Senator Durbin has, by stating that: (0.00 / 0)

``I am not for blanket immunity until we understand what this program has been about,''

Reached the stage of negotiation which a 5 year old child has when it seeks to understand what it's mother will require from it before it can go out and play.

Congratulations Dick!

Next week we'll talk about letting you mow the grass.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:05:55 PM CDT

Seems reasonable to me. (0.00 / 0)

What's so wrong about waiting for the information before making a final decision? This sounds to me like Durbin is using the specific immunity issue as a lever for pressuring Bush to come through with records of what happened. I'd like to think the translation is "no cooperation means immunity is off the table." Any stand against FISA will be met with the usual character assassination about "pro-terrorism", blablabla. If Durbin is saying that the ball is in Bush's court if he wants immunity even considered, that seems to me like pretty good strategy.

---

by: DaveW @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:14:31 PM CDT

Today's latest revelations (0.00 / 0)

regarding the spying program being possibly rolled out prior to 911 as reported in the WaPo today should bolster Durbin's et al position of wanting the information prior to even considering immunity. Of course todays revelations probably explain why Bush does not want to give up the info as it would reveal that he wanted or actually started the spying prior to 911.

http://www.openleft....

http://www.washingto...

---

by: talex @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:30:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is not a solution (0.00 / 0)

The only thing that matters is whether a Democratic Senator is willing to let the current FISA fix lapse.

I don't understand your logic here Matt. Just letting the 6 month amendment lapse doesn't solve anything. The FISA Court has said that the foreign calls now being routed through US fiber optic networks needs to be addressed - and that is why there was a 6 month amendment in the first place. Just letting the current amendment lapse does not address the FISA Court edict so you are back to square one, right?

There are two separate issues here: first is the FISA Court edict that the routing issue be addressed in the law; and second is the immunity issue. Neither have anything to do with the other.

So your latest desire to see the current amendment lapse accomplishes nothing as the routing issue still needs to be addressed in a new bill now or in the near future. The only thing that can be ignored is the immunity issue by leaving it out of a new bill.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

---

by: talex @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:23:24 PM CDT

The Court did not (0.00 / 0)

say the foreign calls "needs to be adressed., ' monly that warrants were needed to tap them. it's you, and Bushco, that think this "needs to be adressed." Far as I'm concerned, they can establish probable cause and get warrants.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 15:36:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well the problem is (0.00 / 0)

that FISA never did require warrants for foreign calls when they were not routed through the US. Nor should we unless you want to cut-off all foreign surveillance - and I don't think you want to do that.

The issue here is not that we should have warrants for foreign calls now routed through the US because of technology. The question is should warrants have to be issued if someone in the US is involved in that foreign call. Don't mix up the issues here Ben.

---

by: talex_ @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 16:19:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Investigate pre-911 activities (0.00 / 0)

I'd like to see the Dems (and the media) push on the question of when the Bush Admin began approaching the telcos and planning its illegal wiretapping program.  As discussed in part of the previous thread (and the WaPo story it references), it now appears that this began in early 2001.  If the telcos (except for Qwest) agreed to help the feds BEFORE 911, this seems even more inexcusable than if they did in the days shortly after 911.

It seems very significant if the Bush Admin, which has been shown to have NOT been very focused on al Qaida prior to 911, was mobilizing eavesdropping programs within a month or two of coming into office. What were they planning to do and why, and why would the telcos agree to help them break the law?  And if the latter didn't think they were breaking the law, why do they now claim to need immunity from it?

These questions cry out for thorough investigation even if the telcos were approached and agreed after 911.  But it takes on an even more urgent and sinister cast if this occurred early in 2001, as the Post story suggests.

If real and thorough investigation is what Durbin has in mind, I think his position, assuming he really holds to it, could be a useful one.  Baby steps can be useful, if they move us in a useful direction that can lead to more and bigger steps.

---

by: mitchipd @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:40:12 PM CDT

Feingold, Thursday, listening session in Cross Plains (0.00 / 0)

http://wispolitics.c...

"When push comes to shove on something obvious -- like not doing torture, or preserving the writ of habeus corpus, or not wiretapping Americans without a warrant -- on these things, frankly, too many Democrats get afraid and run away whenever George Bush or Dick Cheney say 'you know you are going to be responsible for the next terrorist attack,'"

I suggested that the Administration's and telco's desperation for amnesty could be traded for more than revelation of pasttapping, but should be used as leverege for forward-looking privacy enhancing legislation, particularly Statutory protection for location data collected by the cellular operators. Russ: (paraphrase) That's interesting. I'll have to give it some thought.




This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 15:46:01 PM CDT