|
Banned
|
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and a 2008 candidate for president, stood up for our constitutional rights and forced turncoats Reid and Rockefeller to back down, at least for now. This is a description of a patriot senator representing the interests of the people:
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ostid-updateI5
UPDATE V: Under the circumstances, this is a significant victory. As a result of Dodd's maneuvering today (with vital assists from Feingold and others), and as a result of his obvious commitment to stay for as long as he needed to in order to engage in a real filibuster, lasting as long as he could possibly endure it physically, Harry Reid just announced that he was pulling the bill from the floor and it will not be considered until the Senate returns next year.
Obviously, that outcome is not as good as dooming the bill permanently. The administration and their Jay-Rockefeller-like allies will use the time to plot how to overcome these obstacles. But opponents of telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping expansions can use that time also. All things considered, it is a genuine, unexpected victory to force this bill to be significantly delayed even though it had the backing of the trans-partisan Beltway political and media establishment and where, thanks to Harry Reid, quick and seamless passage appeared to be certain.
Jane Hamsher says:
Chris Dodd showed tremendous leadership. He stood by his principles and wouldn't back down, even in the face of opposition from members of his own party who were in the tank for the telecos and the Bush Administration.
Well played, Senator Dodd.
And Dodd's superb campaign blogger, Matt Browner-Hamlin, writes:
Without Senator Dodd's leadership today, it is safe to assume that retroactive immunity would have passed. . . .
For now, the FISA debate is over. It will come up again down the road, but for now everyone who supported Senator Dodd's leadership against retroactive immunity and supported his promise to filibuster should be proud of their work to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.
The Huffington Post has further details, including this:
A smile on his reddened face, Dodd was at once gracious and joyful by the turn of events. He had been arguing his case for approximately eight hours. . . .
"Everyone who spoke on the floor said they were grateful for Dodd taking a stand," said a staffer to the Senator who asked not to be named. "They said if it weren't for him they wouldn't be having this much-needed debate."
Dodd was the one Senator currently running for the White House who left the campaign trail to debate the Protect America Act, an absence he hinted at while on the Senate floor. . . .
Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joseph Biden did offer their rhetorical support for the filibuster. Dodd, according to aides, will rejoin the three on the campaign trail tomorrow.
Whatever else is true, Chris Dodd took a principled stand today, sacrificing his presidential campaign and alienating his long-time colleagues to do so, and he won. He demonstrated what "leadership" is in action, rather than "rhetoric." Acts of that kind on our national political stage are rare indeed.
|
Background:
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ter/index.html
....Dodd's staff has indicated that during his filibuster, the Senator will read from numerous comments submitted by blog readers in support of his highly impressive stance. <h3>Here is one such letter submitted by a reader here, who indicates that she is 23 years old, a new voter, and that the posting of her letter is her first blog comment ever:</h3>
I thank Senator Dodd for the opportunity to participate in this debate. For the Senate's edification: I'm twenty-three years old and a new voter who isn't going away any time soon.
The United States of America is founded upon the rule of law. Senators and representatives swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution -- a document for which centuries' of blood and tears have been shed -- "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."
Yet here the Senate stands, poised to grant immunity to telecommunications companies for profiting from the warrantless and lawless spying perpetrated upon the law-abiding citizenry; here the Senate stands, poised to usurp the judiciary, the branch of government responsible for determining whether the laws of the land have been broken and meting out punishment where appropriate; and here the Senate stands, poised to usher in its own irrevelancy -- and, worst of all, in exchange for nothing: no promises that this flagrant lawbreaking will cease, no testimony to be offered in the course of real and rigorous investigation.
"Give me liberty or give me death," said Patrick Henry. "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither," said Benjamin Franklin. Now the telecommunications companies lobby the lot of you, saying, "Give us immunity, or we'll suffer the consequences of our lawbreaking." Now the President comes before you, saying, "Give my partners in crime immunity, or there'll be investigations and findings that taint my legacy."
Never mind the judiciary. Never mind that it's the job of the courts to ascertain whether any laws have been broken. So Congress rushes in to save the day! Immunity for profit-driven corporations, amnesty for lawbreakers!
I submit to this body that the Founders are rolling in their graves.
Voters could be forgiven for not realizing the Democratic Party won control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections, for there's so little evidence of any checks being brought against President Bush, whose polling to date is both abysmal and deserved. Yet now Democrats brandish the majority and usher in much of the same: more war, more lives lost, more of our tax dollars pouring into places I've never even heard of, and here we've got next to nothing to show for it. I hear citizens of other countries get something for paying their taxes; I can't even imagine what that's like.
And what are Americans to think, except that they've been betrayed by both parties? I congratulate Democrats and Republicans for their breathtaking cynicism, for how well they've worked together to engender so much apathy among voters that millions of Americans stay home on election day. What choices we have!
The legislature abdicates oversight, puts blind faith in the executive, and extends immunity to lawbreaking telecommunications companies. Are those companies to be pitied for going along with the President's plan in direct contravention of the law and raking in cash? Are they, along with the President, to be congratulated for their foresight, considering that this warrantless spying upon Americans is reported to have gone on well before 9/11? (And mind you how well all of that illegal surveillance served to protect us on that awful day.) Are these companies to be respected more than voters? Are they to be granted immunity for lawbreaking, in return for nothing? Congress doesn't even appear to be interested in leveraging immunity in return for testimony.
What will I tell my children? It's fine to break the law if the president says so? It's fine to break the law if you can lobby Congress to grant you immunity? It's fine to break the law if you can stuff cash into the coffers of senators and representatives? What country is this? I say again: the Founders are rolling in their graves. For the past fifteen years, I've watched the news and felt disgust for the whole sorry lot of you.
You who purport to lead, yet cower like beaten dogs before the President, as if he were king. You who vote upon legislation you likely don't even read. You who coif your hair into absurd, unmoving helmets and whiten your teeth and don designers suits and appear on TV, daring to tell me you represent my interests. You who pass pointless, meaningless resolutions condemning commercials and congratulating professional sports teams for winning while Americans go hungry, while Americans go without healthcare, while Americans work two jobs to make ends meet, while Americans die in Iraq and Afghanistan. You who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution and flatter yourselves by conflating your re-election with the interests of your country and constituency. You who fret about keeping your powder dry until the are barracks overrun.
You who tell me to live in a constant state of fear, but to keep on shopping; do keep shopping. How proud my children should be to be born American! They'll shop in the face of constant fear with fists full of credit cards. And I'll say to them, "What shall we buy tomorrow, children?" But, of course, I have my own ideas: our very own Senator, our very own Representative, our very own President. I should buy the whole sorry lot of you to be heeded at all.
And so here is the Senate in all its majesty. Where are the Patrick Henrys, the Benjamin Franklins? God save America from her greatest enemy: a pack of pathetic, self-serving cowards.
holly-go-lightly
|
More background:
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3622108.shtml
Reid Sets Stage For Telecom Immunity Fight
Competing Wiretap Bills Coming To A Vote; Dem. Leader Says It'd Be Wrong For Him To Choose Between Them
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15, 2007
....Without quite admitting the program's existence, Mr. Bush said that the bill must "grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."
In other words, AT&T, Verizon and other companies which allowed the government to listen in on phone calls knowing there were no warrants, could not be brought to court and potentially pay damages for violating customers' privacy.
Since the Bush administration's program of eavesdropping and data mining of information from Americans without obtaining warrants (as is required under the Constitution) came to light, and lawsuits have moved forward in courts, more and more details have come out about the program's extent and the telecoms' involvement.
Still, much information remains classified, and some say the only way by which a full accounting for the program may come is when documents and testimony are brought before the court - a prospect the White House has been fighting since the program become known.
Now the issue of telecom immunity to rising to a boil, as the Senate prepares to vote (possibly on Monday) on the FISA bill.
The Senate actually has two versions: one which includes an immunity provision (as written by the Senate Intelligence Committee), and a second without it. It is these two competing drafts which have landed on the desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
On Friday, Reid announced in the Senate that he would be moving the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) version of the bill to the floor.
What followed was a firestorm by Democrats and consumer activists who feared that the immunity provision would succeed in a vote, despite threats of a filibuster by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.
“Providing retroactive immunity to companies that may have violated the law will set a dangerous precedent,” said Dodd. “Companies who violated the trust of thousands of their customers will be immune to prosecution and the details of their actions will stay hidden.
"The President, and his Administration, has consistently used scare tactics in an attempt to force Congress to pass FISA legislation that provides retroactive immunity," Dodd said.
<h3>Dodd had placed a "hold" on the legislation, which ordinarily blocks a bill from coming to vote, but Reid is apparently ignoring the hold.</h3>
Other Democrats (including those Senators running for President) have said they will support Dodd's filibuster.
And earlier this week, 14 Democrats sent a letter to Reid asking that he move the Judiciary Committee's version (without immunity) forward, because its provision had been debated in open sessions.
Reid's office was reportedly inundated with phone calls and messages from citizens who did not want Congress to allow immunity to telecoms, before their actions have even been detailed in a court of law.
The heat seemed to have stirred Reid, who later in the day indicated that he would actually bring both versions of the FISA bill up for a vote.
Reid said that he personally opposed the concept of retroactive immunity in the Intelligence Committee bill, and favored many additional protections that were included in the Judiciary Committee's bill.
Nonetheless, Reid said that because there was overwhelming support on the Intelligence Committee for its approach, and after discussion with Committee chairmen Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., he decided that he would move forward with both bills.
“I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simply choose one committee’s bill over the other," Reid said in a statement.
Since the Intelligence Committee's bill was voted out first, that will be the base text; the Judiciary Committee's bill would be pending as a substitute amendment.
Reid appeared to address the concerns of critics of immunity by stating his own opposition to blocking court cases in warrantless wiretaps, saying, "In one way or another, we must ensure that President Bush is held accountable for his actions."
But both bills coming up appears to presage a showdown: a promised Democratic filibuster to keep the telcom immunity provision out, versus an apparent Republican filibuster to keep it in.
Would a sixty-vote Senate be able to pass either bill?
On Friday, Reid did make one statement that seemed prescient: "I'll guarantee you right now, one thing that's going to occur: not everyone will be happy."
Perhaps no one will be.
|
<h3>dc_dux, is this diary a correct description of Reid's administration of seantor's "holds"on bills?</h3>:
Quote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1.../82/858/422224
.....The Senate sponsor of the "Emmett Till Act" is Chris Dodd. Unlike Sen. Coburn, he has placed holds only in those instances where he has considered it absolutely necessary. And unlike Sen. Coburn, his holds are ignored by the Democratic leadership.
Here's Harry Reid's spokesman crying crocodile tears about the Coburn hold:
<i>"It's absolutely outrageous that one senator and one senator only appears to be blocking us from passing this piece of legislation," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.</i>
Yes, but there's nothing you can do about it, right? I mean, if one Senator wants to block consideration of a bill, I guess he can just do it...
Unless that bill <a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200712141041DOWJONESDJONLINE000798_FORTUNE5.htm">gives amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms.</a>
Harry Reid has no problem respecting the one hundred holds from Tom Coburn on all sorts of legislation, but will ignore Chris Dodd's. That's the bottom line, and given that, you have to conclude that <a href="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_09_archive.html#1495550941345402675">Harry Reid is the one doing the holding.</a>
Chris Dodd is heroically calling for a filibuster, but the real issue here is the issue of ignoring the rules of the Senate. Harry Reid is picking and choosing which Senators he will listen to. The fact that Chris Dodd came within one vote of defeating him for Minority Leader back in 2004 wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it?
Harry Reid has set up two rules for the United States Senate; one under the normal standards of conduct that have held for 200-plus years, and one for bills that he really really has to pass or the President will get mad at him. Earlier this year, Reid <a href="http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/10/harry-reid-igno.html">ignored a hold</a> placed by Sen. Ron Wyden and confirmed an assistant Secretary of the Interior that Wyden had issues with. Sen. Wyden <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900913.html">dropped an important amendment</a> into the flawed Intelligence Committee bill on FISA that the President opposes, which would force the government to get a warrant to spy on Americans overseas. I guess we'll see if Reid strips that amendment out of the bill, and if he holds the same respect for amendments that he does for holds.
The point is that Harry Reid has made Tom Coburn the most important member of the United States Senate. He's made Chris Dodd, a member of his own party, irrelevant. And he's made himself into a joke. We cannot go into 2008 with this laughingstock of a leader in the Senate.
|
|