Steny Hoyer Says Some Strong Words Against Telecom Immunity
Some liberals think House Dem leader Steny Hoyer is weak on the telecom immunity issue, but it needs to be said that he has now delivered a speech in which he said some very forceful stuff in opposition to keeping telecom immunity in the revised FISA bill:
"Finally, this legislation is silent on the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that possibly violated privacy laws in turning over consumer information – because Congress does not have full access to information about what the companies did."Simply stated, it would be grossly irresponsible for Congress to grant blanket immunity for companies without even knowing whether their conduct was legal or not. And, importantly, this view is shared by the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Until we understand what legal authorities were used to justify the terrorist surveillance program, there does not appear to be any practicable way to include retroactive immunity in this bill."
Though he appears to be suggesting that his opposition to immunity might be tempered if he gets access to the White House documents that the Senate intel community reviewed before producing a bill containing immunity, this is nonetheless some pretty toughly-worded opposition. The question, as Atrios says, is whether he'll back these words up with legislative action.
Comments (10)
totallynext wrote on October 25, 2007 1:53 PM:He can give all the speeches he wants. Talk is cheap, votes are another thing altogether.
moondancer wrote on October 25, 2007 2:05 PM:Cool, Steny pretends he's not in the pocket of the telecoms. Practicing to be the next Spector are ya?
skip edwards wrote on October 25, 2007 2:12 PM:Steny is no more than a huge tool who has no backbone. Let's see if he backs his "tough" words with votes!
oleeb wrote on October 25, 2007 2:37 PM:Sorry, but this is not only not toughly worded it's idiotic!
Why is the United States Congress considering immunizing an entire industry for it's clearly illegal activity for any reason whatsoever? The activity which began PRIOR to 9/11 did not originate from the fictitious "War on Terror". It was simply an illegal activity. I don't give two hoots whether or not the administration asked them to break the law or not. Nobody gets to ask you to break the law in any other context and then you get a retroactive pass.
Hoyer implies that only if Congress also gets a piece of the Big Brother pie they could then be responsible in granting immunity. What a load of crap! It was illegal. Period. No immunity for law breaking. Period. They were spying on the American people for no good reason for God's sake! Why is Hoyer or any other elected representative of the people of the United States even talking about this as though it were okay?
It also looks very eerily as though he's talking tough to make sure the telecommunications companies pay him and his colleagues handsomely in campaign contributions. What better way to squeeze more money out of them than to threaten to jeapordize their immunity? Anyone who supports immunity for the telecommunications companies for ANY reason should be run out of Congress and then banished to North Korea where this kind of totalitarian crap is acceptable.
selise wrote on October 25, 2007 2:58 PM:if hoyer cared about the constitution the so-called "restore act" would never have made it to a vote, while holt's fisa bill was blocked in committee.
the "restore act" included basket warrants and prospective immunity.
when hoyer comes out in support of holt's fisa bill, then i'll believe his nice words. so long as he doesn't, we know it's all kabuki.
Dman wrote on October 25, 2007 4:36 PM:One simple fact continues to be ignored by the people commenting on this issue (including Hoyer) - if what these companies did was illiegal, but done in good faith OR was not illegal, then they do not need immunity - FISA already gives them that immunity. The telecommunications companies need immunity because what they did was both illegal and they knew it was illegal. All this "I need to know whether what they did was illegal" is a bunch of cover for an ultimate vote to give them immunity. The only time immunity is relevant is when it is needed. Granting these companies immunity is an abuse of the judicial system (Congress would be trumping the juries and judges who are considering this case right now), the American people (protecting companies who willfully violated privacy rights of citizens) and the existing laws (FISA and CALEA). Anyone who votes for this immunity should have their ass handed to them by their constituents.
CrooksRUs wrote on October 25, 2007 5:23 PM:I agree with Dman. The "I need to know whether what they did was illegal" assertion is inane. If what they did was not illegal, then there is no need for immunity.
So what is Hoyer actually saying? The only thing that makes sense is that Hoyer is saying that they need to ensure that the telcos broke the law before they give them immunity.
It is a real stretch to call this "some very forceful stuff in opposition to keeping telecom immunity in the revised FISA bill".
SocraticGadfly wrote on October 25, 2007 6:03 PM:A week ago, we were hearing that Steny was in favor of immunity.
Now, we're hearing, to read between the lines a bit, that he doesn't yet know himself what he might be in favor of immunizing.
That's your Democratic Congressional leadership; Hoyer being ignorant while, on the Senate side, Reid sounds ready to run over Dodd.
And people still won't consider third-party alternatives.
Paja wrote on October 25, 2007 6:35 PM:"Finally, this legislation is silent on the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that possibly violated privacy laws in turning over consumer information – because Congress does not have full access to information about what the companies did.
Excuse me, is there anyone who has read the legislation and confirm this statement? The legislation is silent on the issue of retroactive immunity? That would render virtually all recent coverage of this bill unintelligable.
Captain Nemo wrote on October 25, 2007 11:21 PM:The Democrats lose no chance to cave in to Bush and the Republicans on almost every issue. Why are they so weak and stupid? They have made an issue of SCHIP. Why can't they make an issue of of torture, refuse to revise the FISA act, etc. and use these confrontations to draw a distinction between their values and those of the Republicans?
They don't have to get any legislation passed; they only have to expose the Republicans for what they are, and let the voters take care of them in the next election.
But by always caving into the Republicans, they give the impression that the Republicans are right. The Democrats are not only weak and spineless, they are STUPID -- they hand the Republicans a victory on every issue. Why? Are they hoping to win over Republican voters? Not likely. Instead, they are steadily destroying their base.
Neither political party is qualified to lead the country at this point. Both parties lack any kind of credibility, and there is a lot of political posturing and long-winded arguments about condemnation, demanding apologies, and what-not, rather than taking any substantive action on the issues facing the country. Members of Congress who are not afraid to state and vote their convictions are few and far between.
The overwhelming vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and the vote to condemn MoveOn.org
for exercising its right of free speech are completely inane.
The current Democratic leadership in both houses is a disaster. Pelosi and Reid should step down now.
