• news
  • SUNDAY DECEMBER 16 2007 9:00 AM

Dear Democrats, Your Congressional Leaders Suck Balls



A couple of days ago I wrote an amazing article about Nancy Pelosi being unworthy of her position as Speaker of the House. Today I will address why Harry Reid is an incompetent, spineless piece of shit who is unworthy of his position as Senate Majority Leader. Grow some balls Dems and kick spineless grandpa to the curb.

On Monday, the Nevada moron will bring a new FISA bill to the floor of the Senate that will help the Bush administration get the telecom industry immunity and surveillance oversight protections. At the same time he will be taking an action that he assured concerned Democrats that he would not take. Nice work, liar.

Harry could have brought two bills to the floor. One did not give the telecom companies a free pass for illegally spying on Americans. The other, written by Jay “I got millions from the telecoms” Rockefeller (horrible nickname) and Dick Cheney (horrible monster), gives the companies immunity from civil lawsuits for committing CRIMES.

Reid has pulled a fast one by making the Senate Intelligence Committee bill the "base bill." That means to remove amnesty and increase oversight would require 60 votes, which is impossible. Reid has been telling people for weeks that he would not bring the bill to the floor as a “base bill.” Every Democratic presidential candidate and 14 Senators have demanded that the other bill be the base bill. He is a fucking liar and no better than the Bush administration for pulling such a move.

But that is not even the most disgusting aspect of this move. Reid is screwing over Chris Dodd, who put a hold on the amnesty bill. He is refusing to honor that hold. Understand that Reid honors holds for Republicans constantly, like the Emmit Till Bill, which would authorize $10-million annually over 10 years to rejuvenate prosecutions of pre-1970 civil rights murders.

Now, that bill is not important enough to override a hold. But giving the telecoms immunity from their crimes is very important.

Dodd was forced to fly back to DC on Friday to filibuster. You may be wondering why, because I just wrote that the vote would take place on Monday. Well, Harry the devious made sure the filibuster would take place over the weekend with slimy schedule maneuvers. So, Dodd will filibuster in front of an empty chamber, when reporters are gone and other Senators are enjoying their weekend. Then when the Senate returns on Monday, Harry will push for a cloture vote. This is absolutely disgusting behavior from a Democratic leader.

Understand this Democrats: Your leadership is doing everything it can to give Bush and Cheney the FISA bill they want. It gives the telecoms total immunity for criminal acts and limits oversight on an illegal program. The Democrats are putting their energy into making sure their opponents win and The Constitution is used like toilet paper.

And for those tools out there, who think this is about keeping America safer, you are shockingly naïve.


To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America


Wow, what a surprise. The Bush administration was abusing their already abusive system. How completely in character of them.


In a separate N.S.A. project, executives at a Denver phone carrier, Qwest, refused in early 2001 to give the agency access to their most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls, according to people aware of the request, which has not been previously reported. They say the arrangement could have permitted neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order, which alarmed them.


Early 2001. When was 9/11 again? Why should I believe this program was not used against political opponents? Why should companies who aided this blatantly illegal program be spared from lawsuits? But most importantly, why the fuck is the Democratic Senate Majority Leader giving aid to people who have undermined The Constitution?

What is it about November 2006 that you did not understand, Harry? The American people quite simply handed the Democrats a stunning victory so they would curb the abuses by Bush and company. You have taken that mandate and turned it into a pile of shame. Please explain to me how those on the opposite side of the aisle would be doing this in any way differently. They would not. You are a coward and possibly the most useless Majority Leader I have ever seen. Your hideous acts demoralize your base and drive people from your party. In essence, Harry, you are the Democratic Karl Rove. You and your kind are why I am not and never will be a Democrat. Although, there is a guy who would make a great Senate Majority Leader. He's the guy who is filibustering this bill: Chris Dodd. You can send Chris Dodd a bit of support here.

And feel free to call or email your Senator Democrats and let them know where you stand on the Majority Leader’s actions.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
401kboy

401kboy

Woodbridge, NJ
May 2007

DEC 16, 2007 09:40 AM

Why does this surprise anyone. The Dems and Repubs are simply two faces of the same party - the ruling party. Any public differences between the parties are just window dressing. They all serve their corporate overloads.

grazing_cattle

grazing_cattle

Richmond, MI
August 2007

DEC 16, 2007 09:51 AM

You do realize that it is insanely easy to get a tap on somebody's phone based on current FISA laws. This is why they so desperately need to be updated. Getting a phone tap on everybody that calls latin countrys to control drug trafficking is perfectly legal under these laws. FISA laws are outdated and desperately need to be updated and changed and with all change there is generally a little give and take. If the only payment for this change is amnesty to phone companies, I support it all the way.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

DEC 16, 2007 09:51 AM

I'm glad you wrote this article FearTheReaper. You can also take some action through the Electronic Frontier Foundation here:

zoom image

If you care about electronic privacy now and in the future, please take a few minutes to do something about it.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

DEC 16, 2007 09:53 AM

This is depressing

AshenLight

AshenLight

USA
October 2005

DEC 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Excellent article FTR. It does manage to fit several lifetimes worth of nightmares into a few paragraphs. I used to think this might be over next November but now...

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

DEC 16, 2007 10:09 AM

coyotemike said:
This is depressing


Yes.

KUNGFOO said:
I'm glad you wrote this article FearTheReaper. You can also take some action through the Electronic Frontier Foundation here:

zoom image

If you care about electronic privacy now and in the future, please take a few minutes to do something about it.


Yeah, I emailed a few Senators today. Hopefully it'll do something. But I'm not sanguine.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

DEC 16, 2007 10:17 AM

grazing_cattle said:
You do realize that it is insanely easy to get a tap on somebody's phone based on current FISA laws. This is why they so desperately need to be updated. Getting a phone tap on everybody that calls latin countrys to control drug trafficking is perfectly legal under these laws. FISA laws are outdated and desperately need to be updated and changed and with all change there is generally a little give and take. If the only payment for this change is amnesty to phone companies, I support it all the way.



The flaw with that argument is that telecom immunity will undermine any notions of privacy in the electronic realm. We're talking about setting a legal precedent here, more so important than any potential monetary damages.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

DEC 16, 2007 10:27 AM

Zarth said:
Yeah, I emailed a few Senators today. Hopefully it'll do something. But I'm not sanguine.



I'm not suffering from delusions of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington either; but the more people throwing these figurative rocks, the greater the chance it's going to wang a Senator or three in the head.

grazing_cattle

grazing_cattle

Richmond, MI
August 2007

DEC 16, 2007 10:29 AM

KUNGFOO said:

grazing_cattle said:
You do realize that it is insanely easy to get a tap on somebody's phone based on current FISA laws. This is why they so desperately need to be updated. Getting a phone tap on everybody that calls latin countrys to control drug trafficking is perfectly legal under these laws. FISA laws are outdated and desperately need to be updated and changed and with all change there is generally a little give and take. If the only payment for this change is amnesty to phone companies, I support it all the way.



The flaw with that argument is that telecom immunity will undermine any notions of privacy in the electronic realm.



I don't think we have any privacy right now. I don't entirely support the immunity, but think that it may just give us a clean slat to work with. I don't think I am clear on the laws broken by the telecom companies. Phone taps being so easy to get, were they still just applying them where they were not suppose to?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

DEC 16, 2007 11:02 AM

grazing_cattle said:
I don't think we have any privacy right now. I don't entirely support the immunity, but think that it may just give us a clean slat to work with. I don't think I am clear on the laws broken by the telecom companies. Phone taps being so easy to get, were they still just applying them where they were not suppose to?



There is no clean slate possible, telecom immunity now set the stage for telecoms to claim this legislation as a defense against any future potential lawsuits. Which is why this particular piece of legislation is crucial.

And we're talking about more than phone taps here; e-mail, VoIP, the web sites you visit, forum posts, etc... Any packet of data sent by you, me and everybody over the telecom's networks is at stake here. I don't think I could improve upon how the EFF has summed it up here:

In 2005, Americans learned that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap phone and email communications involving United States persons within the U.S. without obtaining a warrant or court order pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). FISA prohibits unauthorized electronic surveillance. Shortly afterwards Americans also learned that the major telecoms participated in warrantless surveillance surveillance, handing over billions of their customers private communications and communications records. EFF later developed specific, undisputed whistleblower evidence demonstrating AT&T's direct participation in the warrantless surveillance by diverting its customer communications to the NSA.

EFF believes the warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, FISA, the Wiretap Act, and most likely the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Moreover, it is neither authorized nor justified by the Constitutional power of the executive.

punk

punk

Phoenix, AZ
January 2004

DEC 16, 2007 11:19 AM

I work in the telecom industry. This is dangerous legislation. It's possible to literally record and store every piece of communication that leaves your home. Phone, Internet access - all of it. Who you called, when you called them, what you talked about, what websites you visit, when you visit them, what you downloaded, what you submitted.

Even I can do that to a limited degree with the tools I carry, but thanks to legislation, that's illegal. And it should stay that way.

I'm going to write my local representatives, and I urge all of you to do the same.

grazing_cattle

grazing_cattle

Richmond, MI
August 2007

DEC 16, 2007 11:35 AM

KUNGFOO said:

There is no clean slate possible, telecom immunity now set the stage for telecoms to claim this legislation as a defense against any future potential lawsuits. Which is why this particular piece of legislation is crucial.
.



Against any future potential lawsuits concerning a past offence? I can't imagine it referring to the possibility that this law will protect them if they break the law again.
I also think that your link about EFF just shows why we need these FISA law to be more strict as well as making warrants for wiretaps a little less accessible.

Flyer

Flyer

USA
August 2005

DEC 16, 2007 11:50 AM

401kboy said:
Why does this surprise anyone. The Dems and Repubs are simply two faces of the same party - the ruling party. Any public differences between the parties are just window dressing. They all serve their corporate overloads.



This is the TRUTH! Demopublicans and Republicrats are one and the same. They are lap dogs kneeling at the feet of their corporate overlords.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

DEC 16, 2007 11:55 AM

RON PAUL '08!

code_red

code_red

Portland, OR
July 2005

DEC 16, 2007 11:57 AM

I think if the bill is turned down, it shows America and the Government does not support amnesty for companies committing these acts... thus, support could help provide evidence in a judicial hearing regarding this subject, no?

or did I miss something? confused

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next