democratic controlled congress blinks again.

<link>

Pelosi and Reid are useless. It's truly pathetic.Spineless Beltway Lying boobs.

It's a PDF at the Electronic Frontier Foundation website; all 114 pages of it.

Call your Congress person asap and tell them Vote No on H.R.6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

not that it will do any good. he's a fucking fascist.

but i also contacted my two senators...won't some form of this bill have to pass the senate, too?

Yes.

fascist piece of legislation.

Clinton will vote for it, as will McCain. But Obama and other true patriots will say 'nay.'

.

Here are postings from the TPM site with number to call with concern and protest:

"repost

I just called the Obama campaign and asked Obama to come out publicly against immunity. The person who I talked to said he’d had several calls on this and would pass it along. Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.

866-675-2008 option 6

Posted by Bushie
June 19, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink

I just called to and the guy I talked to said that he himself had probably received 30 calls on the matter and that the phones had been ringing all day about it.

CALL NOW!

And for shits and giggles here's the other contacts:

Pelosi:
District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-4862
Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965

Steny:
1705 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone - (202) 225-4131
Fax - (202) 225-4300"

Some noise by us can make a difference! Let them know this is not happening under the table a la Bush.
A

She probably would have had much more success had she spent more time under the table rather than off it.

Jack

experiment. Ranks with the recent Republican attacks on habeas corpus.

I'm not sure that Clinton will vote for it. It's worth contacting her if you live in New York and oppose the bill.

I wrote Clinton about this issue a while back, and got this reply:

----

Thank you for writing about the National Security Agency (NSA) domestic wiretapping controversy. This is an issue of grave importance not only to residents of New York, but to all Americans.

As I have long maintained, protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important responsibility I bear as a U.S. Senator. I firmly believe that the government must have the ability to use every legal tool necessary to root out terrorists so that the United States can prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. But that commitment to our national security does not mean that we must sacrifice the rule of law and our Constitution. We can be both safe and free.

Last year, the Administration asked Congress to expand President Bush's powers to conduct domestic surveillance. The proposal rewrote the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to limit judicial oversight of the Administration's apparent practice of listening to Americans' calls overseas and gave the Administration far greater power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance operations. In my view, the proposal went too far. I voted instead for a Democratic alternative to give the intelligence community all of the tools it needs, while preserving important congressional and judicial oversight of the executive branch's activities. Although Congress ultimately passed the Bush Administration's proposal, it did so while imposing a six-month sunset to allow Congress to revisit the bill.

Now, the Bush Administration has vowed to block any surveillance legislation that does not provide retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies. I believe that granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances is wrong and undermines accountability. To that end, I supported and co-sponsored efforts to strip this provision from the FISA legislation. I was discouraged to see that amendment fail the last time it was considered in the Senate. In the weeks to come, I will continue to work with my colleagues to pass an improved bill, one that takes the needed steps to defend our homeland while also defending and respecting our Constitution, our laws, and our privacy.

House was the Constitution's and Rule of Law's last defense (well, unless this were somehow to make it to SCOTUS, and it was not yet further stacked with Scalitos by Bush or McSame appointments by then), having passed a version without Telecom immunity instead of the Senate's previous total cave.

Bush's boilerplate falsehood that "protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important responsibility I bear as a U.S. Senator."

No, Senator, supporting and defending the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" is your most important responsibility! It's right there in your (and the President's!) oath of office (where you'll find nothing whatsoever about "protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland"), right there in the Constitution itsownself. You can look it up (as apparently you need to, since it seems you've forgotten).

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

august:

I'm not sure that Clinton will vote for it. It's worth contacting her if you live in New York and oppose the bill.

I wrote Clinton about this issue a while back, and got this reply:

----

Thank you for writing about the National Security Agency (NSA) domestic wiretapping controversy. This is an issue of grave importance not only to residents of New York, but to all Americans.

As I have long maintained, protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important responsibility I bear as a U.S. Senator. I firmly believe that the government must have the ability to use every legal tool necessary to root out terrorists so that the United States can prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. But that commitment to our national security does not mean that we must sacrifice the rule of law and our Constitution. We can be both safe and free.

Last year, the Administration asked Congress to expand President Bush's powers to conduct domestic surveillance. The proposal rewrote the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to limit judicial oversight of the Administration's apparent practice of listening to Americans' calls overseas and gave the Administration far greater power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance operations. In my view, the proposal went too far. I voted instead for a Democratic alternative to give the intelligence community all of the tools it needs, while preserving important congressional and judicial oversight of the executive branch's activities. Although Congress ultimately passed the Bush Administration's proposal, it did so while imposing a six-month sunset to allow Congress to revisit the bill.

Now, the Bush Administration has vowed to block any surveillance legislation that does not provide retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies. I believe that granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances is wrong and undermines accountability. To that end, I supported and co-sponsored efforts to strip this provision from the FISA legislation. I was discouraged to see that amendment fail the last time it was considered in the Senate. In the weeks to come, I will continue to work with my colleagues to pass an improved bill, one that takes the needed steps to defend our homeland while also defending and respecting our Constitution, our laws, and our privacy.

I am not sure she will either,august. And I think that it is a wonderful letter you wrote to her. Well done. Wish we had more of your type around here. A wonderful mature message and positioning of your view. So refreshing to read something like this here.