You say

"I am carefully reviewing the compromise language that was just now circulated to members, and will return to this site to post my comments on whether the bill adheres to the principles I've addressed above."

Let me help you out, Representative: It doesn't.

In my adventures to let my voice be heard, I wrote this email to Steny Hoyer:

Dear Mr. Hoyer,

I writing you regarding your decision to push to immunize the telecoms that laid down for the Bush Administration and broke our laws. I know you use the subject list to filter these messages, but I couldn't find one particular subject that covers this topic. It is simultaneously about Civil Rights and the Judiciary, Crime, Government Reform, Homeland Security, and Human Rights. Your decision to push for this immunity is contrary to all sensible policy on each of these issues.

But I just want to ask one question: How could you do this to us? It's our country and the government is instituted to protect us. You are trampling some of our most sacred values--values that you promised to uphold when you swore to protect the Constitution. It is the Constitution that was instituted to establish justice; it is the Constitution that was established to secure the blessings of liberty; and it is the Constitution that protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. And yet here you are ratifying such searches, destroying liberty, and ensuring that ATT and others will escape justice.

So, I ask again, how could you do this to us?

You do this now even while you sit on the Board of Directors for IFES--an organization whose goals include spreading the rule of law abroad. And yet here at home, you are helping to destroy the rule of law by allowing law breaking companies to avoid being held accountable for their actions in a court of law. You undermine the rule of law here in our country by allowing the President's word alone to serve as law. You undermine the rule of law here, in the United States, by ensuring that these companies have access to a different sort of justice than I do. You undermine the rule of law here by directing the courts to dismiss a case based on established law. You undermine the rule of law by allowing companies to assist the government in disregarding our human rights established through numerous international treaties and our legal rights established in the Constitution.

Mr. Hoyer, how could you do this to us?

How could you do it to yourself? The 2006 elections which brought you to power in the House were a flat rejection of Bush Administration policies on national security. They were a rejection of the Bush Administration's claims to executive power. They were a rejection of his policies in violation of our Constitution. They were a rejection of Bush's policies in violation of our values. Yet you stand today to ratify his policies, and in so doing, you remove the purpose of that election, you remove the reason we all voted for Democrats, and you have become just another enabler of the worst of Bush's policies.

How can you do this to us?

That is the only question I have.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Reece

I tried to send this through Steny's email application on his website (hoyer.house.gov). But guess what folks! It ain't working.

Listen Rush, if you care at all about this, you'll vote against it and then spend the rest of your time in Congress working to replace Steny Hoyer with someone who actually cares about the civil liberties of Americans.

If they broke the law they should be prosecuted, if they didn't why are they worried. I was sending money to Obama, but it has now been diverted to getting rid of the turncoats that made this "compromise".

Since a judge has already found that there is no credible claim from the telecoms that they did not know that these requests were illegal (and they took part anyway for financial gain), how can Congress grant them immunity? Can you cite some examples in the past where Congress has retroactively granted immunity to private enterprises for their crimes? Also, has DNI McConnell influenced any of the decisions in crafting this legislation and do his ties to private intel contractors (chairman of the INSA and Booz Allen-$100s of millions in contracts) on this issue represent a gross conflict?

THis is unbelievable. The democrats STOPPED BUSH ON THIS, and NOW THEY ARE RUNNING AS AS POSSIBLE TO GIVE HIM THE GREEN LIGHT.

What TOTAL PUSSIES!

Mr. Holt, REFUSE TO GIVE YOUR CONSENT to WAIVING OF THE READING OF THE BILL.

FORCE THEM TO READ THE BILL.

Stop THIS BILL

You will see a HUGE REACTION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS IF YOU IDIOTS give BUSH HIS WAY ON THIS.

Hoyer sat on the bill until today, bypassed Waxman and Conyers and struck a deal with AT&T representatives from the Senate. How can you even consider a bill you just received?

I'm from CA-03 so have no input to Rep. Lungren, as he's impacted in Bush’s backside and loves our Dear Leader. I checked on his contributors for 2006 and 2008. AT&T was 15th down the list last cycle, now it’s 1st place for donations. What’s that tell you?

Dear Congressman Holt,

The main purpose of retroactive immunity is to bury the truth about whatever has been happening.

I am also concerned that Rep Blunt is saying publicly that this bill takes the decisions about who should be monitored out of the courts:

"Clearly, House Republicans have long believed that the Senate FISA bill was the best way forward - and do not believe that the courts should hold the ultimate decision over how and when terrorist communications are monitored overseas."

If he is speaking clearly, it is clear that this bill violates the principle of separation of powers you have laid out in your post.

Please fight to kill this very bad bill. It is bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party.

Bill Dorland

Josh Marshall is acting as it there is nothing to see here, and you Dems just need to move along - you just need to shut-up and get inline.

Jeebus. Where does every change? It doesn't change ANYTHING except the label.

Lets all pretend it didn't happen but IT DID HAPPEN. Oh Jeebus. What use is any Party that LIES all the time?

Frankly Congressman, there's nothing else to say that hasn't already been eloquently stated so I shall state it more crudely.

Don't piss on our heads and tell us it's raining. Any FISA bill containing immunity for telecomms is complete and utter bullshit.

Well await your response.

Representative Holt,
Thank you for coming here at this key time to seek out opinions and comments from the readership here.

It appears that the compromise wording, as currently constructed, is window dressing on top of telecom amnesty. Section 802(c) of the Telecom Amnesty portion (as reported by Glenn Greenwald) appears to provide amnesty for any eavesdropping as long as it has been certified by the Attorney General that it was "authorized". What's worse is that the district court review of this is so perfunctory that these narrow grounds are the only grounds that they are allowed to review the request on. Furthermore, the compromise provides for this to all be performed in secret, so this rubber-stamping does not receive any public attention whatsoever. This secrecy aspect (which I'm sure is being claimed by the government as necessary so as to not alert suspects) is just as abhorrent as the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege. Because of it, you will not be able to tell your constituents that they are safe from warrantless government eavesdropping, because you will not know if they are or aren't.

I fail to understand how this will make your constituency and our nation as a whole more secure. As constructed, this seems to do one thing: provide cover for telecommuncations companies who were enticed into breaking the law in the first place by the large government contracts being dangled over their heads.

It is interesting that you use the specific words: "Fishing Expedition" Previous testimony by Mark Klein about what was installed at AT&T in San Francisco (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf) indicates that the current nature of this surveillance is exactly that, it is computer software fishing for specific phrases/terms, etc. It is a violation of basic civil rights that our conversations and written words are subject to such a filter.

Finally, why is the sunset provision for this bill set in 2012? Is there any reason that it cannot be annually reviewed and renewed? Must it be in force and unable to be repealed through the next President's administration?

Thank you for your time again.

This FISA bill provides de facto immunity for criminal acts by preventing any court from adjudicating the legality of actual conduct, and substitutes the Nuremberg Defense instead.

I submit that passing this legislation is arguably an act of complicity in criminal misconduct after the fact, and would in fact constitute an unlawful abuse or misuse of power under color of law.

U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983

Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

EXCUSE ME RUSH*****..Substitute Steny Hoyer's name in place of yours in my post above. I didn't confuse the people only got yur name stuck in my mind instead of Steny Hoyer's and all that I said had to do with him specifically and not you.

PLEASE PARDON THE ERROR: The curse is for Steny Hoyer who will be seen for what he is doing. All references were to Steny and NOT Rush Holt.

Rep Holt:

I appreciate you're coming here to talk about this, but it should be common sense by now that affronts to the constitution and founding principles in general are frowned upon by an awful lot of people.

This is one of those occasions in which trying to pump up a FISA revision as anything other than a totally corrupt, extra-legal usurpation of power is a complete waste of time. This bill demolishes any notion of privacy. It demolishes any notion of Rule of Law, as the founders intended. It effectively excuses criminal behavior retroactively.

I have a hard time believing this piece of crap "legislation" is even constitutional, much less justifiable in any broader sense outside of pure, unadulterated corruption. After all, who benefits from this bill? The public interest? Absolutely not!

No, only criminals benefit from this bill. Criminals with a lot of money to throw around. So who says crime doesn't pay?

Last I looked, congress enjoys a roughly 12% approval rating. It's "compromises" like this one that has earned congress a level of esteem which is only half that of the Worst President In US History. Ponder that for a moment.

Mr. Holt, if you are thinking about voting for this dog (apologies to dogs everywhere), please do so knowing you will be tainted as corrupt. Given that Dems now have significant and growing majorities in congress, there's really no reason for anyone to be loyal to those who betray our broader values, is there? We can simply take all those resources previously dedicated to booting Republicans and start turning them on incumbent Dems. Looks like that is what needs to be done.

We all know there are no valid policy reasons for passing this. We also know there are no valid political reasons for doing so either. So this is just about bought influence doing it's job for it's paying clients, nothing more. That and some creeping authoritarianism to boot.

We're seven months away from a new administration and policy regime. If ever there was a compelling case for DOING NOTHING, this is it.

So, Mr. Holt, who's side are you on? The criminals, or the rest of the nation?

Congressman Holt,
I just received an email from Caroline Fredrickson, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office. She says, "Congress is moving so fast and so secretively that we only got a copy of this bill this morning. I can tell you it’s horrible. It contains vacuum cleaner style surveillance that sweeps up the phone calls and emails of Americans."
I am a proud member of the ACLU and Ms. Fredrickson speaks for me and legions of others.
Congressman Holt: Please do what you can to make sure this bill is not passed. Our future as a free people hangs in the balance, and we are counting on you.

We are characters in a story only Kafka could write:

After five years of vacuum cleaner surveillance, the internal security apparat has accumulated the very pieces of information the continued hiding of which is vital to Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller, Reid, et al. Hence, their acquiescence in furthering the most outrageous goals of that apparat.

Speculation: They have nothing on Holt, Feingold, or Webb.

(You can play this as a parlor game at home, folks: "Guess which public figures have been compromised")

It's easier, though, to count those who have not been the object of successful blackmail

Dear Congressman Holt;

I'll be quite frank about the matter of immunity for the telecom industry; the American people expected Democrats to sell them out and you have not disappointed them.

This matter has nothing to do with future need of the telecom industry to help protect this country. They will do that and every American knows it.

A stronger FISA bill is not the issue.

This has everything to do with Democrats helping to protect the Bush administrations breaking of the law; and every American knows that, too.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Please excuse my double posting: I just reread the title you placed on your article, "The Principles Behind Intelligence Surveillance". The only principle you should be considering is that contained in the US Constitution. Until you are presented with a law that complies with the principles in the Constitution don't give an inch on this. And, this so called compromise doesn't meet that test.

Congressman Holt:
I'm a bloody Canadian, and even I am upset.
This has to be a pretty crappy piece of legislation for its stench to waft across even international borders.
I suggest you and Pelosi -- and yes, even the presidential nominee himself -- grow some some spine and/or some balls and ensure that this "compromise" never even comes up in the House for a vote.
You wouldn't like the American people when they're angry.

According to the tally here http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml Rush Holt voted against this bill. Thank you Rep. Holt for doing the right thing.

Now it's time to encourage our Senators to vote no when the bill comes to them.