Comments on: Senate Delays Vote on Surveillance Bill and Telecom Immunity

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:42:14 +0000

Arabella

I’m not entirely disagreeing with your assessment of your Senators’ actions or lack thereof, but let me offer this.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann on Air America today. He mentioned that the bill that came to the floor, which Sen. Dodd filibustered, was the version from the Intelligence Committee (Jay Rockefeller, Chairman–what’s up with that?). There is a second version. The second version came out of Pat Leahy’s Judiciary Committee and DID NOT contain any immunity. Apparently, Senate rules required the debate on the Intell. Comm. version before the Judiciary Comm. version, perhaps because of when each came out of their committee. But I would be surprised if Sen. Leahy was not fully supportive of Sen. Dodd’s action.

Senator Sanders does an hour of interview and takes call-ins questions each Friday on Hartmann’s program (the segment is called: Lunch with Bernie). I can’t say I’ve heard Sen. Sanders on the specific issue of telecom immunity, but, as with Sen. Leahy, I’d be pretty shocked if he wasn’t also in strong support.

I’m far more surprised and troubled be Sen. Feinstein’s reluctance to do the right thing. She and Sen. Schummer bear a lot of responsibility for Judge Mukasey being AG and thumbing his nose at Congress’ attempts to rein in these illegal actions. Professor Turley’s blog discusses Sen. Feinstein’s moves that assure immunity. Her head seems to be twisted a bit too far to the political right these days. Perhaps she’ll join Sen. Leiberman in endorsing a Republican for President.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:15:28 +0000

Perhaps there is an attitude of “mistakes were made, but your heart was in the right place so we are going to let these old excesses of zeal in the defense of the country be forgiven. Now move along, there is nothing to see hear folks.”

By: Arabella

Arabella — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:44:19 +0000

As a Vermonter, I’m particularly troubled that neither Senator Leahy nor Senator Sanders were on the no-immunity station wagon. (The few who were on it hardly constitute a ‘band-wagon.’) I really don’t understand this (plus the implicit consent to torture, plus the lack of follow-up about signing statements or any of the other Constitutional abrogations the current White House has engaged in).

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:59:43 +0000

What is equally striking is that a new poll shows both parties in Congress plummeting in public opinion. The Dems are now at just 30 percent. The great irony is that if they tried to be more principled they would be more popular. Instead, the public views them as double-dealing on issues like torture and unlawful surveillance. The Republicans are equally blind to these implications. They continue to follow lock step with one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Only people like Ron Paul are seriously challenging the status quo in the GOP ranks.

By: toosinbeymen

toosinbeymen — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:49:44 +0000

BTW – Thanks so much for your blog, Mr Turley. Your insight and point of view is greatly appreciated.

By: toosinbeymen

toosinbeymen — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:47:59 +0000

This abrogation of American values is stunning especially from Democrats that I and others worked so hard for in the ’06 election. This plus their approval of Mulkasey, inability to stop funding the occupation of Iraq, wet noodle approach with the media (call them filibusters already) and general spinelessness are enough to throw a wet blanket over grass root support for ’08. Who’s going to canvas neighborhoods and man phone banks for them?

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:30:45 +0000

Remarkable indeed.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:18:40 +0000

It is a remarkable statement. After all of the opposition from Democratic voters, newspapers, bloggers, and civil libertarians, these Senators still need a member to trigger a filibuster to stop an obvious wrong from occurring. What is striking about the legislation is the total absence of any public value to immunity. We have a court system designed to address illegality and injury. The only reason that you would want immunity is if you believed that you have committed the underlying crime in this case. Note also that the Democratic and Republican Senators supporting immunity are not clamoring for an investigation into the underlying crimes; they only want to protect companies and the White House from the responsibility for those criminal acts.

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:35:40 +0000

In a piece by Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, he quotes a Dodd staffer as saying:

“Everyone who spoke on the floor said they were grateful for Dodd taking a stand,” said a staffer to the Senator who asked not to be named. “They said if it weren’t for him they wouldn’t be having this much-needed debate.”

“If it weren’t for him…”?? Isn’t that simply FRIGHTENING? Without Sen. Dodd’s courage to stand up for the Constitution and the American people, NOBODY else was going to do it. Not the Democratic “leadership”, not any of the other Senate members running for President, not any of the others who call themselves Progressives and certainly none of those Republicans who falsely claim to be guardians of strict adherence to the Constitution from judges and wrap themselves in the flag. No one without Dodd, heh? That’s very sad.

Now, Senator Dodd, come January you should unseat Harry Reid and become the Majority Leader. The truth is you have a far better chance to be successful and be of more help to the American people in that position than running for President.