CSPAN2--Jay Rockefeller Stabbing Us In The Back On Immunity

[TwilightGardener]

Always a morale-booster, this guy.

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Nobody's being stabbed. This is a political deal n/t

[TwilightGardener]

3. Well, if it's a deal FOR BushCo and telecoms against the American people, I'd say

it's a stab.

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. The telcos acted in good faith. We'll see about political remedies later

But that will not be a legal issue. It's sad, but Rockefeller isn't holding anything back.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Qwest knew the wiretapping program was illegal, and wouldn't cooperate--so, no.

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. No, one company's refusal does not change the legality of the others n/t

[TwilightGardener]

17. Qwest was approached about the wiretapping in February 2001--

months before Sept. 11--according to court documents. The wiretapping wasn't even ABOUT Sept 11--that's why it's ridiculous to pretend the corporations were acting "in good faith" during a time of national peril. BushCo, Rockefeller, and the telecoms KNOW this, and don't want further info revealed in court that would generate damning evidence against the administration.

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. A reasonable man standard will apply and I'm afraid the verdict is

in. Protest all you want, but the rules remain and the Senate Democrats have done their public service. The telcos got written assurance ... and I'm afraid it will hold up in court.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I think it's written in stone, I don't doubt that. But I WILL protest, because

we have a pretty good case of the government colluding with corporations to violate our Constitutional rights during a time of peace (pre-9/11), and they are DESPERATE to stop civil suits from bringing forth damning evidence and testimony that will cast the purposes of the administration, and possibly Congress, into doubt in terms of 9/11, the Patriot Act, and surveillance. Don't forget that the telecoms were offered finacial incentive to cooperate, and the one company that DIDN'T was brought to court separately for insider trading--a punishment?

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. You've got Democratic Party oversight and still complain? Fuggetaboutit

You want vengeance, not justice. I haven't forgotten the facts, which are less clear than you compile.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Huh? Jay is not working for the Democratic party here--his oversight

is NIL!! He is a Bush water carrier. And you're fucking right--I want vengeance AND justice!

[Fredda Weinberg]

34. Well, whatever he is, he's doing it in the well of the Senate, so I can

respect his actions whatever his motives. And knowing what I do, I can't complain ... I don't need vengeance against anybody and justice will be served when the proper party is named in the lawsuit. The telcos should be able to act on a letter from an attorney general of the US.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Sorry, I don't respect "good Germans"--especially when they make a profit on their actions.

They have legal departments, they knew the laws on the books at the time--they must be held accountable in their own right, or we set a very dangerous precedent in this country going forward.

[Fredda Weinberg]

36. There you go again ... y'know, if I don't slur Germans, why should you? n/t

[karynnj]

43. If they got written assurance that will hold up - they wouldn't need immunity

Here is what Kerry said in December on this when he was one of the 10 Seantors led by Dodd who voted against cloture.

"Most importantly, unlike the Intelligence bill, the Judiciary bill does not provide retroactive amnesty to telecommunications providers that were complicit in the Administration’s warrantless spying program. I fear this Administration is deliberately stonewalling to avoid an adverse court decision finding its surveillance program to be unconstitutional. It is seeking political security in the name of national security.

The heart of the matter is that allowing Americans their day in court — introducing some kind of accountability, affording some kind of objective authority (in lieu of the Bush Administration) to adjudicate competing claims — will shed much-needed light on the Administration’s secret surveillance program.

If the lawsuits are shielded by Congress, the courts may never rule on whether the Administration’s surveillance activities were lawful. We must hold the Administration to account. And an impartial court of law insulated from political pressure is the most appropriate setting in which to receive a fair hearing.

If the telecoms were following the law, they should get immunity, as Congress explicitly provided under the original FISA law. But our courts should decide, not Congress — and that is a matter of principle protected in the Judiciary bill, which is the bipartisan bill that should be under consideration. "
http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/12/18/fisa-congress-and-the-constitution

[Sam Ervin jret]

47. an excellent point.

[L. Coyote]

40. Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?

Here is the compilation thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2051298

[malaise]

48. It was illegal

If the President asks someone to murder someone, it's still murder. THey knew Bush was breaking the law.

[Hydra]

5. If it's a polical deal

What are we getting out of it?

[Fredda Weinberg]

15. The courts would have dismissed on technical grounds ... the gov't

will be replaced as the respondent and suits will be able to proceed. This is for the history books ... the classified record has been made by Democratic oversight.

[Hydra]

23. I read some of your other rubuttals

But what Rockefeller is doing is not rational, reasonable or legal.

The telecoms KNEW this was illegal. Either we have rule of law, or we don't. John Yoo saying that the constitution authorizes torture of children does not make it so.

Let the courts go on record supporting Bushco. Our reps don't need to do their work for them.

[Solly Mack]

2. I feel like a porcupine already

:(

[TwilightGardener]

4. JayJay--poor telecoms are being victimized by DEMOCRATS, who are SUSPICIOUS

of corporations, and the poor corporations are losing money and prestige. Oh my God, what a pantload.

[TwilightGardener]

6. JayJay--the lawsuits filed against telecoms seek BILLIONS in damages

for privacy violations, but are only based on media reports (read: flimsy)--and not limited to warrantless wiretapping. Unrelated, and an unfair burden on companies. Jay is saying that civil suits are really just a sneaky way to get classified info about the administration's intel-gathering--a way to dig up Bush wrongdoings while punishing telecoms. Jay sez the litigation won't reveal much about the legality of the wiretapping program, it's just fishing, and keeps the telecoms tied up for years.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Jay sez: Corporations won't cooperate in the future, or will have to cooperate at their own peril--

MUST PROTECT CORPORATIONS!!! Discouraging private sector cooperation with the gov is hurting our country.

[L. Coyote]

8. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV) Top Contributor = AT&T Inc $37,600

JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV) Top Contributor =

#1 AT&T Inc $37,600
#4 Verizon. $30,500

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001685&cycle=2008

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. Oh cut it out ... the telcos acted in good faith. Leave my carrier alone

Yes, my calls were probably monitored. Nothing new in America.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Are you being serious here? I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

[Fredda Weinberg]

16. Serious enough to listen to the Senator. Did you?

And I watched the hearings ... did you?

That's how serious I am about these issues. Are you?

[TwilightGardener]

18. Jay is on the take--he's corrupt.

[Fredda Weinberg]

21. See anyone standing in opposition? You mean the entire committee

is on the take too?

[TwilightGardener]

26. Yes, possibly. There were only two who opposed the immunity deal. They are protecting somebody

for a reason, and it ultimately boils down to protecting their interests as Senators, NOT protecting their constituents. I happen to have a Senator on that panel, as well.

[Fredda Weinberg]

42. Well, Senator Whitehouse is presenting a compromise ... a simple

procedure determining good faith in the FISA court. Still think everyone's on the take?

[mrbluto]

44. Wow - I see the tactics now!

Say something in support of X that 99% of rational progressive people would oppose

or

Say something in opposition of X that 99% of rational progressive people would support.

or

Open a time-wasting can of worms for everyone.

Phrase this as if it's "the adult thing to do", or "childish of people who don't".

When challenged or asked if serious then -

Say I "watched the entire tedious proceedings" or "read entire document" to engender doubt in 99% of rational adults who have a day job, busy lives, and rarely enough time to ready anything but summaries and synopsis.

Don't offer any further information, just rely on that reference to authority.

Don't name names, don't give particulars.

Remember: this is to provide a structure upon which a reef of plausible debatability will grow.

Continue posting and muddying the waters.

If called on any of this, or caught in a contradiction don't respond.

If the going gets too rough then abandon your sock puppet and slink off to warm up another.


Any this sound familiar to the sincere DUer's around here?

It dawned on me that I've seen this pattern an increasing number of times around here.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. mrbluto

:applause:

[Occulus]

19. If they didn't break the law, why are they begging for immunity from it?

Could you explain this flaw in your logic, please? Your argument currently makes no sense at all.

"Good faith." *snort* sure, Fredda. Because "good faith" trumps law, right?

[Fredda Weinberg]

22. There's no flaw. The telcos can't produce what they've been given

under security clearances in open court. That's what's been holding up the suits that were already filed.

[natrat]

41. holly shit-this is domestic spying and you somehow brush it off-wtf is your problem

[mrbluto]

45. natrat - Check out post #44

And see if you agree with it.

[Oilwellian]

28. ROFL

Yes, I can see AT&T's army of lawyers telling Bushco BEFORE 911, "well, we know spying on Americans without a court order is illegal and has been for the past 30 years, but we'll give you all of the information without a warrant, "in good faith" because damn, those lucrative govt contracts are just too good to pass up."

May I suggest you change carriers.

[bdamomma]

37. he's a millionaire too.

West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller, also a Democrat, reported to have earned 80 million dollars.

from this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0630-05.htm

[ladjf]

14. Our backs are so full of stab wounds that there is no space for

additional ones.

[fasttense]

25. Those poor telecoms corporations.

With their thousands of lawyers and billion of dollars in profits they couldn't figure out if what they were doing was illegal.

They were just trying to help the government to trash the Constitution by spying on everyone. They have documents and government contracts to prove they were only doing what the government asked but presenting these facts to a judge will unduly harm these great and wonderful monopolies.

We can't let them suffer the indignity of putting their overpriced lawyers to work. Oh, the humanity, the injustice of a possible lawsuit from a middle class victim. While the underpaid plaintiff lawyer would only cost thousands, a corporation will have to pay millions to protect themselves from evidence they claim to have.

Help save the victimized telecoms. Then on to saving the whales.

:sarcasm:

[jeanruss]

30. habeas corpus

Jay has a problem with Habeas corpus as well. He voted AGAINST reinstating it. What a great DEM!

[TwilightGardener]

31. Jay also knows more than he let on about the destruction of the CIA torture tapes.

Jay is pretty close to being a Republican mole, IMO.

[TwilightGardener]

32. They are going to vote on the "sunset" amendment by Cardin, I believe.

eidt--makes the FISA extension up for reconsideration in 4 years, instead of 6.

[VP505]

33. I have that

sinking feeling that "we the people" are going to get completely hosed on this stuff.

[L. Coyote]

38. I've literally been stabbed nine times, you know, with a knife, and I don't

know if this qualifies just yet, at least not as a stabbing,
and certainly nothing "in the back" about it. This is in our faces!

At the end of the day, will the telecoms get nothing
and Dems get all the contributions that went to Rs before.
That's the number my bet is on! :rofl:

[L. Coyote]

39. Senate Votes on First Surveillance Bill Amendment

Senate Votes on First Surveillance Bill Amendment
By Paul Kiel - February 6, 2008, 3:28PM - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/senate_votes_on_first_surveill.php


And they've finally started voting! First up is an amendment sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) that would decrease the bill's sunset from six years to four. Sixty votes are need for the measure to pass. It's unclear when exactly the other measures, including the Dodd/Feingold anti-retroactive immunity provision, will get votes.

We'll let you know what the results are as things develop. .....

[Sam Ervin jret]

49. I thought the republicans LOVED LAW and ORDER? Why are they afraid of giving their friends at

At&T a day in court?:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: