Points well taken.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. May I say first that I regret this debate is happening at all. I regret the news coverage of this discussion. I wish this had been able to be settled among Members of both parties in both Houses and the executive branch. If not, I wish we were debating this in executive session. …

Now, he may have had in mind the narrow circumstance of “we’ve gone dark recently, and need to get back to where we were,” but still, consideration of the fourth amendment is completely absent from his plea. Not even an acknowledgment that perhaps the PAA goes too far in one direction, but necessarily so (in his opinion). I was surprised and taken aback by his speech, hearing it come out live. Given the modest amount of debate, I’m confident that many other Senators share his sentiment – this subject is best handled by giving the administration what it asks for, and then blame them for whatever fallout, be it a successful terrorist attack, or a lost criminal case for fourth amendment violation.

I believe the final outcome will containe precisely what Bush’s legal staff under Fred Fielding and by extension Addington and the Telco laundry list of law firms and lobbyists have hashed out at secret meetings.

Yes, it’s quite true as Glenn Greewald pointed out in his 11th update that Reid could present any bill. I don’t think it will matter because of Conference Committee and the Bush Veto.

I thing Cboldt is right on target with a real sense of how this will play out.

As Cboldt says, it has been the chronic function of Conference Committee to do massive surgery if needed to controversial bills keeping the public completely in the dark. Think there was confusion a plenty today on SJC’s activities–well you’ll learn nothing of what happens in Conference Commmitee ’til it’s over, and they’ve rushed out of town.

Whatever Bush wants, he’s going to get. And the ACLU–Congress couldn’t care less about them at the end of the day that I can ever tell.

cboldt @ 17

The fact that SJC didn’t “report out” Title II just means, I think, that Title II is as reported out by Intelligence. SJC had their chance to have their say, and saying nothing, that part of the bill leaves SJC in the same form it entered.
.
The question of telecom immunity won’t be settled in the first go-around in the Senate. It looks as though the House will pass something, which sets the stage for a conference committee, where things can really be hammered out minus public debate, then hurried through both chambers just before some holiday recess.
.
I don’t see the presence of telecom amnesty as preventing the Senate from taking up and passing S.2248. It might take 60 votes to proceed to the bill, and then to limit debate on the bill, but those votes are there. Then it takes 51 to pass it, and that is an easy hurdle.

cboldt @ 17

If you want an accurate read of how Bush will behave, picture someone disgruntled who takes a rifle and goes into an office and starts picking people off. Bush and Cheney and the White House just don’t care. And what’s going to stop them? A veto? 60 votes to overcome a veto he’ll use if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants? I just don’t see Congress overriding a Bush veto on this issue given the drunken rhetoric by Republicans I watched in the House debate. It was deja vu Osama all bin laden again. You could have easily substituted for most of those tired repetitive speeches, “Hannibal Boogey Man is in the woods and he’s gonna getcha again if we don’t have unfettered wiretappin’”

You’re clearly looking at a Conference Committee now and Bush’s Veto if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants out of it.

It looks doubtful to me that they can muster the votes to support a Dodd fillibuster if it happens.

Telco Amnesty–Absofrigginlutely. Consider it a done deal. Again Conference Committee–Bush Veto. Those are two invincible weapons, given this spineless Congress. Look at Judiciary Committee. They punted even with a Democratic majority.

So enough votes to overcome a veto don’t seem to be there. And this bill is going to a Conference Committee– so whatever comes out of the Conference committee is what Bush will be looking at to launch his veto if there’s anything that’s not in the cake he baked with the Telco lobbyists and law firms.

They don’t need to work with Congress near as much anymore–given the dynamic in the equation now they just meet with Cheney, Addington, and Fielding and present what they want and Bush’s vetos, blind Republican apparichiks and spineless Democrat Caveocrats deliver it every time.

If you want a premonition to the outcome of this, just remember that in a Committee that the Caveocrats “control” they have controlled no significant vote, and 3 spineless Caveocrats, shockingly Sheldon Whitehouse of all people gave it up for Telco amnesty.

What happens when Booosh gets out his veto pen?

He probably stabs himself with it and then spills ink all down his shirt and pants leg.

But, that’s just my fantasy. YMMV.

Sorry completely OT, but this is so wrong on many levels….

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…..096814.stm

The Republicans must be envious. They too want to uphold traditional family values that way.

.

In principle, yes. There isn’t any particular required “form” for getting a matter before the Senate — that is, there isn’t any substantive difference if something is adopted via amendment, or adopted standing alone as its own bill.

.

As a practical matter, amnesty for telecoms is a battle of wills between Congress and President Bush. Congress aims to blow enough smoke to be reelected, nothing else matters.