tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31730692.post-61807628825212922192008-03-11T16:57:00.006-04:002008-03-11T17:17:00.346-04:002008-03-11T17:17:00.346-04:00Zach Space was called out big time today on the <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/vote-by-digby-dear-friend-at-this-point.html">big </a><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/11/democrats/index.html">progressive </a><a href="http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/11/take-the-poll-what-bush-dogs-should-be-targeted-on-fisa/">blogs</a>. Specifically, FDL named Space as one of the six worst Democrats on FISA for his pledge to stand with Republicans on the measure. I haven't followed Space's work closely, and I know he has some big fans in Ohio, but I know he's on the wrong side of this issue. Maybe his Democratic constituents can write him and set him straight.<br /><br />FDL says this is part I only of the effort, with part II targeting Republicans. One of the first they target should be Bush lackey Mike Turner. Mitakides stated her position on telecom immunity during the primary, telling me in my interview with her that she opposed blanket immunity. <br /><br /><blockquote><em>I support the FISA bill as passed by the House. I am against blanket, retroactive immunity. I understand the intent of the Feinstein Amendment (which seeks to determine whether some telecoms acted in “good faith” believing their actions were legal. However, giving the power of that determination to the FISA court keeps a cloud of secrecy over the issue. Unless the Senate can provide a better alternative, the House version should stand</em>.</blockquote><br /><br />Prophetic quote, because in fact the House is working on a compromise modeled along the Feinstein amendment Jane talked about, allowing telecoms to argue their case in a FISA court. As Jane says, it's too secretive, but that seems to be where the House negotiators are now, as it's reported by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/washington/11fisa.html?_r=2&ei=5088&en=5845d224f9e72156&ex=1362974400&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1205240582-PVijgXq0pZ%20vG1uD8SYaJA&oref=slogin">Times</a>: <br /><br /><blockquote> Instead of blanket immunity, the tentative proposal would give the federal courts special authorization to hear classified evidence and decide whether the phone companies should be held liable. House Democrats have been working out the details of their proposal in the last few days, officials said, and expect to take it to the House floor for a vote on Thursday.</blockquote>ohdavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13301100314546526009noreply@blogger.com4