Well, well, well: A Democratic Senator is mad as Hell, and isn't going to take it any more!
...No, not Harry Reid. We're talking about politics, not fantasy.
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
All you can stands, Senator Dodd, and you can't stands no more?
Exclusive: Senator Chris Dodd Will Put A Hold On Telecom Immunity Bill
By Greg Sargent - October 18, 2007, 1:55PMSenator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Election Central has learned.
Dodd will send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon informing him of his decision. Dodd also plans to put up a page today at his campaign Web site where opponents of the immunity provision can register their opposition.
Via Instapundit)
Read on.
Mind you, Senator Dodd's apparently jumping into the middle of this:
Senate and Bush Agree On Terms of Spying Bill
Some Telecom Companies Would Receive Immunity
By Jonathan Weisman and Ellen NakashimaSenate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.
Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers.
The collapse marked the first time since Democrats took control of the chamber that a major bill was withdrawn from consideration before a scheduled vote. It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage.
(Via Slashdot)
It should be interesting to see how much campaign contribution money Dodd can pull in from this... excuse me: "how long he can hold out on principle."
(pause)
Bad form of me to end there, no doubt, but upon reviewing the previous sentence I deleted the next four paragraphs. They were redundant.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | By the Power of Grayskull. *I* have the power. — Comments (10) »
Well, well, well: A Democratic Senator is mad as Hell, and isn't going to take it any more! 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... to have a campaign website.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Who knew this guy was even running -- No one knows why.
I ran for President and all I got was this stupid campaign website ... chuckle.
Poor Senator Dodd; no one's paying attention to has been from CT, so he's issuing press releases with threats of putting a hold on the FISA renewal bill. You go Chrissie baby; you're posse back in CT will really, really like this. Can we get any dumber than the likes of Dodd, Kennedy, Murtha and now Starks?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Johnny Walker Black, I think?
Nothing like playing politics with our security, eh there Senator?
This is what people vote for?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
If you're going to break the law, then you break the law. don't come crying asking for special favors because you bribed... err lobbied for it.
Christopher Dodd deserves congratulations for this. It's a pity it wasn't a Republican, but you know, I could care less if it was a 3 headed monkey that stood up to stop this. Just so long as the telecoms don't get to wash their hands of their culpability.
I have some very strong opinions on this one, but I'm playing nice and won't go on a diatribe.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Or do you just support frivilous lawsuits and companies trying to obey the law?
It really helps to read the Act and understand what Dodd was trying to do. Remember he is not on on libetarian or even a Knight Templar.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You should be ashamed for mentioning Lord Voldemort's name!
;)
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Firstly, No company should ever turn over information about individuals without a warrant. that's a clear 4th amendment issue. The idea of granting blanket immunity when the telecoms just rolled over and didn't fight strikes me as insipid and a terrible idea.
Secondly, I have no idea why you think lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a law would be frivolous. After all, it's the only recourse available to the citizens of the United States to challenge the actions of it's government. (which has been nigh impossible to do up to this point because of the secrecy and laws preventing individuals from knowing they have been spied upon. if you can't prove you've been harmed you have no standing... neat way to prevent a law from ever undergoing a constitutional challenge.)
The issue here is that the government should never be permitted to go on fishing expeditions, and companies that aid and abet those fishing expeditions should be held accountable.
IMO I think corporate veil should be pierced on this issue.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
the phone company's. Says so right when you sign up for phone service. Don't like it, don't sign up. So it's legal for them to voluntarily turn over their data to the government. Don't like it? Don't sign up for their service.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Go make an appointment with a lawyer about the possibility of filing a suit against the phone company and he'll explain it to you. At a couple of hundred an hour.
I'm pretty sure Gamecock would be pleased to do the deed.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
After all giving up information when OBL and his henchman call their friends in the US is such bad business. I mean, they only wanted to get the line on a few NFL picks. Sheesh.
Really, did you have your mom write this for you or did you think of it all by yourself?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Dated two. Wonderful girls. Didn't seem like total dingbats. Well, one had this weird Journey obsession, and don't even get me started on Gallagher. (BTW, S, if you're reading this, yes, it's me -- bet you never thought I'd mention the plum, did you? Just did!)
Anyway:
Firstly, No company should ever turn over information about individuals without a warrant. that's a clear 4th amendment issue.
Welcome to the magical world of "state action" and "how it fits into what the Constitution controls." Now, I'm sure you're all gung ho with the idea of a closely read Constitution, so I'm betting you have an itch where Section 1983 is concerned; and given that the telecoms no longer exercise State-granted monopolies, and granted that the Constitution should be closely construed, I'd love to hear how a privately-owned telecommunications company can be liable for a Fourth Amendment violation.
IMO I think corporate veil should be pierced on this issue.
Spare me from crackpots with a bare grasp of legal terminology. If Granny Adams in Gilbert, Arizona suddenly has assets at risk because her mutual fund holds shares in Verizon (this would be the effect of "piercing the corporate veil"), I suspect you'll find the public comes down harder on telecom immunity, friend. People like to note have their houses taken away because they owned a share in a company that made decisions beyond their control.
Don't like it? Hey, there's always Venezuela.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
If the telecommuncations companies didn't break any laws, why do they need immunity?
Here's what a Federal Judge said: "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."
They're losing in court so they're buying their way out of trouble. Is this how the system is supposed to work?
For the most accurate screen name of all time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'm pretty sure they'll go along with this.
We'll do a kind of "funds matching" thingy with you.
For every $100 you send to Dodd, Redstate will "match it" with a nickel. So, if you send him $1,000 we'll kick in an extra $0.50, bringing your total to $1,000.50.
Please forward proof of your donations to Erick. I know he's busy, but I'm confident that he'll find the time to take care of this.
(I'll give you a credit card number to cover it Moe...)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
or didn't you know that? Fighting any kind of lawsuit (even on that they are likely to win) costs money. I dunno about you, but it makes smart business sense to me to head off that at the pass (preemptive immunity).
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
What's he running for?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill