The first sentence..."completely predictable does not make it any less reprehensible."

...

The last sentence..."Americans can understand instinctively..."

Gads...

_

In the 1990 Jay Rockefeller paid a visit to Martinsburg West Virginia, Vet Center. I was employed there after getting fired from a postal job. Always-Out, jumping from one fry pan and into another... I think:

...The aims and standards of the oppressors teach something that's a painful wake-up if we Listen to our inside conscience, and so our ills and evils always remain, and let's survive our successive "liberations." We live in a world with dishonesty and miseries. hint. Instinct. However:

Let's never be greedy, snoops, pipers, peepers, yellow peppers, jalapenos, wasteful, thoughtless, and wear fancy threads, white starched shirts with black cricket cuff links...

But it is okay and still legal to wear a big red bell pepper as a loin cloth and be a DC lobbiest? okay- Amend that.

...When Jay (not a jailbird like us) Rockefeller visited the Vet Center (btw- Max Cleland, the vet who drinks beer and lost three body limbs, tsk.) in a propaganda's swing-tour via local-yokel hillbilly heaven...I gave him a 8X12 print of Vietnamese peasants in their native homeland. The photo was perfectly suitable for a free govt.frame.

I hate to be a Ingunna giver.

I want that beautiful image returned!

Maybe a triple amputee neo-wounded soldier can up-date and do the interior decoration of these Congressional critters office walls. O, go out and get a honest job like a honest injun instead. Hock those cuff-links and root for some pizza brown crust dough from a trash DC tourist can.

Of, course as completely reprehensible as it appears to me, the way J.R. looked at me when I gave him a gift, throwing the image inti the trash-heap doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

Thanks. Vent.

Cassia Bella is right that this is not yet law. In the Senate, one brave Senator can put a hold on legislation. Is it possible to convince Russ Feingold to step up and be a true patriot here? Is there another Senator we should approach instead? I think we should choose one, and deluge that office with calls, emails and even live demonstrators for those who live close enough to pressure one brave person to do what is right. Sadly, I think it will be necessary to find a single patriot, since we are unlikely to find 41 who will vote against cloture on this.

Also, we don't yet know what the House is doing. Yes, they pulled their bill yesterday, but at least the one they were going to vote on yesterday, while not perfect, did not have immunity. We need to pressure House leaders to continue on bills without immunity. Having a different bill in the House buys time for the lawsuits to progress.

Keep in mind that the atrocity passed in August has several months left before expiring. The new bill does not have to be passed yet, so everything we can do to delay joint passage of final legislation buys time for the suits to progress.

Finally, in preparation for when (sadly, not if), immunity is passed and signed into law, it seems to me that this should be subjected to challenge on a constitutional basis. Doesn't this violate separation of powers? How can a law be passed to erase a number of suits already pending before the courts? Similarly, can't some of the suits continue anyway, since they are based on constitutional, rather than statutory issues? I'd gladly miss a few days of Glenn's posts if he is lending a hand to drafting briefs on these issues. His expertise in this area is practically unmatched and his dedication to the issue is an inspiration to us all.

And I actually believed that 2006 was a turning point. It stings even worse when they are supposed to be on your side...

and yes I plan to call. But did you see the headline in the Washington Post?

Senate, Bush Reach Consensus on Spying

The Democrats are working with Bush to destroy our civil rights. That's not an opposition party, that's a co-conspirator.

We, and the Constitution, are screwed.

Is it possible to get 41 senators to prevent closure for this legislation or for House opponents to engage in parliamentary maneuvers (such as the GOP engaged in) to block this "compromise" bill?

As far as the public is concerned, there is no risk in denying the favor of immunity to the telecom industry. Any polling on the matter would almost certainly show that the public opposes granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms;I believe one poll found 59% of the public opposed, but I can't find a link to it now.

One point that should be emphasized is that until the telecom companies and the Administration come clean to Congress about past behavior, Congress can't possibly evaluate the merits of this legislation. Even more conservative Democrats in Congress have to be upset about this nose-thumbing behavior toward Congress (of course, it hasn't stopped this kind of Congressional surrender in the past).

In addition, even a good portion of the public willing to surrender civil liberties for national security concerns would be sympathetic to the idea that those guilty of past violations have to make a clean breast of it before Congress can even consider immunity for past violations. (A Truth and reconciliation approach.)

Neither the telecoms nor the Administration rate high in public esteem. There certainly is not much risk associated with denying favors to the telecom industry.

Overall, the idea that Democrats can't build an effective case to the public on this issue seems pretty fatuous as does the claim that the Democrats had to cave in order to avoid being seen as weak on national security. I am coming to the conclusion that Glenn's analysis as to motivation of many Congressional Democrats is more accurate and that the "can't be seen as weak on national security" is just an increasingly tattered cover story.

Every single person reading this must call their congressman and senator now. If we have time to read this blog, we have time to act now.