Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dodd, Leahy, Feingold, and Merkley Announce Bill to Repeal Retroactive Immunity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 09:42 PM
Original message
Dodd, Leahy, Feingold, and Merkley Announce Bill to Repeal Retroactive Immunity
Edited on Mon Sep-28-09 09:43 PM by kpete
Source: S E N A T U S

September 28, 2009

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced today that they will introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, which eliminates retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in President Bushs warrantless wiretapping program.



I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles, said Dodd. We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizens privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.



Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, Last year, I opposed legislation that stripped Americans of their right to seek accountability for the Bush administrations decision to illegally wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd to introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act. We can strengthen national security while protecting Americans privacy and civil liberties. Restoring Americans access to the courts is the first step toward bringing some measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney administrations decision to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of our laws.



Granting retroactive immunity to companies that went along with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program was unjustified and undermined the rule of law, Feingold said. Congress should not have short-circuited the courts constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program. This bill is about ensuring that the law is followed and providing accountability for the American people.

Read more: http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/senators-to-int... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good news! K&R.
We'll see how far it gets; hopefully it'll be successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. This would mean almost as much to me as REAL healthcare reform...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Same here
It would give me some hope of returning to where we started before the last admin. came in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. Really? Did you vote for Obama?
Even though he sold out on this prior to the election? I don't mean to pick on you .... I could respond to almost any comment in this thread with this question.

Between this and his reversal on promises about FISA, patriot act, universal healthcare, etc, etc, etc, this lifetime Democrat wrote in HRC rather than compromise myself with a vote for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
46. Thanks for flashing your PUMA credentials.
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 05:34 AM by JTFrog
Please don't compromise yourself by sticking around here.


:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #46
61. and the poster got the terminology wrong ...
it's "lifelong" democrat ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #61
78. Maybe they mean "Lifetime Channel Democrat"...
...Vote for any candidate who has a story that would make a good after-school special? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #46
80. Oh please!
Save your PUMA baloney. My loyalty is to the democratic agenda - not a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #80
87. You save the PUMA baloney.
Your loyalty is fairly transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #87
91. Good -- I would hate to be mistaken....
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 10:52 AM by RJDem
....as loyal to a politician rather than a political and social agenda. In fact it's fairly disgusting to see so many Democrats cheer Bush policies simply because they come out of the mouth of Obama. And frankly, until enough Democrats stop being entralled by him and get entralled instead with an actual DEMOCRATIC agenda, we will never see that agenda realized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. Says the guy who voted against the Democratic candidate for president.
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 11:06 AM by JTFrog
Do you really not see how transparent you are? :wtf:

Did you expect things to go better with old man John or did you just rely upon real Democrats to make sure that didn't happen?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. A few corrections
A. Not a guy.

B. I have voted for Democrats in EVERY election in every race for 30 yrs, plus have made 10's of thousands in contributions. AND

C. I am done (as in D O N E - done) voting for a candidate just because the party says I should. I'm sick to death of my vote being taken for granted just because the other guy is a rethug. From now I'm on voting on principles. That would be MY definition of a real democrat.

And you know what? If we ALL did that the bill being discussed here never would have passed in the first place; we would already be leaving Iraq; we wouldn't even be discussing healthcare "reform" without a public option; we wouldn't Bush appointees regulating the financial sector under a Democratic administration; and we wouldn't have a Democratic president negotiating back room deals with big pharma and the insurance industry.

All I have is one vote but by god from here on out I'm going to use it. Even if the syncophants don't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. A.) Unspecified in your profile, I took a 50/50 shot.
B.) Is pretty much moot. You voted against the Democratic candidate last year.

C.) Funny how you waited 30 years to get those principles for this particular President, yet you obviously would have thrown them to the wind for HRC.

The majority of your post is puristic PUMA bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #103
111. Funny?
Believe me, I have been gritting my teeth and bearing it for years now. But THIS president flip flopped on FISA, the patriot act, the telecom immunity bill; he made statements as a candidate about health care that were totally the opposite of what he had said previously. Same with NAFTA.

And frankly, how can you say my judgment hasn't been confirmed? He throws the public option under the bus first chance he gets (dream on about universal healthcare). He says a contract is a contract when it comes to AIG exec million dollar bonuses from taxpayer funds, but that contracts have to be broken with union auto workers. He doesn't want Holder to investigate CIA abuses or Bush crimes. We should fund charter schools, in essence taxpayer money for private schools for rich kids. The list goes on and on and on. And sorry, there is no way in hell HRC would have done any of that.

Puristic? Please, he's not even in the ballpark of a progressive,democratic agenda. His policies don't sound any better coming from him that they did when they came from Bush.

I'm sorry you're so entralled with him rather than a democratic party agenda. Maybe you'll see the light some day and start holding your representatives in government accountable. Hopefully it won't take you 30 years like it did me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #111
117. No way HRC would have done any of that?
She was Bush's wet dream when she was a Senator:

IWR
Kyl-Lieberman
Workplace Freedom of Religion Act
Family Entertainment Protection Act
Patriot Act
Military Commissions Act
No Child Left Behind
Bankruptcy Bill
No on banning cluster bombs but yes on banning flag burning

And she campaigned on mandatory insurance payments to insurance companies. She wanted Greenspan to save our economy. She made up stories about dodging sniper fire and talked about obliterating Iran for fucks sake.

I'm just getting warmed up here, but I have no desire to relive the primaries, which seems to be the PUMA's favorite pastime.

Funny is spouting your HRC bullshit and thinking you can convince others you've been paying attention for the last 30 years and just woke up. Cognitive dissonance isn't pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #117
124. Well I know Obama wasn't in the senate long....
... but the facts are while he was, their voting records were almost an exact match. It's cute how you pull votes for things that weren't voted on while Obama was in the senate, and ignore all the rest. Cute, but also transparent.

And while HRC was talking about obliterating Iraq, Obama was talking about obilterating Pakistan.

Now tell me how many times she said she wasn't going to vote for something, or pledged to vote for something, then turned around and did the exact opposite? THAT is the issue I am discussing, and THAT is why I don't trust him. No reason to trust him, and every reason not to.

She is opposed to NAFTA, DADT, DOMA. No way in hell she'd be cutting back room deals with big pharma and health insurance companies. And she sure as hell wouldn't have left Bushies in the government as her appointees like Obama has. In fact I don't think a SINGLE other candidate in the primaries except Lieberman would have done those things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. your Clinton lore is adorable
ridiculous, but adorable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #124
128. Fresh pizza.
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 05:21 PM by JTFrog
Nom nom nom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #128
132. Yeah, because dissent is not welcomed on this board.
How very democratic.........

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. No because it was a sockpuppet as it disclosed on another thread.
But you just have to chime in on anything PUMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #98
130. Good for you!!!
C. I am done (as in D O N E - done) voting for a candidate just because the party says I should. I'm sick to death of my vote being taken for granted just because the other guy is a rethug. From now I'm on voting on principles. That would be MY definition of a real democrat.

:applause:

One lesson I learned from last year: Never again will I vote for a politician simply because he/she has a "D" after their name. As far as I'm concerned, a good portion of the party leadership can go to hell!!!

x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #80
101. The Democratic Agenda ?
Please.
Hillary was the only candidate more Republican than Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. LOL - she voted against immuniy. He voted for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #104
118. her threat to obliterate Iran placed her right up there with the neocons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #118
123. And Obama threatening to obliterate pakistan....
... was different, how? LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. What's different? He's president and she's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #38
51. Agreed
I can't see President Change getting behind this. OTOH, if you don't think Hillary is suckling off the same corporate teet as Obama, you're mistaken. You'd be compromising your vote with either candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. Doesn't matter if Obama "gets behind" it or not.
As long as he doesn't stand in the way.

I'm perfectly happy to let senators like
Leahy and Feingold be the heroes.

Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #56
62. Ah, but he will stand in the way.
He'll just do it in that special, Chicago-style, back-room/back-channels kind of way. Publicly, Obama will bob-and-weave and never directly address the issue. Add to that Emmanuel's Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys and it's pretty much dead in the water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #62
70. Sounds about right.
Pretend to stay above the fray while letting his crew do the dirty work.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #62
105. Nailed It.
+1 for Le Taz Hot for sharp political observation skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #62
119. hey since you're making predictions, got any winning lottery numbers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #56
100. Me too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #38
72. Your vote for HRC was hardly a stand on "Democratic principles".
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
75. Former and no longer life-long
as you just admitted. You voted against the Dem candidate there bud!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #75
102. I see....
I'm not a democrat because I didn't vote for Obama and voted for a different democrat instead. Is it completely lost on the Obama worshippers here that you sound more like republicans every day?? Unbelievable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #102
116. you voted against the democratic nominee in the general election
that doesn't make you a republican -- it makes you a pissy puma that stomped their feet at the ballot box
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #38
88. HRC
was promising something other than universal healthcare, something very close to the mandates that many find unacceptable.

HRC blew it out the gate with her mandates and didn't say much about FISA, patriot act etc either.

I don't think things would be any less business as usual with HRC in office. She didn't campaign on being anything but an extension of her husband and DLC philosophy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kick and Hope !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm doin' my happy dance! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. It's fucking ABOUT TIME!!!
This is a SMALL step in the right direction!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. AT&T won't bargain in good faith with CWA
so fuck 'em! Indict Randall Stephenson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe they're using this repeal threat as a bargaining chip
Edited on Mon Sep-28-09 10:20 PM by TheDebbieDee
to get the repukes to drop their attacks against healthcare reform...........

Edited: Because they're and their mean different things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
76. Or, this is just another cash infusion from the telecoms. Old trick!
Watch Rockefeller's donation stats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm still glad I transferred my long distance service to Qwest
They were the only ones that did not go along with this bullshit.

Throw the rest of them under the fucking jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Do you think it still is the policy of Qwest? I'm in doubt about it now and I can't make a case
for my doubt - just a gut feeling. The person in charge at Qwest was targeted for a crime - possible tilted to the political angle and there is a new leader in charge. Something I read made me doubt that they are holding their position against sharing our data? I sure would like to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
129. he was sentenced to 6 years
which will probably be reduced. This is the former CEO of Qwest (Nacchio), convicted on 19 counts of insider trading...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ex-qwest-ceo-to-get-a-...


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Wait . . . I thought Bush put them out of business . . . ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadGimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Stop teasing me dammit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R n/t
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. Wow..what a concept..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. I sure am glad we elected Merkley
He was my second choice, and he is coming through far better than I ever expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Me, too
He's exceeding my expectations, not to mention he ain't no Gordon Smith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. As far as I can tell, he is putting Wyden to shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. oh yes! Can I sue them for the damage caused?
How does one put a price tag on such things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
29. One pays the price and pays it forward to future generations who may care enough
to do the same. to honor the principles the nation was founded on, every time the fascists come in on little cat feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
99. I want all my fees refunded.
I thought by paying my bill that information belonged to me. Since at&t, essentially, sold it to *, I want it all refunded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. Great news . . . but then . . .
Edited on Mon Sep-28-09 10:54 PM by defendandprotect
what of QWest, who refused to participate in this illegal activity --???

Wonder if there is anything that can be done for them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. The head of Qwest was a crook, unfortunately....
I think they went after him, but I think
there was plenty to go after.

There must be an Aesop's fable about situations
like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
77. Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
The political odor of this legal case has never been proper.
The issue first arose on DU with the USA firings discussion.
.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

=====================
Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
BY Scott Horton - Oct 14, 2007
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001415

Last week, a career federal prosecutor friend told me, Most of us have come to agree that theres a real problem with political prosecutions on Bushs watch, and that needs to be addressed ........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. I have NO doubt it was political....
but his hands appeared to be dirty, and he
was easily prosecuted.

The others at Qwest were obviously collateral
damage in the "quest" to protect AT&T.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #82
108. "appeared to be dirty," is the key phrase.
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 12:43 PM by OnyxCollie
Joseph Nacchio's case and the judge that presided over it were highly suspect. His conviction was overturned and he was released, but last I read he had been indicted again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. They'll hold tight to these cases, like Siegelmann's, I'm sure, because . . .
if one of them is tipped exposing the corruption behind these political prosecutions,

it may expose what was really going on --

But, I'm amazed that Democrats haven't been after the Siegelman case which is a threat

to all Democrats!??!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
20. WHO turned on the Progressive Floodgates? 1st the Canadian generic prescription bill, and now this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seedersandleechers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. I'm not getting my hopes up that either
of these two bills get passed. I think it's a tease. :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. Congress has decided to do some work.
They're not waiting for the President on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
36. My thoughts are the same
There is a big question mark from me here, but I will certainly write my Senators and ask them to support this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
21. That would be a good idea
If the government asks you to do something immoral, unethical, illegal, its a bad thing if you have in your mind that it doesn't matter - probably nobody really cares.

The legal precedent was established at Nuremburg: chain of command doesn't mean shit. If you knowingly break the law under orders its your own ass on the line anyway, and the worthless ass of the former prez isn't going to help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
22. bring it on! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
25. The rule of law applies to all and not just when it's convenient
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
27. Great! About damn time! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
28. I Rec for FUCKING SANITY AND THE RULE OF LAW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
30. Yahooooooooo! Call call call!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
31. rec. but it will never pass or amount to anything. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
32. Excellent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
34. Hip! Hip! Horray! This means so much to me!
And am so very happy I could dance!

The Bush* Administration did a lot of very bad things, but this one, in particular, made me purple with anger. I could not believe they actually granted immunity last year! I hate that bullshit of playing politics!

I've got some letter writing to do!

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
35. So, retroactively, the Rule Of Law, Habeas Corpus. Bill of Rights, etc. etc. shall be restored?
NO!!!!!!

Who are these goons pretending to care about the founding principles while they so NOTHING to uphold them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RJDem Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
37. They must have forgotten Obama voted for immunity
... either that, or they are hoping the voters have forgotten it. Why is it important now, when it wasn't important then. That is truly when Obama lost me. He SAID he would vote against immunity, then he voted for it. Is he actually saying he won't veto it if congress votes to repeal it now? If so, why the flip flop??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
39. It would be great to get back to being a nation of laws. Down with Dictators!
And Dickcheney's too! I know, I'm being redundant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
40. now they just need to act on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
41. Oh, Senator Dodd... every time I think I'm "out"
YOU DRAW ME BACK IN!!!!

I'm calling both of my senators tomorrow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecklyTyler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
42. We need to introduce the same bill in the House of Representatives
Let's get this through quick, and just steamroller the screaming Republicans.

It is important to show the parties involved in Government that the Democrats are in charge. We need to put small bills through both the Senate and the House and onto the President's desk on a regular basis. This will get everyone acclimated to us passing bills and make it easier to achieve single payer health care in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecklyTyler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
43. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
44. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
45. now THIS is an interesting constitutional question!
there's a prima facia argument that this is an ex post facto bill because they are going back in time and revoking legality. something that was legal (once the retroactive immunity had become law) will suddenly have become illegal. past events are not supposed to become illegal merely through passage of law.

however! in this case, unlike most ex post facto cases, the original act was illegal in the first place. the law isn't about looking at what they did during the time they had been granted immunity and making THAT illegal, it's about making illegal something that was already illegal at the time.

very interesting!

i would think the telcom companies would be well advised to do something during this time, prior to this bill passing, while they still have immunity, to reinforce their argument, e.g., go on record somehow fessing up to their temporarily-legal crimes. if they do this, they would have an argument that the temporarily legal status inappropriately duped them into testifying against themselves, violating their fifth amendment rights.


all this is just intersting intellectual argumentation, though.
personally, i'm reminded of the court scene in "my cousin vinny" where the juror says "fry 'em".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
47. can you say "Dodd is down in the polls"........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
48. But, but . . . that would mean corporations might have to obey the law!
. . . rather than Dick Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
49. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
50. Rec - Will be interesting to see how the 'Pubs demonize this -
More socialism?

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Nope, those poor multi-billion $ telecoms
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 06:40 AM by NewJeffCT
they were just so trusting of Bush & Gonzo when they cried "national security" that they gave up everything to them.

I think that was their line of defense before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #53
141. Wait - you mean Bush LIED to them???!!!!????
But he was President......


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
52. yeah r-i-g-h-t...! and whatever became of the Karl Rove/Harriet Miers testimony - spin-spin it'll
take your mind off the condition of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
54. How will this ever get through?


Oh I applaud the effort no doubt but with corporate control over our politicians I can't see this going anywhere.


---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #54
79. Wrong question. How much will this increase donations to both sides?
I know, I'm a cynic and I think like a politician :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
55. Now, THAT'S change I can believe in!!
Thank you, thank you, gentlemen!

(Geez, not a Republican amongst 'em...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
57. This would, if repealed, signal the country is following the rul of law.
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 06:56 AM by midnight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reader Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
58. Merkley's my senator!
Way to go, rookie! Maybe Wyden will take note and jump in, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #58
97. Me too! Merkley is kicking ass!
Wyden's too milquetoast for my taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
59. Who Issued the Bass Knuckles?
And where can I get some?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
60. K&R
*here comes the sun...*



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
63. Hurrah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
64. I'm going to wear my Jeff Merkley tee shirt today!
I put some effort in for Merkley and today I am glad that I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
65. Yes.
Thank you Senators!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
66. So, there's hope for justice after all? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
67. It'll be meaningless without prosecutions.
/obvious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #67
81. Really, where is DoJ anyway? Bush violated the law, and he doesn't have immunity!
It seems the law does not apply to pre-Obama time, even when the crimes are known to the whole damn world!!

That's the USA today, no rule of law, just rule be privilege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
68. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
69. I never understood how you could apply the "retroactive" aspect. It seems that any crime could be
legalized w such action. Good for them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
71. Can you say "Long Shot"?? But this is a HUGE step in the right direction.
Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
73. yes!!! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
74. REC #166 - Go Bill Go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
83. Yeeeeeesssssssssssss!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
84. Wonderful news.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StreetKnowledge Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
85. About motherf*!$%&@ing time!
We can pass this.

And fuck the Blue Dogs.

And FYI to everybody: I just made proudly it +176 Recommended. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
86. I don't know the details, but I don't think this will fly Constitutionally.
(In the long run.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #86
90. You don't know the details
but you don't think it will fly constitutionally, what sort of ignorant and stupid statement is that??

Don't you first do your homework before you even start to be negative....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #90
93. One thing's for sure: I know more than you're capable of understanding.
So you really should not post here at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. Well thank you for that
bit of perspective, I see you're sticking to plan, no surprises there then.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #94
114. Plan? I had a plan of how to respond to a simpleton who calls names
and ignores the facts? That's just what intelligent people do. Why can't you do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #114
136. You ain't worth my spit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
89. About damn time
this is very good news....

:thumbsup:


:kick: & rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
95. Didn't Obama vote FOR the retroactive immunity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #95
113. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
96. Does it have any chance of passing? -nt-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
106. Exactly right, Dodd
"We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizens privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.

Agree 100%!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
107. Now aren't we glad we dumped Gordon Smith?
Go Merk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftcoastie Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
109. About time.
Right on. Keep pushing back. Keep pushing back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
112. What is this really worth?
Since they've been given immunity, and now the immunity is pulled away, can they be charged, or held accountable by those whose privacy was disrupted.

These seems to me nothing more than soemthing to make the left feel good, but if anyone tries to take them to court they will be untouchable because of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
115. Then they can start investigating this...
Blackwater Director Let 9/11 Hijackers into US, then Killed, Tortured the Remaining Witnesses
by leveymg posted on the Democratic Underground site at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #115
122. 208 Recs before going to the dungeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
120. k 'n r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
121. "This bill seeks to reverse the mistake of the last Congress" Obama said
he would fix this when he became President. (why he originally voted for this horrible mistake, it a mystery to me!)


...........This bill seeks to reverse the mistake of the last Congress and repeal the retroactive immunity provisions. The Senators strongly believe that the courts, and neither Congress nor the Administration, should be the ones to determine whether these corporations violated the law and rights of Americans and whether or not they should be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #121
131. Maybe he voted for this sh*t because he did not want the mc$ame
campaign to use such bullsh*t as "Obama voted against protecting 'mericans in that bill because he hates America" in their $tupid pRopaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2QT2BSTR8 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
125. Well it's about F@^#*&G time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
133. Good.
Let's see who was willing to go along with the Gestapo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
135. This should be amusing.
A whole lot of people who didn't realize that they were being tracked are about to get schooled in how modern phone systems (and surveillance) actually works.

Hint: The Hollywood "trace a phonecall" or "guy sitting there with tape recorder" things are laughably wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
137. Well yay to that! K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
138. THE DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
No DLC Democrats in that group. . . these are REAL Democrats, standing up for REAL Democratic values.

Its so wonderful to see!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
139. YEAH!! !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
140. HOT DOG. This has gotten lot's of attention.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
142. YAY!! good chance it won't pass and all but Hooray! for the effort. it is about time n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 26th 2017, 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC