response to legitimate criticism.

  If it becomes a festival "Well, what has my opponent so-and-so ever done about this issue?", we're in a bind.  Are those people not going to send the emails and make the phone calls, sign the petitions and share the information, because they're too caught up in primary fever?

  Yes, that's how bad it is around here right now; I'm really praying that accountability, the rule of law and the constitution don't become casualties of the primary wars.

  by StuartZ on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:34:33 AM PDT

•  Who would have guessed???

  by anotherCt Dem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:40:06 AM PDT

•  Have our candidates,

  or BO, issued any statements about this yet?

  by dfarrah on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:41:07 AM PDT

•  Does anybody else find it odd that neither

  Congress nor the Department of Justice have seen fit to investigate the abuses that have occurred thus far?  Legislation by an uninformed Congress without input from an informed constituency is tyranny.

  by Habanero on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:48:20 AM PDT

  •  What abuses?

    We do not wiretap nice people. We do not torture. We apply the laws universally to all the people who are important in this country.  We love freedom. We are a free country. You are free to use your cell phone now. Don't forget it's a two year contract and a penalty fee will apply if you move and have to disconnect the service.

    Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate Bush?
    The Constitution, it's just a piece of paper.

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:38:15 AM PDT

•  I love the header "LEAKING"

  so much better than breaking news.

  by Lefty the playwright on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:48:58 AM PDT

  •  How about "BLEAKING"? n/t

    by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:11:26 AM PDT

    •  Leaking: Reid

      is a visual I could have done without!
      =:-o

      by exNYinTX on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:27:36 AM PDT

•  NO! The current act has serious problems that

  permits warrantless eavesdropping on US citizens here and abroad. IT violates the Constitution right to privacy.

  It isn't something we should be supporting just because it doesn't give telcoms immunity.

  by IndySteve on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM PDT

•  I'll believe it when I see it...

  Nancy and Harry haven't failed to disappointment me yet; and this fiasco has been no exception.

  Frankly, they both need to be replaced; but God knows with whom. Dodd and Feingold for Senate Majority Leader; who's a tough nut on the House side?

  by patriot spear on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

•  Absurd

  If Democrats fail to honor their promise to modernize FISA in a way that protects American security, Mr. Bush can act on his own authority and hold Congress responsible for not cooperating.

  Ridiculous, how can the President hold Congress responsible for not passing a law he wants?  Furthermore, how is he entitled to break any law he pleases?

  It's infuriating that a major media outlet would endorse such criminal acts.  Perhaps once we have prosecuted the entire Bush cabal we can charge the WSJ with aiding and abetting Junior's crimes in office.

  by EastCoastShock on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

•  Absurd

  If Democrats fail to honor their promise to modernize FISA in a way that protects American security, Mr. Bush can act on his own authority and hold Congress responsible for not cooperating.

  Ridiculous, how can the President hold Congress responsible for not passing a law he wants?  Furthermore, how is he entitled to break any law he pleases?

  It's infuriating that a major media outlet would endorse such criminal acts.  Perhaps once we have prosecuted the entire Bush cabal we can charge the WSJ with aiding and abetting Junior's crimes in office.

  by EastCoastShock on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM PDT

  •  Sorry for the double post n/t

    by EastCoastShock on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:39:25 AM PDT

•  When it comes to Reid

  and him promising to stand up to Bush...

  I trust him to keep his word about this much -><-  </p>

  Lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way, senator.

  by J Royale on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM PDT

•  The WSJ editorial board is bat-shit crazy.

  Sorry for stating the obvious. But every time I shake my head and think, these guys can't get any more insane, they come along with some new craziness that appalls me. Guess I should learn.  

  by My Name on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:51:47 AM PDT

•  It has been my understanding that the Congress

  makes the laws and the president enforces them. How in God's name can the president break the present law and then hold Congress responsible for it? This is dictatorship talk, people, the WSJ is really loony. I hope the NY Times Editorial board takes them to task for this, and we need to ask our candidates if they think a president can break a law and then blame the Congress for not passing the law he wants.

  by adigal on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:05:00 AM PDT