Hero: Christopher Dodd

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:04:51 AM MST

As Shane notes, this is the right kind of "obstructionism." It's done out of principle, not politics, and was done so to help safeguard our individual civil liberties. Compare that to Bush's reason for using his veto recently:

Bush said his veto pen was "one way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."

"Veto ergo sum"?

The issue is clear. Because Congress is unwilling to prosecute the president for breaking the law, we need to leave other channels open to punish those that helped the administration with its illegal activities. Not only did some telecommunications companies turn over your personal records without a court order, they did it in order to receive juicy government contracts. They should be duly punished, and a message should be sent that there is a cost to abetting a government that curtails American liberties.

Kossak Hunter has a great post explaining the hold process:

So what it comes down to is that the "hold" is simply a matter of "professional courtesy." I want a bill held, so I notify my party leader of my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to bring the bill to the floor. Implied in that is the hint that I will make everyone sorry they brought it up if they don't just give me what I want, and they know by now that any Senator can do that, so they might as well just go ahead and hold it, for the sake of everyone's sanity.

The whole post is definitely worth a read - but this passage is relevant in light of the latest news - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning to put the bill up for debate in mid-November.

This gives us about a month, folks. You know what to do. Drop Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus a line letting them know that you oppose the Senate giving any telecommunications company retroactive immunity for handing over customer records to the government.