Reid Issues Ultimatum: More Time Or No Wiretaps

At a State of the Union preview speech today at the National Press Club, Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a dramatic ultimatum to President Bush: either sign an extension of the Protect America Act (which sets conditions for the administration's warrantless surveillance) or "there will be no wiretapping."

"It's up to the president," Reid announced during a question and answer session. "Does he want the law? It's up to him." Reid said Bush needs to sign the extension to give more time for the Senate to reach a compromise on a new bill. Senate Republicans this week obstructed every effort for amendments to be made to the pending FISA legislation.

"If it fails, he can give all the speeches he wants, including the State of the Union, about how we've stopped things," Reid said. "If he does that, it's disingenuous, and it's not true."

Watch it (transcripts below):

Reid also blasted Senate Republicans for seeking to block a temporary extension of the current FISA law to allow for further debate.

Full transcript:

The president has to make a decision. He's either going to extend the law, or he will...which is temporary in nature, or there will be no wiretapping.

Story continues below

advertisement

We have worked very hard to try to come up with a way to proceed on this but it's up to the President.

The amendments that were offered in the Senate ... they would have passed. The majority of the senate favored these amendments.

They refused to allow us to vote on what we call "Title 1' which is a procedural aspect of this, and then they never even dreamed of our going to the second part, which is the retroactive immunity. Which is...there is real controversy over that and there should be a vote in the United States Senate as to whether or not there should be retroactive immunity. They won't give us one.

So again, it's up to the president. He can either continue the present law for an extended period of time, we would agree to two weeks, we would agree to a month, and we would agree to a longer period of time than that.

But it is up to the president. Does he want the law? It's up to him.

If it fails, he can give all the speeches he wants, including the State of the Union, about how we've stopped things, if he does that, it's disingenuous, and it's not true.

Comments

[Stokes]

Hillary and Obama are returning to D.C. for the State of the Union Address. Would they come back otherwise? I don't think so. John Edwards quickly sent out an E-mail urging us to call our senators to ask them to stand with Senator Dodd. Feingold and Kerry are off my "good guy list " also.

[zizyphus]

The NSA is spying on all communications all the time regardless of what goes on in the senate. Nothing will change. They have been doing this with help from the phone companies, for decades. This bit of theatre takes the attention away from impeachment, the issue that really matters.

[freespeach]

With a complex issue like this we all need to focus on the details and try to ignore the bullshit rhetoric from the politicians.

Harry Reid with his many sneaky moves, has brought much of the cynicism here on himself.
After all, he DID try to get Bush his telcom immunity..­...but grass roots protests, ACLU, and the Dodd filibuster derailed Harry's plan to help Bush.

I won't take him at his word, but he is at least saying the right things now, finally. But if he is simply angling for a vote on immunity that he knows will pass.....h­e is a first class traitor.

His job is to lead the Senate to vote on a good bill. NO IMMUNITY!

Here is a more in depth article on what is happening with FISA.....

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012508C.shtml

What about Senators Hillary and Obama???

They both seem to be avoiding this crucial FISA bill showdown.

With the non-stop 24/7 coverage of every little dust-up between Hillary and Obama at huffpo, one might think that they could devote some coverage to FISA, with Obama and Hillary in the mix.

[getoffmedz]

Wait wait wait! Was that a glimpse of an adult human male testicle?

[Sundialsvc4]

The Constitution defines a system of checks and balances. The three Branches are supposed to work together, but are placed at-odds with one another.

Sen. Reid "doth protest too much" with regard to both his colleagues in the Senate and with the Executive Branch. And all of them hide much too much wrongdoing behind and beneath the token civilities of Robert's Rules of Order.

The fundamental question that the Senate is most conveniently forgetting is the simple issue of "illegalit­y." If laws were broken, as they obviously were, then that lawbreaking must be punished ... Articles of Impeachment must start in the House but I'm sure that Mr. Reid knows Ms. Pelosi's direct phone-number.

If laws were broken, then any proposed law discussing "immunity" for companies which participated in that lawbreaking (whether they like it or not) becomes irrelevant if not illegal. Such a law would also be counter productive, because someone who knows that HE is in the hot-seat is much more likely to provide useful information to root-out the real crook. Someone who's been given blanket immunity (right, Scooter?) will be silent to save his skin.

[scooperss]

Why am I so cynical that I don't believe him?
That's right---------been there, heard that.

[mommadona]

yAWN.

Reid speaks
Marshmellows come out
No one listens.

[Bobleblah1]

Why does Harry Reid even open his mouth?
A person wouldn't even have to read this article to know that whatever it is, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will clear the way for Bush to do it.

You can bet money on that.

Is Harry Reid serious? Does anybody in America believe him? You know just once It would be nice to actually see a Democrat take a political risk to defend Our constitutional democracy.
Instead of abdicating duty and co-signing moral, legal, political and constitutional criminality, in order to enrich those who prey on and bloodsuck off hard working Americans.

I think they used to call it Leadership.

The shepherd is supposed to lead the flock, not prey on them.

[drkazmd65]

U.S. Constititution: Article I: Section 9:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

And from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

"An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retrospective law, is a law that retrospectively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law."

OK folks,... the President is colludeding with the Senate to violate the Constitution. Will the House or the Judicial Branch do anything about it?

I hope that the ACLU has their people all girded for 'battle'.

[hmmmmmer]

Reid is a moron, roll over, play dead, let the Republican masters rub your belly!

[VOTER]

If your Congressman or woman is Republican and is

running for election, get busy and call and

email them.

DUE TO ELECTIONS AND BUSH'S "POPULARITY," THEY ARE SCARED TO DEATH and so may actually listen to you, their EMPLOYER.

My county is totally Republican and our very nice "moderate" and worthless Congressman just can't do enough for his constituents. Imagine.

[AmericanScream]

That's rich. He was all for agreeing to immunity. You can't fool me reid.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Let's say I had a car, a FAST car, and the thing I liked to do most in my car was go REALLY REALLY fast. But, the law says 'no'.
Am I dutifully going to go to the drag strip like the cops want me to, or am I going to find a way?
My point? In some ways, ability equals permission. If I'm able to crack the 'ton' by dropping the hammer, and that's what I like doing, opportunity knocks. The digi-spygeeks
have the ability, oh boy, do they ever.
Your computer is back-doored, your phone line,
it's almost like a big...netw­ork. Yeah. 'They' know who you call, how often, and if they really really wanna, they can listen in. Kind of like Ma Bell, before they broke it up.
So, this debate? Whatever. Security? Sure.
The Mob sells 'protection', too. Remember the Brinks home security commercial? Watch that baby one more time slow, with feeling. Many questions, yes, many questions, about what goes on in the name of 'security'­...because from where I sit, it sure looks like a multi-bill­ion-dollar liar's club. And no, I don't think they care. Suffice it to say that 'they' have the country wired for sound...an­d probably have had for years.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?currentPage=all

http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/general/2006/06/23/ma-bells-cloak-and-dagger.aspx

http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010578

Now, having said 'all that', let's theorize some corruption. Given such authority and ability, what other kind of 'fun' could you have? Scooping people's stock picks, screwing around with people's careers, my view is there's ample opportunity for some Seriously Shady Shifty Shit, in there, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting the country.
As they say, 'cops smoke the best dope'. No,
really, I have full faith that they're all 100% honest and would never, EVER dream of abusing
their digi-power­s...no, honest. Wait, I just realized, I don't trust em as far as I can spit.

[Malarcus]

So, is this just another warning to Democcrats that Reid is about to give the Republicans everything they want, or has he finally learned to control the debate?

I'm kidding... I know he's about to give in.

[Lemeritus]

Harry? Is that you?