Harry Reid Helping Republicans Betray American Values
Dec 14
We implore Senator Reid to lead,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Reid has set up a Catch-22 that forces senators to choose either no immunity for the telecoms or minimal Fourth Amendment protections – but not both at the same time. The ACLU is not ready to accept the two current options as the only possibilities. The American people should not have to choose between telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping.”
Fredrickson explained that Senator Reid employed a little-used Senate rule – Rule Fourteen – to bring up two different FISA bills taken from legislation passed by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. The first bill, S. 2440, will be Titles 1 and 3 of the intelligence bill and does not include telecom immunity. The second, S. 2441, will be Titles 1 of the judiciary bill and 2 and 3 of the intelligence bill, which does include immunity. She explained that from the ACLU’s perspective, “Another way to think of it: S 2440 is good on immunity and bad on wiretapping while S. 2441 is bad on immunity but good on wiretapping. It looks as though Senator Reid has created two little FISA Frankensteins.”
The ACLU urges senators to vote against the Intelligence Committee bill, anything resembling the Protect America Act or any bill that grants immunity to telecommunications companies that broke the law over the past six years. Today a group of 14 senators urged Senator Reid to take up the Judiciary bill as it stands with no immunity provision. We are also asking senators to participate in the Dodd filibuster measure against any bill that lets the Bells off the hook.
“Senator Reid is forcing senators to trade the Fourth Amendment to avoid immunity or to give immunity in order to protect Fourth Amendment rights. The ACLU, on behalf its members across this country, asks that he bring the Judiciary Committee’s FISA bill to the floor — without immunity for companies that broke the law,” said Fredrickson.
This would literally destroy any freedom you have from being spied on. By establishing this precedent, that private companies must do as the government tells them to, law and Constitution be damned, we are saying that the Constitution does not apply. All the government has to do is to get a private company to act in its stead and your constitutional rights no longer exist.
The second worst thing, politically, to happen in the last eight years was the defeat of Daschle. Reid has been and will continue to be a disaster as leader. Not only is he completely incapable of dealing with GOP legislative maneuvers, he is apparently a fully paid up member of the authoritarian school of domestic law enforcement.
#1 by Stormy Dragon at December 14th, 2007
| Quote
Would someone tell me why I voted for a Democratic congress in ‘06 again?
#2 by Morris at December 14th, 2007
| Quote
“Reid has been and will continue to be a disaster as leader.”
I agree.
#3 by tgirsch at December 14th, 2007
| Quote
Would someone tell me why I voted for a Democratic congress in ‘06 again?
Because the Republicans would have been even worse, putting forth a bill that was bad on both wiretapping and immunity.
#4 by Stormy Dragon at December 14th, 2007
| Quote
>Because the Republicans would have been even worse
I’ve never understood why partisans on both sides seem to place so much importance on winning debates on whether we should drive off a cliff at 60mph or 35mph.
#5 by Dan M. at December 15th, 2007
| Quote
Because you have a tolerable chance of surviving diving out the door if it’s only 35mph.
#6 by LarryE at December 15th, 2007
| Quote
you have a chance of surviving diving out the door if it’s only 35mph.
And land where?
Meanwhile, if you suggest trying to step on the brake (i.e., vote for a third party) you’ll be accused of advocating the accelerator.
The fact is, the Dems calculate that they can cave and cave again to avoid being called “weak” on security without paying an electoral price - because, they think, we have nowhere else to go. That we’ll grouse and groan but in the end, vote for Democrats. And then spend the next couple of years wondering why we did before doing it again.
#7 by Southern Beale at December 16th, 2007
| Quote
Because you have a tolerable chance of surviving diving out the door if it’s only 35mph.
Or, stated another way: what are our options? Our options are vote Republican, vote Democratic, or don’t vote at all. That’s reality.
I’m not checking out of the system. And if I vote Democratic, I think I have a greater chance of influencing and pressuring my Congress Critter to do the right thing than if I vote Republican, and our values and ideals aren’t even in the same ballpark.
Trust me, Bill Frist was my Senator. When I called his office about something the people who answered the phone were practically snapping gum into the receiver and laughing at me before they hung up on me mid-sentence. OK it wasn’t that bad but nearly.
In the meantime, we can work to elect better Democrats. Because more of the Democrats are good than the Republicans are good. We at least have a Kucinich, a Conyears, or even a Robert Wexler. Near as I can see, every one of the Republicans are rotten.
#8 by Morris at December 16th, 2007
| Quote
“We at least have a Kucinich, a Conyears, or even a Robert Wexler”
As long as you have fruitcakes like that Republicans won’t have to work as hard to win the votes of normal people.
#9 by Steve Plonk at December 16th, 2007
| Quote
How about us electing a Richardson?
#10 by tgirsch at December 17th, 2007
| Quote
Stormy:
I’ve never understood why partisans on both sides seem to place so much importance on winning debates on whether we should drive off a cliff at 60mph or 35mph.
For the same reasons you constantly blame “the Democrats” for not fixing these things, when it’s mostly Republicans who wrecked them in the first place, and when most of the Democrats are fighting against it. So there are a few bad Democrats, and a couple of them are unfortunately in positions of power. So what? If you had voted Republican (and they’d won), a bill with both telecom immunity and a gutting of the fourth amendment already would have passed, with little resistance. If that difference doesn’t make your vote worthwhile, then I’m not sure what would, short of a land filled with (libertarian) unicorns and puppies.
I’m not sure your analogy works, anyway. And in any case, I don’t see why it ought to be controversial to say that given a choice between “bad” and “worse,” it makes sense to choose “bad.”
The problem here isn’t that the Democrats took over Congress, it’s that not enough of them did, and more to the point, that not enough liberal Democrats did. Because, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s the liberal wing of the Democratic party — and only that wing — that’s fighting this.
LarryE:
Hang on to that little pipe dream.
(At the risk of re-opening the can of worms yet again, voting third party isn’t like “stepping on the brake.” It’s more like getting out of the car, or at least letting somebody else decide who gets to drive…)
#11 by digglahhh at December 18th, 2007
| Quote
Certainly preferable to falling off the cliff, at either speed. Though it does pain us to watch our friends plummet to their deaths…
#12 by tgirsch at December 18th, 2007
| Quote
Certainly preferable to falling off the cliff, at either speed.
This just shows why the “getting out of the car” analogy (which, to be fair, I used too) is a bad one. The analog to getting out of the car would be leaving the country. Shy of that, you’re still “going off the cliff” with the rest of us, whether or not you participate meaningfully in the process.
[Comment edited to remove rant that should have been posted to another thread.]