Live FISA "Debate" 2

Jesselyn Radack posted the first diary on today's Senate debate on FISA here:

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

You can view the debate on C-Span 2:

http://www.c-span.org/...

Please do read Jesselyn's spirited diary:

If we're going down, I'm going down fighting.  This new FISA secret surveillance bill has been haggled behind closed doors (a red flag),l but today the Senate holds final debate on it--a remarkable and appalling turnabout for a once-moribund measure that would have been unthinkable in 2005 when Bush's secret spying program was exposed.

Sen. Whitehouse is speaking now.

UPDATE:

courtesy of NonnyO

Russ Feingold's fact sheet re: FISA
http://feingold.senate.gov/...

http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/...
Alpha list of senators, click on web sites to get to email info.  Don't know about other senators, but each of mine has an in-state 800 number listed on their official Senate web pages and if called, live people answer the phone and pass on messages.  Otherwise I can call the toll-free numbers in DC for the Senate switchboard.

Toll free numbers for Senate switchboard:
800-828-0498
800-459-1887
800-614-2803
888-597-0909
866-340-9281

•  An update should be posted in the mothership

  with a link to this diary.

  by notquitedelilah on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM PDT

•  Thanks Caneel

  I've got the link up to this diary.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM PDT

  •  I'm putting this as a reply to your comment

    ... so it is somewhere near the top of the page.  I suspect most of us have this, but may need it again if they've changed computers or something.

    Russ Feingold's fact sheet re: FISA
    http://feingold.senate.gov/...

    http://www.senate.gov/
    http://www.senate.gov/...
    Alpha list of senators, click on web sites to get to email info.  Don't know about other senators, but each of mine has an in-state 800 number listed on their official Senate web pages and if called, live people answer the phone and pass on messages.  Otherwise I can call the toll-free numbers in DC for the Senate switchboard.

    Toll free numbers for Senate switchboard:
    800-828-0498
    800-459-1887
    800-614-2803
    888-597-0909
    866-340-9281

    Thanks for having one diary up, Jesselyn, and thanks to Caneel for this one.

    by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM PDT

•  I have no cable!

  transcriptions, please?

  by the explorers on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM PDT

  •  Last post about the debate

    said Rockefeller was up ... well, he broke my C-SPAN2 connection!

    by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:40:52 PM PDT

  •  Do you have a hi-speed internet connection?

    http://www.c-span.org/...

    Go to the C-SPAN web site.  There are three channels.  1 = House; 2 = Senate; 3 = whatever else, such as committee meetings, etc. (think it has Helms' funeral today).  Menu on the right side of the page.

    Choice of players, RealPlayer or Window Media Player.  You can listen or watch the small version on the web site, or you can click on "stand alone player" for either one and have the window running separately and still be online with your browser otherwise.

    Even with a dial-up connection, you can still hear the proceedings, although the video is horrible (or it was for me when I was on dial-up).  With DSL you get a much better picture.

    I don't have cable either, so my internet connection is the only way I can keep track of any of the congressional proceedings.  When I'm really interested in certain speakers I click on the icon to put it full-screen (WMP, the video for RealPlayer doesn't work as well on full-screen, only the little video is clear, but it doesn't show much because it's too small).

    by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, I watch on the Web ...

      had to reboot my computer. Will try C-SPAN2 now.

      by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM PDT

      •  Caneel, FYI...

        Perhaps for anyone who might be new to life-blogging or to this web site, you may want to edit your diary and put the C-SPAN link and the numbers and links I posted above for people to use if they haven't already contacted their Senators... or, in case they have new computers and haven't marked links we all have for these things.

        Thanks for the live-blog!  :-)

        by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM PDT

        •  Thanks ... will do

          (OMG ... Warner's having heart palpitations! Most life I've seen out of him.)

          by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM PDT

          •  Velbekomme....

            Warner is frequently funny when he's not pathetic.  (I still have question marks arise in my brain over the marriage he had with Elizabeth Taylor years ago.  Bizarro world.)

            by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:34:45 PM PDT

        •  NonnyO ...

          do you have a link? The info wasn't on Jesselyn's diary, the mothership to this one.

          by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:31:17 PM PDT

          •  Thes links and phone numbers, you mean???

            I posted them above, too.

            Russ Feingold's fact sheet re: FISA
            http://feingold.senate.gov/...

            http://www.senate.gov/
            http://www.senate.gov/...
            Alpha list of senators, click on web sites to get to email info.  Don't know about other senators, but each of mine has an in-state 800 number listed on their official Senate web pages and if called, live people answer the phone and pass on messages.  Otherwise I can call the toll-free numbers in DC for the Senate switchboard.

            Toll free numbers for Senate switchboard:
            800-828-0498
            800-459-1887
            800-614-2803
            888-597-0909
            866-340-9281

            by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:38:10 PM PDT

          •  Never mind ... got it

            diary updated.

            by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM PDT

          •  Oops...! Neffer mind.

            I see you found them.  Sorry for the double posting!

            by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM PDT

•  Anybody want to give me the 10-cent summary?

  I've been in meetings most of the day (or at least since the debate started).

  Thanks.

  by The Termite on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM PDT

  •  A lot of back and forth

    Specter has been raising a lot of questions about the bill, most of which has been focused on the fact that most Senators have no idea what they're giving immunity for. I've been in and out as well.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:49:02 PM PDT

•  It's Specter vs. Rockefeller right now

  If I were in the Senate gallery, I'd be throwing rotten tomatoes in Rockefeller's direction right about now.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM PDT

  •  So Specter is actually...

    ...advocating for a deeper understanding of the bill's provisions while Rockefeller is trying to speed past Bingaman?

    Unreal.

    by The Termite on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:51:48 PM PDT

    •  Specter is arguing that

      the TSP is unconstitutional and that 70 members of the senate have not been briefed on what they are voting on. Now he is questioning whether or not the senate can delegate its responsibility for reviewing the case. He is arguing that by voting blind, they are delegating their authority and that this in unconstitutional.

      Witehouse is replying that it is not prudent for the legislative body to try and determine if the telecoms acted in good faith. Whitehouse says it is not the constitutionality of the issue but that it is a matter of legislative prudence. In summary =Whitehouse thinks it unwise for the senate to vote on this while not being able to determine whether the actions of the telecoms are in good faith. Now he is talking about pandemics.

      by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM PDT

  •  how pathetic

    That I find myself cheering for Specter against a Democrat.

    by brainiacamor on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:52:33 PM PDT

    •  Crazy!

      by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM PDT

    •  I was, too

      Until Specter said he'd vote for this crappy bill even if his amendment didn't pass, just like he did for MCA '06 altho he argued in favor of not taking habeas corpus away.  When he starts speaking about Constitutional rights, the old boy does well... but he always votes against the Constitution in the end.

      Pathetic, especially since I can tell by Specter's labored speech that he's not feeling all that well (think he's still getting chemo or radiation for his latest bout with cancer, IIRC...???)

      It can dang near make my ol' Democratic heart weep in frustration.

      by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM PDT

    •  Tell me about it!

      I've been trying to get this Senator (my senior Senator) out for two decades.

      by ArtSchmart on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM PDT

      •  Rockefeller

        has been mine.  I never would have expected to be siding so strongly with Spector against him.  Truly astounding.

        by enough already on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM PDT

    •  Specter's sane

      probably the best Republican in Congress... which isn't meant to be as damning by faint praise as that is right now.

      At least he doesn't play everyone for idiots the way Rockefeller's trying... grrrrrr!

      by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM PDT

•  Can someone give a recap of Specter's amendment?

  Thanks!

  by marina on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

  •  I think this is it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin

    SA 5059. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6304, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 90, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the following:

       ``(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS.--

       ``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

       ``(B) COVERED CIVIL ACTIONS.--In a covered civil action relating to assistance alleged to have been provided in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007, a certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court--

       ``(i) finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section; or

       ``(ii) determines that the assistance provided by the applicable electronic communication service provider was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that violated the Constitution of the United States.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:54:58 PM PDT

    •  Thank you!

      by marina on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM PDT

•  Demagoguery

  Rockefeller is demagoguing big time on national security.

  Specter is having none of it.

  Kossacks rooting for a Republican? Strange bedfellows indeed!

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM PDT

  •  Americans... fighting for their Constitution. n/t

    by bablhous on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM PDT

  •  I'll happily root for any Republican

    with a conscience.  Go Arlen.

    by oscarsmom on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:03:58 PM PDT

  •  As usual, I have questions

    Questions Democrats need to answer.

    WHY do they fall into the neoCon fear-mongering rhetoric?  Do they really believe we are under threat from criminals who commit "terrorist" acts, or are they just paranoid and scared shitless?  Or what?

    There is not now, nor was there ever, a real "war on terror."  The Congress Critters have never used the synonym "war on fear."  It's illogical to have a 'war on fear,' thus the "war on terror" is a propaganda meme put out by the White House, and many of our Congress Critters have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to quiver and quake in fear every time Georgie or Dickie mention the words 'ter'ror, ter'rist, ter'rism, war on ter'ror' - and cave, every damned time Georgie and Dickie want some nefarious piece of crap legislation passed to give them dictatorial power, such as the Patriot Acts and MCA '06.  Don't those who let their own fear control them, whether that fear is the result of brainwashing propaganda or their own paranoia, ever stop to analyze and deconstruct any of the nonsense that comes out of the White House?

    Realistically, on 9/11, 19 criminals who were part of a loosely organized international criminal gang used box cutters to hijack four planes and kill almost 3000 people.  They did not represent any country, they were not part of any army from any country, no country declared war on us so we were technically not "attacked" even if we were hit by vicious acts committed by 19 criminals.  Fifteen of them were Saudis, four other nationalities, none were from Iraq (but no one suggested invading Saudi Arabia and Bush held hands with and kissed the Saudi leader on various visits - Eeeew!).  None were more than individuals who were part of an international gang of thugs... and they died with their victims.  Any potential accomplices should have been hunted down by international law enforcement agencies (and I highly doubt any of them ever got to Guantanamo, another ugly war crime that should never have happened).  Starting an unjustified, dishonorable, unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional war by invading a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with that day was an over-reaction of monumental proportions, and all based on lies for oil, and benefits only oil, mercenary, and military supply corporations.  The Iraq invasion was planned before the election of 2000.  There was never any justification for it that had any connection to 9/11 or anything else, other than the objective of taking over control of Iraq's oil fields for US oil corporations.

    Is it too much to ask our Congress Critters to have some common sense about the subject of (false) "terrorism" or Georgie's propaganda "war on terrorism" all these years later...???  None of Georgie's and Dickie's scare tactics over false justifications for their stupid and illegal war are good reasons for our Congress Critters to willingly give up our rights and make them de facto dictators.

    Just because Congress Critters are scared doesn't mean the people they represent also feel the same fear.  Those who live in large cities or in NY or DC where planes crashed likely do feel some residual fear from 9/11; I'll give them that.  But those of us who live out here in the dingtoolies never had that fear, even then.  We have more to fear from drunk drivers or idiots driving down the road talking on cell phones while trying to drive than we do from criminals who commit "terrorist" acts.

    Trying to scare people with "ter'rists" doesn't work any more, and never worked in the first place with some of us, even within hours of 9/11.

    That's why we can't be scared into giving up our Fourth Amendment rights for this FISA fiasco....

    by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM PDT

•  Specter is taking "sharp exception"

  Back and forth between Rockerfeller and Specter -
  Rockefeller complained that no one has been talking about the importance of the intelligence gathered (right . . . no one has thrown up the "but we must be safe argument". . .)

  Specter took "sharp exception" - he served on the intelligence committee and was chairman and he understands the importance of intelligence - but this is about the constitution!

  by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:56:48 PM PDT

•  Whitehouse wants to defer to court judgement

  He doesn't want legislators mucking around in what he sees as a judicial process.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM PDT

•  I like

  Specter...I dont care what anyone says

  by pooh74 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM PDT

  •  I'd like him too

    If he'd just vote the same way he argues cases. But, not to often.

    by Casper46 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM PDT

  •  I like him too

    Better than I like his voting record, but he can usually be relied upon to elevate the debate.

    by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM PDT

•  Senator Thune (R) is now

  talking about tourism. So is the FISA debate over?

  by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM PDT

  •  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM PDT

•  John Thune R-SD is up

  Complaining about gas prices. Not sure what this has to do with telecom immunity or FISA.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM PDT

  •  New version of republic

    Filibustering?

    by Casper46 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM PDT

  •  Thune is a moron.

    He doesn't know what anything has to do with anything either.

    by VictorLaszlo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM PDT

    •  Thune's talking about renewable energy.

      And (guessing here) he means ethanol, and pretty much only ethanol.

      Why? They grow a lot of corn in South Dakota.

      by VictorLaszlo on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM PDT

  •  Thune has nice hair

    A must for any Republican

    by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM PDT

    •  Yes,

      and a perfect suit.  Ken doll anyone?

      by enough already on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM PDT

  •  moonshot?? corn-derived ethanol?? WHAAAT? NT

    by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM PDT

  •  Oh . . . He's on about 'his' bill N/T

    trying to connect energy needs to national security - talk about OT!

    by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM PDT

•  It boggles the mind to think that, as several

  Senators have said, including Feingold, about seventy of them have never been briefed on this, and will be voting on a bill to give retroactive immunity, and they don't even know what they will be voting to give immunity for!! Don't they even care at all about knowing what they are voting on? Do any of these slackers even read bills before they vote on them? We unfortunately know of many cases were they haven't. If the Senate were a school, most of them would have flunked out a long time ago for not doing their homework. It really is sad to see what a low level of dedication to their jobs so many of these guys have. They don't even bother to keep up  appearances.

  by Virginian in Spain on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:03 PM PDT

  •  No. I think it was under

    deep classification. My impression is that it had to do with levels of security clearance. But I am not sure.

    And Thune must not even be able to get on the main email distribution list because he seems to not even know what the agenda is.

    by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:17:01 PM PDT

    •  Even those who

      have been "briefed" were not allowed to know the details.

      by enough already on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:24:17 PM PDT

      •  They're not allowed to know what the *bill* says?

        I can understand specific cases, but the bill?  That doesn't even begin to sound like representation.

        by ArtSchmart on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:35:10 PM PDT

      •  Gives new meaning to the term briefed

        Vote on the blockquote below and don't ask why.

                                                       

        In the name of security - god bless you all.

        by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM PDT

•  Online movement aims to punish Democrats

  Support Bush Wiretap program.

  Read about it here

  by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM PDT

  •  Accountability Now

    http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM PDT

•  Rebooted and back

  to C-SPAN 2 and what do I get? Thune ....@#!%!&*!

  by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM PDT

•  Self-Congratulating Asses

  by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

•  Warner is up

  Then Carter, then ???, then Wicker, then Stabenow, then Cornyn.

  Warner is talking about FISA again.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM PDT

•  Warner says that without immunity the rest of the

  bill is meaningless because the communications companies would not participate with ongoing programs.

  Translation: We're doing all kinds of illegal shit.

  by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM PDT

  •  That's the worst argument ever

    in the history of terrible arguments.

    They won't cooperate when legally compelled to do so? Wow! And these idiots want to give those traitors immunity? Just throw them in jail. Oh, but those dollars... those precious campaign dollars.

    Makes me sick to my stomach.

    by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:23:26 PM PDT

    •  There are all kinds of crazy arguments

      Being thrown out there to distract lazy thinkers

      by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM PDT

•  Warner is opposing Specter amendments

  Warner supports telecom amnesty. Likens telecoms to a volunteer military force. I think I'm going to puke.

  throws three tomatoes at Warner

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:21:28 PM PDT

•  Warner (R) Virgina

  The private sector is not to be blamed. They need protection from the lawsuits.

  And now he is going to talk about energy and the economy.

  by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:21:42 PM PDT

•  Warner - but then they won't play!

  If we don't let the telecoms off, they won't help gather the intelligence needed to keep us safe.

  by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM PDT

  •  That's the point!

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM PDT

  •  These arguments being put forth

    are just insulting.  I wonder if they even get how really lame they sound?

    by 3goldens on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM PDT

    •  Heh. They're Republicans ...

      and Jay ought to join them.

      by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM PDT

  •  So then you require them to play by the rules

    with your legislation - you don't reward them for not playing by the rules.

    The telecoms have no "option" of not helping if the law requires them to help.

    by Mary2002 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM PDT

    •  Yo, all . . .

      I was just relaying what Warner said - I wasn't agreeing.  I am going to assume that you are talking back at Warner.

      by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:28:47 PM PDT

      •  yep - sorry I didn't specify

        You're just the provider - You've got immunity.  g

        by Mary2002 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM PDT

        •  ah, sweet clemency! NT

          by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM PDT

•  Warner

  commends bipartisanship.

  on Specter amendments ... oppose

  carriers will not cooperate w/o the immunity clause (say what? Then the whole bill isn't that important is it?)

  what is justly owed to them ... protection from the lawsuits.

  (Justly? Justly? ... )

  by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM PDT

  •  They are justly owed

    the absence of justice, apparently

    by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:24:24 PM PDT

    •  He can tell the courts how to rule, but

      he can't tell the telecoms to provide assistance in response to a proper warrant?  How does he figure that works, I wonder?

      by Mary2002 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM PDT

      •  Well... doing one

        would be a clear violation of separation of powers...

        Oh wait, he got it bass ackwards

        by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM PDT

•  Oh, great

  Warner is now going on a "fact-finding"mission regarding gasoline prices?  Where has this guy been?!  And he further says that ONE-THIRD of America is frantically trying to make ends meet.  Another out of touch Republican spews nonsense!!!

  by 3goldens on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:25:07 PM PDT

•  Facts

  So Warner is on a fact-finding mission when it comes to energy issues, but is happy to sweep the facts under the carpet when it comes to telecom amnesty. Uh huh.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

•  While we're in a slow moment...

  Here is the text of Sheldon Whitehouse's amendment.

  SA 5060. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Nelson of Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6304, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

     On page 90, strike line 13, and insert the following:

     ``(ii) determined to be lawful; and

     ``(C) provided based on the good faith and reasonable belief of the electronic communication service provider that compliance with a written request or directive described in subparagraph (B) was lawful; or

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:29:32 PM PDT

  •  Is this amendment going to be considered?

    I thought it was going to be limited to 3 - the Feingold/Dodd/Leahy, the Specter and the Bingaman amendment.

    by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:32:26 PM PDT

•  Shorter Specter: "Don't change the damn subject!"

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM PDT

•  It's like a puppet show

  And I'm not sure who's hand is up who's ass.

  by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

•  Hmm. They are pulling

  a fast one on Specter.

  It seems every Republican wants to talk about energy.

  by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:35:13 PM PDT

  •  ??? Their version....

    ... of filibustering the proposed amendments to strip immunity from the FISA fiasco...???

    by NonnyO on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM PDT

•  Tom Carper D-DL is up

  It appears the vote is going to happen tomorrow. But Carper and Specter are going to finish out their speaking time today. Carper is speaking is favor of the FISA compromise.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM PDT

•  This is like McCain's campaign

  Nobody knows what they're doing.

  by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:41:09 PM PDT

  •  Chaos

    Part of this may be a function of the fact that this debate is not falling precisely along party lines.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM PDT

•  Why are high school debate better run

  than congressional debates?

  We need to update this process to make logical falacies like strawman and red-herring arguments illegal.

  by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:41:43 PM PDT

  •  HS Debates

    At least high school debates have a topicality provision. You can't be debating surveillance and then have one side go off on energy and gas speculators. They'd lose the round.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM PDT

    •  Agreed. What must high school debaters think

      Watching this kind of BS? It's an embarrassment and a shame on our system.

      by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:38 PM PDT

      •  Brits laugh at our congressional debates

        by jawboneblues on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, because

          the "YAHHHHH!"s in the House of Parliament are so much more enlightened ;)

          by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:08:49 PM PDT

•  Carper using the ol' exclusive means argument

  This bill is so different because it makes it "crystal clear" that FISA is the exclusive means to conduct such surveillance.

  by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM PDT

  •  Carper closes with a pledge... ?

    To make "additional improvements" in the next congress.

    by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:45:08 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, because

      good lord it'd just be so tough to make those improvements now...

      by eco d on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, and Bush ...

    will out-executive his exclusive means.

    by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM PDT

    •  He'll totally

      John WYoo them

      by sullivanst on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM PDT

•  Thad Cochran is sharing his feelings on Medicare

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM PDT

  •  Oh thank goodness

    Now is most certainly the time for that.

    by humblecritic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM PDT

•  and for the record

  Thad Cochran sounds like Mr. Haney on Green Acres.

  by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:17 PM PDT

•  LOL

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM PDT

•  Roger Wicker R-MS is up

  He's talking about Medicare too.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:52:00 PM PDT

  •  Any chance the Medicare

    debate could derail/delay the FISA vote?

    by eco d on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:54:22 PM PDT

    •  It looks like the FISA vote isn't happening today

      and they'll be taking it up again tomorrow. However, Specter still has 10 minutes remaining to speak on the issue today.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:56:15 PM PDT

    •  It's not enough

      for them to attack our constitution and cover up for Bush's war crimes.  No, greedy cretins that they are, they want to use this as an opportunity to take another blow at Medicare too.

      by enough already on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:58:32 PM PDT

•  I've gotta go. Back tomorrow for more.

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM PDT

•  Question about immunity.

  I'm wondering, who's asking for it? I don't mean the politicians that are supporting it. But I can't find even a right wing blogger that's adamant that we need telecom immunity. I don't even see too many pundits all excited over it either. So who the hell even wants it?

  by indiemcemopants on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:23:21 PM PDT

  •  One case linked here

    Just days before the Senate will convene to give a final blessing to President Bush's secret, warrantless wiretapping program, a federal court judge ruled that his legal justification for the surveillance has no legal merit.
    He's the same judge Congress is trying to save the nation's telecoms, such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, from having to face in court.

    link

    by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:14:12 PM PDT

    •  And, as a part of these cases

      there are depositions, which would reveal how long the wiretapping has been going on.

      by Caneel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:42:24 PM PDT