Roll Call on FISA in HJC
Via email, here are the roll call votes against the Forbes amendment (favoring immunity for Telcos) and for the RESTORE legislation.
Forbes:
No: Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nadler, Scott, Watt,Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Wexler, Sanchez, Cohen, Sutton,Sherman, Baldwin, Weiner, Schiff, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison
Yes: Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Goodlatte, Lungren, Cannon, Keller, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan
Final Passage
Yes: Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, JacksonLee, Delahunt, Wexler, Sanchez, Cohen, Johnson, Sutton, Baldwin, Weiner, Schiff, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison
No: Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Goodlatte, Chabot, Cannon, Keller, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan [my emphasis]
Just two details of note. First, Artur Davis voted with Democrats on both votes. Davis is the only Democrat on HJC who voted for the crappy August bill. And it appears, at least, that on the important issue of immunity, he will side with Democrats. Hopefully this suggests more of those Dems who voted for the Bush bill in August will exercise some judgment and restraint in this go-around.
Second, I’m curious about the Dan Lungren non-vote against RESTORE. In one of the FISA hearings, Lungren was vocal about the importance of sound minimization procedures. Perhaps someone finally told him that Mike McConnell was actually opposed to the Dem bills in August because they did what Lungren said FISA had to do–have real, reviewable minimization procedures? Or, just as likely, he just left early for the day or had some swank lunch meeting.
In any case, the only other thing this vote tells us is (as I said yesterday or the day before) the Republicans would prefer to go down with Bush than to make a stand for civil liberties.
One has to wonder what the Republican plan is… This thing of party unity over country is sick. Someone sure seems to be holding a big stick to keep them all in line that way. They are all lemmings — they will just follow each other off the cliff and fall to their respective demises.
I had to laugh… I was rolling through various sites reading news, and one had a big banner headline up to the effect that Bush is threatening to veto any FISA-related legislation if it does not provide for retroactive immunity for the telecoms. So, the problem is what?
I guess he is going to begin getting a little nervous now that the cat is out of the bag and he could be held accountable for condoning eavesdropping on private citizens — and dragging the telecoms along with him.
It could be a GREAT show!
Security First!!!!
That why shit stain Jodi wears depends.
so we can pass a law that grants immunity, and in 18 months we can pass a law that REVOKES that immunity
in fact, all of george bush’s immunity deals can be revoked on january 20th 2009
immunity and statute of limitation are REVOKABLE
just ask the catholic church
so what’s the fucking point
except that we hold criminally liable anybody who votes to grant said immunity
aiding and abetting in crimes against humanity is a bitch
I hope mr conyers reads this blog
maybe he will avoid and â€AIDING AND ABETTING†in the future
those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither
Thomas Jefferson was talking about YOU shitstain
and the punchline is that you are PROUD of your craven and cowardly statements
just goes to prove that when you measure intelligence, 50% of the population is below average
and the ones like our shitstain are closest to the bottom
I prefer â€stand for constitutional principlesâ€: it’s more direct, invokes associations with the â€foundersâ€, and eliminates winger wiggle room associating â€civil liberties†w/â€liberal†smears.
I also was very much struck by distinction you drew the other day between telcos who didnt’ do this shit (Quest) and those which did. I’ve been reminding editors @ our local paper of this fact every day this week.
I don’t like this bill. I don’t like the concept of the â€umbrella†warrant. I think it is an â€exception†that swallows the rule. However, I’d rather have that, and keep out the immunity. Once you legislatively immunize past conduct, I don’t think you can revoke it. So if they keep out the immunity, after January 20, 2009 they can get rid of the umbrella warrants.
Having said that, however, I would mu ch rather than Congress stick to its guns, and actually call Bush’s frakkin’ bluff. Let HIM decide to veto the only legislation that will permit NSA surveillance of U.S. persons. Let HIM explain why he let the legislation lapse for the noble principle of immunizing what he has tacitly conceded is illegal conduct by the telecoms.
I am soooo sick of the Democrats calling their own frakkin’ bluff.
On the face of it, Davis has realized the error of his ways.
However, there’s a different, more worrying and sinister possible explanation.
There may be a procedural explanation for Davis’s vote; it may be a short-term strategy to keep a longer term objective alive. If so, he’s trying to throw netroots observers off the scent of a longer-term Telco and/or Bu$hCo strategy.
FWIW, in many committees and voting bodies, only if you vote WITH the majority, you retain the right under Roberts Rules of Order to bring that item back later by ’moving for reconsideration’.
Those voting in the minority lose their right to bring back an item for reconsideration.
Those voting in the majority retain the right to reconsider a motion at a later time. When no one’s looking, and they’re busy with other topics, you simply slide in a ’motion to reconsider’ and it generally passes without a lot of fanfare.
More than once, I’ve held my nose and voted for something appallingly sh*tty in order to have the right to bring it back for reconsideration at a later time. (If other TNH commenters haven’t squandered endless hours in long meetings on boards and commissions that operated under Roberts Rules of Order, they may not be familiar with this invaluable strategy.)
I’d keep an eye on Davis — if he ever makes a motion for reconsideration, then he’s carrying out a Telco strategy, and aligning himself with the WH agenda.
I have no idea what’s going on here, but I’d point out that this is a likely scenario by Bu$hCo or the Telcos if they’d expect to lose this vote in the committee. They needed someone (think of Davis as a ’the mole’) to vote with the majority in order to be in a position to bring it back for reconsideration later.
Too early to be sure what’s going on with this vote, but color me wary.
I think what we are seeing is RNC regementation preelection, but also Democrats isolating their issues by pursuing several ways to keep their own view in the public consciousness. Privacy was an issue that was accentuated with JRoberts and SAlito hearings, and the subtle repartee there over ’standing’. The administration has become more isolated but remains aligned with telcos from a monopolist oligarch vantage. Lungren is a natural conservative but of a substantial variety only in some respects; he donned the mantle of antienvironmentalism and took many excessively stern stances in his run at the governorship in his western state, only to be defeated by a moderate Democrat, in CA, where Lungren’s political appeal was about one in three voters; he was attorney general for a few years there. The telco debate during discussion of calea in congress was an issue eventually majority decided only subsequently, as democrats resisted the loss of privacy it represented, and especially cell companies had numerous excuses about costs. One way Democrats emphasized this was the liability question. Calea provided some statutory answers when finally written but technology advances have affected the function of FISC in that milieu of electronic communications. The fate of the FISC court I see congress as being capable of reviewing thoroughly only with a lot more work, especially if there is progress in assessing what were the separate gambits of Rove and Gonzales with respect to Department of Justice. I think Isikoff is glossing over much more than the ostensibly complete checklist of transgressions he mentions would indicate. Cf the several nearby threads.
The only real way to insure Freedom is to have a gun and be able to use it.
Why do I have this mental picture of Jodi shooting her telephone?
Seriously, since there is no realistic hope of collecting all the monies owed for FISA violation fines, I think we ought to negotiate for quid pro quo for reduction of fines. They give us info on what they were doing, reduce the fines by $1000 per each. They agree to oversite regardless of state of war or not, reduce fines by $1000, etc.
from sailmaker,
’Seriously, since there is no realistic hope of collecting all the monies owed for FISA violation fines, I think we ought to negotiate for quid pro quo for reduction of fines. They give us info on what they were doing, reduce the fines by $1000 per each. They agree to oversite regardless of state of war or not, reduce fines by $1000, etc.’
That is brilliant.
Could the shareholders force a deal?
Hey shit-stain, you’re preaching to the wrong choir. I seriously doubt there are any redneck NRA members that can read all the big words here.
On topic:
How about publicizing which telcos are demanding immunity so that the non-participants can advertise that THEY actually respect that privacy of their customers?
Quest: â€We’re different: We really respect your privacy!â€
That would hit enablers harder than some government agency that they either own or they can out lawyer.
Would the death of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis have an effect in the override???
In other words, while she was alive, her seat still counted when stacking up the number of votes needed to override. Would her seat still count, since now there is one less representative in the House??
Just-a-wandering, anyone…?
The only real way to insure Freedom is to have a gun and be able to use it.
Posted by: Jodi | October 11, 2007 at 01:14
Hey, y’know, I think shits^H^H^H^H^HJodi might be on to something here.
I think it’s a great idea.
Let’s start by disbanding all the agencies, and departments, and private companies, that have been busily Insuring Our Freedom.
Like, you know, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, let’s not forget the military, Halliburton, Blackwater…..
With the money we save we arm every American with a small cache of automatic weapons.
We then proceed to Ensure Our Freedoms the old-fashioned way… a la 1776. Send King George the right message, in a way he can understand…
Great idea, Jodi!