What is Digg?78 Comments
- Unicorny, on 11/15/2007, -0/+66I hope that Feingold is successful with this effort. It is unbelievable to me that we have reached a point in our history where we are debating whether or not laws should apply. These companies knew they were breaking the law. They should be held accountable. Thanks Russ!
- inactive, on 11/15/2007, -0/+55Russ Feingold is a jewel. I am a Libertarian Republican, Ron Paul supporter, but I believe that Senator Feingold is one of the most honest and honorable men in Washington. He states his valus clearly and then adheres to them. He is a great man.
- Napoleone, on 11/15/2007, -0/+37Someone, anyone, needs to filibuster this bill unless that amendment makes it through. If the criminals that spied on us get away with having done so, I'm going to follow my own legal code and ignore all the obviously meaningless, ***** laws that come from the Congress.
If our laws mean nothing to the government that issues them, they should be nothing to us. - rz8472, on 11/15/2007, -2/+24Michael Moore lied in his documentary "Fahreinheit 9-11" - there was someone who read the USA PATRIOT ACT in full. Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the patriot act, one month after 9-11. At that point it looked as if his senate career was over. His statement:
---
Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.
But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.
---
We seriously need to replace those spineless triangulating "democrats" with clones of Russ Feingold. - DiggLive, on 11/15/2007, -0/+20I hope so too. It's great seeing someone I voted for as resident in Green Bay do his job instead of special interests.
- pintomp3, on 11/15/2007, -0/+19i don't know how people swallow the "they haven't done anything wrong, but we need to give them immunity" line. it's like telling my wife that i haven't cheated on her, but i want her unconditional forgiveness and a pack of condoms.
- dema, on 11/15/2007, -0/+18I wish Russ would run for president. Oh, how I miss Wisconsin.
- totorototoro, on 11/15/2007, -0/+17I've already written to Senator Feinstein asking why she's trying to give the ***** telecomms immunity on this *****. (not in exactly those words :p )
- principle, on 11/15/2007, -0/+16The dictionary defines “treason” as “the betrayal of trust”. What Congress is doing with this bill is treason. Voting for a bill that is inconsistent with the Constitution is an express violation of Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;”. Members of Congress are generally considered to have blanket immunity on legislative acts. However, this immunity is not absolute once evidence is generated indicating Members of Congress voted for or against a bill for reasons that are illegal, contrary to public policy, or not consistent with their oath under 5 USC 3331.
- DocOrpheus, on 11/15/2007, -2/+17Feingold for Senate Majority Leader. Please. Reid is completely unfit for the job.
- SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -0/+13I think both the left and right can agree that business and government should be seperate for the good health of the country.
- inactive, on 11/15/2007, -0/+13Who in their Right Mind would support immunity before we know the crimes committed against all of us!!!!
- ncraig, on 11/15/2007, -0/+13Wisconsin FTW
- johnhummel, on 11/15/2007, -1/+12Let's ask this question:
Why is Bush and Co fighting so hard for this immunity?
Because they know what they did was wrong. If they did not break the law - as they keep saying, then this immunity would not be needed. But, if they *did* violate the law by using wiretaps and requesting other FISA information (information that they could have requested through a secret court, 72 hours *after* they started, so the claim of "Oh, we needed this information and couldn't wait for the slow courts" is a load of *****).
Bush and Co know that if the telco's are held to account for violating FISA, it's only a matter of time before the telco's start ratting out the Bush administration, pointing at them and saying "They - they made us do it! We had no choice in the matter!" And with only 12 months before a possible change from Republican to Democrat, they have to act *now* to get the telcos their immunity.
Otherwise, they'll be finding themselves right in the cross hairs, and possibly even in jail otherwise. Sadly, as my teacher used to say, the chickens always come home to roost. After ignoring the laws of the land for several years, I think the Bush administration chicken hawks are going to get what's coming to them. Justice may be slow and blind - but she is one determined bitch. - NnyCW, on 11/15/2007, -0/+11Completely agree as well on everything from Feingold being one of the best men in Washington to the Libertarian and Ron Paul support. And as long as I'm a resident of Wisconsin, Feingold will consistently have my vote as well.
Shame everyone likes to always complain about politicians and yet never vote, with rare exception (obviously), for such people. - johnwc723, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10On Wisconsin!!
- mst3kcrow, on 11/15/2007, -0/+8If it wasn't for the divorce, he could have been on the Presidential ticket. (Declined to run because he didn't want people prying into it) Feingold is a trailblazer in politics and I am not surprised he is the one to introduce this. I am leaving a message for him expressing my thanks. If you wish to do so as well, I left a link for contact info below.
http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html - principle, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7FISA explicitly states, “a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/us ...
FISA - TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I, Sect. 1809 Criminal sanctions
-- Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.
Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.[14]
In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees.[15]
Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches.
In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization. -- - ashembers, on 11/15/2007, -1/+8Obama / Feingold '08 baby!!!
- KidDynamo0, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7Obama/Feingold would be a true return of Camelot...hell yeah!
- Unicorny, on 11/16/2007, -0/+6Sen. Chris Dodd has said he will filibuster any bill that includes telecom immunity.
- inactive, on 11/16/2007, -0/+6Since corporations are treated as if they are humans with the right to free speech etc., shouldn't they also be eligible for the death penalty?
- mrgreg, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6I'm glad that the only Democrat with a spine left in Congress is the one I voted in last election season. Unfortunately, not many take after him.
- insomniac8400, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7Along with enforcing this law it would be nice to enforce immigration laws already on the books instead of crying about immigration reform. This country is messed up how very important laws get ignored, while kids are sued for copyright infringement and the responsible guy gets a public intoxication charge because he chose to walk home instead of drive.
- vguard, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5Revoke their corporate charters and disgorge all their assets. Let someone more loyal to their country run our infrastructure. The CEOs and whoever else participated should be in jail.
- vguard, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4Not true. The service agreement only applies to the information you gave when you signed up for your account. No one ever agreed to have the CONTENT of the phone calls monitored and shared because that would be illegal. This is about wiretapping. Which is illegal without a court order.
- AmonAmarth, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4Strike them down!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4I hope George Bush goes to jail.
- lohphat, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5America deserves the government it elected. If Russ can't get this bill through, you only have to look at the traitor YOU voted into office.
- jnadke, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.
- savetheusa1, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Coulndt have said it better myself
- Ekdog, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3Senator Feinstein has become the West Coast version of Joe Lieberman.
- vguard, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3We didn't elect these crooks. The elections were rigged.
- Timetheos, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4As a liberal/progressive, I feel that RP is a gem among the Republicans. While I disagree with many of his policies, he is honest, and he is a lot better than the authortian types (i.e., all the other Republican candidates) running for office.
- SpudgeBoy, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2jwquinlan = Fascist supporter
- obliviousfool, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2This would, at the very least, shoot down this immunity idea before the Supreme Court is forced to declare it unconstitutional. If this idea isn't ex post facto, I don't know what is! In other words, it would be a time saver. The immunity idea is a very large delay tactic.
- Timetheos, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Please, one issue at a time.
- SeethisPass, on 11/16/2007, -1/+3The war is a fake. it is false on every level except the killing the dying.,the pain and the destruction. You are supporting a madman.
- WhereAmI, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2It's starting to get cold out again. Better break out the snowmobile!
- WhereAmI, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Here Here!
- ronintetsuro, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Sometimes it feels like Russ is the only one left on the Hill putting in real work instead of debating non-issues and feigning outrage. Go Russ!
- Wiwoz, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2In theory, the Supreme Court and an armed populace.
- vguard, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Revoking the charter IS the corporate death penalty.
- thebellmaster1x, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Actually, it's you who has no sense of law. An ex post facto law defines something as criminal and applies itself retroactively. That's nowhere near the same as revoking immunity.
- Ekdog, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Indeed, and the White House has contended from the get go that it is all legal, so why the need for immunity?
- bizchris, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2NnyCW, I'm a big Feingold fan as well. However, I'm not sure the "have my vote" approach is enough - I think the internet has enabled our citizenry to now more actively attend to our representatives, to make sure that they are attending to us.
I started this spreadsheet, and while I haven't built out the Reasons column enough (I've got them sufficiently bookmarked through del.icio.us), I'd be interested to know what you and our co-Diggers think about my efforts here (any honest feedback or tips are appreciated), as well as my choices on the people/groups identified. Take a look here: http://cshack.googlepages.com/KeepReplace.xls (hope this isn't construed as spamming, as I don't have anything to gain by posting except helping get our country back) - BlacklabelSAR, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Just the democrats? I'd say 99% of incumbents.
- randersontt, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Nice gesture, but I'm guessing the Dems in Congress will fail to get it passed somehow and will them tout their mediocre support of it as evdence that they're standing up to the Bush administration and "sending a message", yadda yadda.
I'm beginning to think that the Democratic controlled Congress is PURPOSELY failing to actually do anything, while creating the illusion that they are somehow different than the Bush administration
.
When they actually effect some kind of change then I'll reconsider. - rz8472, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Bloomberg still supports keeping us in the War in Iraq. I don't think Feingold would want to be on such a ticket.
- Blindx0r, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Hey, that's not stopping Rudy Giuliani. But then again, I don't like comparing Russ to Rudy.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is