Dodd's Office..

..said they were getting "a ton" of calls on this issue, sounded quite happy about it. They also suggested people call Harry Reid's office -- when I asked for the # the young feller said he didn't have it on hand but he'd go look it up so he could give it out to the next caller.

I called Harry Reid's office (202-224-3542). Had to wait on hold for a bit -- hope that's a good sign, but the staffer there didn't seem very interested in my call.

-- Svensker

Thursday, October 18, 2007 08:47 AM

Would it not be too perfect if Dodd succeeds in smacking down both the telcos and Smirky, and this issue actually makes him the first sitting member of Congress in 47 years to be elected President?

I know, I'm fantasizing (and I'm an Edwards fan!)- but can y'all leave me with it for at least an hour before you shoot it down?

Kitt

You may be reading Susan Swain wrong.

-- kovie

I generally like her also. And, yes, she does engage callers and call them out more so than other WJournal hosts and hostesses. That particular statement she made, though, just came off as not right. As we know, the engagement that Congress is getting from progressive blogs and net-roots in general is of great importance and is "The American Way". I don't think, and didn't think when she called it a "problem" for leadership that that was a proper take on it. She might have been kind of ribbing the Congressman. Probably so, to some degree. I know what you mean. I just hope she knows that the net-roots and bloggers calling, writing, voicing opinions with regualarity is all important to our Republic. I hope I misread her intentions in her comments.

For the record, I don't disagree about the desire to see this stuff come out, and I am curious to see the actual language in the legislation so we can determine what it really means. But ultimately, doesn't the finding by the courts in the AT&T case really matter here regardless? One of the main questions I would have is how the Hill can look at the testimony and say its clear the companies acted in good faith, yet that seems clearly contradicted by the court ruling. Ultimately, does Congress or Senate get to determine whether the directive was legal, or do the courts determine that, and why haven't lawmakers been forced to explain the discrepancy between them and the courts over AT&T at least?

Not all who waves a POW flag paid dues with blood. Frauds are a dime a plug nickle.

I hate to say this: There are many who ride a hog via DC and ought to be called, "The Walking Dead Dos." It is really sad. Let them growl about Abate Laws. Ride with a helmet or naked, like Pedinska hints she does {./.} or don't. Some humans revel in mystery. Good.

Yellow Dog.

No flop helmet on a GI grenade.

Wear a Boonie cap if ya's want.

Yellow Dog. I hope GYB's dad will give you a yellow straw conical peasant hat I gave him in 1970 after a two month stint helping to construct a Friendship Clinic, Yien Vien, near Hanoi. Remember? Nixon's Co. blew children, men, and women to smithereens back then. The Health Clinic we help build was bombed in the 21- day Mary-for-Christ-Sake season of 1972. Also: The walking talker dead GOP's in DC aren't much assistance. sorry to be blunt. O, eat lettuce greens and bitter kale. It can only help. It is still legal. I hope.

It was announced late on October 18 that Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have reached agreement with the Administration regarding retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies in the warrantless wiretapping program that the government began putting together in February of 2001. According to the New York Times, these Senators reviewed materials provided by the Administration and “came away from that early review convinced that the companies had ‘acted in good faith’ in cooperating with what they believed was a legal and presidentially authorized program…” This statement is categorically false. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing AT&T for illegally providing the government with access to all of its telephone and internet data. According to Cindy Cohn, lead counsel for EFF, the judge in this case has already ruled that “no reasonable phone company in the position of AT&T could have thought that what they were being asked to do was legal…”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put into place not to allow the government to spy on foreign enemies but to protect the rights of American citizens. Under FISA, the process of monitoring the communications of foreign agents has always been fast, efficient and never questioned. The safeguards of FISA were put into place because whenever the government has had no oversight in its surveillance activities, these activities have always been allowed to drift to illegal use to monitor internal political enemies. Do we want to return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover’s files on all the US citizens who are “enemies of the state”?

On October 19, Senator Christopher Dodd announced “I will do what I can to see to it that no telecommunications giant that was complicit in this Administration's assault on the Constitution is given a get-out-of-jail-free card.” As soon as I read these words from Senator Dodd, I registered to work on his campaign.

To paraphrase Michael Harold, a scientist, artist and businessman in California: September 11, 2001 changed nothing. July 4, 1776 changed everything.

Our Constitution is under attack by cowards hiding behind an irrationally overblown fear. Ironically, “They hate us for our freedoms” has been used to dismantle those very freedoms. I believe that a President Dodd will restore our Constitution and our freedom.

[PS--I checked and Michael Harold hasn't posted since early September. Anyone know why we haven't heard from this powerful voice in so long?]

I know, I'm fantasizing (and I'm an Edwards fan!)- but can y'all leave me with it for at least an hour before you shoot it down?

-- Yellow Dog

Jane Hamsher put up a poll earlier in the week for the Firedoglake readers. Dodd only got 6%

This morning she asked readers if they'd change their vote if Dodd stands up on this legislation. So far just about everyone has said that 'yes' they would change their vote to Dodd. This is no small matter. If he can turn this around, things will slide in new directions...perhaps.