I believe the telecoms should be given immunity immediately, and then decide the issue of what the limits of their collaboration with Government should be, via legislation.

Let's go another hypothetical, then: what will you do when the "limits" of this future "legislation" are inevitably also transgressed (the government/corporate "collaborators" -- your word -- having learned that they will not be held to account for such violations)? More immunizing followed by more impotent legislation (albeit, the can will have then been kicked much further down the road, so that any new legislation will be weaker still)? Or will you really, REALLY, make them obey your hypothetical future legislation?

Putting the specifics of your reasons for this position aside, do you feel your position on immunity is consistent the concept of ‘the rule of law?’

Of course. Laws change when circumstances change. Either way it's up to Congress to decide, as per the rule of law.

Feeling a little left out, man. Maybe my question is too straightforward?

What do you say: do you support the idea of the rule of law or not?

I suspect that Dodd would then refuse to grant his consent for moving to the vote. However, I don't know precisely how the interruption to Dodd would take place or how his refusal to consent to the action would be expressed or even whether it must be honored.

I can't cite you chapter and verse from the Senate rules to explain this, but I have spoken with Dodd staffers over the last few days, and basically, once Dodd gets the floor, if he refuses to yield it back, there is nothing Reid can do until he can go no longer. That's what a real filibuster is.

A lot of it depends, then, on endurance, energy and the like. They expect Dodd to go 10-12 hours or so, after which they can proceed. For reasons I don't quite understand, there is this sense that if Dodd could go 30 hours, he could do real damage in terms of their ability to proceed, but that's just not going to happen.

How, exactly, is an ability to predict the future required to enhance airport security in the face of hijacking threats?

Nobody ever accused you of being smart, but that was the dumbest thing you've said in a while.

But I didn't say that did I. Tsk.
But let's consider hijacking threats. Do you know that FAA policy regarding hijacks was to consider it a negotiation, to be approached passively, to preserve the lives of passengers? I'll bet not.

What enhancements would you institute, and how would you explain them? Would you just announce to the country hijacks had been threatened? Would you inadvertently kill the airline industry over a rumor? Would you just start strip searching people without notice? Gee hag, how about a suggested real world plan rather than just suggesting "enhancements." You'll find out quickly that responsibility for outcomes changes the situation for the average dilettante.

I like your name. Your name is not hag. Before I'm off for the night, I too feel like a shot to drink with you?

I'd offer you a stiff screwdriver or a glass of wine?

Who knows how to make a screwdriver on the ice cube rocks?

If the wingdings thoughts get any worst, who don't want a strong cocktail or a Abbey Afflingem Belgium blond bier?

The comments make me thirsty. The cranial cavity keeps clinking from loose cannon Right-winger's screwier-nut-loose neocon's clanging ilk.

The threads get good, and who knows why sometimes a shooter242 kind will get extra screwy. He's righto titty? A ninny. He's all up tights with those who fax bloody marry vodka murder messages, alright.

P.S. I'll not mention on the site some warm regards to Introverts. It be not wise to 'speak' in public some thoughts to those who are decently shy, and that, in-my-opine, is their beautiful strength.

GOPS cling to apron strings.

They tag behing holding gop coattails.

Okay. Now I am confused.

Are you saying that breaking the law is consistent with the idea of ‘the rule of law’ provided that the legislative body amends the laws to retroactively sanction the illegal activity? Or simply that legislating retroactive immunity is consistent with ‘the rule of law?’ If the latter, let me rephrase my original question: do you feel that the implicit sanctioning of illegal (and here there is no need for an “IF”, immunity says that it was okay, illegal or not) activity on the part of telecommunication companies imparted by retroactive immunity is consistent with ‘the rule of law?’

Thanks for pointing out that "Hag" seems to be a less than friendly nickname.

I wear it as a badge of honor, humbled as I am to be informed that Genoa is in a different hemisphere, which changes everything.

I was slicing peppers the other night, and I chuckled as I thought of your warnings about that.

Pee off the porch for me, at your earliest convenience, here on the 13th floor that's not an option.

At this point, the most productive thing Dodd could do is threaten to immediately resign from the Democratic Party and agree to caucus with the Republicans until the next election, unless Reid honors his "hold."

I understand that it will be very difficult for Dodd to be effective in a future Senate controlled by Democrats if he is forced to carry out that threat. But this is a watershed moment for the country, with nothing short of the rule of law at stake. If our leaders bestow retroactive immunity on the telecoms for lawbreaking, a prescedent that threatens to undermine our entire system of constitutional government, particularly the separation of powers, will be established. We will have demonstrated that anyone rich enough can exempt themselves from accountability for lawbreaking by buying off lawmakers after the fact. Nothing that Dodd will accomplish in future Senatorial work even remotely compares in importance to what he might accomplish with this threat.

And really, what good is it for the Democrats to be in power if they are going to facilitate this atrocity. If the Democrats are going to allow this, they should simply not be in power.

The Republican party's leadership has already demonstrated that they love power, ideology, and their party, far far more than they love our country. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not even understand what American is - a political community united by a mutual commitment to long treasured political ideals, the most basic of which is the rule of law. Passing this measure will not corrupt them, since they are already corrupt. And Americans know this, which is one of the reasons they were removed from power last year.

If retroactive immunity for lawbreaking is going to happen, Dodd should not allow the Democratic party to be in charge when it does. If it passes when they are in power, then they will have shown that they too love money or power more than the country.

This goes for the principled opponents of the measure in the House. If Pelosi is going to allow this, she should not be in power. Give power back to the Republicans and let them do it.

Joseph W. Huster