Congress Compromises The Constitution

I wasn't surprised that every single Republican in the House voted to spit on the Constitution and give the telcos (and George Bush) a get out of jail free card. Spying on American citizens without cause and with no regard for the fourth amendment isn't shocking considering Bush's record thus far. What was sad, dismaying and atrocious was that more half of the Democratic caucus went along with it and have the audacity to claim it is a good bill.

From FireDogLake:

...and the drip, drip, dripping away of our civil liberties continues. The vote was 293 Yays, 129 Nays. As Glenn says:

Today, the House leadership has set aside a grand total of one hour to debate the FISA/amnesty bill, and gave its members less than 24 hours from the time it was released yesterday until they have to vote on it today. That's the same bill which the NYT this morning calls "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years." They're going to enact massive changes to our spying laws without having the slightest idea what they're voting on. All they know is that the President demanded this, and that's enough, because -- as Kit Bond says -- "when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do." In this formulation, "the government" means "The President."

You can register your disgust here...we're well over $250,000 and climbing....

UPDATE: The vote tally on this is not yet up on the House website. But I've confirmed the numbers that the total votes was as follows: 293 yes -129 no. Also that the majority of the House Dems voted no - 105 voted yes, 128 voted no. As soon as there is a full vote tally, will get a direct link up and running for everyone.

UPDATE #2: Vote tally just went up for the roll call vote on HR 6304. You can find the full list of yays and nays here.

Well at least my Congresswoman didn't vote for it, if that is any consolation for the constituents of NY-14. Still, everyone here on the East Side of New York, clear across to the west side of San Diego will suffer from this legislation. Congress collectively told us that our Bill of Rights doesn't matter and that they really don't care what we think about retroactive immunity for lawbreakers.

Congressman Wexler Stands Up To FISA Capitulation

As I said earlier, the deal hatched in Congress by the Democratic leadership was ominous but not set in stone until it gets voted on tomorrow. Therefore there is some, albeit slim, maneuvering room to try and thwart this despicable legislation before it is allowed into George Bush's dirty hands. While conservative Democrats and those in the leadership may try to bend over for George Bush, there are plenty that aren't. One of those is Congressman Robert Wexler.

From Congressman Wexler:

I cannot in good conscience support the so-called FISA “compromise” bill, as the only thing that is really being compromised is our civil rights.

In spite of the earnest hard work of many Members of Congress, the President has continued to demand that Congress rubber-stamp his illegal wiretapping program.

Every American wants to protect our country from terrorists; but, the President is not asking for tools to thwart terrorists. He is demanding unchecked power. He expects the Congress to throw out even the most modest, expedited court review on the absurd premise that a specially designed court with over 30 years of experience handling surveillance requests is suddenly going to bring our nation’s intelligence operations to a standstill.

The rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability needed. A court that is given full and appropriate review of the particular circumstances in each case is the only appropriate venue for making decisions about immunity for actions that may or may not have violated the civil liberties of some individuals.

In addition, while I am sympathetic to the difficult position telephone and Internet service providers, who may have thought they were doing their patriotic duty, the fact remains that I simply cannot support offering retroactive immunity. I have had the opportunity to view some of the documents in question, and I can say that my position on this subject is unchanged.

I will continue to support the March 14th House bill that preserves the appropriate court review of all surveillance of US citizens and gives judges the discretion to review all the necessary documents related to telecom lawsuits without offering blanket immunity.

- Congressman Robert Wexler

I don't know about having sympathies for the telephone and ISPs, but he is right on the issue. There is no compromise in that legislation, only capitulation. It'll be a sad day if this passes, because it is blatantly wrong and immoral. Imagine if you broke the law and everyone knew you did so, you'd go to jail depending on the severity of the crime, right? Not so in this case, helping the right people (the Bush Administration) can get you off scot-free. This is unacceptable in our democracy, and I'm glad there are people like Congressman Robert Wexler that will fight to stop this. Since he blogged this on DailyKos, I sure hope he knows about how to stall using this other excellent DailyKos-frontpaged article.

Pelosi And Hoyer Bend Over For Bush And Telco Amnesty

Much to the chagrin of many Democratic House members and all Americans that respect the Constitution, the Democratic leadership and many conservatives on both sides of the aisle are putting the finishing touches on a bill that will give the telcos the immunity they want. George Bush is a happy man today, because despite his abysmal ratings as a President, the cowardly Democrats still bent over for his willful disregard of the laws in our country. Along with his accomplices (AT&T, Verizon, etc) he broke the law and spied on Americans, not caring about their fourth amendment rights. Instead of holding him and the companies accountable, Congress is just going to rewrite the law so it'll be legal, retroactively.

From TPM:

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- After more than a year of partisan acrimony over government surveillance powers, Democratic and Republican leaders have agreed to a bipartisan deal that would be the most sweeping rewrite of spy powers in three decades. The House is likely to vote on the measure Friday, House aides said.

Removing the final barrier to action on the measure, which has been hashed out in recent weeks by senior lawmakers in both parties, House Democratic leaders decided to allow a vote on the bill, despite the opposition of many in their party.

The new agreement broadens the authority to spy on people in the U.S. and provides conditional legal immunity to companies that helped the government eavesdrop after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to congressional aides in both parties.

Late Update: The deal-maker was offering immunity to the telecom companies who have already participated in the program.

Critical to sealing the deal was a compromise that would grant conditional immunity to telecommunications companies for assistance they provided from September 2001 through January 2007. If the companies can show a federal district court judge "substantial evidence" they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.

We haven't heard what "conditional" means.

Conditional means that as they long as they show the judge a note that George Bush said it was ok to spy on Americans for him, then they are in the clear. Basically this a free pass, a get out jail free card and a smack in the face to law-abiding citizens everywhere. These companies have hordes of lawyers that knew the wiretapping orders were against the law, but they decided to break the law anyway because the President said it was ok and that he'd have their back if anything went down. Not only does he have them covered, he has the cowardly, spineless Democratic leadership to help him with it.

Now the vote on the bill is actually tomorrow, so there is technically is still time before this becomes law. However, the chances of changing the minds of enough Democrats in time is a slim possibility. Regardless, make sure to call your Congress member and tell them not to vote for this shameful legislation.

GOP Whiners In The House

Ah, nothing like the stench of hypocrites in D.C. They are all over I'm sure, but definitely reside mostly within the Republican party. The Republican majority in the past ran roughshod over the Democrats for twelve years and now they are complaining that Democratic freshmen want to clean up the place and remove the status quo. Old school Democrats are also complaining about the new rule as well.

From The Hill:

Republicans began their assault in the mid-afternoon after hearing that the Democratic leadership allegedly planned to change the germaneness rule, which would limit the ability of the minority to challenge provisions in a bill on the floor.

“This is an astonishing attempt by the majority leadership to duck accountability for tax-and-spend policies the American people do not want,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “The majority leadership is gutting House rules that have been in place for 185 years so they can raise taxes and increase government spending without a vote. House Republicans will use every tool available to fight this abuse of power.”

Stacey Bernard, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), said the Republican antics were counterproductive and that they had not even seen the content of the bill they were protesting.

“They are delaying a bill that is critical,” she said, referring to the defense authorization bill that was scheduled to come to the floor. “They don’t know what they are doing.”

Republicans not knowing what they are doing? I would never have thought such a thing. The GOP leadership is threatening to bring down the House because they fear that if lobbying as it is done now gets curtailed, they will lose all willingness to be there in the first place. They hate government unless it pays them well. If corruption is attacked by new, tough rules, what is the point of being a Republican in Congress?