House Dems may move to split spy bill

[CTuttle]

Source: LA Times

"The objective would be to pass something that is less controversial," yet still allow Democrats to register their objections to the immunity provision, said one senior Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other party leaders have yet to reach a decision on the matter.

The proposal emerged Friday as a possible endgame in the drawn-out congressional debate over how to overhaul laws that govern when and how American spy agencies can intercept international e-mails and phone calls coming into the United States.

Republican officials said they likely would back the proposal to divide the bill into two pieces, as long as there was no delay in taking up the immunity provision. "We would be OK with that as long as the immunity provision become law," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Officials from both sides acknowledged that there are probably enough votes in the House to pass the measure protecting telephone companies. But splitting the bill would give Democrats who oppose the immunity provision political cover for voting in favor of the broader legislation

Read more: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/03/01/news/na-fisa1

---

Once again we're being sold down the river...

[yourout]

1. I knew this was coming........thanks again MAJORITY leader Pelosi.

The Dems in Congress are like soap bubbles. They burst at the first sign of resistance.

[CTuttle]

4. I am so tired of Pelosi

A semblance of a spine would be greatly appreciated... Go, Cindy!!!

[DJ13]

2. So I guess immunity is more important than protecting the US to the GOP?

"Republican officials said they likely would back the proposal to divide the bill into two pieces, as long as there was no delay in taking up the immunity provision. "We would be OK with that as long as the immunity provision become law," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio)."

Sounds like it.

Seems like the Democrats could run negative campaigns this fall against the GOP for putting corporate protections above protecting the US if the GOP goes along with this.

Why is retroactive immunity so important to the GOP they would be dumb enough to do this?

(Not to mention our spineless Democratic leadership, but thats another issue...)

[spotbird]

25. They agree with the administrations' policies

there is no other possible explanation.

[movonne]

3. Did you think any different...this is why we need to get liberal candidates

in the senate and congress...first we start with the blue dogs that Rahm put in...then the Schumers,Feinstein, Hoyer, Rahm, etc...

[John Kerry VonErich]

18. Scratch off Feinstein

She's just as cowardly as Pelosi.

[bluesmail]

35. One Word: Bechtel

[mike_c]

5. more evidence that the democratic and republican parties share similar goals....

eom

[Diane R]

6. This is why I can't take Reid or Pelosi seriously anymore... their resolve lasts for ..oh, 30 secs.

[Mojorabbit]

7. What can we do?

I have called and written letters. What else can we do to stop this. It makes me ill.

[jgraz]

23. Here's what you can do -- support Pelosi's primary challenger.

http://www.usalone.com/on_the_table.php

Kick Pelosi out of Congress in June. How's THAT for sending a message?

[atreides1]

39. Here's another thing we can do

Let's send Pelosi some heavy duty kneepads, because that's where she seems to be spending most of her time, and to be fair we should send a pair to Reid as well.

[Journeyman]

8. LOL -- the Republicans have no problem with the solution provided they get their way! . . .

Imagine.

"We would be OK with that as long as the immunity provision become law," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

And the proposed solution has nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights or going after criminals -- it's simply a measure to permit spineless politicians an opportunity to hide behind a facade of "resolution."

And there are people on this board who seemingly believe a change in figurehead will mean a difference.

[shraby]

9. Why do they need "political cover". Doesn't

anyone have the courage of their convictions anymore? Can the scum and replace them with people who have political courage. Get their names and find replacements to vote for.

[Frisbee]

10. Someone help me here...

Since it seems the GOP is going to get their way on this sooner or later, can this be overturned at a later date as being unconstitutional, and allowing the telcos to be held accountable? And does anyone think that that would actually happen?

[Hydra]

11. To answer your question:

No and no.

1st no: The Repubs have done a good job of stacking the courts. Them holding up the Constitution at this point is a joke. Thanks SCOTUS for illegally giving us Bush, and voting yourselves irrelevant!

2nd no: It won't happen because this will be enshrined as "the will of the people"- the "people" want to be protected by having all of they communications read.

Bushco- creating reality while we whine at our computer screens.

[Frisbee]

12. That's not the answer I wanted to hear...

...though unfortunately, it is pretty much what I expected.

[Hydra]

13. I could lie to you

In a normal world, this law would be laughed at. The telcos would be shut down by the Gov't, not by lawsuits, for violation of the 4th amendment.

In a normal world, even if it passed, the first judge to get his or her hands on it would send this coming travesty to hell, and there it would stay.

This isn't the normal world, though. We're still in Bush's world, and his word is law here.

[frebrd]

14. Once again the Dems are trying to find...

the most comfortable way to bend over!

:grr:

[CTuttle]

15. Short and Sweet!

That about sums it up... Once again, Georgie Boy gets his way! :argh: :banghead: :banghead:

[Dr.Phool]

16. Kicked and Recommended.

Get this on the front page at the top so everyone can see it and vent their outrage at Pelosi, Reid, and their representatives, first thing Monday morning. AND DON'T LET UP!

[CTuttle]

17. Mahalo Nui Loa!

We certainly need to get these bull manure out to the public, and, make them smell it! I've already sent a missive to my House critter...!!!:kick:

[annabanana]

19. Oh HELL NO!. . "give Democrats cover" OH HELL NO...

No cover! This has to be hollared... This is the "dangerous" time for us in this legislation. The fact that the House stood up once against this provision has dulled the edge of our opposition. It takes time to get the troops riled and the calls made and the faxes sent...

They are going to try and make it a complicated to follow as possible and do it at 10am. People are going to be asking "Do we want a 'yes' or 'no' on this vote" and it will take a procedural expert to answer it.

[annabanana]

20. My house rep is a useless bushbot... Who besides Pelosi & Hoyer

should I pester on Monday?

[CTuttle]

21. Conyers, Reyes...

The House Chairs on the Judiciary and Intel committees and two of the House conferees on the FISA bill...!

[spotbird]

26. Whoever you call

have an address in their district handy when you call.

It's over. It took a while for them to figure a way to fuck us and pretend they didn't but there is no limit to their ingenuity where betrayal of the nation is concerned.

[InkAddict]

22. This needs to go on the front page.

DUers gotta keep it kicked as needed and recommended over and over. Yup, work to do on Monday.

[CTuttle]

24. What further pisses me off...

Is the fact the Dem Conferees strategized the sellout all by their lonesome, all the Repug Conferees had walked out and stayed out... :nuke: :grr:

[creeksneakers2]

27. I can live with Telecoms getting immunity

What I'm more worried about is a bill that allows unconstitutional wiretapping to take place. If the Democrats had to compromise, and they didn't, they could have at least got the constitutional protections put in the bill. The Democrats are giving away everything, once again.

This stinks.

[ixion]

28. yep, it stinks... and I can live with neither immunity nor illegal wiretapping

both are reprehensible and freakin' unconstitutional.

[catnhatnh]

29. Has a single poster here considered the idea that this is a WIN

...for the Democrats???WE offered to extend the bill for varying periods time and again and were REJECTED without immunity...This strips immunity and forwards a bill that can be passed by a HUGE majority to Bush...which he must sign or veto-if he signs the telcos must decide how to behave with regard to liability and LATER we will have open hearings on immunity (where Dems can ask for proof that immunity is needed and deserved)and if he vetoes-well this should easily pass by a 2/3 majority given the repubs willingness to sign on...Sometimes it is difficult to see a win but the repubs all just blinked and you missed it.

[CTuttle]

31. The seperate Immunity bill will pass...!

This is not a victory! It does strip it from the bill, but, there are sufficient Bushbots and Blue Dogs to pass the Immunity and preclude any oversight actions by either the Judicial Branch or the Congressional...! Where's the win in that...? :wtf:

[pleah]

30. What is wrong with these idiots?!?!?!!? All they have to do, is pass NOTHING!

I am really starting to hate these people.:grr:

[CTuttle]

32. Exactly!

Or force it back to the Senate or even back to the House Committees... Any of the aforementioned actions would work...! :bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[pleah]

34. Thank you, thank you very much!

:toast:

[zytime]

36. The same can now be done

with the immunity section. This CAN (with fingers crossed) also be held up through procedural measures. This allows FISA to be expanded/renewed so chimpy can get off his high horse on that lie, and COULD allow the opportunity to press for more information on the telecoms and why they complied with the illegal requests. I have heard that they were told it was legal, but this implies some complicity or some ineptitude on the part of their lawyers. If there was coercion involved, the telecoms should have immunity and the administration should get thrown under the bus. The other question is how Qwest wasn't involved. Do they have higher morals, more competent lawyers, a spine, or something else that made them less worried about coercion? I'm not holding my breath for this one, or really even hoping, but this COULD be seen as setting the stage for investigations. Pretty sure it won't, but we'll see.

[fascisthunter]

33. The Democratic Party isn't Worthy of my Vote

they are accomplices to Bush's criminality.

[AndyTiedye]

37. What if We Go along with the Split and FILIBUSTER the Immunity in the Senate?

[CTuttle]

38. It's already out of the Senate...

It is totally up to the House now to act in some fashion... If Immunity is stripped out it could possibly be referred back to the Senate, but, if Immunity is intact it'll go on to Shrub...:puke:

[AndyTiedye]

40. Wouldn't Splitting the Bill Send it Back to the Senate?

[CTuttle]

41. It could if Immunity does fail in the House!

If it doesn't, it won't be sent back...!

[Kablooie]

42. Yes. Let's make sure Bush keeps the spying tools that will let Republicans win AGAIN!

I mean how else can they defend themselves agains Obama?

[Preston120]

43. I Think Traitors need cover, just like cockroachs in the dark.

Turn on the light. People that pass this immunity for George Bush need to be held to account. Crap by another name is still crap!

[classysassy]

44. Dem(dim) leadership

Nancy and the nitwits are a disgrace to our party.