Reyes open to GOP compromise on FISA.
Reyes open to GOP compromise on FISA.
CongressDaily (sub. req.) reports today that House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) said that he is “fine” with “a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation’s electronic surveillance laws.” The GOP compromise, written by Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), “would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity” to telecoms that helped the Bush administration’s warrantless conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens. A senior Reyes aide, however, “clarified” that his boss is supportive of the House leadership’s position:
Reyes said he believes enough Democrats will support the proposal to pass it in the House.
But he said House Majority Leader Hoyer told him that House Democratic leaders want to have the liability of the telecoms reviewed in federal district court as opposed to the FISA court.
A senior Reyes aide clarified his boss’ positions by saying that while Reyes thinks Bond’s proposal is a positive one, he remains supportive of Hoyer’s efforts to improve on it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Here’s some advice on how to improve Bond’s proposal ; completely ignore it and tell him to get lost………
June 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pmLooks like Kit’s campaign coffers just got another big jolt from the telecom whores on K Street.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pmslimy slytherin’ snakes will stop at nothing.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm…
June 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pmSeriously Wrong. Gee, wonder why Congress has such a poor approval rating?
But but but… wouldn’t that make them “activist judges”? And isn’t that equal to them being the antichrist?
Oh, I guess it’s okay to have activist judges, as long as you can count on them allowing you to pull the strings.
PEACE
June 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pmWhy haven’t charges been brought against the telecoms yet?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmIt’s not a compromise if they’re giving Bush what he wanted all along: retroactive telecom immunity. This is total bullshit, and any Senator or Congressman who is “okay” with should NOT be okay with the American people.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmCouldn’t possibly improve on what you said @ #1, McMetal: tell Bond to take a long walk off a short etc…
June 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmIsn’t never charging the telecoms the same as giving them immunity?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pm.
Retroactively usurp my Constitutional Right to be safe and secure from a form of Government that seeks to pry, spy and peek into my daily private life…
Then is my private life that private?
The Bill of Rights, as contained in the Federal Constitution, clearly states that warrants SHALL be obtained…
WHERE ARE THE WARRANTS?
Retroactive immunity for the usurpation of our Rights is not supporting and defending our Rights… now is it?
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS…
… And so THEY(sic) entertain the notion of usurping our FREEDOMS.
Dear Mr. President,
Please show me one terrorist that has attempted to harm my FREEDOMS…
And I will show you a Congress filled with American Freedom Haters.
.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pmArt Says:
Why haven’t charges been brought against the telecoms yet?
Maybe it has to do with #2 above. Too much money flowing to Congress from the tele cos.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pmData Mining started prior to 911.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pmTheres so much wiggle room, it’s like throwing a hotdog down a hallway.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pmProblem is, as soon as some bigs rocks start to get turned over, the trail leads inevitably back to the Bush admin.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pmSo secret, rubberstamp court gets the power to grant immunity? Wow, I’ll just bet the rethugs would have fallen into line behind that concept when Bill was pres. No thanks. I’ll take my totalitarianism with a little more cream and sugar, please.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pmNO IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINALS OR THEIR ACCOMPLICES.
PERIOD
June 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pmMax-1, Bush may be delusional enough to believe his own rhetoric about terrorists “hating us for our freedoms”; that’s why Bush has been taking away our freedoms, one by one, so the terrorists don’t hate us anymore. See? Apparently it makes sick, twisted sense to Bush!
June 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm.
Dear Texas,
Please show me the redeeming quality of Silvestre Reyes’ ability to NOT support and defend your Constitutional Right to privacy? How is giving your freedoms up, supporting and defending those very freedoms? If you feel you don’t deserve the freedom of privacy, then on what ground can you call yourselves Americans?
.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pmIf it wasn’t illegal, then why do they need immunity?
When that question is answered, then let’s talk about legislation.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pmGOP compromise on FISA
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, AND HELL NO!
June 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pmThis is so much madness, I’m with Jane on this one…..One more win for the corrupt bush administration..Stop the madness, booth them all out of office…..Blessings
June 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pmJane E. Schneider,
Did Bush vote for the MCA of 2006? The Patriot Act I & II? Did Bush sit in on the committee that rubberstampped TORTURE and Human Rights Violations? If Congress actually supported and defended our Rights, would Bush even be in Office?
It is important to lay the blame at the feet of the proper criminal(s).
June 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pmIt’s time to stop “compromising” the constitution and start obeying the rule of law. The original FISA was crafted with the help of the telecom industry specifically so there wouldn’t be any ambiguity about what was legal or not, they knew they were breaking the law and they need to be held accountable.
Additionally, the current law suits against the telecoms need to move forward because this happens to be the last avenue to discover exactly what Bush has been up to.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pmWhat in the hell kind of a gullible fool is Reyes , anyway ?
You want to work with the same moron who compared waterboarding to swimming ?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm‘A nation of laws which no one is above’ actually seemed plausible seven or eight years ago. Now it seems idealistic and utopian since we’ve had such clear violation of laws.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:14 pmArt Says:
Why haven’t charges been brought against the telecoms yet?
There are over 80 lawsuits pending against the telecoms for discovery of what they did, and under whose orders. The lawsuits are flowing through the court system and that scares the right side to death. The law and order party wants to reward the telecoms for illegally spying on you and me by making those lawsuits disappear (just like the detainees).
As another good blogger wrote in this post, if what they did was legal, then why the immunity? That is a simple question even a low information voter (LIV) could understand. Why isn’t the press all over this? They were spied on too.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pmPaul W,
That “compromise” is pronounced by Nancy as bipartisanship.
The Oath of Office in not partisan or bipartisan Oath… IT IS A REQUIREMENT… AN AGREEMENT… A CONTRACT WITH AMERICANS
That contract is being violated…
Thus the Reyes et al proposal to usurp our Constitutional Rights… Because doing so will thwart any further legal actions taken by the people and further protect Hier Bush.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pmMax-1 Says:
It is important to lay the blame at the feet of the proper criminal(s).
June 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You’re right, our so-called Representatives, with few exceptions, were all too willing to strip us of our rights, theoretically for the sake of security. In the 2006 mid-terms, our district finally voted out the entrenched Republican who helped in that cause, and replaced her with a supposedly progressive Democrat. Our new rep now hears from us regularly when he disappoints us.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pmUncle Ho Says:
GOP compromise on FISA
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, AND HELL NO!
That needs to be repeated.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, AND HELL NO!
June 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pmNo more secrets, no more lies.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pmYou’re right, our so-called Representatives, with few exceptions, were all too willing to strip us of our rights, theoretically for the sake of security.
Well, I would re-phrase that. The Representatives were not as interested in OUR security. They were more interested in THEIR political security. During that time, if you didn’t back the authoritarians and their rush to destroy our country, you were labeled as a traitor. No Congresscritter was willing to chance questioning our imperial ‘decider’.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pmhas reyes ever figured out the difference among the iraqi shi’a and sunni…
yet another example of democratic cowardice and complicity in the evisceration of constitutional rights.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pmWayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
Uncle Ho Says:
GOP compromise on FISA
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, AND HELL NO!
That needs to be repeated.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, AND HELL NO!
And repeated.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pmYes, just what we need to show our dedication to the rule of law. A secret court that can retroactively waive criminal liability for large corporations. Hey, why not extend this to securities violations, EPA regs and selling poison foods and drugs to the public.
Well, what if I just decide to break a few laws myself. Do I get similar treatment? I was only trying to help the country. I am an attorney and it sounded legal to me.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:44 pmSounds like someone just got some goodies from the K Street Krooks.
Someone needs to look at the lobbyist that have been talking to Reyes, follow the money.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pmGit a rope!
We gonna have a “word” with Congresscritter Reyes.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:59 pmI hate these soft on crime neocons.
If someone broke the law, they should be put on trial and punished to the full extent of the law.
Period.
Anyone that says anything different is a pathetic excuse for a human being because they are just trying to protect their criminal friends.
I guess these people just think jails are for dark skinned people.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:43 pmNow that Obama is the nominee, he needs to step up and say NO to any telecom immunity.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pmnumfar Says:
Now that Obama is the nominee, he needs to step up and say NO to any telecom immunity.
He is not gonna play the Repulbiscum game, but he CAN ask:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm“If it wasn’t illegal, then why do they need immunity?”
.
TREASON:
–noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traïson < L tr?diti?n- (s. of tr?diti?) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition]
—Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one’s country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one’s government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:13 am