FISA Fight: House Dems--don't do this

FISA watchers are reading tea leaves into two things: a vague statment by Hoyer on the floor yesterday that there might be something to vote on next week, and a blurb in today's Congress Daily (no link available) hinting about a potential House effort:

To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill's second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles. In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.

This should be taken with a grain of salt, but at the same time with the recognition that somebody--and it seems pretty darned likely that somebody is Hoyer--is floating some trial balloons about what he wants to happen. According to Politico:

Hoyer may also be feeling pressure from moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who have been pushing the Democratic leadership to act on FISA before the spring recess, even if it means voting on the Senate bill.

On Wednesday, 20 moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats met with Hoyer to push for a vote on the electronic surveillance measure, according to Congressional Quarterly.

We can assume those are the same Blue Dogs who have been agitating for telco amnesty from the beginning, against all reason. John Salazare is opposed to this bill, and even his potential Republican opponent doesn't want to run on this issue. It makes no sense for them to keep pushing this.

Now it's not at all clear that this is legislative effort is actually happening or whether it's a trial balloon or if it's real. But whatever it is, it would be phenomenally stupid to try to enact. First, the House has already voted on the Senate bill, the Protect AT&T Act, and rejected it. When that happens, you go to conference. When the Republicans refuse to cooperate in conference, you do it without them or table action on the bill.

For once, real Democrats in the House have the upper hand. They don't need to do anything on FISA. They certainly don't need to cave the administration to Protect AT&T.

Here are the likely Blue Dog suspects. As long as you're calling, try Hoyer, too: Phone - [phone], Fax - [phone]

• Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

•  TO THE MATTRESSES!!

  It's not going to be easy to beat these bastards.  The telcos have a lot of money.

  Start making those calls!!

  And I am going to start with Hoyer.

  It probably wouldn't hurt to call Pelosi as well.

  Anybody have her number offhand?

  by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM PDT

  •  Pelosi: 415 556 4862 or 202 225 4965

    or email the speaker at
    http://www.house.gov/...

    by chiefscribe on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:28:35 PM PDT

    •  We primaried Al Wynn into retirement- Hoyer next?

      Marylanders showed what we think of bush-voting dems in the Fourth District, where bush-dog dem Al Wynn lost by over 20% to Donna Edwards.

      Too bad we did not dump Hoyer, he is big-money lobbyist suck up extreme.  

      Maybe in 2010 we can get rid of Hoyer, or just cast him out of the House leadership after the Obama movement wins big in 2008.

      by MD patriot on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:36:07 PM PDT

      •  Paralyzed by fear, how do they even go to the

        bathroom

        

        by ca democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:58:45 PM PDT

        •  They feel a thrill running down their legs. nt.

          ...

          by mjfgates on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM PDT

      •  Can't happen soon enough!

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM PDT

    •  TKS!!

      Make those calls!

      by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM PDT

    •  Why is Hoyer making these pronouncements?

      Where is Pelosi?

      The Democratic Congressional Caucus: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory one unconstitutional bill at a time.

      by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM PDT

      •  Steny Hoyer is a "one trick dog"

        Reiterates "Roll Over" as if it is intelligent and necessary to survivial.

        Quite the opposite is true.

        From downthread response of DelPPCV:

        Technically, this would allow people opposed to amnesty to vote for surveillance, so I think focusing on amnesty is exactly what the ACLU doesn't want people to do. The basket warrants, etc. in the first part are bad news, and they don't want to let legislators off the hook for those, either. Keeping it all together, as Bush has demanded, has built in a nice poison pill that is preventing majority support. Pelosi's plan, which is borne of the same tired "They might say mean things about us" weakness that we've been fighting for years, is a very bad idea. The likely result? Passage of the first part, defeat of the second part, a conference bill that includes a lot of nasty stuff (but no amnesty), a veto, and (most importantly) momentum in Bush's favor when this starts over once again.

        Republicans are going to call Democrats traitors and cowards no matter what. The only defense is to go on offense and repeatedly make the point that this is all about money and scoring points, and Bush and the Republicans couldn't care less about security.

        Hearing name calling from in the gutter when you have the High ground. I like that.

        Pelosi needs to get Steny to heel.

        by portorcliff on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM PDT

        •  She needs to tie him up in the garage

          and tell him he's eating nothing but dry dog food until he learns to pee on the newspapers and heel.

          by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:45:45 PM PDT

      •  Hoyer does the dirty work n/t

        by joanneleon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:35:28 PM PDT

  •  I was

    impressed with Reid early on.

    But I am inclined to start fundraiser so he can replace his lost set of balls.

    by librarianman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:27:04 PM PDT

•  They'll sell us down the river

  When it comes down to "us" or big business we all know who comes out smelling like a rose and who gets the shaft.  Now, bend over, please.

  by minerva1157 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM PDT

  •  The depths of their stupidity is immense.

    Every 2 years they are up for reelection.

    Primary every one of their goddamn asses.

    by Flippant on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM PDT

  •  Paging Vito Corleone, paging Vito Corleone

    Seeing Brando slap Hoyer and tell him: "You can act like a man!" would do my heart sooo glad.  The next Dem retreat should be held in the Phillipines, as we could then call them the Manila Folders.

    by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:53:46 PM PDT

    •  Ha! Good one

      These Blue Dogs can dismiss us as leftie Moonbats, or stealth reeper concern trolls...but the numbers of Dem voters who oppose this telco amnesty can't all be wrong.

      Bah!

       Anybody have any polling on this? I've seen it, don't have it to post.
      Bah on the  capitulation to these telcos.

      McJoan, a simple poll would be fun?
      Thanks for the diary.

      by KenBee on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:59:09 PM PDT

      •  From the ACLU

        61% of voters support requiring the government to get a warrant before wiretapping...51% of those "strongly" support the requirement.

        Link.

        by creeper on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM PDT

        •  So 39% don't support getting warrants

          That's beyond scary.

          by Bartimaeus Blue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM PDT

          •  Only half

            "strongly" support followinig the law.

            Half

            by nrafter530 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

          •  These are the ones who are foolish enough

            to believe that if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, IMHO.  They think we've still got all of our rights, and that there is justice for loyal, patriotic Americans.

            by joanneleon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM PDT

            •  It's going to take

              an opressive fascist dictatorship to change their minds...sorry to say

              by nrafter530 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM PDT

          •  39% say: 'wha?'

            For something so Not Paris Hilton, that's pretty amazing that 61%.
             Actually makes me happy it's that high.
            61%  ---  WooHoo!

            by KenBee on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:01:38 PM PDT

  •  Just so they can look patriotic and strong

    on national security. It's all about what is politically expedient and not about what is right.

    by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:38:20 PM PDT

    •  Politics

      sucks, don't it.

      Look on the bright side...they stood up against the surge and McCain may get elected because of it.

      by nrafter530 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:40:21 PM PDT

  •  Just before their recess

    with just minutes to go before Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the Spring holiday, they will sell out.

    I'm getting so damned tired of this theatre before recesses.

    Then they hightail it out of town.

    by joanneleon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM PDT

    •  Yes, Hoyer's just looking to fill

      Dem campaign accounts with telco money.

      I've read somewhere (sorry, no link) that Rethuglicans are complaining that all the telco money is now going to Democrats.

      They won't cave until they've filled their tanks accounts.

      And they will have to cave or the pump will run dry for future "opportunities".

      by Helpless on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:05:41 PM PDT

•  Call Hoyer [phone]

  E-mail Hoyer

  Fax Hoyer [phone]

  This is strictly a case of some Democrats getting scared because of the fearmongering coming from Bush.

  This is a classic case of Steny Hoyer, and Steny Hoyer alone, needing to get some starch added to his undershirt.

  C'mon Steny, are you a man, or a bush-whipped coward, those are the choices.

  by Duckman GR on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:23:24 PM PDT

  •  Primary Hoyer- remind him of Al Wynn

    Time to dump the bush-dog dems, we don't need a big money shill like Hoyer, he is all about the interests of his rich cronies.

    Donna Edwards decisively defeated bush-dog Wynn, who will step up to run against corporate cozy boy Hoyer?

    by MD patriot on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM PDT

    •  Just did.... a sternly phrased butt chewing

      if the Dems don't understand how po'd people are - and I'm talking about FORMER REPUBLICANS and INDEPENDENTS who want the Dems to stand up to Bush...... they're asking for serious 'disappointment'

      I made it clear - I will NOT give a dime to the Dems in general but ONLY those that are willing to stand up to Bush only to those that are willing to preserve and protect our Constitution.

      and how about all that promised reform Stenny?  

      by xrepub on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:23:05 PM PDT

      •  They don't need your nickels

        when they have telcos' dollars.

        by Helpless on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM PDT

•  Somehow it doesn't surprise me

  to know that AT&T is a big campaign contributor to Steny Hoyer.

  by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM PDT

•  Blue Dog Coalition - screw off!

  I'm so glad we went through all the trouble of electing a Democratic majority so that a minority of that majority could boss around the majority of the majority!

  Is anybody really surprised that the Democrats are looking for a way to cave on this? I swear, it seems sometimes like Democrats look to see what pisses off the liberals in order to know what specifically to capitulate on in order to look "bipartisan".

  In other words, the louder we shout in protest, the more they take it as evidence that that's just the issue on which they should let the Republicans have whatever they want, in order to not be berated.

  Because, you know, so far, they've given in to the Republicans at every turn -- and see how nice the Republicans are being to them in return?

  by John Clavis on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM PDT

  •  I think the most appropreate language would be...

    fuck off!

    by KevinBarry16 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM PDT

    •  God another typo.....terrible today n/t

      by KevinBarry16 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:40:02 PM PDT

  •  Notice it isn't all the Blue Dogs

    it's just the Bush dogs.  

    Only the real Butthole Joe Baca of the California Blue Dogs is on the list above.  The other California Blue Dogs are fighting Telco immunity hard.  

    Notice Gene Taylor of MS isn't on that list.  There's a lot of Blue Dogs not on that list.  The above list is of the ones who've turned their coats.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM PDT

    •  I wish Baca was my rep, I would give him an

      earful.

      My CA rep is firmly against Telco amnesty.

      It's just that at this point he is pro-Hillary.

      by Flippant on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM PDT

      •  We gotta do something about Joe Baca

        He's way over the line on a lot of stuff.  The Hillary thing will take care of itself soon enough.  Baca will go on being the Rep from the Military-Industrial
        complex and for Ontario-San Berdoo developers.  

        Watch him enthusiastically embrace the attempt by Bush to open the Southern California National Forests to road building, logging, and Oil Drilling.  Even Ahnold's fighting this attempted re-classification and threatening lawsuits along with Attorney General Jerry Brown.  Every damn thing Bushco can try they are going for this year before they're out of office.  

        Baca loves it all.  Time to primary Baca.

        by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM PDT

      •  call your own rep, even the good guys

        I'm a Vermonter, so my delegation has been on the right side of almost all of these issues. I've taken to imploring Rep Welch to speak to any Blue Dogs he knows in the House, and try to get them to wake up to what they're enabling.
        Down deep, I still want to believe that type of peer lobbying can work.

        by kamarvt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM PDT

  •  call them TALK RADIO DEMOCRATS

    or limbaugh democrats because the most effective pressure they get to push them right is generated from their local right wing talk radio stations.

    what often makes red states red is that there are no alternatives in large parts of those states to the RW talk radio monopoly.

    by certainot on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:48:59 PM PDT

•  Alright...I am calling Boswell. He is not my rep

  but right next door and I fly out his airport all the time.

  by Los Diablo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM PDT

  •  The staff member was stunned.

    I was very polite...almost sad when I talked to him.  I actually told him that I really don't understand why the Congressman would support the Protect AT&T bill and that is goes against the consitution and find that disturbing and why would the congressman want them to help spy on us and told him that I didn't look it up but was the congressman getting that much money from the telcos.  This is one call that I think will definitely be passed on since the staff person seemed almost as disturbed as I was.

    by Los Diablo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM PDT

    •  Great stuff!!

      I love the "Protect AT&T" line.

      Perfect.

      by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM PDT

      •  I called Boswell 3x this past week

        Talked to Frankie and Thomas in his office.

        Conveyed my wife's and my requirement that he vote against any manner of retroactive telecom immunity and hence Shrub immunity.

        We'll see what it does.

        Also wrote him twice.

        by Neosocrates on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM PDT

•  Who's pressuring Hoyer?

  Is it the Blue Dogs he's feeling pressure from?  Or is it the telecom companies themselves?

  I don't trust Hoyer.

  This concoction of a plan makes absolutely no sense, except to someone who is thoroughly compromised.

  by joanneleon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM PDT

  •  Hoyer-thoroughly compromised n/t

    by Rachel Griffiths on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM PDT

•  Ooooh, good thinking!

  not only would it give Democratic leaders the [weasel] out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP

  A win/win for them; and a lose/lose for us.

  by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM PDT

  •  This is the worst.

    Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

    This can only mean that the Telcos have them in their pocket. There is no other explanation.

    Sounds to me like we have Bush right where he wants us. How else to explain it? We don't have to do anything to win. PAA is dead already. Bush's whining isn't getting any traction--he just looks like a dick.

    But no, House Democrats, we can capitulate to the Republicans in the Senate. We can go out of our way to lose one more to Bush.

    Are they suffering from Stockholm Syndrome up there on Capitol Hill?

    by homogenius on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:42:38 PM PDT

    •  No they're suffering from corrupt-head-up-ass

      syndrome.

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM PDT

•  Simple compromise to get the spying bill passed

  I seriously suggest a horse swap to get this bill passed.
  Give the telecoms blanket immunity in return for George Bush agreeing to remain open to serving one year in jail if the ACLU and the nasty trial lawyers can successfully convict him of being a party to breaking our nation's privacy laws.
  You take the money out of the equation and the American people get their just reward, a pound of George Bush's flesh.
  Simple, expedient and fair.
  Or you can be a bit more adventurous by also making the telecoms sign a statement that they will keep their greedy mitts off the current neutrality provisions of internet protocols.

  by cognitorex on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM PDT

  •  Rather than immunity

    As Hesiod commented elsewhere, you could trade net neutrality being enshrined into law with liability caps -- if you were interested in calling the White House bluff, which is all about immunizing Bush from criminal prosecution.

    Or you could stand firm.

    by DelRPCV on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM PDT

    •  Also immunizsing

      the democratic minority leadership who were made aware of this unconstitutional activity at the time and did not fulfill there duties.

      by debatablepolitics on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:13:52 PM PDT

  •  Let's make a deal

    Give the telecoms immunity only if Bush and Cheney agree to resign immediately AND open up all of their files to Congressional scrutiny.  It would be worth it.

    by Cyber Kat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM PDT

    •  I'd buy that for a dollar.

      by homogenius on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM PDT

    •  Yes but the congressional leadership

      is in bed with Bush Cheney so they will never go for it. They are implicated in all of this mess, that is why they cave at EVERY turn.

      What we should be pushing for is a change in the congressional leadership of the party. Get rid of the people tied to Bush as far as post 9/11 activities are concerned...

      by debatablepolitics on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:15:42 PM PDT

      •  I'm with you on that! n/t

        by Cyber Kat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM PDT

  •  Would it be in Gen. population?

    And can we watch?

    Ain't no schoolyard like the joint, Shrub. And daddy won't be there. Think carefully, little man.

    Hah. Not in a Brazilian years. Funny, tho.

    by kamarvt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM PDT

  •  "George Bush agreeing to remain open to serving..

    one year in jail..."

    I have a fantasy of Bush and Cheney being frog-marched into the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Talk about a way to reclaim our standing in the world!

    Hey, a guy can dream.

    by Five of Diamonds on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

  •  my privacy is worth a year of Club Med jail

    for Bush? I don't think so.

    by minorityusa on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:40:26 PM PDT

•  If we are going to negotiate...

  make a deal that does some good.

  I am not saying to negotiate, but if done, it should be for a hell of a lot more than giving Dems a way out. Just off the top of my head, two things that should be demanded to consider immunity to the telecos would be, one, that the warrantless wiretapping of Americans ends permanently, and two, binding agreement for internet neutrality by the telecos.

  I personally would forgive past deeds if in return we were guaranteed net neutrality and assurance via intependent monitoring that the wiretapping ends.

  by phild1976 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM PDT

  •  They won't budge

    The Republicans KNOW FISA HAS to pass. They know if it doesn't, and there's a terrorist attack, they will rout us in the next election, so they KNOW it'll pass.

    We're not in the position to negotiate on national security, they do still own that issue.

    by nrafter530 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM PDT

•  Allow me to shoot down this trial balloon.

  Granting amnesty for telecom companies for any reason runs afoul of the principles of freedom from government intrusion espoused in the Constitution, eliminates any chance of uncovering the extent to which Bush did break the law, encourages companies to break the law in the future, and places the priorities of corporations (and their payday on our tax dollars) over the best interests of U.S. Citizens.  

  The argument that these companies are "innocent vicitms" of Bush's lawlessness, as shamefully put forth by Claire McCaskill, is commensurately wrong.  I work for a law firm, these companies have law firms, and it is blatantly stupid to suggest that they did not seek counsel before attaching the Big Brother machine.  

  Their position to reap millions in contracts and become pioneers in the newly-emerging privatized security market also cuts against arguments of their helpless innocense.

  Any lawyer that is suited for the bar knows how fundamentally illegal these actions were.  The concept of warrants is covered in first-year criminal law classes.  It's a staple of American freedom.  

  by Five of Diamonds on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM PDT

  •  I'm not finished.

    It bears repeating, if for no other reason because the lie to its contrary is so often repeated, that the warrant system poses no obstacles to effective law enforcement or national security.  To the extent FISA is cumbersome, a charge that is unverifiable because its (rightly) secret, these encumbrances can be easily remedied.

    For all the unfair attacks leveled against Democrats for being un-patriotic, granting telecom amnesty is just that.  It violates the particular American brand of freedom and runs afoul of the basic fundamental principles of representative democracy.  

    For all the unfair attacks of cowardice leveled against Democrats, granting telecom amnesty is just that.  On this issue the American people are aware and educated and any Democrat that votes in favor of those that trample our freedoms will have to face the consequences in the polls.

    by Five of Diamonds on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM PDT

    •  Yesterday, a reporter asked Bush

      at his Petulant Presser:

      Q You can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits, but then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've been caught up in this. ... So if Americans don't have any recourse, are you just telling them, when it comes to their privacy, to suck it up?

      The Princeling didn't like that question:

      THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you've been long been long enough to -- anyway, yes, I -- look, there's -- people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most -- all Americans want.

      WATCH WHAT YOU SAY WHEN YOU SUGGEST THAT I AM A LAWLESS TYRANT!!!!!

      by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM PDT

      •  A threat, a little dance, and a lie

        I am so naive that I actually believe that if the American people could all see him give his answer to the "suck it up" question that the impeachment hearings would begin the very next day.

        We truly deserve the government we get. Maybe that's changing.

        by PBCliberal on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:23:56 PM PDT

        •  No doubt...

          yesterday's presser sent me into an outrage. That lying little bastard!! It was his most revolting thusfar! I so hope I see the day that SOB is dressed in orange, wearing handcuffs and leg irons!!!

          by reflectionsv37 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:16:26 PM PDT

          •  Yep. And the stock market took account as well..

            Stock market dives after Bush gives "reassurance"

            by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

      •  The hammer drops

        THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public.

          Just all a you: remember the secret handshake when we're on our extended Texas vacations together.
            See ya there:}

        by KenBee on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM PDT

        •  I wouldn't put it that way if I were you

          Because your phone line is next.....

          by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:34:21 PM PDT

      •  Yes, don't say that in public

        because you know the government has spies everywhere. Anything you say, regardless of your expectation of privacy, can and will be used against you. You no longer even have the right not to incriminate yourself because anything you say, in public, and who knows where private ends and public begins anymore, can be used to convict you. The President's caution against saying anything in public is very chilling.

        by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:33:03 PM PDT

        •  He's a two-bit outlaw.

          And he should be impeached.  NOW?

          Hear that NSA??  How 'bout you CIA?  What about you FBI??

          by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM PDT

          •  Impeachment taken off the table to make room for

            retroactive amnesty for criminal telcos. Yes, indeedy, that's some mighty fine lawmakers and lawbreakers you have in Washington. It's sometimes difficult to tell them apart.

            by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM PDT

        •  Remember Ari Fleischer?

          "People have to be careful about what they say?"  Which meant: criticize the president and the terrorists WIN!

          Now it's Dubya himself who is warning us against thoughtcrime.

          How long will it be before the government orders the cable companies to install monitoring screens in our homes?

          by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:36:21 PM PDT

      •  That quote is gibberish.

        I still can't believe this wanker is POTUS.

        Lemme read that again:

        Well, you've been long been long enough to -- anyway, yes, I -- look, there's -- people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most -- all Americans want.

        Was he getting this shit piped into his ear or what?

        by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM PDT

        •  Bush, Deconstructed

          Well, you've been long been long enough to

          He is about to add to his immediately preceding warning not to "put it that way." But then he thinks better of it, like he suddenly remembered that HE was being recorded:

          -- anyway, yes, I -- look, there's --

          The rusty little wheels in his pea-sized brains desperately search for a different talking point:

          people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't --

          But now he realizes that he's about to say too much -- that he's about to assure people that their rights aren't being violated. So he says this instead:

          you know, are treated with respect.

          "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, don't know what it means to me...."  Respect? You're not evening saying "please" before you violate my rights, how can you say you "respect" me?

          And that's what I want, and that's what most -- all Americans want.

          "Most Americans"?  Was he about to try and say that most Americans don't mind if they're constitutional rights go POOF so long as Georgie Boy protects us from the TERRAISTS?  But he remembered that saying "most" wouldn't sound right, so he backpedals and says "all."

          I can't frakkin' believe this guy hasn't been impeached.

          by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:43:49 PM PDT

  •  And, as others have pointed out

    not all the telcos went along with the Bush-Cheney plan. Qwest looked at it and said, "We can't do this...it's illegal".

    If all of the telcos said that warrantless wiretapping passed the smell test, then the grounds for amnesty would be a lot stronger.

    by milkbone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

•  Reposting my comment from Hullabaloo

  Technically, this would allow people opposed to amnesty to vote for surveillance, so I think focusing on amnesty is exactly what the ACLU doesn't want people to do. The basket warrants, etc. in the first part are bad news, and they don't want to let legislators off the hook for those, either. Keeping it all together, as Bush has demanded, has built in a nice poison pill that is preventing majority support. Pelosi's plan, which is borne of the same tired "They might say mean things about us" weakness that we've been fighting for years, is a very bad idea. The likely result? Passage of the first part, defeat of the second part, a conference bill that includes a lot of nasty stuff (but no amnesty), a veto, and (most importantly) momentum in Bush's favor when this starts over once again.

  Republicans are going to call Democrats traitors and cowards no matter what. The only defense is to go on offense and repeatedly make the point that this is all about money and scoring points, and Bush and the Republicans couldn't care less about security.

  I would just add that I should have known the "Democratic leaders" are Hoyer and his crew, and not necessarily Pelosi.

  by DelRPCV on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM PDT

  •  Here is exactly the result We Do Not Want

    On the Off chance that Pelosi and Hoyer have not thought of this, we need to get this into their brains stat.

    Hoyer not the brightest bulb on the block if he thinks this is going to work. We are the majority.The president is Lame Duck. We have the high ground. We only have to say 'No'. I like watching the tantrums.

    by portorcliff on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM PDT

•  Steny Hoyer

  "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since always."

  by The Termite on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM PDT

•  Wait a sec

  If this results in decoupling the issues of surveillance and telco amnesty, why is that such a bad thing. The Dems get to say: we believe in providing the tools the intelligence community needs; but we also respect the rule of law. Let the Repugs draw their line in the sand there.

  Unless I'm missing something, of course...

  by frsbdg on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM PDT

  •  Because

    They already have the tools they need.  Even if you accept that the statute needs a few tweaks, the first part goes well beyond those tweaks.

    by DelRPCV on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM PDT

  •  I'm confused as well

    Is there any reason to suspect that the amnesty title would pass in the house?  Amnesty is the part that derailed the senate bill in the house right?

    If both the titles aren't passed, than the house and the senate still have to go to conference right?  How is that any different than what we have now with both bodies passing different versions of the same bill?

    Can anyone fill me in how this proposal will move anything along?

    by AndersOSU on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:42:42 PM PDT

    •  This might presumably enable the revision...

      of the Senate bill in conference that the Committee would then report out to both the House and the Senate.

      Of course, Bush has threatened to veto anything without immunity, but in this case it would put the lie to Bush's argument that this is about American's safety.

      It's not worth it though, because the basket warrants procedure created under this bill is also flawed.

      This bill should DIE in committee.

      by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM PDT

  •  who cares what they say

    I care about actions and consequences, because that impacts my life, liberty, and livelihood.

    Telco immunity = corporations can break the law and fuck me over on governmental say-so.

    by Simplify on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM PDT

  •  this came up in another diary on the topic

    This one by portercliff.

    Here's my take on it.
    it's the same way lions hunt.

    by kamarvt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:12:31 PM PDT

•  Qwest needs retroactive protection from the

  government for refusing to cooperate with the NSA. The other telcos suffered no consequences for their illegal actions and benefited from the contracts with the government, while Qwest was punished. Qwest lawyers determined the NSA surveillance program was not legal and advised against Qwest participation in February of 2001, a full seven months before 9/11. So we have confirmed legal opinion that what the other telcos did was illegal. It is essential that the courts hear these cases and decide on the legality of the actions taken by the telcos. Amnesty should not be considered.  

  by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

  •  Timeline alert!

    So Qwest had already determined not to comply with warrantless requests in February 2001.  So when did they first get the requests?  

    by CParis on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:00:56 PM PDT

    •  The AT&T log records show that the

      "Pioneer-Groundbreaker" project start date was February 1, 2001. This link provides some interesting reading and other links. I think if more people realized that the NSA surveillance program took root long before 9/11 there would be demand for investigations.

      by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM PDT

      •  And that is something...

        that is being kept very well hidden. It's always about ther cooperation after 9/11. After Senator Inouye's disgusting votes in the Senate I wrote him and even asked that question. Are we only granting them immunity for what they did after 9/11 or are we granting them immunity for everything they've done including what they did before 9/11. I'm really looking forward to hearing the answer on that!

        by reflectionsv37 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM PDT

        •  Another interesting piece of this puzzle

          is that Ashcroft refused to certify the program when it came up for renewal in 2004. We have the infamous visit of Gonzalez and Card to Ashcroft in the hospital in March of 2004 in an attempt to get him to certify it. Now you have to wonder what the sense of urgency was. Ashcroft authorized the TSP the first time and eventually reauthorized it after he got out of the hospital, but we don't know exactly what he authorized. That is still shrouded in secrecy. And there's the fact that Qwest asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General on the legality of the program they were being asked to participate in. Apparently they never got one because they declined to participate. So Ashcroft was willing to authorize the program but not willing to provide a legal opinion that absolved Qwest of any guilt. I think Ashcroft had serious doubts about the program and I don't think he wanted to release a potentially public document to Qwest that provided a tenuous legal basis for the program.

          by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM PDT

      •  Exactly. Where are the investigations?

        This is pre-9/11 and they still couldn't stop the hijackers?

        Why?  Because this is not about terrorism it's about SPYING ON AMERICANS.  

        They don't give a shit about terrorism, but they are using it to expand their shredding of our Constitution.

        by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:25:19 PM PDT

        •  It is so about spying on Americans

          Aside from wondering how many times the FISA court has turned down warrants to monitor terrorists, there is something else I find perplexing.

          How come terrorists can get reception in Afghanistan and Pakistan but I can't get reception when I go skiing in Pennsylvania. I think what the telcos are really hiding is that they have more towers in Afghanistan than in Pennsylvania.

          Silly me, I suppose the terrorists could be using land lines. Hint to CIA: They are hiding in the caves that have wires running to them.

          Ya know, if FISA hadn't messed up all of the surveillance before 9/11 the intelligence community would have been able to tell bush that bin-Laden was determined to strike the US.

          by beerm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM PDT

  •  Good point-Quest taking legal actions?

    for discrimination/extortiom=n or anything like that?
      Would they dare?
     Say it again:

    So we have confirmed legal opinion that what the other telcos did was illegal. It is essential that the courts hear these cases and decide on the legality of the actions taken by the telcos. Amnesty should not be considered.

    by KenBee on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM PDT

    •  Qwest CEO is up on insider trading charges

      The issue of NSA surveillance may be being used in his case to argue that the government retaliated against him. I think the angle in this case is that Nacchio acted in good faith when he sold stock in his company and that he did not expect a stock downturn and perhaps the downturn was due to the government taking punitive action. This is my read on it, but there is no confirmation of that being used as a defense that I've seen. But it has come out that Qwest was contacted February 27, 2001. They have acknowledged being contacted after 9/11 by the NSA, but never said that that was the first time.

      by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:23:21 PM PDT

      •  Thanks, sounds right

        from other earlier reading.
           From another comment, a quote from the press conference :

        THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public.

          Nacchio can maybe use that as well....maybe that's a new sig.

        by KenBee on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:31:05 PM PDT

        •  Be careful what you say in public

          and remember that every place is public thanks to the telcos and the NSA.

          by MagisterLudi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM PDT

      •  In the wake of the pressure on US Attorneys to...

        prosecute Dems or lose their jobs, whether Nacchio was targeted because of his failure to comply with unlawful NSA subpoenas definitely demands a full investigation.

        Where's the House of Rep Committees on this?

        by maxschell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM PDT

  •  A Qwest Good Citizen Bonus!

    This is a really interesting and good tack to take. Perhaps somebody in our camp wants to offer an amendment to the new FISA to reward Qwest for doing the right thing?

    How about making the contract bid process non-level and tipped to Qwest for as many years as the other telcoms cooperated?

    Or put some kind of penalties in the bill for future transgressions while absolving them of past mistakes. This bill can dictate penalties for not cooperating with the legal orders of the government to be the same as cooperating with illegal ones.

    Everybody's talking about chilling effects in the future. How about we make the effects chilling for all their transgressions, including the ones that hurt the public.

    by PBCliberal on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:35:51 PM PDT

•  Incredibly stupid

  if Hoyer or anyone in the caucus leads us to vote on something now....maybe this is why the GOP is crying about tele-com donations going the other way....if it is I want who might be influenced by that money

  by proudprogressiveCA on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM PDT

•  I just wrote Melissa Bean

  it didn't do any good in 2006, but what the heck, I'll keep trying.

  by Rorgg on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:38:35 PM PDT

•  I don't trust Hoyer and never did --

  i hope that I'm wrong, but he and these Blue Dog Dems really have their sights on something that doesn't include us.  It's time to get organized and send some new Reps to Congress; otherwise we are doomed.

  by yowsta on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:38:54 PM PDT

  •  Hoyer should heed the Wynn example

    Same state.

    by RenMin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:11:40 PM PDT

•  Telecom political contributions to dems ..

  .. must be pouring in.  :(

  by apostrophe on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM PDT

•  What is the screening process

  before someone can call themselves a Democrat. I see this as a major problem going forward. What ambitious Rethug would call himself a Rethug. Whose the next Liberman? I feel so hopeless.

  by ghett on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:41:47 PM PDT

  •  Infiltration.

    by Little Red Hen on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:08:10 PM PDT