Many of us feel that the actions to be taken by the Senate Democrats in the next few days on this issue will determine the way “truly patriotic citizens” will view the democratic presidential contenders during the remainder of this year, especially in regard to the potential of agreeing to retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

No matter how the Republicans may try to frame this debate, there is no way any reasonable citizen could construe that allowing retroactive immunity would be anything more than abandoning the constitutional principles for which each Senator was elected to his/her office. If the three major democratic candidates are truly listening to the people on this issue, they should not just issue a statement enforcing their views on “no immunity”, but should also be bringing it up in every interview during this week’s campaign. Moreover, the two active Senators should join Senator Dodd, et al, this week on the Senate floor, if needed, to debate this issue.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE would consider this to be caving in on national security. This has nothing to do with national security. It has everything to do with protecting the constitutional rights of every citizen of this country.

Can you hear me now?

My senator doesn't. The Democratic front runners don't.

But, apparently, the telecoms do.

Works for me!

To grant me a few minutes to see that question and also to ask john@johnedwards.com to take the lead. ;-)

...absolutely;

For where I'm putting my two cents in November.

Fixed -- sine qua non.

Firms that eschew that dirty business, likewise.

[In brief flashes of what has to be bipolar, kinda wish Paul wasn't outta Grimm's]

I received an email from Credo Action sponsoring a petition to Obama, Clinton and McCain which reads:

_________________________________________________

This week the Senate is set to resume debate on wiretapping legislation and whether or not the Bush administration and big telecom companies will be retroactively excused for previous violations of the FISA law. Three key senators (Clinton, McCain, and Obama) who have a unique voice in this debate due to their presidential candidacies are out campaigning; will they return to Washington and stand up for our civil liberties and the rule of law?

Unfortunately the Senate is considering legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution and includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Senators Dodd and Feingold, among others, have been fighting alongside us Credo Action members. Dodd has repeatedly voiced his commitment to stop retroactive immunity by any means necessary, including a filibuster.

But where are the Senators who want to be President?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both stated that they will support a filibuster of retroactive immunity. But last December both remained on the campaign trail while Senator Dodd forced a delay. John McCain, widely regarded as a political "maverick," has been silent on this critical issue.

If Clinton, McCain, or Obama want to be our President in 2009, they need to stand up for the rule of law now, in 2008.

Please contact Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama today (through their presidential campaigns) and ask them to leave the campaign trail and return to Washington to protect our civil liberties and stop retroactive immunity from becoming law. After seven years of George W. Bush, we need leaders who will defend Americans' right to privacy. The opportunity for Clinton, McCain, and Obama to prove their mettle is here.

Will you call on them to stand up for the Constitution today?

We can win this fight, but we need our presidential candidates to put the Constitution ahead of politics to stop a bad wiretapping bill.

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton, Activism Manager

CREDO Action from Working Assets

P.S. -- If you sign up for CREDO Mobile Action here, we'll text-message you when the Senate is getting ready to vote on wiretapping legislation so you can call your Senators directly and urge them not to give President Bush broad new powers.

___________________________________________________________

http://action.credomobile.com/

Look for this link:

Tell the Presidential Candidates: Get Back to D.C. and Protect our Civil Liberties

about half way down the right hand side of the page.

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/01/full-text-from-obama-campaign-retelecom.html

This is the full text of the e-mail I got from the Obama campaign after I (rather snarkily) suggested a trip to DC for the FISA vote on the "Schedule an event" form on Obama's campaign site.

The letter indicates that he'd LIKE to provide leadership on the issue, but clearly his leadership might be confined to simply not being there for the Cloture vote.

I continue to hope that when push comes to shove, he will do better.

Will voting against warrantless eavesdropping make Democrats look soft on terror?

Presumably the Democrats have done market research on this?

What do the polls say? Are the polls accurate?

Will the voter's hand tremble at the ballot box with fear at the lack of security offered by the Democrats? It's weird because if I'm not mistaken 9/11 and the Hurricane Katrina debacle happened on the Republican's watch.

My view is to take the risk. It's overdue for someone to say that changing our laws is a victory for the terrorists.

And if the canditates point out all the telecom money being used to buy the law change to protect the telecoms, then they expose the Repulican's as lawbreakers claiming to be security protectors - yet again conflating 9/11 for personal gain.

He needs a breakaway issue, and while I can understand that the last thing any candidate needs in this day and age is a cause to champion that's anything but pointless, fluffy bromides, but FISA immunity is a huge deal.

The basic concept is: "Bush has been given enormous powers to spy on you, your e-mail, and your phone calls, to fight terrorism. He wants more. He wants to be able to do it without ever telling anyone, like a court, who he spied on, why, and what he learned. That's Un-American in the extreme and is asking too much, especially for a President who's lied to the American people so much, and about issues of life and death, so often that we no longer trust him at all".

If that's really too complex for the American people to understand without reflexively calling the person saying it a commie rat bastard Islamofascist terrorist type, then the country is too far gone to be rescued.

Personally, I don't think the country is that far gone. I wouldn't think anyone wanting to be President of it should believe it, either, especially if they're going to run around blabbing about "hope."