ACLU Warns of Next Pass At Telecom Immunity

The ACLU has reportedly uncovered another pass at telecom immunity and is urging concerned citizens to speak out against what they call a "dangerous backroom deal." "But now, word comes that House leadership may be working hand-in-hand with Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants. As discussions continue, it's critical that House leadership avoid buckling to pressure from the White House or Senator Rockefeller at all costs. House leadership — and every representative — need to draw a line in the sand, by rejecting any compromise that would undo the achievement we fought so hard for in February."

A letter worth signing.

[inTheLoo (1255256)]

Please follow the link and sign the ACLU petition [aclu.org] and call your local representative. Domestic spying should be exposed and eradicated. The principle is more important than party politics.

Re:

[nurb432 (527695)]

Like they really care about a list, nor is it going to stop the evential passing of a bill..

Actually, it might just serve as the list to first go after when they get total control. You sure you want to make yourself a target?

That's why I donate to the ACLU

[FatSean (18753)]

If they're going to come for me, they're going to come for me.

Why be a pussy?

Re:

[mweather (1089505)]

We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Re:

[mikael (484)]

1.7 million people signed the petition against road taxation by GPS satellite tracking [bbc.co.uk]. The nearest other petitions only gained 5000 votes.

Then again, 331 MP's of the party proposing this idea were de-elected in the May Day massacre [timesonline.co.uk].

A different view on the matter

[cold fjord (826450)]

Andrew McCarthy [defenddemocracy.org], the former Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers (including the "Blind Sheik"), has written The Case for Telecom Immunity [defenddemocracy.org]. Worth reading.

Re:

[Dog-Cow (21281)]

I don't care about the legality nearly as much as I care about the morality. I believe that no moral person could believe that spying on innocent people is in any way correct or responsible.

There is no difference between what Bush wants and what the KGB did in the USSR. It was legal for the KGB to spy on their citizens and perfectly legal for people to disappear or to be killed by KGB agents. Are you really going to argue that it's perfectly OK to head in EXACTLY the same direction because it's "legal"?

A

Re:

[Copid (137416)]

And what about the many times they interfere with the rights of many?

The "rights" of the many to do what, exactly? So you have a group that protects people from unreasonable searches and restrictions on their speech, but they occasionally make people stop buying religious trinkets with public money. I'd say that on the balance, they're doing a pretty good job of making the US a better place.

They're great when they're doing something you agree with.

That's true of just about every organization. My poi

Stupid question...

[nebaz (453974)]

Does Congress even have the power to grant immunity? They think they have the power to do anything they want, but is providing blanket immunity even constitutional?

Re:Stupid question...

[Raul654 (453029)]

Congress has the (sole) power to determine what is and is not illegal. Inherent in this is the ability to grant immunity. And as I have already noted here [slashdot.org], the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not preclude retroactive grants of immunity.

Re:Stupid question...

[nurb432 (527695)]

Congress has the power to make laws that might be valid or might not..

The supreme court has the final power to decide what is illegal and not illegal. Personally id say the power to determine is really in the hands of the court.

Re:Stupid question...

[postbigbang (761081)]

While the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law, you first have to have the nexus to be an injured party. As long as the lists are secret, you will never know, and therefore cannot have nexus until the FIA brings it to light, if not redacted, 25 years from now. By then, everyone will hopefully have forgotten (is the hope, I'm sure).

So, litigation is moot under the proposed laws. That's why it's important to fight the immunity and hit the congressional urge (and heavily lobbied) to offer the telcos immunity. My view is that it'll be weaseled in somehow, because we have no guts, and no glory in the Congress. I wish it were otherwise. Vote in November.

For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun?

[Scrameustache (459504)]

the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law

That would be the same court staffed by people who think that torture is not punishment [youtube.com]?

        STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person -- if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?

        SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think -- Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.

        STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-

        SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Oh, that's great, you have dishonest monsters deciding what is equal protection and what isn't! Fantastic!

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[postbigbang (761081)]

There are a few bad apples on SCOTUS. There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. All is not lost, but it certainly isn't balanced well, we'll agree. Nonetheless, it's the law of the land. Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree. It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments. Sometimes, they are.

Re:

[rohan972 (880586)]

So I could paraphrase what you're saying as "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."?

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[MorePower (581188)]

SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Damn! I mean DAMN!
It should be blatantly obvious, he's punishing you for not giving him the information he wants!

Re:

[jamstar7 (694492)]

Actually, the way it works in practice is, it's legal until SCOTUS rules on it. Problem is, SCOTUS can't/won't rule on the legality/Constitutionality of a law until it's brought before them after the trial, the appeal, etc. And even then, they can refuse to hear it.

For how long?

[grasshoppa (657393)]

Seriously, how long are we going to be able to keep up the fight? It's obvious the current administration and the telcos will just keep making one run after another until one gets through; and don't bother suggesting that we will actually hold them accountable at some point. That's laughable.

So the question becomes, how long until we burn out?

Re:For how long?

[east coast (590680)]

The current administration? Given the current balance of power this isn't as much a move by the current administration but by both parties working in unison. Sure, some will use it as a token "it's not me" vote but in the long run this isn't just Bush & Co or even the Republicans...

Wake up from your dreaded party politics dream and you'll see the real nightmare.

use proper measurements on the scale

[vague_ascetic (755456)]

There are indeed valid, substantial questions regarding Jay Rockefeller's campaign contributors and the FISA Bill's telecom immunity clause. My questions about him go back farther to when he was minority committee leader, and was being pussy-whipped by Sen. Roberts (Can's-Ass) about Robert's promise to have the Intelligence Committee investigate the administration's use of pre-Iraq War intelligence, and even get around to issuing subpoenas, so Feith and Wolfowitz would get their asses hauled down to assert their 5th Amendment rights under oath while being televised nationwide. There are several Democratic Senators whose defense of civil liberties is very questionable.

However, your intimated assertion of a partisan parity is absurd, and a wild flight of fantasy from reality.

Let's investigate reality without the rosy-tint of you blurry lens:

Senate Roll Call Vote #20 on February 12, 2008, The FISA Amendments Act [senate.gov]

• Vote Total: 68 Yeas - 29 Nays - 3 NoVotes
• Yeas by Party: 48 R - 20 D - 1 I (Lieberman)
• Nays by Party: 0 R - 29 D - 1 I (Sanders)
• NoVotes by Party: 1 R - 2 D - 0 I

Clearly, The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.

Re:

[vague_ascetic (755456)]

Excellent proof that you simply refuse to pay attention, and again just struck out without proper knowledge to justify the attack.. I have not been a member of either the Dem or Rep parties in over 20 years now, and have either been an LP member or simply non-aligned. You accuse me of only seeing two parties, because I listed the count by party of the Senate Roll Call Vote for The FISA Amendments act of 2008, and faithfully listed the two Senators who are independents? Would you have been happier if I had

Re:

[AuMatar (183847)]

Until the next administration. If its a democrat, you have a chance.

If its McCain, I recommend investing in lube. We'll need a lot of it.

Re:For how long?

[whoever57 (658626)]

Until the next administration.

Last time I looked, Congress passed laws, not the President. Also, last time I looked, the House was controlled by the Democratic party which was also the majority part in the Senate. So how is a new administration going to make any difference?

Re:For how long?

[Delwin (599872)]

Veto.

Re:

[postbigbang (761081)]

The problem has been that the President must sign them, and if vetoed, then a 2/3rds majority must overrule his veto. That doesn't happen much.

A Democratic president that has a Demo congress has a better chance of breaking logjams, for constitutional and party-whip control reasons.

Re:

[whoever57 (658626)]

The problem has been that the President must sign them, and if vetoed, then a 2/3rds majority must overrule his veto. That doesn't happen much.

What makes you so sure that Obama or Clinton would override a bill passed by their own party on this issue?

Re:

[postbigbang (761081)]

Of Obama, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/07/intel-advisor-breaks-with_n_90427.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Of Clinton, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html [huffingtonpost.com] which shows she skipped an earlier vote on the subject. However, she differs from Obama's lobbying efforts, where most of the bribery, oops, influence begins.

Re:For how long?

[Colonel Korn (1258968)]

For reference, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all deep in the pockets of the RIAA and a million other lobbying groups. Every major candidate is owned by various industries. On this specific issue, Obama is known to oppose telecom spying immunity while McCain is a fan of it.

Re:For how long?

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

Most of the outrages perpetrated by the current Democratic Congress have been the work of just enough of its "majority" members, of which Rockefeller is a prime example, knuckling under to the White House and going along with pretty much all the Republicans to pass every evil bill the Bush administration demands. Most Democratic representatives and senators are voting against these bills, but given how fine the balance of power is, all it takes is a few Democrats to go along with the Republican party line. Presumably, under an Obama or Clinton administration, the Rockefellers and Feinsteins and Liebermans will continue to be gutless for the White House, only this time they'll be gutless stooges for the (relatively speaking) good guys.

Re:

[DavidTC (10147)]

No, the 'next administration' isn't really that important. What is important is the next Congress.

And last election, anyone with a D next to their name got in. This election, those Ds that aren't actually Ds have had primary challenges they're going to lose, and get replaced with real D.

The Republicans, right now, are pretending that it takes 60 votes to get anything they don't like through the Senate. Meanwhile, somehow, three or four Democrats caving to the Republicans give them 52 votes, which is someh

Senate Dem majority is a myth

[vague_ascetic (755456)]

49 D - 49 R - 2 I

Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?

You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.

A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 [senate.gov] on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 [loc.gov] to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)

Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate [liberatedtext.org].

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

my spin

[vague_ascetic (755456)]

I am one who has for many years believed that the two party system was the ultimate root cause for the Nation's ills, and have also loudly asserted that if your vote was based on a "lesser of two evils" decision, without question, you have voted for evil.

The Bush Administration, and concomitant GOP Congressional dereliction, has taught me a bitter lesson though. I must now choke back the bile that rises in my throat, whenever I long nostalgically for the time in America's past, when a President's lies were only about acts of consensual sex, a cum-stained blue dress, and tobacco products with odd exotic aromatics; instead of a President's lies about Natural Liberties, Immoral War, and the Blood-stained Iraqi Sands.

This is the cause for a correction in my analysis. While it is wrong to vote for a lesser of two evils; a very good argument can be made to support a vote for the lamer of two evils. The GOP has not yet begun to experience the pain that is necessary to purge the excessive resident evil within. There need be a return to a state of polar equilibrium in quantities of evil, or there need be the end to the Republican Party, as a clear and present danger to the people's liberty. There is no third way.

The oath was: against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, or to condense it down to a Bushified black and white: are you with the Friends of Liberty or Against Us. Choose wisely...

Democratic and Liberman are mutually exclusive

[vague_ascetic (755456)]

It is absurd that a person who refused to accept the democratic vote of his own party in the primaries, and then reentered the election as an independent who accepted major contribution from the other main party, and pulled all party support out from under their own candidate, would be referred to as being democratic.

Liegberman subverted the democratic process of his own chosen party, The Democrats. He aligned with the Dem. side, because the Senate rules force third party and independent members to pick o

Is there a difference

[Opportunist (166417)]

As an European, I might not see the subtle differences between Democrats and Republicans, but to my eyes, they look so similar I can't really see the choice.

Re:

[east coast (590680)]

There isn't but most Americans are too lunkheaded to see beyond the politics of their parents and their parents parents, so on and so forth.

I love how smug Democrats and Republicans are when we've seen the damage that both parties do.

Re:Is there a difference

[spikedvodka (188722)]

You mean like the old joke:

A guy is sitting in the front row of a "town meeting" in an overwhelming republican town, when the R presidential candidate comes to speak.

the candidate asks "So who here is a republican?" everybody else raises their hands, so he asks the gentleman in the front "So why aren't you a republican?"
"Well, my father was a democrat, his father was a democrat, as so was his father before him, so I'm a democrat."
"Well, what if your father, and his father has been idiots?"
"Then I guess I'd be a republican"

Re:Is there a difference

[NotBornYesterday (1093817)]

Republicans used to be the party in favor of lower taxes & smaller government & farmers. Foreign policy tended to be hawkish. They'd let you have guns and God, but not porn or gay sex. Right wing.

Democrats used to be the party in favor of civil rights & bigger social programs & friendly with labor. Foreign policy tended to be dovish. You couldn't have guns or put up a Christmas tree on public land, but you could have porn and/or gay sex. Left wing.

Now they both tax the crap out of us, spend us into a world of deficit, screw the working/middle class and infringe on our rights while cutting social programs. Or maybe it has always been that way, and I'm only starting to notice. Hmm ...

Seriously though, although the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of center, since there are only 2 parties each party covers a lot of ideological ground and there is some overlap in the middle. With both parties being mindlessly poll-driven, I feel like most of them are simply parroting the feel-good position of the day as it comes to them from their handlers, making both sides sound remarkably similar overall. Mostly they just argue over who gets the blame or the credit, depending which way the poll numbers are going.

Re:

[Toonol (1057698)]

Until the next administration. If its a democrat, you have a chance.

That much foolish naiveté in an adult is unpardonable. If you're a child, then it's forgivable, as you may yet learn about the nature of politics, power, and corruption as you grow.

Re:For how long?

[The Master Control P (655590)]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:For how long?

[24-bit Voxel (672674)]

It really does seem to be both parties working together.

In the past for social change to become in the public awareness it has taken a bad economy or an intolerable immediate social situation. Given the track record of the Republicans over the past 30 years the best path to force social change would be to keep electing them so that they destroy the economy and the standing of the US in the rest of the world to such a level that only public outcry and massive social change can bring us back. Naturally, no one wants this so we are stuck between a rock (iraq) and a hard place.

/sarcasm on

So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way. It will bring out social change faster than the small bandaid method we are currently employing. This is the best way to 'burn out'.

/sarcasm off

Note: this message has been edited for the sarcasm impaired.

Re:For how long?

[hondo77 (324058)]

So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way.

He's been in the White House for seven years. I don't think we're getting the results you were hoping for.

What does it matter?

[Aaron England (681534)]

This is not a troll, but can anyone tell me what does it matter? Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions? Are we pursuing them in court? If the answer is no to both counts, then what does it matter if we grant them immunity.

Re:What does it matter?

[postbigbang (761081)]

Money fuels litigation. No class to litigate means no legal expenses paid. Quid pro quo.

If there is immunity, no one can start a suit. But we still have many dragging answers from the administration about the nature of what happened, and to the extent it happened, and so the class of people injured (who then have nexus to sue) really isn't known yet. When it is, provided you really can sue, someone will. And I'll be happy to become a party to the plaintiffs that do it. Such behavior cannot be rewarded, and the damage to privacy and freedom in the name of security is done.

Re:

[dreamchaser (49529)]

Agreed. They are going after the wrong people. I will admit that I tend towards being a conservative libertarian, but I'm leaning towards Impeachment just the same even though I've supported Bush in the past on a few issues (tax cuts mainly).

Re:What does it matter?

[Frequency Domain (601421)]

Personally, I am for immunity for the telecoms. What they did was wrong, but the Bush administration said it was legal. Companies should be able to take the government at their word for what is legal or not. Going after the justice department would be a much better solution, though a harder one. The problem is that if we set a precedent that the government cannot be trusted by big corporations, than we will run in to problems later. ...

I think you have it completely backwards. The USA is supposed to be run by laws, not by personalities. It seems to me the law was unequivocal in this case, but the telecoms went ahead and violated it on the say-so of the executive branch (which has no say-so on interpreting law, by the way). The telecom's lawyers should have told them that they were opening a big can of liability, and the fact that they're pushing so hard for retroactive immunity indicates that they know it, and are getting very concerned at the prospect of a change of administration. That's a huge tell - if they thought the law was on their side, they wouldn't worry about the next administration taking power.

If they are granted the immunity, it basically gives future administrations a precedent for saying they're above the law. Who cares what those pesky laws say, we'll immunize you if you do our bidding.

What's wrong with investigations?

[copponex (13876)]

If the telecoms don't have anything to hide, why would they be afraid of a few questions?

Uh-oh, Big Brother. It looks like that logic has a nasty way of working both ways. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to keep immunity out, sue every single telecom into bankruptcy, and throw every member of the Administration who was involved into prison.

Pff... hahahahah. Alright, it was worth a good laugh. Now please, go back to watching your televisions. The Factor is coming right up! Top news story? Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies...

In British English...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

...'make a pass at' means something like 'reveal your sexual desire for'. What does it mean in American English? Given the context here of governments and telecom immunity I can only assume it means something like "fuc* in the ass".

This is really really important.

[by Anonymous Coward]

What's at stake here is that an entire sector of corporation (allegedly) broke the law in secret, and once exposed, is now trying to make what they did suddenly legal.

What's at stake here is the public's right to discover who in our government (allegedly) requested that the law (allegedly) be broken.

What's at stake here is nothing less than the rule of law itself and whether the law is controlled by the People or by the corporations.

Think about the consequences if fucking telecommunications companies for God's sake get away with (allegedly) violating our rights to privacy guaranteed by the FISA laws...

Think about the consequences if the (alleged) pressure to break the law from our own government never is fully exposed...

Think of the consequences if justice is not served to those who deserve it...

If they get away with this, the grand experiment that is America has failed.

Allegedly.

thank you scuttlemonkey

[Presto Vivace (882157)]

for posting this. Anyone who wishes to contact their Senator can do so here [senate.gov].

Re:

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

Well, if we delegated the power encompassed by the IRS, the SSA, and the various other control mechanisms in place from the Fed to the states, we could undo a lot of arguably wrong-headed old precedent.
Creating a "new" tradition of un-intrusive Federal government would really put the "P" in Progress for many of us.