FISA woes
Do you remember, way back in the days before Mukasey, torture, Iraq funding, and Iran rhetoric were king in the headlines, how the Congress and the president were about to grant retroactive immunity to any telecom companies that helped the government spy on Americans? Does it seem like morale is high?
Key committee Democrats and Republicans are skeptical about the immunity plan, which already won approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee. In recent days, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, the committee’s top Republican, has suggested he might sponsor an amendment to allow the government to pick the tab for any damages awarded in any court cases.The Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction is set to end Friday, after which another version of the legislation passed by the Intelligence Committee could be sent to the full Senate. That Senate Intelligence version has the immunity provision, and therefore, White House support.
As far as I know, Chris Dodd's promise to filibuster a bill with telecom immunity still stands, but I suppose Harry Reid could just decide to throw him under the bus. As far as I'm concerned, if Bush insists he'll veto any bill without an immunity provision, Democrats should just insist that he'll get nothing and let the earlier FISA amendments sunset quietly.
Comments
If there are legitimate reasons to pass a FISA bill, they absolutely should pass it, even with the promised veto. They shouldn't simply not pass a bill and then try to say, "he was going to veto it any way." It doesn't work like that. You have to make him actually veto it before you can say you really tried to pass something. Of course if there's no real reason to pass the bill anyway, they should just come right out and say that.
This bit where Bush says that FISA doesn't work, has been nothing but the biggest lie, indeed even as we now know that Bush was wiretapping BEFORE 9/11 and that even Ashcroft had tried to shut his wiretapping program down, because Ashcroft said it was illegal.
Why is congress even considering a new bill, without even knowing why Bush is wiretapping to begin with.
Bush and Cheney made an oath to protect the US Consitution:
Like this recent Resolutions for Impeachment by the Lawyers Guild for Bush and Cheney is first serious articles of impeachment from lawyers that i have seen and something that has sorely been needed to be done for quite some time.
Whereas the constitution requires the president to take the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and will do the best of ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;” and
Whereas the constitution provides that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed:”
Bush and Cheney violated the US Consitution with intent to violate it. We need to put impeachment BACK on the table because another point the Lawyers Guild makes is this one.
Whereas failing to hold Bush and Cheney accountable not only condones their crimes but facilitates a future president committing similar or greater crimes:
Finally we have a group of serious lawyer willing to stand up and talk about impeachment. We should all start demanding it.
Sorry here is the link
Sure, they should pass something good if they can, let him veto it, and then let the current amendments expire.
Post A Comment