Feingold to offer amendment striking telecomm immunity.
Feingold to offer amendment striking telecomm immunity.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) will offer an amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow to “strike retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies alleged to have assisted with the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program.” From his statement:
Granting retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly went along with this illegal program is unjustified and undermines the rule of law. Not only would retroactive immunity set the terrible precedent that breaking the law is permissible and companies need not worry about the privacy of their customers, but it would likely prevent courts from ruling on the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. This program was one of the worst abuses of executive power in our history, and the courts should be able to rule on it once and for all.
Read his recent letter to the editor responding to John Ashcroft on the issue in The New York Times HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
69 Responses to “Feingold to offer amendment striking telecomm immunity.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think he’s swimming against the current, but hopefully he’ll be successful. I doubt it, though. Bush is too wily and the Dems too spineless.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:38 pmFeingold’s DA MAN!!!!
November 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pmThe Dems are going to roll over on this one, too. It’s not like they care about what their constituencies think…
November 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI keep waiting to see the other shoe drop with Feingold but he almost seems like he is working for the American people. The lobbyist must have forgotten him this Thanksgiving.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#3.
Yep.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRIGHT FREAKIN’ ON - Do not let the law breakers off the hook and now do just one more thing that would be very good for the country -
IMPEACH the WAR CRIMINALS
Spying without warrents
Torture
Attacking Iraq based on lies
Killing over 600 thousand Iraqi’s
Using White Phosphorous on cilivian population
Knowing 9/11 was gonna happen and doing nothing about it
New Orleans
Cronyism
War profiting
(the list is too long to list here)
Buck Fush
November 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pmFeingold… now THERE’s a guy I could get excited about as a candidate.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pm“he almost seems like he is working for the American people”
But if you almost the only one who is, it doesn’t matter. If memory serves, Feingold’s track record is none too good. Although he certainly gets an A+ in my book.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pmGo Feingold. The Democrats are starting to sound like they are growing spines. Let’s just hope it’s true. I don’t think I could stand being let down again.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pmFeingold’s always been a leader with a spine. There just aren’t enough others like him.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pmWow this guy wants headlines saying this was the worst use of executive power in US history. He doesn’t even know the details. Either way, I disagree with the program but it is hardly that big of a deal. Bush has done much worse.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWay to go Feingold!
November 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAnd again, no one wants to bring up the fact that the Telcoms were
doing this, at Bush’s ‘request’, BEFORE 9/11!
November 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pmWe really need to make some changes if people in government are no longer going to be held accountable for their actions. It appears that under the Bush administration the rule of law is to lie, deceive, cheat, help your buddies, hide information, ignore human rights, ignore rights of freedom, ignore those that need insurance (kids) and yet spend all you can to kill people in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had NO WMD.
Time to start holding them all accountable and to elect those that will vote as the people want and not as corporations and special interest groups.
the big problem now is that Bush has set the stage for others to abuse power and cause even more harm to our country.
the dems keep “rolling over”. we know what to do next time elections come around. get new blood into the system.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI don’t think I could stand being let down again.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Well, get ready for it, my friend. I’m sure by the end of this week, there will be yet another revelation of how wussified the Dems have become.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThey need to realize there’s more to governing than getting the White House. I’d think the “ultimate prize” would be a happy people, rather than a happy party. Clearly, that’s not how they think.
To me, that’s the worst of it. I always knew for the Reps it’s been party before country; I’d really hoped the Dems would be different.
Ok, who hijacked RxR’s name? You’re standing up for what is right today, what happened? Got hit by lightning or something?
Buck Fush
November 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pmzimzone has it right, he was doing this before 9/11 but uses that tragedy to excuse all he does. that and terrorism and it is hard to believe but he has actually fooled so many. the most ignorant president in history and he actually fools some.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pmHe doesn’t even know the details.
You are right R2, he doesn’t know the details. No one does because Bush refuses to produce the documents he has been asked for and uses Executive Privilege every time he turns around. This is the most impeachable thing he has done and I think that’s why he’s trying so hard to get immunity for the telcoms. If he isn’t able to get them immunity, then Congress can give them immunity in exchange for spilling the beans on who, what, when and where.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pmWow this guy wants headlines saying this was the worst use of executive power in US history. He doesn’t even know the details. Either way, I disagree with the program but it is hardly that big of a deal. Bush has done much worse.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 14, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Breaching a fundamental right enshrined in our constitution is “no big deal”? Wow, you really are a stupid little nazi twit!
November 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pmComment by republicans hate facts
I agree with everything but that last sentence. Repeated admitted violations of the 2nd Amendment is in no way not a big deal.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pmWow, you really are a stupid little nazi twit!
Comment by republicans hate facts
Of course he is. Are you a stupid little nazi twit is the first question on the RNC’s application to become a Republican Troll.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pmSenator Feingold, we would like you to investigate how long Telcoms were doing this prior to 9/11.
Then we can begin Presidential impeachment proceedings.
Then we can begin a trial.
Then we can put this smartass in jail.
Them we can begin rebuilding America.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pmCompletely off topic, but I think some of you may find it entertaining:
November 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pmRomney criticized Huckabee over his plans to offer tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants while serving as governor in Arkansas. Huckabee, appearing on Fox News Channel, said, “I guess Mitt Romney would rather keep people out of college so they can keep working on his lawn.”
I wish Russ would have run for President.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pmOk, who hijacked RxR’s name? You’re standing up for what is right today, what happened? Got hit by lightning or something?
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 14, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Yeah but first he said this subject was no big deal. Maybe they’re treading lightly since Hits got deleted.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pmOk, who hijacked RxR’s name? You’re standing up for what is right today, what happened? Got hit by lightning or something?
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy
Saying that spying on Americans is “no big deal” doesn’t sound like he’s standing up for what is right. Did I miss something here?
November 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThe increasingly corrupt and hideous Di Feinstein (DemLite) has already come out and said “The poor widdle telecomms that helped Herr Brusch break the law deserve immunity so they won’t be saddled w/ the burdensome costs of fighting the many, many lawsuits that will be coming their way soon…”
Can I use that excuse too, Di? “Since I really can’t afford to fight this charge, don’t I deserve retroactive immunity from prosecution?”
“Especially if I say I did it to defend the country? Please???”
Good for goose, Di!
And what about Nacchio, at Qwest? Was that politically motivated?
Like Siegelman in Alabama???
What a SEWER our government is becoming.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm$hits is gone?
HAH!!! Enough people finally get around to flagging him? HAH!!!
November 14th, 2007 at 4:08 pmNah, I know that he said, “No big deal” but just that fact that RxR said, “Bush has done much worse.” was a step in the right direction.
Buck Fush
November 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pm21 - Bilbo - that one made me laugh out loud - thanks!! ;oD
November 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWhen Feingold announced that he wouldn’t run for President in ‘08, I was extremely disappointed. He is a champion for civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, voted against the Iraq resolution, the Patriot Act, the Iran resolution and so on. He just doesn’t seem to be afraid. Not of this administration, the Republicans, the press or even his own party. With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, whose chances of being nominated are very slim, there isn’t another Democratic candidate that I feel really positive about. Too much rhetoric, not enough courage.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pmFeingold rocks!
May the leg rock along beside you!
November 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmrockyroad
leg?
November 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pmrockyroad
leg?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 14, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
“leg”islature?
November 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pmgummitch
“legâ€islature?
Ah, well that makes sense.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pmIf a conservative could just make comments that made sense or were factual it would enjoyable to debate with them. But off the wall totally baseless comments are too boring.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pmtexaslady
November 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pmIf a conservative could just make comments that made sense or were factual it would enjoyable to debate with them.
Well we would, but the sad truth of it is, that we’ve run out of most of our good, and/or factual arguments over the past 3 years. All we’ve got left are some economic and personal responsibility(which we have to ignore the glaring hypocrisy of our leaders to make) arguments and not to many of those show up on TP now a days. It’s all Iraq and Bush Cronyism/lawbreaking and Global warming which are just to hard to argue against with out using fuzzy logic and/or incorrect facts.
Yeah, and I think I heard that Feinstein is going to vote for the retro immunity!
November 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWhat is wrong with that woman? Is she becoming a female Lieberman?
Granting retroactive immunity….would likely prevent courts from ruling on the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
Bush has vowed to veto any FISA bill without retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Rather self serving, I would say.
Feingold has zero-ed in on Bush’s legal achilles heel. I want to see a vote count, if the committee doesn’t adopt Feingold’s amendment.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pmFritz: “The Dems are going to roll over on this one, too. It’s not like they care about what their constituencies think…”
Two current items for your consideration:
1. California Dems are evidently planning to offer a censure motion against Diane Feinstein for her support of immunity.
2. Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer announced today that he is withdrawing his support for illegal immigrant drivers licences because the vast majority the people of his state have made it clear they don’t support the idea.
Of the two major parties, the Democrats are far more likely to listen to their consituents than Republicans.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pmAtta boy, Russ! Now if only he’d consider running as someone’s Veep. It’s an absurd bastardization of the law to even suggest defacto immunity when these companies knew they were violating the law, regardless of whom told them to do so. The president is obviously fallible and if he promised them immunity, they’re the fools to believe him.
No defacto immunity to these companies who broke the law. Besides, others were asked to to do and DID NOT comply. The ones who did need to fry for this infraction of the laws of this country.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pmJackRipper: If the dems roll over once again and play dead to the Shrub, then they are risking the election in 08. The people have had enough of their brand of chicanery, too.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThe Constitution specificly forbids the passage of ex post facto laws. The courts have restricted such provisions to criminal acts. Since the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments protect the right of privacy, such acts become by default, criminal. Bottom line is that the Telcos need an Amendment to the Constitution, not a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmOne more illegal defacto exoneration and we will have anarchy in this country. Bush should be brought to trial for how many things now?? Illegal spying in violation of the FISA rules, Habeas Corpus violations, Geneva Conventions on Torture violations, not to mention all of the missing money - wonder where that has gone??
November 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pmWaltTheMan: Right on target! There can legally be NO defacto immunity. This is another construct of a seriously demented imagination.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:59 pmAnd since the Shrub has used the constition as personal toilet paper, I don’t think he can even locate it to propose an amendment.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:00 pmFrom the sound of it, it appears that our lameduck dingaling is getting mighty scared - the criminal activities is beginning to close in on Emperor Georgie.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pmVeritas, there is nothing preventing a future Democratic President’s Justice Dept. and a Democratic supermajority in both houses of congress from bringing these criminals up on war crimes and other federal crimes. At this time, impeachment is impossible, but criminal indictments in the future are always a possibility.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:16 pmRemeber, this bill doesn’t just give amnesty to the telecoms, but to “any person or entity”. That covers Bush and his entire administration. Of course they are desperate to get amnesty.
Go Feingold!
November 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pmThe only concievable way to get Bush in front of a War Crimes Tribunal is if he is impeached and removed from office.
There is no other way it would be allowed.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pmComment by RemoveBush — November 14, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
November 14th, 2007 at 6:13 pmEach point that you cite in Calder v Bull says that the law can not be watered down in order to make acts that would be criminal by prior acts or laws innocent by subsequent ones. In addition, no provision contained in the Constatution can be overriden by any means except amendment.
Every legislator in the US congress who still believes in the Constitution should sign on as sponsors of Feingold’s bill - but how many of THOSE are there?
November 14th, 2007 at 6:21 pmWalt the Man calls it at #43 — it is Constitutionally illegal to pass laws ex post facto.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pmAny corrupt congress would be able to operate with impunity and when it got too hot they would pass a law exempting themselves from guilt.
Of course, this is Bush’s plan and he has a complacent congress who will acquiesce - but it is ILLEGAL TO DO SO! That should be the end of story, but we all know it is not.
Comment by judyinnm — November 14, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
November 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pmThere is at least one.
Ex Post Facto Laws
November 14th, 2007 at 6:53 pmAre statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to debate the renewal of FISA revisions made in August, President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are endorsing a unique double-standard when it comes to immunity for telecommunications firms. Within the United States, they argue, service providers such as AT&T and Verizon must cooperate with U.S. government demands for access to Americans’ electronic communications and should be immune from citizens’ lawsuits. But in China and elsewhere, as Republican reaction to this week’s Yahoo saga suggests, not so much.
For the details, see:
November 14th, 2007 at 6:56 pm“FISA, Yahoo and the GOP Double-Standard on Telecom Immunity.”
unless I’m mistaken it takes impeachment now to prosecute the pres later for actions taken while in office . With di fiendstein on the judiciary the telecoms anfd torturers can rest easy in their positions.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:21 pmCall Harry reid and tell him how your feeling about Dianne
Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3542
but the Party convicted ? And if they aren’t convicted ? I’m still unsure ,but truly hope you are correct .
November 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pmgumby: “The only concievable way to get Bush in front of a War Crimes Tribunal is if he is impeached and removed from office.
There is no other way it would be allowed.”
I don’t think that’s the case. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:43 pmGo, GO, GO!!!
Russ “SpineGold” Feingold!!!! GO!!!
Hey Nancy PollLoser are you watching? This is what a SPINE looks like!!! You should one out!!!
However, do they make one small enough to fit your tiny little soul!!!
November 14th, 2007 at 8:00 pmYou should one out!!!
Should say, You should try one out!!!
November 14th, 2007 at 8:02 pmThe Constitution is still the law of the land. It is not a mere piece of paper - it forms the foundation of our nation and our rights.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:18 pmI understand why he isn’t running for the Presidency, but damn, I wish he’d reconsider.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:21 pmThanks, Russ. In a sea of betrayal, it’s good to see someone stand up. RECALL FEINSTEIN.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:35 pm…Once upon a time, there was the Constitution. Miss those days!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:01 pmWhy don’t Bush do the same thing he did for the TREASON case of Scooter Libby? Libby should be behind barrs, but the “Dear Leader” pardomned him!!!!! Rove and Chenney outed a CIA agent just because her husband said that the make believe story of Iraq’s threat comming from the White House was a LIE… 9/11’s crime scene was cleaned up and messed up with so fast and without propper scientific investigation… trample with a crime scene, in the good old days, used to be a federal crime. A FEDERAL CRIME! Let Bush resolve this matter, perhaps “behind doors”, or between page 5 and 6 of ‘My pet Goat’… a War of Agression is an INTERNATIONAL CRIME. Bush and his JUNTA are WAR CRIMINALS. But, the weak democrats doing absolutely nothing substantial, are making sure that the US get into the 21th Century as the FACIST STATE OF AMERICA.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:14 pmhttp://intelligence.senate.gov/071019/fisa.pdf
I beleive the relevant part starts on page 44.
unfortunately, ex post facto prohibitions wont save the day, as past precedent has determined this applies to criminal cases only, not civil ones. however, i strongly beleive this immunity is unconstituional for other reasons. for one thing, it looks like it allows the attorney general to act as member of the judiciary by allowing him to make a binding determination of what is and is not legal (read around page 44 where it talks about his determination scrutinized using an “abuse of discretion”standard.. this “abuse of discretion” terminology is normally something reserved for the defence given to judges decisions about questions of law) anyone with any constitional law expertise got any thoughts?
November 15th, 2007 at 6:58 amabout some questions of law, not all of them..sorry..
November 15th, 2007 at 6:59 amNixon was not impeached, but after his resignation, it required a presidential pardon by Ford to prevent Nixon’s potential prosecution for crimes committed while president (alliteration, much?). So, these guys could be held liable for their crimes (committed while in office), after they leave.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am