Vichy Dems who voted for the FISA bill to indemnify Bush of his #1 impeachable offense

[Leopolds Ghost]

Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting

A clear signal to their colleagues that it is OK to vote FOR the bill
to protect those running for office and ensure passage of something
that is "inevitable, regardless of how the base feels about it".
This is SOP in Washington and a crystal clear signal when the only
people "not voting" are Clinton and Obama.

EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR VOTED FOR WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING,
whereas the Dems were specifically whipped to vote their conscience,
another clear sign that the bill's passage was pre-engineered to
allow liberal senators to save face while ensuring passage.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea (actually D-NSA, this is a jobs issue for her)
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea (author of the bill to legalize wiretapping)
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

Tester in Montana and Dorgan in ND, the supposedly conservative
farm country populists, voted Nay.

Johnson, who is recovering from brain aneurism in SD, showed up
to vote Yea.... unlike Clinton and Obama.

10,000 people -- actually twice that considering the knock-on
effects of security clearance contractor work in the DC area --
work on the NSA's existing illegal program in Maryland and Virginia
with ample building infrastructure and petabytes of broadband access
built specifically to connect them to nearby global internet portals
created to ensure military access to the original ARPANet, as
Atlantic Monthly (or was it Vanity Fair?) revealed in their expose
of the NSA dragnet that explains why the supposed FISA "reform"
is merely the camel's nose under the tent.

This may help explain Webb and Mikulski's vote; a Nay vote would put
20,000 people out of work in MD and VA by confirming that what they're
doing is illegal.

The whole point of the BRAC realignment is to move these illegal jobs
into centralized headquarters in sparkling new high security campuses
with new road access provided by local jurisdictions who are eager
to get high-security high-tech information warfare jobs in the
military and related media, telecom and IT industries.

See also Russert, Tim and Woodward, Bob
and other media figures working for the telcos
who mysteriously got a military send-off.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Well?

[roguevalley]

26. evan bayh, tool. asshole. may he never be even considered for

vp. I will not vote in the fall if he is, the fucking tool.

[Selatius]

2. We were sold out by our own Dem leadership. Harsh.

[cornermouse]

45. Agree.

[slipslidingaway]

3. And information that could assist in a case against Bush vanishes

that's wonderful!

:(

[Catherina]

4. Hence my disappointment in Obama endorsing one of the worse ones

Obama Cuts Ad For Conservative Pro-War House Dem and huge FISA supporter

Suddenly today,

Obama Staff "Literally Reviewing FISA as we speak"

What's going on with FISA today? It seems to be all over the place.

[supernova]

5. How many of those are the Blue Dogs?

just curious.

[lala_rawraw]

6. i am stunned that whitehouse voted in favor

[JackRiddler]

30. I'm sort of stunned that Chuckles Schumer voted against.

Since he's such a "war on terror" man.

[Jakes Progress]

7. I know this is DU

but we do have to question why bother to support a party that continually refuses to support us. That list is appalling. Clinton and Obama seem to ignore us. We put Whitehouse in place of Chafee, but I bet Chaffee would have voted against this. What's wrong with Baye and Webb? Why should we consider either of these for VP? I don't let Mikulski off because it is a jobs issue. What if it were a jobs issue for a torture facility? Would she still get a bye?

This is one of those very clear indications that our passion and patriotism is being used as a punchline in the the joke called Washington.

[Swamp Rat]

8. fuck

:(

[jberryhill]

9. Question....

I thought the purpose of the current compromise was to induce the telco's to cough up evidence of being directed to break the law by the president and the AG.

Did the bill immunize the telco's upon producing this evidence, or did it immunize Bush?

[Marie26]

10. Seems like it immunizes the telco's

I think this is the same bill Sen. Dodd filibustered earlier - they just sneak it back in when no one's looking. Retroactive immunity!

Revised FISA Bill Goes to Vote Tomorrow
Allows for retroactive telecom immunity in warrantless wiretapping case -

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/06/19/1931226.shtml

Tell Congress: Reject Spying

The ACLU is growing increasingly concerned that Congress is once again ready to cave on immunity. This time, it seems that a "compromise" on immunity may be reached where -- no matter how illegal, offensive or intrusive a company’s invasion of your privacy has been -- it won’t make a difference. Instead, if the president gave the company a note merely claiming their behavior was legal, they’re completely off the hook.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?page=SplashPage&pagename=homepage&id=975

(you can send an email to your Rep./Sen. opposing this bil via the ACLU link)

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Once passed, this law can never be repealed

The Telcos can claim in court that they (and Bush) were immunized by
Congressional fiat, therefore Congress supported and funded
what Bush was doing at the time -- even if Congress changes
its mind later.

(they probably won't -- I see no indication anyone in the
Democratic Presidential campaigns want to revisit this issue
or a host of other Bush crimes which campaign insiders see as
no longer relevant so long as the right person is in the White House
to oversee the levers left behind by Bush. Unlimited campaign
funding, for instance.)

[jberryhill]

25. I guess my question is not clear...

....and I really don't know the answer.

No, the telco's can't claim immunity for the illegal actions of BUSH and GONZALEZ in conspiring with them.

The point of the suits is to get to the ultimate question of the illegal activity of BUSH and GONZALEZ.

What I've understood about the current form is that in order to claim the immunity, the telco's have to cough up the evidence that they were asked to do something illegal by the president and/or the AG. The mechanism for claiming the immunity is that they need to show who asked them to do it.

This is like immunizing the street dealer in order to get at the cocaine importer, which is not an unusual type of deal.

[Gold Metal Flake]

38. That is how Randi described it.

She said that she was "hanging her hat" on the fact that the Telcos would have to claim the imunity in a court of law, and provide evidence that the motherfucking asshole from Connecticut who was installed as President by a corrupt cabal in the Supreme Court had ordered them to do illegal stuff. She also said that if that were the case, that it would lead to the Telcos having to provide proof that this sort of shit happened before 911. Of course, this would have to happen in a court not run by a corrupt Republicker judge. So, if it goes, it may still work for the people. :shrug:

[Marie26]

11. This will be voted on on Fri.

How do you already know who voted for it? Am I missing something?

[slipslidingaway]

12. This was the first vote in February, here are some additional

details on the vote.

There were Eight votes yesterday on FISA, see the list below...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4574449

[Marie26]

17. OK, tomorrow is just for the House, then.

The Senate already voted back in Feb. It is a misleading OP - it implies that this vote just happened when it passed the Senate back in Feb. But still, everyone should holler about it now to their Representative.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. Not attempting to mislead, this bill was already passed.

The conference committee bill is even worse -- and will get all the votes
this one got. Our only hope was for the House to stall it in conference.

[Marie26]

22. Well, the only hope is public pressure.

That's why they're trying to sneak this by on a Friday & that's why they wouldn't publicly release the bill until today. They're trying to pass it before the public finds out or raises a fuss.

So raise a fuss! - http://www.stopthespying.org/. (For what it's worth.)

[slipslidingaway]

23. Yes, but I would imagine the Senate will have to vote again. The

real fight on this should have been back in February and the candidates should have been speaking about this to the media and the American people.

But we now have never ending elections just as we do never ending wars.

:(

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. More people will vote Yea this time.

[Marie26]

18. It's already passed the Senate, right? nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Not sure if it has to go back to them at all

But if it does, I assume all these people will vote Yea... and more.

[Inuca]

14. ANd this is a vote from...??

Not today. Misleading OP.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. These people are your baseline who will vote for the conference committee bill.

The actual number of people who vote for warrantless wiretapping tomorrow
will be higher and might even include Clinton or Obama.

[gkhouston]

24. That's what I want to know. The last time FISA came up in the Senate,

McCain voted for it, Obama voted against it, and Clinton was absent.

on edit: a link to the vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

[slipslidingaway]

28. Obama did not vote on the final bill, that link is to an amendment.

Here is the final vote link.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

Not Voting - 3
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Obama (D-IL)

Back in February I listed the vote and amendments here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4574449

[gkhouston]

41. Thanks for that correction. I glad he voted the way he did on the amendments. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

46. YW, some of us were following it closely at the time...

and I did not intend to sound harsh.

In addition to losing our rights, it also helps to keep information on the Bush crimes hidden. While I am glad Obama voted the way he did on the amendments, I've long believed that the Democrats could stop this if they made it an issue in the campaign. We need someone who is being covered by the media to stand up now for our rights, but that is not happening.


There were Eight votes yesterday on FISA, see the list below...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4574449

[gkhouston]

48. I didn't think you sounded harsh.

:hi: And if Obama is serious about being a leader, he needs to stand up now. Saying he won't do illegal wiretapping himself when he's President isn't an adequate response, IMO.

[MasonJar]

21. I called my rep and Pelosi and the bastard Hoyer and Obama today.

I am very disappointed in Obama. He is the dem leader at this point and his stand against this legislation would be strong. Call the reps! It is our only chance to get the right vote...they need a mammoth number of calls.

[bdamomma]

34. oh we have to fight them on this one, anyone listen to Turley

on Keith right now. With this they can knock on your door and come right in.

[karynnj]

27. This appears to be the February vote

There were 68 yeses - which insured there was no way to defeat it. Obama and Clinton were in the midst of the primaries - clearly reid told them their votes couldn't change anything.

They both had statements against it - coming to DC to vote would be symbolic only. (Obama did vote against cloture - where only 41 people not voting yes would stop it - there were 69 yeses - once that happened an effort to stop it was doomed. )

[JackRiddler]

29. Inouye... remember the Iran-Contra hearings?

He's been playing liberal while helping the Bush mob go scot free on their crimes for more than 20 years now.

[madfloridian]

31. What was the date of this vote?

?

[slipslidingaway]

35. February 12, 2009 link

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

[bdamomma]

32. what, Whitehouse voted for it???

why did he vote for it? I'm going to be making alot of calls tomorrow. They are selling us out, anyone watching Keith.

[slipslidingaway]

36. Yes, Dems covering for other Dems n/t

[ThePowerofWill]

33. Ya know, lately i been thinking "be careful what ya wish for"

I've been wishing for a Dem takeover for 7yrs now. Here the last few day or so i've been wondering if it really matters. Outside of a few good ones their a bunch of spineless sellouts. At least repukes have intestinal fortitude. I'm seriously thinking of voting "none of the above".

[MilesColtrane]

37. Find your Representative here:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress /

Phone or email with this:

"I am a constituent and I respectfully urge to reject any false compromises on telecom immunity. Recent descriptions of a purported "compromise" proposal make clear that although some cosmetic changes have been made, the bill would still provide blanket immunity for telephone companies that cooperated with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and would still prevent any court from ruling on whether they broke the law.

Americans who have had their privacy violated by lawbreaking telecoms deserve their day in court. Please reject any FISA legislation that includes telecom immunity. Thank you for your time."

Do it now. The vote may be tommorrow morning.

[dana_b]

40. thank you. done. n/t

[PatSeg]

39. I received an email from Patrick Leahy regarding FISA

For many months now, the Leahy for Vermont community and online activists everywhere have urged Congress to fix FISA the right way: by passing a bill that protects both our national security and our civil liberties. Together, we have had a huge impact on this debate, calling for legislation that protects Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration's relentless assault on the Constitution, and we should be extremely proud of these efforts.

But after months of negotiations, the House today unveiled a new FISA bill that I cannot support. While I applaud the fact that this legislation includes some of the important surveillance protections we wrote into the Senate Judiciary Committee bill last year, it fails to hold the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable for its illegal wiretapping program.

I will oppose this new FISA bill when the Senate votes on it next week. We must do everything we can to protect Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration's erosion of our civil liberties and callous disregard for the rule of law -- and this new FISA bill fails that test.

Thank you for all that you have done -- and all you will continue to do -- to help America protect our security while honoring our core values and respecting our fundamental rights. As the Supreme Court wrote in its habeas decision last week, "Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles."

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

[readmoreoften]

42. This is why I simply don't think there's any change headed our way.

Not to dis on Obama specifically. It's just clear that the entire system is corrupt and it can't be "worked within" or "realistically dealt with" without ethical compromises so major that you have no choice but to go along to get along. I'm sick of thinking that some superhero is out there "keeping his powder dry." Clearly no cavalry is on the way.

I'm mean REALLY how difficult is it to say to the American people: "I don't believe in surveilling every goddamn American"? Is that so hard to spin? Obviously there is something else going on here.

[alarimer]

43. There is no longer much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

There hasn't been for some time, of course.

And our nominee is just as guilty as the rest of that spineless bunch. A pox on all of them. I'm done. No more voting for me. Fuck it, what difference does it make anyway?

[Echo In Light]

47. Exactly. Divide and rule

[Jakes Progress]

44. Fairly new here so I don't know if this is kosher,

but here is a copy of the email I just sent to the Obama campaign. (I guess the mods will delete if it is outside the rules)

"I intend to vote for you for president. You need to show that you act in a leadership capacity rather than just talk in one.

Go the the senate today. Get on the floor and call for the end to the "bipartisan" FISA bill. This is where we will see if the rhetoric of the last six months was more than just beautiful oration. I want a leader who acts. Can you be that? You got the nomination. You are our leader. You wanted to be that leader. Now go and lead us. This is where walking the walk shows over talking the talk."

I didn't mean to be disrespectful, but I believe I am justified in asking our nominee to act for us.

[Canuckistanian]

49. dupe

dupedy doop

[Canuckistanian]

50. Welcome to DU!

There are A LOT of people now calling for Obama to take charge of the opposition.

Except for few statements here and there, he's pretty much been AWOL on this issue.

:toast:
:hi:

[AzDar]

51. So very, very , disillusioned......