The Senate is recessed until January 22nd. Well, actually, it isn’t really recessed…the Dems are holding pro forma sessions during the break to prevent any recess appointments. Bravo for that! But the Senate is not going to reconvene until the 22nd. A lot is going to happen between now and then. The Iowa caucuses are on the third, the New Hampshire primary is on the 8th, there’s the Michigan thing on the 15th, and the Nevada caucuses (and the South Carolina primary for the Republicans) on the 19th. When Congress gets back they’ll have three things looming: the South Carolina primary (for the Democrats) on the 26th, the State of the Union speech on the 28th, and the Florida primary on the 29th. It’s within this highly politically charged atmosphere that Harry Reid will have to navigate the FISA bill.
It’s important that opponents of amnesty for the telecommunications corporations explain what we want and what we don’t. We do not want to punish the telecommunications corporations. We want to know what was done and why it was done. And we want warrantless surveillance to stop, and those that ordered it to be held accountable. If Harry Reid can work out some kind of compromise where the administration and the telcos turn over all the relevant information, then we don’t mind immunizing the telcos, or substituting the federal government as the defendant in the civil cases. But we strongly suspect that the entire Republican strategy is to hide what was done and why it was done. Here is the bottom line: we do not want the Democrats to pass any FISA bill that will aid in a cover-up of crimes done by the administration. If the only bill we can get is a bill that covers-up criminal activity, we do not want any bill to pass.
So, what can Harry Reid do? First, get the framing right. Tell the American people that you will not pass any bill that is nothing more than an obstruction of justice. Offer the administration a deal. If they turn over all relevant documents and make no objections to subpoenas for testimony, Reid will allow for a vote on ‘substitution’. Arlen Specter has floated something along these lines, but without assurances of cooperation. When the president turns this deal down, offer to pass a patch bill which fixes the foreign-to-foreign call loophole in FISA, but does not do anything more. When the president rejects this deal, tell the American people that the president is sacrificing the security of the country because he wants to cover up his own crimes.
Each of the presidential candidates needs to adopt this same rhetoric. A united front from our candidates will show that the leadership of the party is adamant about ‘no cover-up’ and willing to take their chances with the electorate over this issue.
What Reid absolutely should not do is introduce a bill with immunity that requires 60 votes to strip out. He has to remain in control of the vote. For Democrats like Diane Feinstein who do not want to vote against the telecommunications corporations, or Mary Landrieu who doesn’t want to risk being called soft on terrorism, remind them that the leadership is united and will blame Bush for putting a cover-up over our safety.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee should make rumblings about opening impeachment hearings over obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress in several areas: failure to comply with subpoenas, destruction of the CIA tapes, and illegal warrantless surveillance. The object here is to apply a little pressure and also to highlight the case that the debate over FISA is really a debate over the cover-up of criminal activity.
The Senate has to be willing NOT to pass a FISA bill and to get blamed for introducing a potential security risk. It isn’t about punishing corporations that cooperated with the federal government, it is about getting to the truth about what happened and why. Once we know the answers to those questions, we’ll have a better basis for updating FISA.
All I want for Christmas is for Democrats to…………
P.S. I’ll leave you extra milk and cookies, too.
Excuse me?
Harry Rid embraces his toolnicity…he wants to be the Sears Craftsman of the Senate.
So, here’s my question: What does Reid WANT to do? We are ASSUMING that he wants to prevent telecom immunity. Is there any evidence of that? We assume that he will try and fail to get immunity removed. Is there any evidence that he is not ALREADY in the pocket of the telecoms?
the evidence is mixed. Reid is officially against amnesty and will vote against it.
I am one of those who called Afghanistan after 9/11 to contact a friend who I lost contact a long time ago. Big corporations hire lawyers by the dozen. They knew that in order to provide information regarding an American they needed a court order. They broke the law. As one who has probably been spied on, you bet your ass that I want to punish the telecoms and if given a chance I will sue their ass to kingdomcome. And this also goes for this government.
Agreed. You bet your ass I want them punished. This is no frat house prank. Punishment is the only thing that will keep other corporations from engaging in illegal acts in the future.
I personally would prefer to spend my time building a grass roots groundswell against immunity than advocate for letting the telecoms off the hook.
Qwest didn’t cooperate and lost out on government contracts. The other telcos were paid to break the law. At the very least, some sort of triple payback of illegally obtained contracts seems to be in order.
OK, here we see Step 2. OK, if we do not pass the FISA, what will happen?
Myself, I think that we need to get a bill in the hopper called the Constitutional Restoration bill, and see how that goes. Probably too late.
my general impression of your views from your comment history is that you suffer strongly from spousal abuse syndrome. Simply put, your first instinct is to run away from anything that could be demagogued by the opposition. I just explained exactly how to frame this to counteract accusations of treason.
Once those are both rejected, we can honestly say that we offered to immunize the telcos and we offered to fix the FISA loophole, and we were rejected for the simple reason that the president has something to hide. We will not aid in an obstruction of justice…in fact, we might just open up an inquiry into high up and extension of the obstructions of justice are…
Offense is your friend.
freaking typos:
How high up and the extent of the obstructions.
is that you think that the American people follow politics.
They don’t.
We are about 1%.
The rest are subject to demagoguery. Thus, the ad is the truth.
If you believe that 1) we hold up the bill 2) they run a bunch of ads calling us traitors and 3) the American people look at the ads and conclude “Those gosh-darn Republicans! Lying again”, you are either a total idiot or seriously confused.
Sorry, the ads create the truth. You can say “Be brave” and that, plus 1.87, still will not get a cup of starbucks.
It is not lack of spine. It is, rather, that I am part of the reality-based community.
on this general area.
The general phenomena is “anchoring and adjustment.” The FIRST comment creates the “anchor.” It defines the frame, the overall view of the situation.
Thus, if Dems hold up FISA and refuse to pass it, Bush will call a news conference and define the anchor: “Dems are traitors. They are playing into the hands of al Qaeda.”
Subsequent comments are “adjustment.” They modify the initial view. However, the changes which can be effectuated are small, and each subsequent comment has reduced impact.
So, when Reid comes out and says “No, we are patriots preserving the Constitution,” this modifies but does not replace the initial comment. We are now considered to be traitors, but ones with good motives.
You seem to have a very naive idea about how ads and the bully pulpit works, plus a very odd notion that the modest, confused ramblings of Reid are given the same credence as Bush’s statements.
is fully consistent with this. “Framing” is another term for “setting the anchor”. By getting out first (if he gets out first), the anchor will be more favorable.
Now, the second issue sets in. Comments about security and helping to keep the American people safe have more credence and more power than statements about preserving the constitution. A majority of Americans currently favor waterboarding. That’s because it sounds effective, and we are currently being bamboozled by this fear crap.
Message salience is very important. “FISA will help keep you safe” is INHERENTLY more persuasive than “Stopping FISA will preserve the constitution.”
spousal abuse syndrome.
plain and simple.
And selective reading.
What did I say? I said Reid needed the Democratic presidential candidates to join in the frame and to remain united. How do you frame it?
The president has no reason not to go along with our plans unless he has something to hide. We want the truth and will not trade away the truth. When he stonewalls, it reinforces what you said at the outset…that he has something to hide. The more he stonewalls the worse it looks for him.
You bring Dodd, Biden, Obama, and Clinton back to DC to loudly declare that Bush must surely have committed some serious crimes if is going to let the country suffer a security risk just to avoid admitting what he’s done.
Throw in some DNC money to run ads if you want.
It’s not hard to win if you first resolve to win.
Therein lies the problem. . .
>>offer to bail out the telcos in return for full disclosure (because otherwise it is a cover-up).
precisely
I don’t think we need to make the telcos (at this point) suffer for their accomplice position. If they acted upon the requests of their government, we should know that.
If those requests occured before 9.11, well, that’s a matter for later day…
If we try to act outside of the 9.11 scope to these issues, at least initially, we’ll just shoot ourselves in the feet.
I confess, at this point, Boo, I think you are giving Harry Reid far too much credit. I can’t see him doing any of what you propose, despite the fact that it is eminently sensible.
Under the Wiretap act, the telcos face civil Statutory Damages of up to $10,000 per subscriber line.
As I connect the dots, it’s the datamining of call records that exposes them to the big $ risk, as it’s likely they turned over many more records than there were lines actually tapped for call content. For perspective, ATT’s total market capitalisation is $281 Billion.
Yes, I concur, with this note:
> -We want to know what was done and why it was done.
> -And we want warrantless surveillance to stop, and those that ordered it to be held accountable.
I think we need to make these two things separate…if we demand B we’ll be hard pressed to get A. A will lead to B on its own, we don’t need to legislate it.
hey! speak for yourself. i don’t remember anyone asking those of us who made over a hundred phone calls (actually way more than that) what we thought.
we don’t know yet what was involved. were there under the table payments or other forms of bribery? let the truth come out first, before you give away the farm. m’kay?