Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Dems split in vote on warrantless eavesdropping

By Ed Brayton | 07.02.08 | 2:24 pm

Three of Michigan’s eight Democratic representatives defied their leadership in Congress and voted for a controversial “compromise” bill on warrantless eavesdropping.

On June 20, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 6304, hailed as a compromise in the long standoff between Congress and the White House over reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs how the government may eavesdrop on terror suspects within the United States. The sticking point has long been the issue of telecom immunity; the Bush administration and most Republicans have insisted that the telecom companies be given legal immunity for their cooperation with the government’s various surveillance programs related to terrorism, while the Democratic leadership has refused to go along with that demand.

In the end, the bill was passed with a provision that provided immunity from civil suits but not, apparently, from criminal prosecution. Some have hailed this as a compromise, but in fact the language in the final version of the bill is identical to the language in the bill as originally submitted to the House (the relevant section is 802a). In fact, the “compromise” version of the bill essentially gives the White House everything it wanted, but 105 Democrats in the House, apparently not wanting to be painted as weak in the war on terrorism, voted for it anyway.

Continued -

Michigan Democrats in the House split 5-3 against the bill. Here’s how they voted:

John Conyers: No
John Dingell: No
Sander Levin: No
Dale Kildee: Yes
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick: No
Bart Stupak: Yes

Comments

  • Todd Spencer

    Olbermann’s latest special comment on FISA http://www.huffingto…

    Reading our email. Listening to our phone calls without cause.

    Republicans talk about getting government off our backs. But they must be defining “us” as corporations like Verizon and AT&T that helped Bush spy on you and me.

    Small government for corporations. Big government for us. So big, they have time and the inclination to join us, uninvited, for our private conversations. Nice!

    Where is the outrage on the right? Where is the spine of the leaders on the left? Very disappointing. The people lose again.

  • Todd Spencer

    Olbermann's latest special comment on FISA http://www.huffingto…

    Reading our email. Listening to our phone calls without cause.

    Republicans talk about getting government off our backs. But they must be defining “us” as corporations like Verizon and AT&T; that helped Bush spy on you and me.

    Small government for corporations. Big government for us. So big, they have time and the inclination to join us, uninvited, for our private conversations. Nice!

    Where is the outrage on the right? Where is the spine of the leaders on the left? Very disappointing. The people lose again.

  • Ed Brayton

    Olbermann… Olbermann went off the deep end on this issue in the last few days (though I think the criticism he got from Greenwald did force him to soften his stand in the special comment). He's been defending Obama's decision to vote for this bill based on the absurd argument that there's a “loophole” in the bill allowing for criminal prosecution while granting only civil immunity. The notion that the telecoms are going to be criminally prosecuted by any administration, including Obama's, is absurd. They'd never make the charges stick even if they brought them because there's no criminal intent and because the telecoms acted on the assurance of the DOJ that they were complying with the law. No jury in the world would convict them. But in a civil suit, a Federal judge might well issue an injunction ordering them to comply with the 4th amendment and cooperate with a wiretap request only if it has a judicial warrant with it. Civil immunity is, for all practical purposes, total immunity in this case. This “compromise” is no compromise at all, it is a total cave-in to the Bush administration and the telecom lobbyists.

  • Todd Spencer

    Isn't that the Nazi officer defense that you say the telecoms would be using? If they got sued?

    Isn't it their job to say no to the government if the government asks them to do something illegal? They have plenty of attorneys who must have informed the CEOs about the legal problems with rolling over for Homeland Security.

    I have no doubt Bush and Cheney assured the telcoms of immunity, but that is still not a good legal grounding for funneling all the wires to a secret room manned by government agents.

    I think many observers consider the telecoms partners in an impeachable offense.

  • Ed Brayton

    Olbermann… Olbermann went off the deep end on this issue in the last few days (though I think the criticism he got from Greenwald did force him to soften his stand in the special comment). He’s been defending Obama’s decision to vote for this bill based on the absurd argument that there’s a “loophole” in the bill allowing for criminal prosecution while granting only civil immunity. The notion that the telecoms are going to be criminally prosecuted by any administration, including Obama’s, is absurd. They’d never make the charges stick even if they brought them because there’s no criminal intent and because the telecoms acted on the assurance of the DOJ that they were complying with the law. No jury in the world would convict them. But in a civil suit, a Federal judge might well issue an injunction ordering them to comply with the 4th amendment and cooperate with a wiretap request only if it has a judicial warrant with it. Civil immunity is, for all practical purposes, total immunity in this case. This “compromise” is no compromise at all, it is a total cave-in to the Bush administration and the telecom lobbyists.

  • Todd Spencer

    Isn’t that the Nazi officer defense that you say the telecoms would be using? If they got sued?

    Isn’t it their job to say no to the government if the government asks them to do something illegal? They have plenty of attorneys who must have informed the CEOs about the legal problems with rolling over for Homeland Security.

    I have no doubt Bush and Cheney assured the telcoms of immunity, but that is still not a good legal grounding for funneling all the wires to a secret room manned by government agents.

    I think many observers consider the telecoms partners in an impeachable offense.

Categories & Tags: | |