Further Thoughts On FISA
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. We clearly agree that this is an important issue. As many of you noted, it is vital that we get this legislation right. The passage last August of the "Protect America Act" - hastily passed in the context of a relentless drumbeat of propaganda and disinformation orchestrated by the administration - was an illustration of exactly how not to pass a bill.
In reviewing the FISA legislation now under consideration, it is clear to me that it does not meet the criteria or the principles I shared with you earlier.
The bill lacks the very specific "reverse targeting" protections I secured in the two previous House FISA bills we've passed. This goes to the issue of not being precise in who we are targeting. It appears to me that innocent Americans who are not "targeted" still may have their communications intercepted with ultimately damaging results.
Also, the telecom immunity provisions are tilted in favor of the government and telecommunication firms, not the citizens. If enacted, this bill will ensure the plaintiffs never get their day in court. This bill contains an "exigent circumstances" provision--something so broad and undefined that virtually anything could be considered an "exigent circumstance." That is not the way to conduct targeted intelligence collection designed to provide us with reliable, actionable intelligence on verified bad actors.
This bill also has a four year sunset provision, which is entirely too long and which would have the effect of tying the hands of the next Congress and the next President in terms of making changes to the law.
I agree with others who have commented that we have time to get this right. We do. The existing FISA statute has served us well and will continue to do so until we pass a more balanced FISA reform bill. This is not that bill.
I appreciate your stream of comments and look forward to reading your further thoughts and answering any questions you have.
Comments (61)
Well thank you representative Holt. I'll take you at your word that absent major changes that would cost the bill Republican support that you will vote against it on Friday (or whenever it's brought before the full house).
You might also reach out to your colleagues in the Senate to find somebody there willing to block or filibuster should it pass the House over your opposition.
Thanks for standing with us.
June 19, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Congressman. I wish you would tell your colleagues that even if a lack of immunity should expose some unseamly collusion by the Democrats after 9/11, it's a lot easier to forgive them for acting wrongly in the heat of emotion than it is to forgive them for selling out our civil liberties calmly, coolly, and deliberately for the purposes of political expediency today.
Oh, and we don't want Hoyer leading us anywhere in the next Congress.
June 19, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great God Almighty! He heard us! At least a little.
I would add this Congressman...
Please pass along to your colleagues that the people of the United States and most particulary those who are driving the resurgence of the Democratic Party are not content with any further "compromises" that are really nothing but handing the Republicans and their criminal companions whatever they want. It is not enough for Democrats in Congress to mouth opposition to the most heinous violations of our Constitution and other laws and then allow the special interests to rule the day. Your opposition to the idea of giving the criminal conduct of the telecoms and the administration a pass is welcome, but you must not simply oppose these kinds of things you must prevail in the Congress. If a FISA bill passes that includes telecom immunity then it is clear that no matter how it is staged that the Democratic "leadership" allowed it to pass.
We want our God Damned country back and we want the Constitution and the powers of the Congress FULLY restored!
I am in earnest sir. Opposing this sickening circumvention of the law is a good start, but much remains to be done to restore our democratic rpeublic. The weakness and cowardice of the past years while the Bush regime has run the country must come to a screeching halt. The homage paid to corporate crooks and their greed must come to an immediate halt. Again: we want our county back sir and that means we need to see a whole helluva lot more Democratic members of Congress who come out against this sort of abomination.
For far too long Democrats in DC have sat back and cowered in fear as the worst group of criminal thugs have run roughshod over our laws, our government, our people and our economy. Much of what has occured has taken place because of Democratic cowardice and failure to oppose tyrrany. Now is the time many of your colleagues must begin to prove they understand by no longer allowing this sort of garbage to become law.
June 19, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, thank you for writing so clearly on this issue and for pointing out that opposing parts of this bill like telecom immunity or even the provisions that might allow for spying without specific justification are necessary but not sufficient positions for a Democrat to hold.
That's just stopping things from getting worse.
We need to actively improve the situation. More civilian oversight, more sunlight.
June 19, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Your opposition to the idea of giving the criminal conduct of the telecoms and the administration a pass is welcome, but you must not simply oppose these kinds of things you must prevail in the Congress."
Yes. Deliver some results for the people, Holt, or make room for somebody who can. The blame game you all play has begun to look a lot like collusion to millions of Americans. The electorate is awake after a long nap. Your jobs are at stake.
"If a FISA bill passes that includes telecom immunity then it is clear that no matter how it is staged that the Democratic "leadership" allowed it to pass."
Not only did they allow it to pass, it would not even have been considered if the Dems had not put it on the floor. And they know good and well the likely path of these bills.
"We want our God Damned country back and we want the Constitution and the powers of the Congress FULLY restored!"
Well said.
June 20, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If enacted, this bill . . . .
You mean there's a chance it won't be? Not very likely!
June 19, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not very likely
Don't you think Teddy Kennedy can crank up one last magnificent filibuster, standing firm for transparancy, accountability, and Frank Capra?
After all, it was senators who furnished the courageous profiles that Ted Sorens..umm, *JFK assembled for our inspiration.
*Disclaimer:I shook his hand at about the same age as Bill Clinton did; apparently it did not take for me...
June 19, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teddy's not going to be present for this. He's recuperating from surgery for his brain tumor.
June 20, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
crank up one.. for...Frank Capra?
Perhaps you did not see the heartrending movie:
They wheel him in on a gurney, chemo dripping into his veins like hot lava from an iv-hanger. He fights to rise on one elbow, but the voice is still there. Reid breaks down in tears; McConnell hides his head on his desk; Webb pulls out a gun...
(Mr. Kennedy told his wife, Victoria, immediately after the surgery, “I feel like a million bucks,” a spokesman recounted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/washington/03kennedy.html?hp)
June 21, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is off topic but I can't resist commenting on the latest Welfare for War Profiteers vote. I thank Holt for voting againt this bill. However, I notice that the same old same old game is being played here - enough Dems vote with the Republicans (like our "leader" Hoyer) to make sure that welfare for war continues.
Meanwhile, 4 levees just failed on the Mississippi and almost nothing has been done since the 1993 flood (and who was in the White House in 1993?). Where is the money for our failing infrastructure? What could we do if we had $3 trillion to repair it?
National security begins at home. If your home is not secure from all the King's men and if your home is not secure from the cold and the rain, you have no security.
June 19, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
(sigh)
Represent us. Is that so much to ask?
Ask your colleagues that. From me.
June 19, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they should pass a bill the gives all criminals immunity? Nawwww...never happen...only the wealthy criminals enjoy that as a bennie.
Be careful...Big Brother is watching. America...a place where we have the best rights (and politicians) money can buy.
I sincerely wish you luck congressman. I believe you are being completely forthcoming when you say you want to "get this right". Unfortunately too many of your colleagues have their mouths planted firmly around corporate America's genitalia.
June 19, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holt, Thanks for the info and advocacy on this issue. This sound like a rather stinky deal and I'm very disappointed in leadership, of both parties, in caving to telecom interests yet again.
Btw, I'd be fine with a one year sunset provision, though I'd prefer to see this resolved in early 2009. ;)
June 19, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, can we get a projected vote count on this, or at least a list of major players supporting this stinker?
I also find it incredibly stinky this is passing now after the primary polls close.
I'm PO'ed at my Rep, Pelosi, for caving on this after I just voted for her and since her office has been emailing me how she's going to stand up for IT rights, principles like FISA and Net Neutrality.
If she keeps folding on critical issues I'll be forced to vote Green. Issues like amnesty and net neutrality are very important and Dems can't fold on them. Not when they have the majority. This is unacceptable.
June 19, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to add, the more I've read on this, about bluedog and Republican support for it forming a majority, the more I'm temped to think Pelosi may be making the best possible compromise.
Though, she and Dems still need to be pressured to make every effort. I also think it would be good to deal the vote for a week or at least several days, so it doesn't come as a shock to everyone.
But, those people calling for Dem heads, myself included, are jumping the gun. Also, the more we allow that, the easier it is for freepers and provocateurs to bait us. and I notice whenever Dems are PO'ed about an issue, there are always a bunch of new names and some familiar ones, popping up to pour fuel on the fire.
So let's keep applying pressure, keep our heads, and not get baited by Freepers and goof balls either.
June 20, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman Holt,
Thank you for posting your thoughts and listening to some of ours. Please be assured that as appalled as a handful of bloggers here might sound at these erosions of our rights, there are millions out there who are just as outraged over the usurpations of the past seven years that continue today. There has been a drumbeat of misinformation and scare tactics surrounding this debate, too, but less and less people are falling for it.
It has been noted since early last year that the Dem control of congress has not changed the downward direction of the country and, many have concluded with sadness that the Dem leadership is ineffectual, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt or all of these. They were voted into leadership because the county wanted a change and reversal of the senseless war and tyrannical behavior of the Bush administration. The public is still waiting. Even though they will likely give Democrats an even broader margin, including the WH, in November, I hope the next Congress and President realize that they are on probation.
I’m a lifelong Democrat from a long line of Democrats, and I may vote alternative this time around. There has been no oversight within government and there is still no accountability for government abuses. At this point, I don't see that changing all that much. Telecoms can donate millions to congresspeople for their permanent campaigns, and voilá!, they get a pass on their crimes.
A move has been underway targeting Chris Carney over the FISA issue by several liberal blogs (actblue">http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa">actblue). They are now targeting Hoyer, John Barrow, and a couple of other bluedogs (having raised over $200,000 in a couple of days). Please impress upon your colleagues that many people are worried about the direction the country and they are being watched. Their votes will be remembered. Thanks again for the good work you do.
June 19, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does HTML hate me?
Anyone wanting to donate to the cause of targetting proponents of warrantless wiretapping, telecom immunity and similar Bush initiatives can do so at:
http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa
June 19, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key,
I live in a long time Republican controlled district so I was ecstatic when Democrat Patrick Murphy won over incumbent Republican Mike Fitzpatrick in the last election.
Murphy describes himself as a Blue Dog, but he's always seemed to be quite different than many in that group, not as damaging to the party's ideals.
Anyhow, during his run for Congress, I supported Murphy financially and by writing Guest Opinions in the newspaper in support of him and in defense of him when he's attacked by Repugs and the wingnuts. and I continued to do this after he took office. Because of this record and the now and then calls I make to his office I'm fairly sure they're familiar with me and know me as a strong supporter.
I am absolutely livid with Murphy for voting for this FISA bill. I let his office know my feelings, telling them he lost 50% of my support for this horrid vote, and when he sees my next Guest Opinion in the paper he's not going to like it.
June 22, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has it within his power to torpedo this "compromise". He has only to announce his opposition, and the vast majority of congressional democrats would fall in line. Not all of them, but most- certainly enough to defeat it. At that point, too, the power to disrupt and destroy the democratic proponents of the FISA legislation, as measured by the money currently being collected in the name of raising hell, would be dramatically enhanced, i.e., fatter fish in a smaller barrel. They wouldn't have the luxury of hiding being the shield of their party leader (and next POTUS) when seeking re-election.
I did not credit Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign when she speculated that Obama might well have supported the Iraq War Resolution had he been a member of the senate in 2002. I would hate to see her proved right. But on this issue, of scarcely less import, the chips are once again down.
June 19, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he doesn't. Where did you get that idea?
Read this, as I just did:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002899718
June 19, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama surely does have the ability to make enough noise to mobilize the public on this issue. If nothing else, Obama could use his megaphone to alert and engage his voters to let their representatives in Congress know how they feel and what they expect.
June 20, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response, Rush--I hope you have a chance to hear Jon Turley's segment on Olbermann tonight; he was very eloquent in his opposition to the proposed bill, and also makes a nice counter to Pelosi, who began her earlier encomium to the bill with 'I am not a lawyer...'
btw, koz, i'm in the same district, and have received the same platitudes from Blue Dogs Pelosi and Feinstein--what makes it even more galling is that the 'TIA' style surveillance was occurring under our noses at ATT's facility on Folsom Street, according the the whistleblower Mark Klein.
June 19, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling Pelosi a "bluedog" is rather wrong.
As I understand this she's against it but can't stop the Bluedogs from voting for an even worse Republican proposal, so they're being forced into a compromise. So, there's certainly a question of whether she's cracking enough skulls, or could even change their votes no matter how hard she pushed, or whether it would just drive an unproductive wedge in the party.
***
Also, you seem to imply wiretapping only occurred in SF. In fact, we only blew the whistle here, and have organizations like EFF in California to protect civil rights in the digital era. But according to their reporting and lawsuits, ATT and other telecoms have operated wire tapping operations across the country at every major hub.
June 19, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hang on now Koz, so are you saying that Pelosi's defense, as it were, is to claim that she is an ineffectual and impotent leader? If so, I pray you reexamine this point.
The Speaker is extraordinarily powerful whoever it is who holds the office. There's not one piece of legislation that can reach the House floor without the approval of the Speaker. Not one. She can put the kabosh on any bill. Thus, Pelosi could easily make certain that telecom immunity never even came to the House floor. Yet, she makes the claim that she cannot hold her own party members back? Puhleeeeeease! that is a tiny fig leaf that doesn't cover the giant obscenity that is the FISA bill now being considered. That excuse doesn't pass the smell test even for a tiny second.
She, like Reid, and apparently Obama too are allowing this to be debated and passed. It appears their defense is going to be impotence "despite" their opposition. Very weak IMHO. Very weak indeed.
The truth is she (and the others) dare not stand in the way of ATT and the other wealthy corporate interests whose teat she and many other members of Congress suckle at regularly. That is what is so appalling and outrageous about this charade.
June 20, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're ascribing magical qualities to her position. She can't snap her fingers and make everything ok.
She can threaten the Bluedogs there will be consequences, but only so much. If she over reaches that's dangerous and builds resentment. They can also start voting Republican, or otherwise retaliating on other bills.
Maybe she's not doing enough. Maybe she's doing all she can. But let's find out. not jump to conclusions.
A lot of Bluedogs are a lot like Lieberman. It's very hard to coral them, and the netroots should have learned that by now. Do we need to have Armando come back and tell us how easy electing Lamont is going to be and what an outrage it is Dems aren't wholly casting their lot with him? I thought we were past that.
June 20, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but I do think you are quite mistaken here.
The Speaker absolutely controls what does and does not go to the floor of the House. She can, with a word, kill any bill simply be refusing to let it go to the floor and there is very little anyone can do about it. She controls the chairmen of all the various committees, but no committee is more thoroughly in the pocket of the Speaker than the Rules Committee which decides what goes to the floor, when, and under what terms it is debated. It decides all the rules of the debate and consideration of every single item that comes to the floor. Thus, she most certainly could have stopped this bill from coming to the floor. Those who favor capitulation to corporate wishes do not have the extraordinary number of votes required to defy such a decision by the Speaker and overturn any action of the Rules Committee.
So the reality is that if Pelosi truly was opposed to telecom immunity she would have quashed any attempt at debating the abomination of a bill now being debated in the House. But, in point of fact, she is allowing it to pass. This is contemptible and reprehensible behavior on her part, not to mention dishonest, deceptive and cowardly. Ditto for Hoyer, Reid and the rest of the hypocrites calling themselves Democratic leaders.
June 20, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi voted for this abomination. Now we know why she allowed it to come up for a vote. Courage is a rarity in Congress.
June 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
:rolleyes:
You do know that it's a common practice to party leadership to vote for something, even if they oppose it, so long as it's guaranteed to pass anyways. Right?
In this case it's the Bluedogs, and Pelosi is voting with them in exchange for them voting with leadership down the road. No decisions are actually altered, as this sort of vote trading is usually only done for "optics" where there is already a clear majority.
One could debate the merits and utility of that system. But it's not about "courage" it's about political strategy and parliamentary tactics. And the Speaker's job is primarily to employ parliamentary tactics. If someone just wants to vote their conscience 100% without consideration for parliamentary tactics, they shouldn't be Speaker.
If you want to have an informed opinion on Congress, you should inform yourself about how it actually works. Judging from your photo, I'm probably about 2/3 your age, and yet I know these things. So, what's your excuse?
June 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you're still entirely missing the point. So, you're repeated assertion that Pelosi doesn't have to accept a compromise because she could just block the bill, is being rather obtuse. It demonstrates an unfamiliarity with how the congress actually works.
If a bipartisan majority supports legislation, it can't really be blocked indefinitely without raising charges of "obstructionism" which does have very real political fallout. Blocking legislation with a bipartisan majority support is something of a "nuclear option" in that it fosters retaliation and things quickly go to hell.
The upshot being that this compromise, or worse, would eventually come to the floor and pass. And in the meanwhile Republicans would be handed a political victory to call Dems "obstructionist" which could hurt them in November. It would be a big gamble for nothing.
If you can't grok that, you shouldn't be discussing politics cause you don't get politics.
June 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with oleeb, Koz. I think you are letting Pelosi skate too easily on this issue. She is Speaker and therefore has immense power to control the agenda and if she doesn't want to see it come to the floor in its present form it wouldn't.
June 20, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not "letting her skate." I'm saying I honestly don't know if she could have done more, and we should try and find out. You know, get the facts.
Also, to say the speaker controls the agenda and can simply stop things from coming to the floor, well that's not the whole political story.
IF a lot of Bluedog Dems would vote for this or an even worse bill, THEN Republicans with Bluedog backing would make a huge fuss over Pelosi blocking it.
Pelosi would be labeled an "obstructionist" and given majority support for the bill, it would stick. Bush would harp on it, as would McCain, and it would be a huge distraction from the Presidential campaign.
The result of that being not only would it eventually come to a vote, and still pass, but it would also be a huge politcal loss for Dems and Pelosi's leadership and potentially hurt Dems in the Presidential race.
***
So, IF, and I do mean IF, that's the case, then some realistic appraisal of the situation is called for.
****
Having said that, it's certainly a good idea to apply pressure to Pelosi now, to let her know that we expect her best effort, and if it turns out later she could have done more, and didn't, there's going to be trouble.
****
Anyways, yeah this pisses me off also. I'm just saying people need to keep their heads and get the facts.
June 20, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, don't forget that Pelosi has the power to block this bill from even being discussed on the floor--apparently, she didn't feel strongly enough about it to 'take it off the table,' like she so graciously did for impeachment.
June 20, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she doesn't have that power the way you describe it.
If she (or any Speaker) blocks bills that has a clear majority of bipartisan support, then it would be viewed as an abuse of the Speaker position, by many in both parties. The political consequences for the "obstructionist" Speaker and Party could be enormous. Some Bluedogs could even shift parties or become independents in protest. There would certainly be a move to change leadership.
Again, don't speak on congress unless you actually know something about how it works and parliamentary tactics. Don't cite a rule without any knowledge as to how it's actually employed in reality, under precedent, and the political fallout for abusing that power.
June 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that you should return here to call me names *after* Pelosi betrayed your simple faith in her. Who's really clueless here?
Thanks for the lecture on parliamentary procedure--gosh, I sure wouldn't want Pelosi to get in 'political trouble' by listening to her constituents. You ought to know that there is no public support for this bill, so would these Dems really have jumped on Pelosi for blocking it, knowing the public pressure they would face for coming out for TI?
June 20, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes parlimentary tactics do matter. Whether or not you agree doesn't really matter, because the vast majority or reasonable people, in both parties, understand that.
Go back to your leftwing or rightwing troll basement, whichever it is.
btw, Nice avatar. You're really living up to it.
June 20, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you Koz that there could be a tussle if Pelosi were to do the right thing and forbid this bill from coming to the floor but so what? She is the one with the power to punish or reward members, make committee assisngments and so forth. The cowering that she and other Democrats do before the "conservative" Democrats and the Republicans is absurd and unnecessary. But even if that were not the case and it would have negative repurcussions so what? Sometimes it is necessary to do the right thing. You can't compromise on everything.
The reason so many liberal Democratic ideas and policies get so badly watered down or defeated is because the DC Dems never have enough balls to say "that's it, you can go no further with this". The "conversvatives" of both parties do this constantly and thus the tail wags the dog on seemingly every issue. It's disgusting and, in my opinion, not only bad strategy but bad government too.
Sometimes ya just have to fight. This is worth fighting over, yet once again Pelosi and the other collaborators with evil walk away, their pockets full of money from ATT and the others and our Constitution in tatters and our laws mocked.
June 20, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean "so what?"
If you don't understand why a "tussle" with the leader blocking a bill that has a bipartisan majority of support, would be a problem... that's just clueless.
You're letting your opinion on a particular bill completely cloud your judgment on process and politics.
Sorry to break it to you, but no matter how you and i may feel about this bill, there are rules and precedents, and Pelosi can't just block whatever she wants whenever she wants. If she did, there would be a massive Democratic revolt led by Bluedogs in the house, and it would cripple Dems.
Jesus. Sometimes people are so ill informed, I wonder if they're actually that uninformed or fifth columns. The defacto result is the same.
June 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi, far from being against immunity, says the bill is a great compromise. Help Cindy Sheehan unseat this putz: contribute to her independent run for Polisi's seat.
June 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cindy Sheehan is a goof ball. And I suspect you're a freeper "bushie."
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe I'm misreading you.
Did you mean to call Pelosi a bluedog? Pelosi overall is pretty good. Feinstein I dislike, she triangulates between banking and social wedge issues, but I still wouldn't call her a "bluedog" exactly.
Also, while the main break in this scandal was in SF, I just want to be clear it's an issue of national wiretapping.
June 19, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I *am* calling Pelosi a Bluedog, and I think you're cutting her way too much slack--her 'leadership' is nonexistent on this issue, and she's basically hiding out while Hoyer does the dirty work.
Perhaps, though, I am being inaccurate--maybe she's just another corporate whore.
Sorry, her 'leadership' sucks, and shows why the old-money Dems are going down.
June 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I *am* calling Pelosi a Bluedog"
Then you don't know what you're talking about, and are either a Freeper or just a clueless de facto fifth column.
June 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I can't be a fifth columnist, because i'm not a registered D *or* R.
Funny how you're describing dissension against the legislative shattering of Fourth Amendment as being a fifth column activity. That's rich!
June 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Asked why Democrats don’t put aside the surveillance legislation until a new president is elected in November, Hoyer said he would prefer to do so, but can’t because so many House Democrats are prepared to vote for the Senate bill that he and other top House Democrats oppose".
Kozmik: I ask you to consider the source. It is Hoyer explaining why Hoyer has been forced to seize the middle ground in his moderate, reasonable, and realistic support of Hoyer's "compromise".
It's absolute bullshit.
Obama does possess the power to suppress it.
The issue is a matter of profound right vs. momentous wrong. And the American people will support a principled opposition to this mortal attack upon our Constitution.
June 19, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, he doesn't. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
1) He doesn't have a veto yet.
2) He can't threaten the bluedogs to do what he tells them, now, or ever.
3) It's congress, a coequal branch of our government.
4) He's not running for king.
And? This is democracy and politics, not divination.
June 20, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can talk, can't he?
He can make it clear he's against it, and maybe, possibly, sway some of the undecided or undeclared senators to vote against it.
He could put a hold on it - he's a professor of Constitutional law, he damned well ought to have a clue about how bad this bill is.
Heck, if he'd already spoken on this, he could have had an effect on the House vote.
It isn't because we're not letting him (and others) know where we stand.
June 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also have to say, that while I agree with Holt and am against immunity, he hasn't posted on the internal politics behind this compromise nor details of the bill itself. Despite promising to last post.
So, I'd appreciate if he could do so, rather than continuing to sell us on, and whip up support for, what we already widely support at TPMC.
And frankly, while I support Holt's stance, I don't like that approach to agitating support without informing, not even for good causes. It comes back on us eventually.
June 20, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik:
I have come to respect your passion, your depth of knowledge of hard facts and your understanding of the genesis and context of myriad public policies. I mean that. I don't know whether Speaker Pelosi is as incapable of doing anything to thwart this vote, and I will assume you're correct.
One thing I will not accept is that Senator Obama is at this point unable to put the brakes on this bill when it gets to the Senate. If the Senator wants to, or if he has the will to do it, he can prevent this bill from coming to a vote by endorsing or leading a filibuster.
I will vote for him regardless; I am one of those blue dogs that folks, often for good reason, like to make fun of around here. But it will also say something about our nominee, and how much we ultimately have to depend on ourselves and not our political leaders (with all due respect to Mr. Holt who I know to be a terrific legislator).
I think this is a real test not only for Senator Obama, but for all who have claimed that he really is something fresh, new, and different. With this bill, as much as I'm still smarting from the election, and notwithstanding my absolute commitment to support Senator Obama in November, I would love to be proven wrong by the Senator. Put another more positive way, if Senator Obama takes the lead on defeating this "compromise", he is my guy with gusto. He will finally earn my genuine respect if he at least tries to fight this thing. Then I will know that yes indeed, there is something refreshing and new about him.
June 20, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can anyone explain why the representatives of the people seem to be in such a rush to relinquish this right of the people? By giving judges and juries of ordinary people the right to oversee all aspects of criminal prosecution--from investigation through trial and punishment--the constituion protects our freedom and creates an effective check against abuses of executive power. Why are our representatives in such a hurry to take this protection away from us? George Bush likes to say the terrorists "hate our freedoms." But if our very representatives don't respect our freedoms, why should the terrorists feel any differently? And how is it that our representatives are not complicit with the Bin Ladins of the world in destroying the liberties upon which this great country was once built?
June 20, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The netroots have it right. Work and donate to defeaet Democrats who vote for this bill, and replace them with better democrats.
I couldn't be more on board. I am beyond upset at the leadership, and the democrats who are supporting this UnConstitutional bill.
This is a fuck you in the face of everything I was taught growing up in this country: If the preseident says it's legal, then it is legal. Do what he says.
There was one telecom that got it right. They all knew what they were doing. I'm tired of people not standing up for what is right, even in times of uncertainty and fear. Cowards!
June 20, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh!
and thank you Representative Holt. Be sure to let us know when you are running again. You are the right kind of democrat, and I'd love to support your next campaign.
June 20, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The House passed the "compromise".
The final votes I will ever have cast for democratic candidates were those extended Mike Thompson (D-Ca), and whoever the hell it was that was defeated by Arnold Schwarzenegger in November, 2006. The last money I will ever have donated to a democratic party campaign was given John Edwards.
My family has voted straight democratic for well over 100 years. It ends with me today.
June 20, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
EVERY SINGLE DAY, some Democratic group calls me and tells me that I MUST CONTRIBUTE to stop the Republicans.
Well, I contributed. We got the HOUSE. But, guess what! THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOW HELPING THE REPUBLICANS!
What am I giving money for? Why should I contribute to the Democratic Party if they bend over and PUT THE LUBE IN THEMSELVES FOR THE BUTT-RAPE?
June 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Rep. Holt. I can only hope my comment in your other thread and my email to you last night had an effect. Unfortunately, your vote wasn't enough. Now it's time to tell our Senators to vote no when this bill comes to them.
June 20, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Republicans want to stop a bill they don't just vote against it. They stop the bill. There are rules that can be manipulated to allow that result to be obtained. Too bad no Democrat has the courage to study that technique and apply it.
June 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Err, excuse me... FISA was "right" and working just fine until George Walker Bush, driven by Richard Bruce Cheney, et al, screwed it up in their zeal to listen to any / all conversations between anyone in the U.S. at anytime _ thinking they were gonna git bin Laden here and not there, I surmise?
Tongue in cheek or serious shit? This vote today by the House and that expected by the Senate next week is, in my view and I'm sure in the view of millions of other Americans, just flat out wrong. I believe in sum it is worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and Watergate combined in the assault on ALL Americans today and in the future.
Sunset provision, my aching ass, sir, the only sunset provision we should have is to finally bury all the bodies you in Congress have stepped over while staying in power.
That's why I'm going to try and get into that rat's nest and help clean out the vermin we call our "leaders" now in place there with their 18% approval rating.
BTW: I am a retired Marine and combat Vet with 25 months in the infantry in VN and in my latter years, I was an Interrogator (Korean and Russian languages and area expert) - so, we can discuss that issue in great detail, too, if you'd care to challenge me on that topic!
http://www.danfrancis2008.com
June 20, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the bottom line for me on this issue, then I'll shut up:
President Bush took the illegal ("Waterboarding" and called it by a fancy name: enhanced interrogation technique - which BTW: there is not such a thing) and with two John Yoo SECRET memos, made it "legal."
The last time I looked we had three branches of government with checks and balances and all that stuff - I know, I know, corny talk, isn't it? But, you know one thing? The basics always work and that's why our Constitution has only been changed 17 times after the Bill of Rights was added. That's pretty good stuff. So, SECRET memos and handshakes in the middle of the night in a Wal-Mart parking lot don't hack it.
All the sweet-talking in the world will not convince me and I'm sure many, many others that what we have done with the torture issue and now this FISA overhaul, which is not an overhaul at all - just stay out of jail card has set back our process more than anyone could imagine.
And, now with the help of the DEMS in the House and soon the DEMS in the Senate, there is no way this travesty of justice will ever reach any 5-4 USSC court for the proper ruling it should get.
http://www.danfrancis2008.com
June 20, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inasmuch as there has yet to be passed by both houses an identical bill, must there not be a conference committee to "reconcile" the two versions?
If leadership of both houses is really as committed as they say privately to maintaining telecom liability, they need merely appoint the "right" senators and members to the committee.
I look forward to the conference report, mysteriously missing immunity (stranger things have happened in conference committees...)
June 21, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This bill also has a four year sunset provision, which is entirely too long and which would have the effect of tying the hands of the next Congress and the next President in terms of making changes to the law.
Why would it have that effect? Why should the four-year sunset provision matter to the next Congress and President? Any law passed by Congress can be repealed by new law, right? One Congress can't tie the hands of the next Congress, or even itself.
Repealing this POS and replacing it with a decent law should be close to the first order of business for the 111th Congress and (let us hope) President Obama -- if they actually believe their oaths of office.
It probably won't be, not even close.
But it should be.
June 24, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to usfine for[url=http://www.usfine.com/runescape-c-68.html]runescape gold[/url] sevise.
August 14, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to our website for scan sevise.
August 14, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink