CALL REID ON IT: MANEUVER TO PERMIT TELECOM IMMUNITY AGAIN

done (4.00 / 1)

The lines were busy, and the voice mail was full. So hopefully he's getting the message.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 20:21:41 PM UTC

more numbers... (4.00 / 1)

If the DC number is busy, try these:

Carson City Phone: 775-882-7343
Las Vegas Phone: 702-388-5020
Reno Phone: 775-686-5750

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 20:26:59 PM UTC

Great discussion of this travesty (4.00 / 1)

with lots of background here.

Will they come through? (What does "support" mean?)

Joe Biden
San Francisco: "Will you join Sen. Chris Dodd's hold and proposed filibuster on any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms?"

Sen. Joe Biden: "Yes."
-Washington Post web chat

Barack Obama
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
-TPM Election Central

Hillary Clinton
"I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee...As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently."
-TPM Election Central

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 20:51:21 PM UTC

14 senators signed a letter to Reid supporting the SJC version (0.00 / 0)

I will post more on this - but all the senators running for President signed the letter dated 12 December, yet Reid went against it.  

---

by: greenpeas @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:36:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Letter Is Here (4.00 / 1)

December 12, 2007
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
We understand that the Senate will shortly be considering amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As you know, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee have reported very different versions of the FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, and it is up to you, as Majority Leader, to decide how the Senate considers this legislation.
We urge you to make the version of S. 2248 reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee the base bill to be considered by the full Senate. While the structure of Title I of both bills is the same, and both make improvements over the Protect America Act, the reasonable changes to Title I made in the Judiciary Committee ensure that the FISA Court will be able to conduct much-needed oversight of the implementation of these broad new surveillance authorities, and help to better protect the rights of innocent Americans. While we appreciate the hard work that the Intelligence Committee has done on this legislation, the process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the results of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee's unique role and expertise in protecting those rights.
We also believe that the Judiciary Committee bill is preferable because it does not provide immunity for telecom companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. As this is such a controversial issue, we feel it would be appropriate to require the proponents of immunity to make their case on the floor.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT)
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)
Jim Webb (D-VA)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 13:19:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reid is giving immunity proponents cover (0.00 / 0)

I for one would like to know who it is who thinks that giving telecommunications companies immunity is a fine idea.  To highlight the letter's last line,

"As this is such a controversial issue, we feel it would be appropriate to require the proponents of immunity to make their case on the floor."

Getting telecom immunity out into the open and requiring proponents to vote and expose their stances to their constituents would have a distinctly sanitizing effect.

Harry Reid strikes me as cowardly and complicit.  A champion of the rule of law he is NOT.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 13:24:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where Do All The Dems Who Didn't Sign Stand? (0.00 / 0)

Besides Harry and Joe?

Does Harry have a majority of Dems behind him? Too horrible to contemplate!

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 15:17:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton has such a way with words (4.00 / 1)

Why can't she just take a firm position? Her comment may as well be "I'll support the filibuster unless I decide not to support it..."

---

by: Neal Fink @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 01:43:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CYA (0.00 / 0)

She does everything possible to avoid gotchas and sound bites on the butt.  Once burned etc.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 12:41:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS They all signed the letter n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 12:44:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One last stop (0.00 / 0)

In conference committee.

The two bills will be different. That means that they have to go to a committee where they will be negotiated to a final bill between House and Senate versions.

It will be interesting to see who Reid puts on that committee from the Senate.

Will it be Dodd or Rockefeller?

We already know that all the House members will be anti-immunity. The question will be what the Senate members will be.  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 17:07:13 PM UTC

Reid is a right-wing pro-war "Democrat" tool of BushCo (4.00 / 1)

I'm not surprised that Reid supports telecom immunity. Despite  pretenses, he is a staunch supporter of Bush's war agenda.

Here is an excellent analysis of Harry Reid by the brilliant professor Steve Zunes which was written upon Reid's selection as Senate Majority leader:

The overwhelming selection of Nevada Senator Harry Reid as minority leader of Congress' upper house shows that the Democrats are still willing to give their backing for the Bush administration's reckless militarism and contravention of international legal norms.

Despite evidence that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, WMD programs or offensive delivery systems, Reid voted in October 2002 to authorize a U.S. invasion of Iraq because of what he claimed was "the threat posed by Saddam Hussein." The Reid-backed resolution falsely accused Iraq of "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability . . . [and] actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States."

When Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the International Relations committee, tried to alter the wording of the resolution so as not to give President Bush the blank check he was seeking and to put some limitations on his war-making authority, Reid - as assistant minority leader of the Senate - helped circumvent Biden's efforts by signing on to the White House's version. As the Democratic "whip," Reid then persuaded a majority of Democratic Senators to vote down a resolution offered by Democratic Senator Carl Levin that would authorize force only if the UN Security Council voted to give the U.S. that authority and to instead support the White House resolution giving Bush the right to invade even without such legal authorization. (By contrast, a sizable majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against the Republican resolution.)

In March 2003, after Iraq allowed United Nations inspectors to return and it was becoming apparent that there were no WMDs to be found, President Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway. Reid rushed to the president's support, claiming that - despite its clear violation of the United Nations Charter - the invasion was "lawful" and that he "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President."

Perhaps most disappointing about the Senate Democrats' selection of Reid as their leader is that it underscores the Democrats' lack of support for international law and their blind support for the Bush administration's position that the United States and its allies are somehow exempt from their international legal obligations.

For example, Reid justified his support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq by echoing the administration's claims that "this nation would be justified in making war to enforce the terms we imposed on Iraq in 1991" since Iraq promised "the world it would not engage in further aggression and it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

First of all, Iraq had not engaged in further acts of aggression and it had already destroyed its weapons of mass destruction, demonstrating Reid's willingness to defend the Bush administration's lies in order to justify a U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country.

Secondly, even if Iraq had been guilty as charged, the armistice agreement to which Reid referred - UN Security Council resolution 687 - had no military enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, resolution 678, which originally authorized the use of force against Iraq, had become null and void once Iraqi troops withdrew from Kuwait. An additional resolution specifically authorizing the use of force would have been required in order for the United States to legally engage in any further military action against the Baghdad regime.

Iraq is not the only area where Reid's contempt of international legal standards is apparent: Reid is a cosponsor of a pending resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for its July decision which held that governments engaged in belligerent occupation are required to uphold relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and related standards of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, despite a series of UN Security Council resolutions declaring Israel's occupation, colonization and annexation of Arab East Jerusalem illegal, Reid sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act which insists that "Jerusalem remain an undivided city" under Israeli control. In addition, Reid has supported Israel's colonization of the occupied West Bank in contravention of a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw these illegal settlements. Despite the protests of human rights groups, Reid has strongly defended Israeli attacks on civilian targets in the occupied territories and the construction of a separation wall deep into the occupied West Bank, also in contravention of international legal norms.

As a number of liberal activists have pointed out, Reid's positions on trade, abortion, civil liberties, gay rights, spending priorities, and health care are also closer to the Bush administration than most Democratic voters. However, given what is at stake, it is foreign policy where the need for forceful Congressional opposition to the Bush agenda is most important. In electing Harry Reid as their Senate leader, the Democrats have once again demonstrated that they are simply not up to the task.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 02:09:35 AM UTC