walter11:01AMMar 3rd 2008

No way do not give in to Bush.

craig11:30AMMar 3rd 2008

AT&T does not deserve immunity for spying on the American Public are we really going to say to big business -- it is OK to invade every part of our privacy ? Where is the ACLU ! What is happening to this country ?

Ryan2:50PMMar 3rd 2008

Anyone who votes in favor of a bill giving retro-active immunity to the telcoms won't keep their job next election.

Pete3:16PMMar 3rd 2008

While everyone is entitled to their opinion Walter and Craig have opinions based on what? Far left talking points propaganda?

Senator Jay Rockerfeller, a liberal Democrat from West Virginia, is shairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committe. Senator Rockerfeller has a secret clearence and unlike Walter and Craig Senator Rockerfeller recieves classified intelligence security briefings.

Senator Barbara Mikulski, another liberal Democrat from Maryland, is also on the Senate Intelligence Committe. As a member of Senate Intelligence Committe Senator Mulski also recieves the same classified information and briefings as Senator Rockerfeller.

One would be hard pressed to find two more liberal Democrats in a position to have the BEST information available on the importance and effectiveness of the FISA program.
One would also be hard pressed to find two more liberal Democrats NOT willing to overlook any "trampling of the Constitution" just to satisfy "Bush and Company."

Immunity for the telecoms will allow the program to continue to remain effective. I trust Senators Rockerfeller and Mulski have looked at "big business invading every part of our privacy."

Democrats would be more than happy to pass the FISA WITHOUT immunity for the telecoms. In this way Democrats can BS Walter and Craig that they are protecting America while they sic the ACLU on the telecoms and bring the program to a halt.

Democrats will give the impression of protecting America to millions of gullible liberals while they destroy the program from the back door through endless litigation against the telecoms. (Case in point Craig: the ACLU has many legal actions pending against the telecoms as we speak)

Bottom Line:

Since Walter and Craig do not have secret security clearences or recieve intelligence security breifings their opinions are based on BS.
I believe Senators Rockerfeller and Mikulski, who both voted to renew the FISA program AND give immunity to the telecoms, are in the BEST position to make an informed decision and I trust their judgement.

Democrats will pass FISA with immunity for the telecoms because it is that important.

Republicans will may hay with the difference between the facts and the propaganda Democrats and the liberal media have been selling to their misinformed constituents.

jeff3:26PMMar 3rd 2008

They already have indemnity, no reason to give them immunity.

Bob4:13PMMar 3rd 2008

Shame on you for such a biased article. -- You are implying that all opposition to this bill is inherently partisan, while making no mention about civil liberties and the fact that MANY people view giving immunity to corporations told to do illegal activities by the government (which Verizon chose not to.)

Giving immunity to those companies, and, most of all, the Bush administration, for those illegal activities is unconstitutional, and far more partisan than the Democrats who are attempting to stand up to it.

Shame on you for giving the GOP and the Bush Administration the soapbox, without even mentioning Civil Liberties.

CIVIL LIBERTIES! That is what the whole issue hinges on, and not partisanship.

Try to remember that we are in America still.

Jay Goff4:13PMMar 3rd 2008

Pete: if there was no wrongdoing, why should the telcos receive immunity -- why, in fact, should they need it? To 'protect' America by breaking American laws? Forgive me if I cannot follow your logic...

The Bush administration appears to have begun spying on Americans prior to 9/11, in violation of the incredibly lax FISA regulations requiring nothing more than a retroactive warrant from a star-chamber judge.

It's bad enough that corporations receive the rights of a citizen in the United States without facing the repercussions a citizen might. Retroactive immunity for any such wrongdoing is simply unacceptable. If the telcos broke the law, then let them explain why they should be pardoned, and let them be judged accordingly. No man is above the law, nor is it just to change a perfectly sound law at the whim of a lame-duck President who has plumbed lows not seen since the Nixon administration.

Nixon, in whose administration Cheney first served, was the original motivation for FISA; the secrecy, paranoia, and obstructionism of the Bush White House recalls nothing so much as the darkest days of Nixon's second term. Caving in to such demands would be a new low for the spineless Democratic leadership.

Bob4:26PMMar 3rd 2008

PETE: The fact that you include the phrase "far left talking point propaganda" and the term "liberal Democrat" FIVE times, don't you think you are far more biased than anybody else?

Give me a break. -- You are towing your party line.

The people opposed to this have no party line. -- They are not Democrats. They are civil libertarians.

Sure, the people in Congress who are voting against this are Democrats, but that's a testament to our flawed two party system.

It's not about "us against them," it's about keeping America the way it has always been.

It is about upholding our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and not allowing ANYONE (ANYONE AT ALL) to tear it up, simply because they are afraid of terrorists on their watch.

September 11th killed 3,000 people. -- 42,000 people are killed by car accidents every year. That's 115 people every day, or one September 11th every month.

Either the Bush Administration is more paranoid than they need to be, or they are using the fear of terrorism as a justification to pursue their own agendas.

I have no bias, so I will leave it up to anyone to decide which it is. -- But the important part is protecting the Constitution... And THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

If we allow our civil liberties to be taken away, then the terrorists win. -- I don't understand why that isn't clear to people.

Since September 11th, we've started torturing people, spying on people, holding people (including innocent ones) for years in captivity, without providing them a trial, or even any justification for being held.

We have gone into two wars, killed hundreds of thousands of people, all to protect our 'power.' -- But the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted us to have that power...

Not when it compromised our integrity. Not when it takes away the things that make America great.

If we allow immunity for illegally spying on Americans, then I think the terrorists have gotten what they wanted. -- They have changed America from a free government, to one that oppresses its own people.

All for pennies on the dollar, too. -- They didn't even spend a million dollars on training the people who carried out September 11th.

How do we let our entire system of government be destroyed by that?

Mark Impomeni5:24PMMar 3rd 2008

Bob,

I made no such assertions. I am sorry you read the article that way.

I hasten to point out that it is the Democrats trying to find a way to get the legislation passed. I presume that they are doing this becuase they know that not passing it will hurt them politically.

Sincerely,

Mark Impomeni

Bob6:15PMMar 3rd 2008

Thanks for the reply, Mark. -- I accept that.

I may have misinterpreted some of the context, but I was taken aback a bit, to see a quote from the Bush Administration (White House Spokesman Gordon Johndroe), and nobody else to explain the counter-views expressed by those opposing the bill.

I see that you didn't have bad intentions, but I'd like to ensure, in the future, that both sides of the topic (and other topics) get covered thoroughly.

If you can't get all the information available from a report, what's the point of reporting it? -- Because, I don't think this was an editorial... I could be wrong.

I know there's not always room to explain everything, but even half a sentence about civil liberties, I feel, would have been appropriate.

But, again, thanks for the response, and good to know that it wasn't intended to be a biased article.

- Bob

Bob6:27PMMar 3rd 2008

I still feel these are biased terms, though:

Democrat leaders in the House had been 'holding up' the bill over the immunity issue, 'refusing' to allow the Senate legislation to come up for a vote 'despite majority support for it in the chamber.'

--

So, that makes it look like they're intentionally antagonizing the many supporters of the bill. -- But, popularity is not the same thing as fairness. -- The reason they are holding this bill up is because they believe it is unconstitutional.

Reporting that democratic leaders are about to give in, seems like a way to talk about the victory of the Bush Administration. -- It still seems stilted on that side, sort of like, "Hey, now the Bush Administration is winning, and those silly Democrats are finally giving in."

Intent or not. -- I feel you have good intentions, but, either unintentionally, or due to subconscious political beliefs creeping into the subtext, reading the article gives me a different view about what is going on, than what I personally know the facts to be.

Someone not very aware of the issue, upon reading the article, will feel that all the Democrats are doing is holding up the bill, to spite the Bush Administration, and they intend to give in anyway. -- I think that's not true. I just think they realize that the Bush Administration has too much support for them to be able to hold out much longer.

Other potentially biased terms:
'...The law, which contains immunity for telecommunications companies that have previously assisted the government in listening in on potential terrorists' communications.'
(No mention of the Congressional backlash, as well as that of the American people who understood what was going on, when the program was revealed. -- So many Americans are unaware of the details of what is going on, because the media is failing to do its job, of informing them, rather than entertaining them.) -- Regardless of whether it is, for example, actually the right thing for America, the fact remains that the program was implemented illegally, and unauthorized search and seizure is prohibited by the 4th Amentment in the Bill of Rights.)

'Last week, the Administration sent Attorney General Michael Mukasey, perhaps it's most trusted figure,'
(Not to mention the misspelling of 'its,' again, many people who actually understand what is going on, do not trust Michael Mukasey at all. -- He was installed under the threat of bad consequences to the American people, and he has repeatedly remained non-committed on issues of torture, and he REFUSES to ALLOW a U.S. attorney to uphold subpoenas against Bush Administration officials. -- I don't trust him any further than I can throw him, but I don't wish to touch him, so I don't trust him much at all.)

--

Who is your editor, by the way? Was he working today? [I don't mean that as an insult, but, if I were an editor, I would not have let that article pass.]

Mark Impomeni8:19PMMar 3rd 2008

Bob,

Again, I respectfully disagree. Those terms are not biased, they are exactly what happened in the House. The leadership did prevent the bill from coming up for a vote, despite majority (of the House) support. 34 moderate Democrats voted with Republicans to block a temporary extension of the law. Those same 34 Democrats supported the Senate bill. House leaders then decided to let the law lapse rather than bring up the senate bill.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Sincerely,

Mark Impomeni

Pete8:25PMMar 3rd 2008

Jay Bob

"if there was no wrongdoing why should the telecos receive immunity-why in fact should they need it? To protect America by breaking laws? Forgive me if I cannot follow your logic...."

My logic Jay, as I outlined, is that you or I are not nearly as well informed as many DEMOCRATS, particulary Senators Rockerfeller and Mikulski who, as members of the Senate Intelligence Committe, may have the best information on the planet as to the effectiveness and importance of the FISA program.

I believe immunity for the telecoms is needed for no other reason than to prevent the ACLU from destroying the program from the back door. When FISA expires, and I believe it should expire, immunity for the telecoms would be lifted.

Is it your contention then that every well informed Democratic Senator or Cogressperson that supports the FISA program is paranoid too and has somehow been subverted by President Bush?

Is it your contention that every Democratic Senator or Congressperson that supports FISA is also parnoid and has knowingly gone along with Bush to trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

They are all in on it together? Is THAT not paranoid?

Is it your contention that millions of "gullible
liberals" informed by the NYT, MSNBC, the Daily KOS or some other political source, selling a political adgenda, are better informed than our Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committe as to the effectiveness of the FISA program and the infringement, if any, on the publics privacy?

If the answer to that is yes then thats why you can not follow the logic.


My point is simply that many of the people making these decisions are Democrats. Bob while I am biased I am also defending the decisions of those "liberal Democrat" Senators who it is my contention are much better informed on the subject than you or I.

It is my contention that Democrats in Congress, who by the way Bob have ratings lower than Bush and Nixion, are finding it more and more difficult to square their politics against their rhetoric.

Case in Point:

All is lost in Iraq.
The surge is a failure.
General Betray Us.

and

40 failed attempts to leave Iraq.

and

now we have FISA.



Respectfully,
Pete

jbeattie@jbeattie.com11:40PMMar 3rd 2008

The Telcom bill is to protect Mr. Bush not the telcoms.

INDEMNIFICATION....As we all know, the Bush adminstration is hellbent on passing a law granting telecom companies retroactive immunity for any surveillance laws they may have broken in the aftermath of 9/11. But there's an odd aspect to this whole thing: the telecom companies themselves don't really seem to be fighting all that hard on behalf of this legislation. Why?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013236.php

Paul Maloney12:04AMMar 4th 2008

Not biased, huh, Mark? "Democrat leaders"? Certainly a journalist with your experience knows the proper adjective is "Democratic"... "Democrat" is a noun. Using "Democrat" as an adjective is straight out of the Frank Luntz/Newt Gingrich playbook.

Dave12:40PMMar 4th 2008

NO NO NO NO...
The telecoms aren't even asking for it! This is all about giving a pass to the criminals in the Whitehouse!
Again, NO!

Ross Briggs11:07PMMar 9th 2008

The suggestion that this is a partisan issue is dead wrong.

I consider myself neither a democrat or republican. I strictly oppose giving telecoms immunity.

Granting this immunity, states to corporations in America: anything is permissable and legal if directed by the executive branch or an underlying agency.

"We're just victims of the in-house drive by."

Is this American? What happened to checks and balances?

The system that the NSA deemed unessecary, was a confidential court system, designed specifically for the purpose of granting warrants for telephone surveilance, while keeping the intelligence confidential. This way, a judge can verify the constitutionality of a proposed wire tap.

Its just abolition of our civil liberties, and still people accept it.

People send young men and women to fight for them, because they are afraid of members of an impovrished nation.

Its not just a philosophical reason, but an economic reason that I am agaisnt war. The budgets defecits that the "conservative" party has lead us into are disgustingly irresponsible to me.


The Department of Defense? I think we should call it what is... Department of Offesive, Pre-Emptive Attacks.

norman spalding12:57AMMar 10th 2008

WAKE UP THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS DA DA DADA!!!! THIS IS NOT THE TEACHING OF WHAT AMERICA OR A HONEST AND GENERIOS EMPLOYEED STAFF OF HUMANS IN THE POSITION OF IS SO SLANGELY FRASED GOVT. THERE IS AND GET THIS CLEARLY NO SUCH ANIMAL OR ORGANIZATION WITH THIS PLANET THAT EVER HAS AND OR DOES TO THE DAY FUNCTION WHAT IS DEEEEEMED GOVT. NEVER MENT TO AND MORE THAN LIKELY NEVER ALL OF THE OULD'S OF THINGS!!!!COULD WOULD OR SHOULD DOESN'T MATTER!!!!LETS GET SERIOUS THE CITIZEN IS THE KING PIN TOON ME IN ON BLIP the wisdome of norman woodstock spalding YET THE WISDOME SPOKEN ABOUT IS THE WISDOME OF MY KIND SHARED WITH ME IN COUNTLESS DOCUMENTERY BROADCASTS ON TELEVISION AND SPEAKING WITH MY FELLOW CITIZEN AND MY AMERICAN EDUCATION AND MY GENITICS OF JEW AND HEBREW ALL OF THE CONTENT OF DNA AND STUFF AND EXPERIANCES I CAN'T LIVE UP TOOOOOO THE SECRET DAYS OF CITIZEN PLANET EAR(th) ARE OVER!!!! HUMANS HAVE ABSOLUTE PRIVACEY AND NO MORE SECRET READ THE EVEDENCE EVERYWHERE TOOOO LATE TOOOO BITTTCHHH THE SATILITE SURFAILANCE AVAILABLE NOW IS AND NOW IT IS TO LATE TO HIDE COME COME COME OUT WHERE EVER YOU ARE!!!!!TOOO LATE TO SECRET GOT IT TOOO LATE TOOO SECRET SO COME OUT AND STAY PRIVATE AND GET ABOUT SOMETHING AND SOMETHING THAT MAKES LIVING MORE CONVEINENT FOR EVERYONE NOW AND LEAVES PATH AND TOOLS FOR THOSE TO COME AND FILL EVERYONE'S SHOES!!!!!!A JESUS QUOTED IDEA NEVER REALLY KNOW WHERE THE STUFF IN THAT BOOK COMES FROM DON'T MATTER ITS'A FUNCTIONAL IDEA RITE NOW ANY WAY SAME AS THE TIME IT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SUGESTED FOR THE VERY SAME REASON BEING SPYED ON GET ON THE SIDE OF A HILL AND TAKE OFF THE BUSHEL BASKET AND LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE BASICLY YOUR DEDICATION AND WHAT YOU ARE ABUOT LET IT SHINE FOR ALL TO MEMIC CHALLENGE HUMANITY IN THE LOVELYEST WAY POSSIBLE FOR YOU TOO DO THANK YOU HUMANITY YOU ARE AN INSPERATION TO ME THANK YOU HUMANITY YOU ARE THE ESENCE OF SOMETHING WONDERFULL ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THANK YOU HUMANITY I LIKE YOU!!!!norman woodstock spalding