FISA Fight: House Judiciary members reject amnesty

[babsbunny]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/172556/800/682/475284

The following Members joined Chairman Conyers in signing on to the statement: Representatives Howard L. Berman (D-CA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), Melvin L. Watt (D-NC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY), Artur Davis (D-AL), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), and Keith Ellison (D-MN).

Statement of Undersigned Members of the House Judiciary Concerning the Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Issue of Retroactive Immunity

As a result of our review of classified as well as unclassified materials concerning the Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, we have concluded that blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies is not justified. However, we do recommend a course of action that would both permit the carriers the opportunity to defend themselves in court and also protect classified information – by eliminating current legal barriers and authorizing relevant carriers to present fully in court their claims that they are immune from civil liability under current law, with appropriate protections to carefully safeguard classified information. In addition, we recommend legislation to fill a current gap in liability protection for carriers, and to create a bipartisan commission to thoroughly investigate the legality of the warrantless surveillance program....

[spanone]

1. g o o d

[yellerpup]

2. This is great news.

Don't let B*** escape the prosecution he so richly deserves.

[tkmorris]

3. I dunno

This section troubles me: "by eliminating current legal barriers and authorizing relevant carriers to present fully in court their claims that they are immune from civil liability under current law, with appropriate protections to carefully safeguard classified information. In addition, we recommend legislation to fill a current gap in liability protection for carriers, and to create a bipartisan commission to thoroughly investigate the legality of the warrantless surveillance program...."


This sounds an awful lot like they are trying to offer de facto protection for the telecoms without calling it immunity. I have grown accustomed to our Democratic leadership engaging in tactics like these, where their rhetoric is designed to appease their base, while their actions are a sellout to big business. We'll see I suppose.

[wryter2000]

5. I don't blame you for being skeptical

However, the difference is they're required to go to a regular court to make their case. The court will decide what's national security and what's not. Plus, the commission being bi-partisan will keep it from being a cover-up.

Actually, I suspect the R's will filibuster it in the Senate. Or, if they don't and it passes, * will veto it.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Recommended

hopeful

[malaise]

6. Go Dems! n/t