For anything else I've said about Merkley, on FISA he's been rock solid, knows and understands the issue, and why it was bad law. He made a strong statement yesterday, and should be commended. I don't know how far he'd go to stop its passage, were he there now, but the vote is the most important part, and Merkley scores a big note of support for me on that.

Clinton voted against it, by the way. Just saying.

I have to disagree with UPO on this one. It's not just civil penalties, it's criminal penalties that should have applied, and without any profit motive. What this bill has done is solidify the precedent for U.S. companies to ignore Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution in lieu of simply doing whatever the Executive asks. What Congress has done is codify the already unspoken reality that whatever the president says is legal becomes legal because he says it is. At least that how it goes when Congress lacks the moral courage to stand up to the Executive, which they've clearly shown is the case. Very sad day actually, but not surprising.

TJ: I don't know how far he'd go to stop its passage, were he there now

He said he would filibuster it.

UPO: Blue Oregon (and Ron Wyden) are catering to a core fundraising constituency

BlueOregon is fundraising now? Woohoo! I had no idea. When's the next party?

"Clinton voted against it, by the way. Just saying."

Only because she lost. Were she the nominee, she'd have been the yes, Obama the no.

"coerced by the Federal government into cooperating"

Funny, Qwest didn't seem coerced. And the ones that cooperated, were so intimidated that they cut the phone lines when the government failed to pay. Seriously.

Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Jul 10, 2008 10:05:27 AM I have to disagree with Urban Planning Overlord. The illegal spying began before 911 and not all phone companies cooperated. They all do have large staffs of lawyers who are paid to tell them what is legal and what is not and so this idea that they were "coerced" against their will to help the government does not hold water.

I agree!

Obama Caves to Fear

The ACLU immediately sent out an email expressing its intention to sue.

From their email:

The FISA Amendments Act allows for mass, untargeted and warrantless surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States. And to top it off, it hands immunity to telecom companies for their role in domestic spying. This means your phone calls can be tapped and emails read with virtually no proof of threat, and there's no chance to learn how the telecoms invaded your privacy. It’s outrageous, unconstitutional and un-American. That’s why the ACLU is prepared to challenge this unconstitutional law the moment President Bush signs it.

UPO,

On legal reform, esp. about medical malpractice, there is a real debate to be had. But you also need to recognize that most of the way this has been pushed has not been about finding a way to reach consistent equitable resolutions, that retains a power to punish extremely egregious behavior. Maybe the latter needs to be defined as a crime or tort against the public good, beyond a certain level, and handled by a separate mechanism with the penalty going to the public.

But in fact "tort reform" has been pursued in a singularly political and disingenuous way (reflected once again in one of the ballot initiatives this year). It has had an explicit political aim of reducing the ability of plaintiffs lawyers to contribute money politically. It has also had an aim of creating caps on compensation small enough to allow megacorporations to treat paying for harms they cause, that are predictable in one way or another, as "costs of doing business" rather than rectifying the problems. And it has an aim of preventing legitimate lawsuits based on real harms to people without extensive means from ever being able to sue. Both of the latter two aims are about immunizing the constituencies of the Republicans from consequences for bad acts, and pursuit of that policy approach has been just as richly rewarded on the other side of the issue and the aisle as the critique you raise.

If you truly want reform that is not based on the interest of either of those partisan financial constituencies, you have to start from recognizing that the current impasse over it has two sides, and that current "tort reform" proposals are a partisan sham. It would take going back to what kind of goals we want the tort claims system to able to fulfill, as well as examining whether there are tasks we ask it to fulfill that it is not the best way of fulfilling, but that are nonetheless legitimate and necessary tasks, for which a substantial alternative needs to be proposed, not just an abandonment of the goals and the people they serve.

I believe Obama missed a political opportunity in failing to take leadership against this, as well as simply failing in his duty to the people.

MoveOn.org is calling upon its members to contact the Obama campaign to demand future action from Obama with respect to undoing the abuses:

But here's the thing: Barack Obama is still our best chance at real accountability: When he's elected, he can launch a full investigation into wiretapping and the Bush administration's other illegal activities, from torture to cooked intelligence. Given his vote, it's doubly important that Senator Obama come out now and promise to hold the administration accountable if he wins. Will you ask him to commit to a full investigation if he becomes President? Clicking here will bring you directly to his website, where you can send him a message: link to Obama comment page (I personally suggest calling the Obama campaign on the phone too, either nationally or locally or both.) MoveOn members have worked tirelessly over the last few years to put an end to warrantless wiretapping and demand accountability for those who've broken the law and violated the Constitution. Together we've held vigils and sent hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress. In the last few weeks alone, MoveOn members made thousands of phone calls to the Senate—and the Obama campaign. There's no question—Senator Obama's vote is a real disappointment. The bill passed yesterday will make it harder to hold the Bush administration accountable. The "telecom immunity" clause basically blocks ongoing lawsuits against the telephone companies that carried out the administration's illegal wiretapping program. Those lawsuits were one of our best hopes for finding out what actually happened. That's not just bad policy—it's bad politics. Americans want those who violate the Constitution to see consequences; that's a core American value and a winning position for the election. This along with his strong stands on healthcare, the energy crisis and ending the war can help the Senator win in November. It's not too late for Barack Obama to promise full accountability when he becomes president. There are still other avenues, from independent investigations to the Inspector General's office. The question is, will Barack Obama commit to using these other avenues?</blockquote?>

Jesse Jackson was a pseudoynym, slapnuts. Nice excuse for censorship. Must have struck a nerve there...

Nothing wrong with the comment itself. Go ahead and post it again. Just don't impersonate real people.

My strongest suspicion is that Bush insisted on the telecom immunity was not to protect them but to protect himself from the revelations of his illegal actions in open court.

That sounds about right. It's the same reason Bush had Congress retroactively overturn the 1996 War Crimes Act--so he couldn't be held responsible for policies that encouraged murder or torture of prisoners.

Stay tuned to see whether Congress will give the administraion thugs another get-out-of-jail-free card by passing retroactive immunity for Bush's violations of the Civil Service Reform Act. You just KNOW it's coming next.

It's no wonder Democrats get a reputation for not having a backbone when we role over for these abuses again and again and again. Pelosi and Reid need to be out of the leadership in '09 regardless of the election's outcome.