FISA vote pushed back: are we winning?

(Promoted by Susan.)

The Poltico is reporting that the House will not vote on an electronic surveillance bill this week, and that telcom amnesty is a major sticking point:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Wednesday the House will not take up an electronic surveillance measure this week, further delaying any decisions on the controversial measure.

Hoyer said in his weekly press conference that he hoped to wrap up work on an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; "towards the end of this week or the beginning of next week."

However, the majority leader acknowledged that there were "still disagreements" within the Democratic caucus over the issue of granting immunity to telecom companies who aided the government in the wiretapping program.

Does this mean we still have a chance to stop this?

If there is still dissension in the ranks, then that means we can still sway the House to do the right thing.

Here is what gives me hope:

Although Democratic leaders insist they are working feverishly to iron out their differences, one House member—speaking on the condition of anonymity—suggested it could be a long time, if ever, before the bill was brought for a vote.

"A lot of people think the politics of doing nothing on this issue are very good for both sides of the political spectrum," they said.

All we need in order to win on FISA is for the House to do nothing.  No vote means "compromises," no immunity, no unfettered governmental spying on its citizens.  

I think this is our chance.  

1. Call your reps, and call Hoyer, Pelosi, and Reyes.

2. Sign the ACLU petition.

3. Support the good guys.  Reward the freshmen House Dems who are doing the right thing: ActBlue FightFISA, or Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund

UPDATE:  Congressional contact page

•  Does anyone know

  current toll-free US Capitol switchboard numbers?

  I'm afraid mine are out of date.

  by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM PDT

  •  See mcjoan's most recent post for contacts

    FISA Fight: Supporting the good guys

    Here's the direct link for a Congressional contact page.

    by Simplify on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:47:52 AM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM PDT

  •  Toll free

    Call toll free to the Capitol Switchboard: 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-828-0498, or 1-800-614-2803.  Ask for the office you would like to speak to.  You can also request that one office transfer you to the next office.  Most staff members are happy to do so.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:03:35 AM PDT

  •  800-828-0498 n/t

    by bfitzinAR on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM PDT

•  Yes. Anything that delays this stupid process

  Helps.

  The FISA situation is fine as it is. The FISA courts still operate, and if the government wants a warrant thet acna get one.

  by dnamj on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM PDT

  •  Don't be lulled...look at source.

    I know McJoan was NOT suggesting this, but no one should be lulled into a false sense of victory here.  First of all, the Politico is definitely a mouthpiece and anything they say should be taken with a tub-o-salt.

    Second, this type of "information" has been purveyed before by the Dem leadership before they, for instance, voted to abolish habeas corpus with the MCA.

    So, word to the wise: KEEP MAKING THE CALLS!!  GET YOUR FRIENDS TO MAKE CALLS!!

    TO THE MATTRESSES!!!

    by maxschell on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM PDT

    •  OK, but add this

      from TPMMuckraker to the mix:

      In a conference call with bloggers today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made it clear that her highest priority for a surveillance bill was that it contain a so-called "exclusivity" provision -- a measure that would explicitly state that the bill would be the "exclusive means" by which the government would conduct surveillance, or in other words, the president does not have the power to ignore the law if he/she so pleases.

      "Exclusivity is the issue," she said.

      by mspicata on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM PDT

      •  Good point.

        I'm glad to hear Nancy put another issue on the table, but I'm also sure there's still significant, if not majority, pressure to give the telcos/Bush what they want.

        by maxschell on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM PDT

        •  If exclusivity is in the bill,

          Bush will veto it -- regardless of anything else it says.

          by mspicata on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:31:59 AM PDT

          •  Let him.

            Then everyone will finally understand that Bush Hates America (if by America you mean the people who live here).

            by dnamj on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

      •  And it went on to say...

        Pelosi says that she "absolutely" opposes retroactive immunity for the telecoms, but that she "didn't want the fight to be so focused there that we neglect exclusivity." Pelosi added that the House leadership was "at the mercy of the 17 or 18 Democrats in the Senate who are voting with the Republicans on this" and said that "we are trying to work with the Dems in the Senate to come to an agreement" on exclusivity, immunity, and other issues.

        I think there is hope that immunity will not be in the final bill. We need to keep on those phone calls!

        by reflectionsv37 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM PDT

        •  This shows the Pelosi fallacy

          Why is she at the mercy of the 16 or 17 Democrats in the Senate who favor immunity?  The House is an independent body.  It doesn't have to pass a bill, any bill, no matter how objectionable, just because the President and Senate insist.  

          Why do we always have to sacrifice our principles to get legislation passed?  If the bill is truly so crucial -- which it obviously is not -- let those who favor immunity compromise and vote for a bill without it.

          by RenMin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM PDT

          •  My thoughts...

            are they should just do nothing and never bring it up for a vote. Case closed!

            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM PDT

    •  I totally agree

      No victory, yet.  Just a sign that we might still have a shot.

      by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM PDT

      •  Exactly.

        I'm definitely hopin' that we're gaining momentum, but this thing is a long way from over...

        by maxschell on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM PDT

  •  I have been saying since this POS legislation

    was sent back to the House that it should be referred to Committee or pigeonholed or just tabled.

    Fuck FISA.

    by Flippant on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM PDT

•  Well, doing nothing

  is what Congress does best these days...

  by kkshedevil on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM PDT

  •  I wish they would do nothing

    Every time Congress passes something the President will sign, it only makes things worse.

    Representatives and Senators, just make the administration enforce the laws already on the books.  They are the executive branch, and you are the legislative. When you pass laws that the administration breaks, then you are actually harming the country by carrying on the pretense that we have lawful, representative government, when we do not.

    But since you can't do that, please at least just do nothing.

    by Simplify on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:13 AM PDT

  •  First: Do No Harm

    ....it's a good guide for legislators too.

    by greenskeeper on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM PDT

  •  It may be what they do best, but

    they don't seem to be able to do it well.

    by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:58:11 AM PDT

  •  At least do nothing until Feb 09

    that's when something can and will get done:

    * remove 80% of the troops from Iraq and bring 50% of those home, the rest redeploy to Afghanistan to finish the job there

    * pass a telecom bill without amnesty

    * appoint an AG that cares about the rule of law

    * install 2 or 3 SCOTUS justices that will uphold the rule of law

    * pass meaningful CAFE standards, repeal NCLB, repeal the "Clean Skies" BS...

    ... and more!

    Just hold off on any legislative item that Bush would like to sign, every appointee. He can't make an under-the-law signing statement if there's nothing to sign.

    This guy needs to be put into the penalty box from here on out, so he can do no more damage on the ice.

    by OWCH on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM PDT

•  Wow... An Issue!

  Other things ARE happening!

  I was sure of it.

  Recommended.

  by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM PDT

  •  Thanks! nt

    by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM PDT

•  immunity shields bush

  no way they can let mr. 19% get away with this shit any longer.
  Where is Obama and Hillary on this one?
  They should be leading the charge against immunity,
  they want to lead so damn bad.

  by mpc 12 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM PDT

  •  They both have been extremely disappointing

    on this issue.  They've had ample opportunities to make a stand and neither have.  Obama especially.  If he wants to show that he's different from the politics of the past it's time for him to make a real issue stand rather just talk.

    by Rasputin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. Bring on the current issues.

      Enough with the campaign fluff and jabs. This is just one of the current issues that I'd really like to hear a straight up response to from Barack and Hil. I already know McCain's position. Chances are though, both would dance around it due to the Dem split in House and Senate so as to not burn bridges anywhere.

      by Skid on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:47:00 AM PDT

      •  Obama has a statement.

        I'd like to see him pound this issue harder though.

        by paintitblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM PDT

        •  Thanks.

          I'd love to hear him lay this all out pertaining to the truth and misinformation about FISA. Its a complicated issue, but obviously people will listen intently to Obama so I believe it would be BIG for his campaign, let alone the preservation of the US Constitution.

          by Skid on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM PDT

          •  Definitely.

            It'd be good for the public to hear the issue explained in English rather than Terrorese, and he'd get the chance to show his wonky side and his legal know-how.

            by paintitblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:42:25 PM PDT

        •  Oooh, a press release.

          How inspiring.  He has hundreds of opportunities since that release to stand in front of the cameras and tell the country his position on this and actually look like a leader.  No one reads press releases.

          by Rasputin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM PDT

          •  I agree that he should be much louder on this. nt

            by paintitblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:40:17 PM PDT

    •  From Firedoglake

      Statement of Senator Obama:
         

      I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

         Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

      He also came back to the Senate to vote "yea" to stripping immunity (Dodd Amendment ) from the Senate (Intelligence committee version) bill

      by Cyber Kat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM PDT

•  Congresscritters need constant reminders about...

  ...our expectations as constitutents. Kudos on your call to action. No immunity.

  Just saw this over at TPM. Looks like a "Poison Pill" from Pelosi.

  In a conference call with bloggers today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made it clear that her highest priority for a surveillance bill was that it contain a so-called "exclusivity" provision -- a measure that would explicitly state that the bill would be the "exclusive means" by which the government would conduct surveillance, or in other words, the president does not have the power to ignore the law if he/she so pleases.

  "Exclusivity is the issue," she said.

  If we can just keep these congresscritters from 'rolling over' and allowing the Constitution to be shredded.

  by portorcliff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM PDT

  •  While I agree with exclusivity, I have to wonder

    why it is necessary.  That's what FISA has ALWAYS BEEN.  It's like saying "and we really mean it this time."

    by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM PDT

    •  Obviously with Bush you can't leave

      any stone unturned and NO wiggle room.  He is, as my granny used to say "a piece of work".

      by gdwtch52 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM PDT

      •  Well, I guess my answer would be

        to punish him (like impeachment, prosecution, censure, something beyond a stream of sternly-worded letters) rather than pass a new bill that is just as easy for him to ignore when he knows there are no consequences.

        I admit, though, without adequate spine and adequate votes, I don't know what the best course is.

        by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

        •  Wish I could rec. 100X

          We need to see prosecutions at the end of this administration.
          This crap has been going on since Ford pardoned Nixon.
          NO MORE!!!!!

          by manwithnoname on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM PDT

        •  OUCH!!

          I think that you are misunderestimating the sting of a sternly worded letter.

          by PWT on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM PDT

          •  Death by 1000 papercuts? n/t

            by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM PDT

      •  Arrested Development....

        My 11 year old boy will defend his mis-behavior by re-defining what my restricted parameters are. "Ride only on our cul-de-sac" becomes "ours and the neighbor boys' at the other end of the street."

        This is a standard Bush tactic writ large.

        by portorcliff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:43 AM PDT

•  I contacted

  my congresscritter...unfortunately he's a republican.  At least his staff were polite, even if they seemed mystified as to why I was calling...

  by TehWondahkitty on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:02:00 AM PDT

  •  Same problem here...she

    just wants to "move forward" and "protect America".  Anything Bush wants is what I see.

    by gdwtch52 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:45 AM PDT

    •  it's great that you called

      No one in the House should be able to use the "my constituents don't care" excuse.

      by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:42 AM PDT

      •  Oh, I'm sure by now I am on a list

        of dangerous, progressive nutbags.  I don't care...she will hear me through every means possible.

        by gdwtch52 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM PDT

        •  dangerous progressive nutbag

          Will be the name of my first-born.

          by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

          •  dangerous progressive nutbag farrow

            it does have a lovely ring.

            by JML9999 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM PDT

•  Need to EDUCATE about FISA

  We need to make sure voters know Dems aren't blocking tools needed to combat terrorism.

  Repeat often:

  "Get a damn warrant!"

  by LNK on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:58:48 AM PDT

•  Well I just got a call from the DCCC and I told

  them NO MONEY to the party until they stop acting like lapdogs and I mentioned FISA in particular. Only $$$ to specific candidates.

  by CTMET on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM PDT

  •  Nice!

    I sent them an email saying the same thing.

    Maybe they don't understand "democracy."  Perhaps they understand money?

    by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM PDT

    •  Me Too

      I reply to every email I get, whether from DSCC, DCCC, the DNC, Democrats.org, or any other hand out grabbing for money while they skip their real jobs in Congress, with the same rejection. Restore FISA, the rest of the Constiution, end the Iraq War - something, anything - or NO MONEY. Maybe I'll consider voting for them, but NO MONEY.

      (OK, when I get email signed "James Carville" I say a lot of other stuff too, but that's a special treat.)

      by DocGonzo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM PDT

  •  And me as well

    Just yesterday, in fact, I got a call.  I said no money as long as they're getting ready to cave in on FISA.  I'm sure the guy on the phone had no idea what I was talking about.

    by RenMin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM PDT

•  Pelosi says it is exclusivity, not immunity

  that they are wrangling over.  

  The only good news from this is the following quote:

  "A lot of people think the politics of doing nothing on this issue are very good for both sides of the political spectrum,"

  The best possible scenario is to do nothing.  We don't have to do ANYTHING on this bill.  Its not like we're overriding a veto.

  by awkawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:07:14 AM PDT

•  Are we winning?

  Yes we can!

  by elmo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM PDT

•  I signed the petition.

  By the way, there are 27 comments so far , but not one from the vilifiers who swarm around most articles having to do with Congressional Democrats.

  by rhutcheson on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:09:22 AM PDT

•  Tragically

  my rep is Heather Wilson, who led the hissyfit stormout a couple of weeks ago.  I shall honor her petulance with a call for donations for Martin Heinrich, that I might be represented by someone sensible, for a change.

  by sap on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM PDT

•  Who should we call if we're in Lantos district?

  It's very frustrating not to have a rep at this moment.

  by lineatus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM PDT

  •  Call the BLUE DOG Dems and Leadership

    Keep daily pressure on the blue dogs,
    even if you are not in their district they need to hear from you.
    I call ask each of them (well their staff) ..."Are you planning to side with President Bush and vote for retro-active immunity for telecommunication compaines who broke the law and violated our Constitution?"

    Not only is fighting retroactive telco amnesty the right thing to do for the Constitution, it's a winning strategy for November. The country is hungry for change, and hungry to see Bush and the Republicans finally repudiated. There isn't one good reason for capitulation, and plenty to argue for fighting.
    That means you, Blue Dog Dems. Be on the right side of something, for once, and live up to the label "Democrat." Nancy Boyda and John Salazar can do it, so can you.
    • 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]

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Rachel Griffiths on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM PDT

  •  Good question

    maybe just call the leadership?

    They're the ones who should be not bringing any of this crap up for a vote.

    by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:22:24 AM PDT

  •  Also, call Chair of House Rules Committee

    This may be a last-hope strategy on stopping immunity.
    The chair of the Rules Committee can shut out this FISA vote.

    Representative Louise Slaughter is Chair of the powerful House Rules Committee.
    D.C. Office

    [phone] [phone]
    [phone] [fax]

    http://www.louise.house.gov/...
    She is also a committed progressive, with a long track-record of standing up and speaking out on behalf of women's rights, labor, the environment, and a sane foreign policy.
    Oh, and she's also a fellow Kossack!
     The chair of the Rules Committee can shut out this vote.

    See packerland progressive diary, it could be our last stand against retro-active immunity.

    The House can not pass a telecom immunity bill in the next two weeks without first agreeing to a special rule.  And also, a special rule can not get to the floor for approval without the blessing of the Rules Committee -- of which Representative Louise Slaughter is the chair.
    Now, if Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have decided that they want to cave on telecom immunity, it would be extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented for the Chair of the Rules Committee to attempt to stand in the way of that decision by refusing to report out a rule which would enable that result.

    I also believe that honoring your oath to support and defend the Constitution is important enough to justify rocking the boat and violating inside-the-beltway decorum.
    So, if I can be so bold as to speak on behalf of not only myself but also, I think, a solid majority of Kossacks who regard warrantless wiretapping as a defining issue, let us state unequivocally and categorically the following:
    We want you to kill telecom immunity entirely.  Specifically, we want the Rules Committee, which you chair, to shut it out.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Rachel Griffiths on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM PDT

  •  The candidates

    for his seat...if this is pushed off, that means whoever sits in that seat will be there when it comes back.

    by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:43:26 AM PDT

  •  A medium?

    by CTMET on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM PDT

•  I've called the first eight Congressmen...

  ...on the list posted in this DK thread:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  and will call the other eight tomorrow.

  Have called my Congresswoman. Several times.

  OK, will call Pelosi and Hoyer now.

  by bluewombat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM PDT

•  This republican White House-

  this republican administration has used the Constitution for toilet paper for nearly 8 years, now.
      Enough is enough. I am totally convinced republicans respect no one and nothing. They are truly a no-class act from beginning to end. This country will spend years undoing the damage done by the Bush White House, both at home and abroad. We'll be cleaning up after them for a long, long time.

  by lyvwyr101 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM PDT

  •  Hear, hear.

    I couldn't agree more with this post.  We really do need a program for repudiation and repeal of Bush-era policy/legislation, and then restoration of America's image and values.

    It will take a generation.

    by maxschell on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM PDT

  •  What About the Democrats?

    We're not talking about the Republican White House. The criminals there are a given. We're talking about the Democratic Congress. To which the Constitution gives ample power to stop the criminal White House. Yet the crimes continue unabated.

    What about the Democrats already?

    by DocGonzo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:48:42 AM PDT

•  I refuse to believe they are being pummeled

  by letters and e-mails from ordinary citizens who are outraged that AT&T may have to go on trial for something.

  A lot of people don't ahve a lot of education on the way our government works, but whether they know the term ex post facto or not, they understand the principle.

  by RickMassimo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM PDT

  •  ex post facto

    it's all Greek Latin to me. If average people are using ex post facto in an e-mail they've been sent a form letter(e-mail) from a Gooper org.

    by JML9999 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:35 AM PDT

    •  Oh, I agree.

      All I'm saying is, I refuse to believe that most people are up nights writing letters and e-mails to their reps arguing for retroactive immunity. They probably don't remember the phrase ex post facto from civics class, but they understand that it's bullshit to do something illegal and then bribe ask your friends in Congress to make it not have been illegal.

      by RickMassimo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:03:07 PM PDT

  •  The rule of law applies to all

    ...When framed:

    Rule of law means that everyone is subject to the sames laws. If citizens break the law we are subject to punishment. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse from punishment.

    ATT is subject to the law like citizens. They have huge staff of savvy lawyers (paid in 6 figures no doubt).They knew the law. They broke the law. They should be tried for that (just like citizens). Being duped by the government is no excuse from consequences.

    by portorcliff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately, FISA doesn't matter

  as long as there is unchecked power in the White House and executive branches, supported by a compliant Supreme Court.  The Exec doesn't need FISA for anything, unless compliance with it is both mandated, followed, and enforced.

  Similarly, the legal immunity or amnesty for the telcoms doesn't matter if the granting of it remains within the executive authority of the President (he will pardon them for all their sins as he steps out the door January 19 2009).

  by zackamac on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM PDT

•  Steve Kagen (WI-08)

  is for sure one of the good guys. I had dinner with him (and his family) just after YKos07. He described the climate of fear (lies) with which they were presented, like the "imminent" terror attack threat on Washington. By the way, he is also a Kossack.

  by side pocket on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM PDT

•  Don't be fooled...

  ...this is nothing more than a political ploy (you said it yourself)... it's nice for now, but in the end, they'll stick the knife in us once we've been all buttered up...

  by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM PDT

•  I faxed my rep., Mike Arcuri, yesterday

  I hope that he got the message.

  by LionelEHutz on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM PDT

•  No. We are losing on FISA immunity

  These guys are going to resubmit that legislation as a rider at every opportunity until the public becomes too distracted by other events and it passes. Both Republicans and blue dog Democrats are adamant about it. And while their constituents make it clear they want none of it, congress may be forced to take a pass. But these guys are not going to give up.

  This is literally the end of Rule of Law in the United States.

  by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM PDT

  •  So let's not get Distracted, keep the pressure on

    I am not willing to give up, we still have a fight!

    You may be tiring of the FISA battle, which is what they are hoping for......
    But the fact that we still have a Fight means they have not won yet!
    Before you give up on this FISA battle,
    Please Ask yourself, if this struggle against retro-active immunity (basically the death of our Constitution and Democracy)  was truly a lost cause, wouldn’t this battle be over already?  Wouldn’t BushCo already have what it wants: retro-active immunity for telecoms?

    Well BushCo doesn’t have it yet and the fact that we have another day or week to fight must mean it is not a lost cause......

    We (citizens calling, faxing, blogging, writing) must be putting  enough pressure on the Democrats to make them think twice before giving President Bush exactly what he is demanding, retro-active immunity for Telecoms.  

    The FISA vote has been delayed again because of disagreements within the Democratic caucus

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Rachel Griffiths on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM PDT

    •  Every action places value on the Constitution

      ....as does every non-Action.

      How do you value the Constitution?

      Act.

      We can keep our republic....If, we act.

      by portorcliff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM PDT

    •  Wish I could recommend this one over and over!!!!

      by RenMin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:45 PM PDT

•  I just called my rep

  Harry Mitchell (D) of AZ-05, who's pretty moderate, and he opposes immunity.

  by Replace Harry Reid on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

•  Great News!

  I recently diaried giving my letter to Hoyer and Pelosi on this subject.  If anyone is at a loss for words, I have no proprietary feelings and anyone who wants is free to crib from my letter,  here.

  Maybe we can actually win this thing.  Seems like even if the Dems don't care about the Constitution, they would care about looking like pathetic craven weaklings in an election year.

  Why doesn't Pelosi adopt the old rule the Republicans applied when they had the majority in the House:  Don't bring anything up for a vote unless it has the support of a majority of your (Democratic in this case, of course) caucus.  This would put a stop to most of the Bush Dog atrocities, and the Republicans wouldn't have any justification for howling (though I'm sure they would anyway) since it is their tactic.  This is how the Republicans maintained such good party discipline in the House, contrary to our party.

  by RenMin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:30:21 AM PDT

  •  That's awesome

    Why don't they do that?

    I don't understand the thinking behind Pelosi's strategy.  Why did she want to win in 2006 if she was just going to do what the Republicans wanted, anyway?

    by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM PDT

•  Time Time Time

  is on our side.

  There is a reason they stuffed this into the ends of sessions. It worked last summer, because they scared the congresscritters with dire threats.

  Now that there have been extensions, and delays and so on and so forth it gets more and more difficult to argue that these measures are actually necessary.

  They never were, and the proponents use of the calendar demonstrates that.

  Time also means time for consideration and for pressure.

  If it were up to me, I'd organize a Bush Dog calling campaign where everybody who called said. "Four words. Telecomm amnesty. Donna Edwards." and hung up.

  by JayAckroyd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM PDT

  •  brilliant

    "Four words. Telecomm amnesty. Donna Edwards."

    by mffarrow on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Oh yeah baby ;-) Like the four words...n/t

    by Sally in SF on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:04:24 PM PDT

•  FISA Histrionics From TX Reps

  Heather Wilson and some other Texas jackhole were reading into the cameras on CSPAN last night in an otherwise empty chamber about how the Dems were going to let the arabs kill us all. Heather's buddy had a poster of the WTC burning on an easel beside him. Real tasteful.

  Turn Texas purple, please!

  by bernardpliers on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM PDT

•  Well

  I just called Sestak and Casey and told them that if they want my support they can not give immunity to the telecoms.

  Hope...

  by free speech zone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM PDT

•  by all means

  if the GOP thinks they can score political points because the Democratic Congress has blocked immunity for telcoms that broke the law, that's a briar patch we should embrace.

  by RickD on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM PDT

•  We're Not Winning, So We're Losing

  We're just not losing. That should sound familiar to a Democratic Congress that can't even end the hated Iraq War.

  And just like in Iraq, "stalemate" is also losing. Sure, the reversion of the expired PAA back to FISA makes warrantless wiretapping illegal, but they're just continuing to violate the law, just like they did safely before the PAA. And I remind everyone that the Iraqmire is still killing many Americans (and many more Iraqis) every week.

  The Democratic Congress has the power to win things. The "minority excuse" is no longer available. Let's see it actually reverse some blatant Bush catastrophe already. Or admit that it's been complicit all along.

  And that there's no chance it will change once it gets total power in 2009.

  by DocGonzo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:46:41 AM PDT

•  If you're in Heath Shuler's district (NC-11)

  Definitely call his DC office. I have no idea whether his mind can be changed on this, but the local DFA chapter has a constituent meeting set up with his Asheville office on Monday afternoon to discuss telecom immunity. We'll bring up exclusivity, too.

  So - that's another good thing about the delay. We can't know how much offline pressure is building on these congressmen, but every day without a vote is another day for folks like us to get our act together.

  by nc 11th cd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM PDT

•  OK, signed the petition for now &

  this is what I said

  Please, protect the American people from warrantless spying and deny Bush retroactive immunity for the telecos.  You have been strong in your refusal to cave.  You are being handsomely rewarded by your constituency for showing the courage to stand up to Bush, something they have wanted for a very long time.  Please, either do nothing and wait until we have a new Congress in 2009, or refuse to pass FISA with immunity for the telecos.

  You will have served your country and your constituents well by showing the courage to not give Bush the FISA bill he is demanding.

  by Sally in SF on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:52:07 AM PDT

  •  When I signed, I added ...

    "Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave,
    O're the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?"

    by Cyber Kat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:20:42 PM PDT

•  Do we have to struggle...

  to uphold the Constitution and the Penal Code that applies to unauthorized spying on US citizens?

  A criminal commits a crime and then he is forgiven by the Democratic Congress...

  by NicolausCopernicus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM PDT

•  Gave a little to each freshman

  I hope that it somehow informs them that this money was specifically for their FISA stance?

  We gotta push on this people, bad laws get passed when good people do nothing.  

  by zot23 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM PDT

•  Pelosi: Exclusivity vs. Immunity

  A TPM post says this about Pelosi and FISA:

  "She says she's "absolutely opposed" to immunity for telecoms, but that she "didn't want the fight to be so focused there that we neglect exclusivity." An exclusivity provision would make FISA the exclusive mechanism for conducting government surveillance.
  Not clear whether Pelosi would be willing to throw immunity under the bus for exclusivity, but it has that smell about it."

  Of course, exclusivity is a moot point if the telecoms get immunity. It just means that the executive branch can continue to ignore the new "exclusivity" law and count on the fact that they can never be held accountable by the law. Pelosi just does NOT get it.

  by Veritaserum on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM PDT

•  This FISA "reform" bill

  is all about an amnesty provision that would spare Bush the humiliation of having to come to court on the 40 odd lawsuits that charge the telcoms with violating privacy rights of their customers at the request of Bush administration officials.

   Some of these requests were used by US AG's in corrupt ways,without the defense lawyers being party to the evidence; other requests were used by Rove to make life difficult for Democrats and create some disruption.  The only way to know exactly what happened and how much was legally impermissible is to vent this,air it out  thru the courts.

  The FISA law is working and its technical fixes are rlatively minor. The Bush immunity is designed to shield the telcos from cooperating with the judicial system and not reveal which officials corruptly and outside of a statuatory legal exemption did violate the rights of American citizens. Some of those requests went as high as the Vice President and Bush himself. Bush and Co.made promises to the telcos they would never be "harmed" by fines or jail sentences by cooperating. Some of those promises might even be written in e-mails?  Maybe. Check those Blackberry's.

   It is Bush who is being protected with a proposed
  retroactive, not prospective, immunity. Without immunity, the bill is window dressing because the DIA, NSA, CIA, agencies basically comply already. It is the Executive branch and its appointees that are perverting the law and doing things that flout it in secret.

  The judicial system is the remedy for it.

    Chairman Reyes in the House got 1,922 tel calls against  allowing retroactive immunity according to Charles Chamberlain of DFA. He is hearing it this
  week, as should the other Democrats not to move on this in a way to give Bush the escape plan he has hatched.

  by Pete Rock on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM PDT

•  So, all good needs to succeed is for good people

  to do nothing?

  by iconoclastic cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:05:50 PM PDT

  •  Now is the time for all good men to do nothing

    for their country!

    by CTMET on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:55:46 PM PDT

•  Oh, good. Oh, good, good good.

  Burn little flame, burn, c'mon, you can do it..!!

  by kamarvt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:22:42 PM PDT