(FISA)Immunity delay will be vetoed(according to Mukasey and McConnell)

[maddezmom]

Source: CNN

Posted: 06:54 PM ET
From Justice Producer Terry Frieden

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Key Bush Administration officials Monday warned the Democratic Senate leader that any delay in granting legal immunity to telephone companies aiding government surveillance efforts would be met by a presidential veto.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in a strongly worded letter that a proposal to delay the legal protections by more than a year was a transparent effort to kill them.



Read more: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/07/immunity-delay-will-be-vetoed/

---

New Adventures In FISA Posturing

Congress' wrangling over the coming FISA legislation has left critics of the administration's warrantless wiretapping operation to wonder if the telecoms that participated were going to skate by with Congressionally-giftwrapped immunity, and if the Inspector General's oversight would actually expose any wrongdoing. One of the saving graces of the current legislation has been an amendment introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), which could pave a way for a compromise on immunity without necessarily stripping the oversight process of its teeth by allowing Congress to delay a decision on immunity until ninety days after the IG reports are submitted. Brian Beutler explains:

There are a couple ideas here. The first is that by making telecom immunity contingent upon the submission of the IG reports, Bingaman's basically offering a guarantee that the IG reviews will be complete, and (at least in some cases) reported with some measure of credibility. The comprehensive report might not be a white wash after all. And if it's extremely damning, the (new, more Democratic) Congress could-but probably wouldn't-act in the intervening 90 days to amend the law and strip it of its immunity provision. Likewise, if the IG report does turn out to be weak, Congress could press for more.
Beutler stipulates that there remain "ifs, built on top of ifs," but nevertheless suggests that the administration might nevertheless be "somewhat chastened" by the amendment.

~snip~

Any amendment that would delay implementation of the liability protections in this matter is unacceptable. Providing prompt liability protection is critical to the national security. Accordingly, we, as well as the President's other senior advisers, will recommend that the President veto any bill that includes such an amendment.

So, to translate: If telecoms get tried, people die. There are highwaymen who will offer you more justice than Michael Mukasey.

more:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/new-adventures-in-fisa-po_n_111300.html

[Uncle Joe]

1. How could they veto a filibuster? n/t

[kay1864]

16. If you read the OP, it's not a filibuster

See post #15 below.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I know it's not a filibuster, my point is a filibuster could accomplish the same thing

without needing as many votes as it takes to pass a bill and the pRresident can't veto a filibuster.

[kay1864]

18. Uh huh. So why did you ask the question then?

[Uncle Joe]

19. It was a rhetorical question, you didn't to answer it. n/t

[kay1864]

20. OK then...a rhetorical question as the first response to the OP...

yet not referenced in the OP. And no answer or discussion wanted or needed. And no clue that the question is rhetorical.

Got it. Thanks for posting.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Well, I was referring to the promise of veto, but you're correct I should have

spelled it out better.

Peace to you.

[kay1864]

22. And now we're back to my original point

No promise of any such veto in the OP.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Regarding veto, do you mean other than the heading and the first paragraph?

"FISA)Immunity delay will be vetoed(according to Mukasey and McConnell)"

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Key Bush Administration officials Monday warned the Democratic Senate leader that any delay in granting legal immunity to telephone companies aiding government surveillance efforts would be met by a presidential veto."

And yes as I've explained in an earlier post I know they're not referring to a filibuster, I just took it a step further in my first post, as I was referring to a more effective strategy of filibuster by rhetorical means of which you didn't get and I should have spelled out better.

[kay1864]

24. Well let's see, if one reads *beyond* the first paragraph

As in the second paragraph...

It becomes pretty clear. Do I need to "spell it out better"? (refer to my post #15 below if you're still lost)

"rhetorical means of which you didn't get" :rofl:

[Pastiche423]

2. Easy answer...

Do not bring the bill to the floor.

But does Reid have the stones?

[depakid]

13. "But does Reid have the stones?"

I tnink that question's been answered a long time ago....

[frog92969]

3. So let Chimpy veto the bill

Then if "people die" our good buddy Harry can point the finger at him.

Or better yet, don't take any chances and just let the thing collect dust.
It's not just the immunity that's a travesty in that bill.

[Demit]

4. I would love to see this get before the American public: "If telecoms get tried, people die."

That's the gist of what the White House is trying to say. Wouldn't it be nice if the media didn't help them spin it as an issue of national security, as they will be wont to do, but instead put it out to the people that the White House is covering for its friends, and in the end, more importantly, itself.

[minnesota_liberal]

5. Fortunately it's impossible to veto a delay

If Chimpy wants to vetos a BILL, that's another story. Then he'll obviously be taking an action as president to CYA.

[kay1864]

15. Actually it's not, if you read the OP

"a proposal to delay the legal protections by more than a year"

ie an amended bill that would delay immunity to telecoms. Not a delay to the bill itself.

[bertman]

6. What better reason could there be to hold up this abomination of a bill than to piss off

these fascist assholes?

Aside from the fact that it destroys our protections against illegal searches, I mean.

[Hulk]

7. Let him veto.....then, the weight can be on his pathetic shoulders.

...because if the Democratic Congress caves on this one, they will appear no better than the corrupt repug/neocon/fascist pigs that ruled before them.

[NoodleyAppendage]

8. Thanks Charles Schumer & Diane Feinstein, you good for nothing pieces-of-sh*t. Thanks for fascist AG

Everytime I hear something about Mukasey, I make it a point to thank and remind folks about Schumer & Feinstein's support of this jerk off. Both Schumer and Feinstein are prime examples of Dems that we no longer need in Washington. They have been consistent enablers of the fascist Bush regime.

J

[Amonester]

9. their consistent enabling "pays" them well...

or it "pays" someone they "know" well...
or they "enjoy" their afternoon cocktails well...

[spag68]

10. All New Yorkers

Listen up, you can blame Schumer for this, it was him that recommended the creep Mukasey. Send him some e-mails, I have. Maybe it will dawn on him that he too can be voted out.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. So it gets vetoed? So what?

The old FISA law stays in place and there is no telecom immunity. Let the Commander-in-Stupidity dig in his heels. He grows more irrelevant by the minute and takes the rest of his people and family down with him.

[Triana]

12. How does Evil DickTater intend to veto a delay?

This makes no sense. Not that anything the Maggot King does makes sense.

[tkmorris]

14. Then make him fucking veto it

Then he can live WITHOUT a goddamn FISA bill and just shut the fuck up and like it. He can't justify a veto to the public, grow some fucking cojones and DO IT.