FISA faceoff: Republicans walk out

So the President is willing to hold our vital national security hostage in order to give ATT a free pass for defying the law.

Nice

Good! The electorate will notice the shameful actions of these democrats.

I'd to hear someone from the media (Mark, Frank?) ask the Republic Party Congress-critters why America will be less safe if the Tele-Com companies don't have immunity?

The DeLay Republicans famously didn't think the minority had any rights when they were recently the majority....I know 2001-2006 is like ancient history and stuff, but c'mon, throw em the anvil already cause they're drowning....

is there any doubt that the house dems will fold? I cannot recall a congressional majority being browbeaten so badly by a lame duck president from the minority party. Pelosi and Reid should resign yesterday. They either lack the courage of their convictions or they never really believed their own rhetoric in the first place.

"THE BLUNT AND BOEHNER SPEAK"

HOW CAN WE PROTECT AMERICA IF WE CANNOT EAVESDROP, WIRETAP AND DATAMINE AMERICANS.

"THE GREAT SATAN" CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE, SO THIS IS WHY WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENJOY MAMA TODAY.

YES, WE ARE GOING TO STAY HERE UNTIL AMERICA RELENQUISHES ALL OF THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES UNTO THEE.

YES, WE ARE GOING TO STAY HOME THIS WEEKEND AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERY AMERICAN KNOWS THAT WE INTEND TO NOT BE DEFIED IN THIS "INHERENT CONTEMPT" TO UNDERMINE THE CONSTITUTION AND THOSE FOREFATHERS YA'LL STILL RECOGNIZE.

YES, THIS IS WHAT REAL MEN DO IN A TIME OF WAR AND CONSTITUTIONAL UNCERTAINTY.

WE JUST GET UP AND WALK OUT AND RUN TO "FOX NEWS" AND FABRICATE WMD'S, FOR POLITICAL AND MONETARY MEANS ONLY.

LOVE AMERICA STYLE THAT'S YOU AND MY FELLOW GOP MEMBERS ONLY.

PRIVACY IS A PRIVILEDGE NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.

OH ABOUT THOSE CONTEMPT CHARGES, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY ARE HILLARY CLINTON AND SENATOR OBAMA.

IT'S ONE OF US!

Jeff: HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Time to nip this creeping American fascism at the bud.

Monitoring phone calls and emails without a court order is what they do in authoritarian countries.

The Congressional Quarterly notes the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars a whole bunch of Democrats get from trial lawyers. Once again, the Damnocrats put special interest groups and specifically the greedy trial lawyers ahead of the American people and the nation as a whole. The Democrats: for the terrorists and trial lawyers; against the American people and for American getting killed.

Jeff, how is demanding accountability shameful? How is defending civil liberties shameful?

Every Congress member takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". To fail in that duty is shameful.

They can keep on walking!! Don't let the door hit ya....

Boehner and Bush are like wrestling hustlers, except for the fact this is all to cover bush/cheneys rear ends for criminal behavior.
Stand strong Pelosi, dont cave like that coward Reid.

As a Republican delegate I cannot understand my party's lack of will to protect the 4th amendment. The Senate did all they could to weaken any civil liberty protections via amendments to FISA. Disgusting.
Is there some vast citizen constituency clamoring for TELCO retroactive immunity? Of course not. There are many citizens from all over the political spectrum (including life-long republicans such as myself) who called and emailed our representatives REPEATEDLY to institute some protections and not quash 20 some odd court cases involving spying on US citizens within our own country and without a warrant, or other oversight.

That is tyrrany.

So don't go to Africa. See if I care. So walk out of the halls of Congress--the first real public service any of the GOP has ever done in their wretched lives.

John D-

Your lack of logic continues to amaze. The Republicans are the ones acting as captives of spoecial interests in this case: the Telecom companies.

John why do you put the telecom companies above the American people? Why dio you hate America and the Rule of Law? Why dio you hate the Bill of Rights?

Dirks says: "In order to give ATT a free pass for defying the law"? You must be joking, have zero short-term memory or supremely stupid.

Congress is so insane; first they threaten private companies to cooperate on TWOT, then threaten them for cooperating. This is the nature of lawers as politicians in congress.

"THE HOUSE SPEAKS"

SURPRISE SUPRISE SURPRISE
GAHLEE SERGEANT AT ARMS CAN YOU LOCATE "JOSH AND HARRIET"

AS GOD AS MY WITNESS AND SOMEONE WHO ENDURES THE LAW OF THE LAND, PLEASE SHOW ALL THE "AFRICAN AMERICANS" BEHIND BARS BY "JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS"
THOSE INDIVIDUALS SERVED A "CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA" BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT ADHERING TO THEM, EVEN WITH A "PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER" NOT TOO.

THE LAW OF THE LAND IS THE "SUPREME NATIONAL DEFENSE" IN THIS COUNTRY.

THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE AND PROTECT ARE THE "SUPREME NATIONAL DEFENSE" OF THIS COUNTRY.

SO WHY BE STUNNED, WHY NOT BE COMPLICIT IN ADHEARING TO "LAW OF THE LAND" AND THE RESPECT OF THE "PEOPLE'S CONGRESS."

LONG LIVE NANCY PELOSI!

Johnny D:

Please answer John E.'s question above - how does not giving the telephone companies immunity affect our national security??

And quit the trial lawyers garbage - the GOP is in the back pocket of many other groups like Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

finaly the repubicans walk out they sould stay out and give maybe get a security job at AT&T

Just wait, Republics, when Hillary is vice-president, she'll be reading all your e-mail without a warrant.

And there won't be a damn thing you can do about it!

Congressional mandarins aiding and abetting the criminal actions of the Bush administration and the telecoms.
The wiretapping could have been done LEGALLY without compromising national security, but the Bush administration thought otherwise.
Now the Congress is being asked by the administration to draft legislation that protects their criminal
counterparts in the telecom
industry.
This is shameful.

"creeping American fascism"

Oh its way past that,

A peculiar move by pelosi and the dems....but we cant grant immunity to telco companies....it is straight up facism :>\

The Democrats: for the terrorists and trial lawyers; against the American people and for American getting killed.

Posted by: John D | February 14, 2008 2:45 PM

Nice try, Lil Johnny Squirrelfood,

The Dems are trying to protect America from the Wingnuts and their version of "democracy":
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

I wonder if this will be the thing that FINALLY will give Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats a spine?

They've put up with the Republican nonsense for a long time and let these whiners get away with it. Now that they don't have a majority they will attempt ANYTHING to keep the Democrats from enacting anything.

If the country gets really lucky, they won't come back.

John D,
Please explain what relationship and influence the giant telecoms lopsided donations to Republican candidiates and the RNC may have had on the proposed legislation that would grant them immunity from civil actions.

John D-

Because of your many, many threats against the Democratic leadership you have posted on these boards, we've been wiretapping your phones without a warrant.

We just wanted to give you some advice. If you keep calling those phone sex lines all the time, the charges are really going to add up. Besides the listening to all the Monica/Bill and Teddy Kennedy/Chris Dodd threesome fantasies of yours is really starting to creep us out.

Have a nice day!

The NSA

Who's gonna wiretap Bush's phone to prevent PNAC from giving us another "New Pearl Harbor" (i.e. 9-11 #2) ????

NEOCONS: Judgment is coming for you.

Ummm . . . just to be clear... if the Act in question expires, intelligence agencies can still wiretap, eavesdrop, whatever. They just have to get the FISA court to approve a warrant within 90 days of commencing said wiretap. So, this destroys our surveillance ability and exposes us to terrorist threats how, exactly?

Please answer John E.'s question above - how does not giving the telephone companies immunity affect our national security??

Answer: Because the telecom companies won't volunteer information if they might later be sued for it, will they? It wouldn't do much good to have a law allowing us to collect the data and no means to actually collect the data. Hence, the need to indemnify the telecom companies.

Dubya is essentially saying that his administration and the telecoms didn't violate the law and, yes, we still need immunity.

Only the Republisheeple see not the inherent falibility in this bogus arguement.

Don't take away my rights and tell me it's in my best interest.

The Republics can keep walking. What a bunch of traitors. My only question is whether Blubberin' John Boner cried while running away. Booo hooo!

JT, the White House asked the TeleCom companies to assist, they did. They should not be sued because they followed a White House request. This is just a way for the trial lawyers to line their pockets. Anyway, the TeleCom companies employ millions of Americans. Trial lawyers do not. I care more about the companies than I do the trial lawyers.

Bobin, how does suing the TeleCom companies protect America? What good does it do? All it does, is cost them millions in lawyer fees (and then that raises rates, results in job losses, etc.), even if they don't get sued. If the lawsuits are successful, the only ones who really make out are the trial lawyers. So, how does that protect America??

1) AND STAY OUT!!!!!!!
2) Talk your Senate buddies into joing you.

Dems better follow through this time. I'm half way over to Independent now.

I see that John D is poating again. I guess the cops emptied out the drink tank again.

Please, this is all show! As McCainiac Jeff said on an earlier post the CIA is above the law and they will continue to do whatever they want, including eavesdropping on e-mails and phone calls. America will be safe because the CIA can do whatever they want, like Jeff says, a McCainiac to boot.

Providing the dems win the White House. And when the United States gets attack again. Who are the dems going to blame then, George W.Bush?. We can not take that risk. And anyone who would down play the importance of the terror threat only playing into the hands of the terrorists.

John D-

If the White House requests that you break the law, it's still a crime if you do it. If the White House were to request that Blackwater kill people in cold blood, that would not shield them from liability. Wait, bad example.

We follow the rule of law in this nation, not the rule of men. A White House request does not sweep all else before it.

As to your other point, employeing millions of americans puts you above the law? Employing millions of americans gives you superior rights?
You do have some wacky political theories, but that one takes the cake.

Also, as is usual, you are dead wrong. There are many more people employeed as attorneys (not even counting their staffs) than there are employeed by ATT, Verizon, and Sprint combined. So by your own theory, you should be more concerened about the lawyers than the telecoms.

http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/2007_Natl_Lawyer_FINALonepage.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/2756.html

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/2015.html

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/2773.html

Do you ever get the facts right John?

John D:

The telecoms are obligated to collect the data and provide it to the administration, SO LONG AS THERE IS A WARRANT! If there is a warrant, they are indemnified.

Doing what the president tells you to do, in violation of the law, is the definition of fascism (I was following orders when I gassed all those jews).

Suing the telecoms for spying on me, without a warrant and in violation of the 4th amendment, protects America by holding the constitution above the profits of private companies/citizens. The law is supreme, not George Bush.

John D, read the constitution, its a beautiful thing.

Let me get this straight.We are supposed to give the telecom companies immunity for helping the White house to eavesdrop. If what they were doing wasn't illegal then why do they need immunity? Why wouldn't the White House need immunity? Oh, I remember now, George thinks he's king.

Doing what the president tells you to do, in violation of the law, is the definition of fascism (I was following orders when I gassed all those jews).

Suing the telecoms for spying on me, without a warrant and in violation of the 4th amendment, protects America by holding the constitution above the profits of private companies/citizens. The law is supreme, not George Bush.

John D, read the constitution, its a beautiful thing.

Posted by: chuckdps | February 14, 2008 5:20 PM

You can make a comparison between gassing jews by hitler to data mining emails and phone conversations- you should be ashamed of such poor mind and an absurd and sick comparison.

We the people, put democrats in the majority to stop Bush's power grab in the name of security. Why did it take so long? IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!

Thank you, Nancy! You've handed McCain the perfect issue, and he's going to beat you with it like a club. Of course, it really doesn't take much to get you to fold...

Go Bush, Go McCain. On to victory.

Let the retrogrades stay out.

Under Head Pig Hastert's politburo it was 'super-majority' only.

Time to feed them some of their own slime.

I back John D., Jeff, Joe!
I say back them too a corner and anihalate!

Could this be the beginning of a two pronged attack on the GOP to bring Bush's misdeeds back to the forefront and weaken the republican candidates by making them choose sides to support Bush or would the candidates let Bush hang in the wind to save any chance that their candidacy could succeed? Hmmm?

Suing the telecoms for spying on me, without a warrant and in violation of the 4th amendment, protects America by holding the constitution above the profits of private companies/citizens. The law is supreme, not George Bush.

John D, read the constitution, its a beautiful thing.

Posted by: chuckdps | February 14, 2008 5:20 PM

Man, you lefty wackos don't know how to read... the 4th amendment states...

"Unreasonable Searches and Seizures"

I don't think what was being done is in any way unreasonable and I am sure reasonable minds will agree-

All your wacko shrill is based on your ignorance not on the constitution.

.

Ah, the House Republicans Cut and Run instead of doing their job. Don't you just love irony?

Oh, boy! Another dog and pony show for us to sit back and watch. In the end the telcoms will be given immunity and we will have more restraints put on our civil liberties. Mark my words, they WILL get what they want. Stop with the Dems vs. Repubs already, they are all in this together otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today.

The only "shameful actions" are coming from the Republicans who are more than happy to support Big Business in the form of the Telecoms. Now that the Democrats are showing some badly needed spine against the tyranny that is the GOP, the Republicans want to play the victim and cry foul. I've had enough! Let 'em walk. And get that contempt citation through!

It's nice to see Nancy Pelosi finally showing some spine here. We may be able to achieve a return to Constitutional government yet.

I say use the consentration camps for the Democrates! They built em! They put the reflective spots on the road signs as directions to hell for the UN. Let them reep the bennies!

John E,(If thats whom you are for real .)

You're attack of John d is predicatble! Who could support you over him? Other losers!

I am done standing to the side, its time too strike.

FINALLY! FINALLY! The Dems are showing they have a little backbone.....hope it doesn't disappear like it has far too frequently.

STAND TALL, STAND!

Boehner (R-Ohio) is such a drama queen. I am pleasantly surprised with the Dems in the House today. The House Dems have shown the majority in the Senate how patriots act (a verb).

"I am done standing to the side, its time too strike."

Bush league is more like it. Learn some grammar Dumbo.

The problem is that this bill allows the govt. to eavesdrop on us. . .but what about us? How come we can't eavesdrop on the govt. to make sure they are not doing illegal things? It's a two way street. The govt. belongs to the people not the other way around.

weinerdog,

Bushman = John D's younger smarter brother, hey?

Will the wingnuts get a grip? The current FISA law covers any gap you think there may be because of renewing an already bad law. What part of having 72 hours to obtain a warrant don't you idiots understand? I listen to the mouth-breathers yammer on about how the democrats are helping the "enemy"...well, take your "enemy" and shove em up.....

Jaeger, No doubt the Dems will win the White House this year. If we're attacked again, the Dems will blame the people who attacked us and focus on them instead of getting distracted and attacking some other unfriendly but unrelated group or country. Personally, I think it'd be more fun to blame wingnuts like you for the attack, but Barack and Hillary are uniters, not dividers.

"JOHN D SPEAKS"

I STAYED UP ALL NIGHT AND NOT ONE OF THESE SO CALLED BLUE DOGS, YELLOW DOGS, MEXICAN AMERICAN DOGS, LATINO DOGS, AFRICAN AMERICAN DOGS, HOUSE REPRESENATIVE WHERE THERE.

WHAT IS THAT.

WHAT NO "WHERE THE DOGS AT" NO BLING BLING CHILDREN BEFORE US.

WHO WALKED OUT WHERE? WE DID WHAT? JOHN CONYERS DID WHAT?

CALL ME LATER THIS IS AN "UNSECURED LINE"

I can understand objection to the proposed bill, however to bring up frivulous contempt discussions instead of voting is not backbone, its frivulous.

This is certainly the epidomy of political gamesmanship, and should be condemned. If there is an overwhelming objection to the bill- let them vote.

The Congressional Quarterly notes the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars a whole bunch of Democrats get from trial lawyers. Once again, the Damnocrats put special interest groups and specifically the greedy trial lawyers ahead of the American people and the nation as a whole. The Democrats: for the terrorists and trial lawyers; against the American people and for American getting killed.

Posted by: John D | February 14, 2008 2:45 PM

Get serious John D. I could say that president Bush and the repubs put their corporate buddies ans Saudi (terrorist) oil holdings above the security of the American people. And that would be true, but what does it do but create more rhetoric, not solutions.

This is a great argument why we need Obama. A president with real guts who can root out the special interest and bring America back to the people.

The only FISA bill that should pass through Congress, protects our national security and preserves our civil liberties!

Any new FISA bill must both protect our national security and preserve our civil liberties.

I strongly support surveillance targeting foreign threats and terrorists who wish to do us harm -- but we must take care to protect Americans' liberties in the process. The FISA amendments passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee would have done just that.

The Judiciary Committee amendments also would have given the existing FISA Court a more meaningful role in overseeing law enforcement's expanded surveillance activities, providing a crucial independent check on potential government excess. We must never forget that earlier abuses of power are the reason FISA was enacted in the first place.

Unfortunately, the Bush-Cheney Administration opposes these safeguards and are counting on congressional republicans (and some democrats) to vote in lockstep to kill all efforts to improve the new FISA bill.

Passing legislation through Congress isn't a "take it or leave it" enterprise, not when parking Americans' civil liberties in a blind trust, no not ever. The Bush-Cheney Administration lost their credibility on "just trust us" long ago.

Any new FISA bill must both protect our national security and preserve our civil liberties. In addition, the Bush-Cheney Administration is trying to avoid any and all accountability for conducting ILLEGAL, warrantless surveillance for the past 5 years. They are insisting on granting blanket retroactive immunity to phone companies for their warrantless surveillance activities beginning in 2001, activities which explicitly VIOLATED EXISTING FISA LAW and violated the privacy rights of Americans.

Clearly, the Bush-Cheney Administration does not want their law-breaking to be exposed. Retroactive immunity would assure that they get their wish. And any vote that favored such a thing is tantamount to aiding and abetting criminal activities.

When the public found out that the Bush-Cheney Administration was violating FISA and spying illegally on Americans without warrants, the Administration and phone companies were sued by citizens whose privacy rights were violated. These lawsuits may be the only way that the Bush-Cheney Administration is truly held accountable for its FLAGRANT DISRESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

Well, no one -- no citizen, no company, no Senator, no Representative, and NO PRESIDENT -- IS ABOVE THE LAW!

By offering blanket immunity to telecom companies, the Administration is trying to avoid accountability -- and that is unacceptable.

Any new FISA bill cannot grant blanket retroactive immunity to phone companies or anyone else that has broken our laws.

Thank you

I don't think what was being done is in any way unreasonable and I am sure reasonable minds will agree-

Posted by: cj | February 14, 2008 6:01 PM

It would be reasonable, if it were LEGAL. But it wasn't. Otherwise they wouldn't be begging for immunity.

But if you think listening to private phone conversation of average Americans should be legal, I dare you to try it. At least the KGB and Nazi Germany would have your back.

liberals get my equating law abiders with enemy on the line. too stupid to differentiate between incoming email and mr douglas on a telephone pole.
great..
just like they cant tell illegal immigrant from legal.
then its blah blah blah.
Pelosi is over her head but perfect for the lumpencrats.
Yeah, that'll really show Bush!! But when their product shoots up a college its next question.
in taiwan they'd've just slapped the b.

C.Morris so you think I am younger and smarter then Johnd? How do youknow that?More liberaltarian lies.

C.Morris so you think I am younger and smarter then Johnd? How do youknow any of that?More liberatarian lies.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080213_the_powerful_and_obn.htm

the house is right on this one. private companies shout NOT begiven immunity. if government asks for taps, fine. private companies should be damn sure looking utfor thier customers to make sure that the government request is right and proper before they give out any info. with the senate version the government can request info on anyone and say it is for homeland security. the private companies can give the info out without worrying if it IS a case of national security or if its someone wanting to harass a political rival for all they know. they don't care because they are immune. that is a BAD thing. we need MORE freedonm from goverment not less!

well I got a lot of enjoyment out of reading all that banter. but the bottom line si that the gov. has no right to go listening in on phone lines and such without a warrant...and a warrant can take mere minutes to get over the phone if there is evidence to back up the suspicion.
they should be focusing more on gun control, and less on people control.

p.s. the patriot act is also ridiculous.

well I got a lot of enjoyment out of reading all that banter. but the bottom line si that the gov. has no right to go listening in on phone lines and such without a warrant...and a warrant can take mere minutes to get over the phone if there is evidence to back up the suspicion.
they should be focusing more on gun control, and less on people control.

p.s. the patriot act is also ridiculous.

There is a reasoned way for the demonRATs to "reasonably" get their way without comprimising national security in a time when we are engaged against a world-wide jihad of madmen. Simply insist on a periodic review of the 'questionable instances of surveillance abuse' only....AFTER THE FACT. If abuses are uncovered the means for exerting judicial retribution are in place.

There is only one problem with my proposal. The demonRATs are not sincere in their motivations, simply engaging in an ongoing excess of Bush-bashing and hatred to exorcise their political frustrations.

doctorhugo: If we have a lawless country we stand for nothing. Bush broke the law. The telecom companies that gave the info without a warrant broke the law. You just don't get it. You are one of those whacky characters in the Mad Max movies and that is NOT a compliment you dingdong.

doctorhugo: If we have a lawless country we stand for nothing. Bush broke the law. The telecom companies that gave the info without a warrant broke the law. You just don't get it. You are one of those whacky characters in the Mad Max movies and that is NOT a compliment you dingdong.

CORRECTION: I have been notified via e-mail that I unwittingly gave some misinformation about Mark Klein in a previous post. In November 2007, Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, visited Washington D.C. to talk to Senators, congressional staff members and journalists about his personal knowledge of wiretapping by the National Security Agency (which directed the Terrorist Surveillance Program), including massive unfiltered electronic surveillance of Internet traffic and telephone calls to and from U.S. citizens. This disclosure has been an integral part of a pending lawsuit against AT&T, yet this information had received little media attention prior to Mr. Klein's visit to Washington. I erroneously wrote that Mr. Klein testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 8, 2007. Mr. Klein's trip to Washington coincided with a Senate Judiciary Committee "mark-up" hearing that had been scheduled on November 8, 2007 (and that was postponed one week) to discuss the pending FISA legislation, and I had misinterpreted some contemporaneous news reports to indicate that Mr. Klein was going to testify at this Senate hearing (which was not really a hearing). I reviewed several contemporaneous news reports about Mr. Klein's trip to Washington in November 2007, and these reports are vague with respect to any members of Congress who may have met with Mr. Klein, but Mr. Klein provided information to staff members of Senator Dodd, some other congressional staff members and journalists in November 2007. Mr. Klein tried to provide information to some Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Senator Feinstein, Senator Leahy and Senator Specter), but Mr. Klein was ignored publicly by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Klein never testified before any congressional committee. I am attempting to correct an article I wrote that included this misinformation, and I apologize to readers for my error.