New FISA Bill Would Grant Telcoms Immunity; Vote Is Tomorrow

An anonymous reader writes "This just in: a new 'compromise' FISA Bill (PDF) was just made public, which, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, 'contains blanket immunity for telecoms that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans.' The House vote is tomorrow, June 20. After all the secret rooms and everything ... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone." CNN covers this get-out-of-lawsuit play as well.

Call Barack Obama

[Protonk (599901)]

He can put a stop to this.

866-675-2008 option 6, if you don't get a person then, press 0. If you get a voicemail, leave a message, then call back and dial 0 during the voicemail prompt to get a human.

Let them know:
-You are a progressive.
-Civil lawsuits are the ONLY remaining route to disclosure for the spying the bush administration perpetrated on americans.
-What the telecommunications companies did was ILLEGAL.
-He should call Hoyer and Pelosi to stop this RIGHT NOW. One phone call from the head of the democratic party should kill this nonsense.

If you have donated in the past, let them know that you will seek to have your donations returned if he does not speak out on this issue. If you haven't, let them know that you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.

The first step to making democrats strong on national security is standing up to republicans.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[The Warlock (701535)]

Also, if this bill gets to the Senate, keep your eye on how Obama and McCain decide to vote on it. I know I will.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[stinerman (812158)]

Very likely neither will vote on the bill because they will be out campaigning.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[witherstaff (713820)]

I wonder if Dodd's "I will fillibuster any telecom immunity" is still valid - or if that was just during the election cycle.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

How a candidate acts when it is politically profitable is no indication of how they will act when they have all the power they want.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[QCompson (675963)]

Except we all already know exactly how both of them are going to vote: They're not. When asked about it, they'll claim that they were "too busy campaigning" to bother voting on this "minor" issue. Too busy despite the fact that the primaries are over, and the real campaigning won't start until after the respective party conventions in August. You can look forward to both candidates taking that stand on issues. At least McCain has been in the senate long enough that he has a real voting record. Obama's a complete unknown, and you can bet he's going to work his hardest to stay that way.

Except just a few months ago, during the campaign, Obama voted against a similar bill that would have given telecoms immunity. Hillary is the one that didn't show up. Sorry to interrupt your preconceived notions.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[damn_registrars (1103043)]

At least McCain has been in the senate long enough that he has a real voting record. Obama's a complete unknown, and you can bet he's going to work his hardest to stay that way.

A complete unknown? Which talking points are you reading from? Obama was elected to the US senate in the 2004 elections, and therefore has over 3 years of voting experience in the senate. The US Senate [senate.gov] even tracks the voting records for senators, and you can read Barack Obama's voting record [senate.gov] if you really want to.

Not sure how you can call that a "complete unknown", when its right out there in plain view for the whole world to read.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

This isn't really about "progressive" (left) or conservative (right) politics.

This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Protonk (599901)]

This isn't really about "progressive" (left) or conservative (right) politics.

This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.

sure, but you pick your pressure point. voting for a third party candidate in a first past the post election system is pointless. That isn't a crack on the libertarians, but the political system doesn't provide power to third parties (in the US). there is a REASON why the French have dozens of parties and the US has only two major parties, it isn't because the french dig pluralism more.

Call Barack Obama's office tonight.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

Voting for the person/party that represents my views the best is never pointless. If you suggest that voting 3rd party is pointless because they'll never win, is much like saying developing Linux Kernal in 2001 when Linus released version was pointless because it couldn't compete with Windows or Mac.

It is only pointless, until it is not. Then it becomes something bigger than most imagined it could in the beginning.

Besides, if you want to keep voting for the same old same old two parties, and expect things to actually change, then you're insane.

People want real change this year, and neither Obama nor McCain offer it, not really. Both offer more of the same crap we've had since 88. I'm also a tad disillusioned by Barr winning the (L) ticket.

That being said, I can never vote for people willing to take from others for political expediency, or for whatever "greater/common good" they think is important.

Why just Progressive?

[bsDaemon (87307)]

Don't you think that it might send a bigger message if, for example, Obama could come to the floor with a list and/or recordings of say, 15-20000 phone calls saying that they're switching parties to vote for him because of bullshit legislation like this?

Playing to your own base is one thing. Playing to the enemy by showing you're up in their base, stealing all their votes is quite another -- and that's the sort of show stopper.

Who says you even have to actually be a Republican. Just call and say you're switching parities because of it. Then call your legislator and say the same.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Hyppy (74366)]

I just called my congresswoman. I spent about 10 minutes speaking to her staffer and then her, letting them know that I opposed the new "compromise" bill.

Mentioning that I served 42 months in Iraq/Afghanistan probably got me the "in" to talk to her, but every voice needs to be heard.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Protonk (599901)]

I thought Howard Dean was the head of the Democratic party.

head of the DNC. the presidential nominee is basically the head of the party in notion and title.

CALL your Congress Critter on this.

[khasim (1285)]

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html [house.gov]

Email does NOT have the same impact as a phone call.

Not really an iPhone problem.

[palegray.net (1195047)]

... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone.

Problems like this aren't limited to a single carrier. Boycotting Apple hardware isn't going to get you very far in the defense of civil liberties.

The message this would send

[jollyreaper (513215)]

Don't worry about breaking the law. As Nixon said, "If the President does it, it's legal."

In my ideal world, the people who make and enforce the rules would be held to a higher standard than the proles who merely have to follow the rules. It's bad enough when the infraction is minor like a cop doing 20 over the speed limit but when we're talking about the crimes committed in this case, it's the sort of thing that erodes faith in our very society.

I know there are people who say that there shouldn't be trials after Obama is elected, that it would be divisive and bad for the nation. Those people can kindly go fuck themselves. That same logic was used to praise Ford for not investigating Nixon. That same logic was used to praise Clinton for not seriously investigating the scandals of the Reagan and Bush administrations. All this did was let the same shit-weasels get back into positions of power the next time a Republican slithered into office. No. As a nation, we need hearings, we need trials. Bush and his henchmen need to answer for their crimes. A standard needs to be set in stone: we are a nation of laws, not men, and no man is above the law. Even Presidents will be forced to account for their actions and pay for their sins.

This will be part of our process for reengaging with the world. We've burned a shitload of bridges over the past eight years. When everyone can see an American President sitting in jail for his crimes, they'll know that justice has returned.

Re:The message this would send

[Notquitecajun (1073646)]

If you applied your standard across the board, I imagine we would have to arrest almost every high-level politician in the US. Don't limit your vitriol to the Republicans. We could name plenty of garbage that FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton pulled while in office and go around and around about that. I do agree with you about accountability, however, there is always a certain amount of balance that needs to be placed in the Presidency where the position gets a LOT of power as well. We have a unique system that typically works well and breaks down at times. Deal with it.

Re:The message this would send

[sconeu (64226)]

Just to be pedantic, it would have been damned difficult to indict Kennedy after his term, since he was dead.

Re:The message this would send

[BobMcD (601576)]

As an aside, did you notice that the bill also makes it illegal to even INVESTIGATE what happened?

The bigger lies are more easily believed.

[Sir_Eptishous (873977)]

They will pass it, and the majority of Americans will go blissfully along, acting like everything is fine. The really interesting thing here, and we all know this, is that these tools for control that have been put in place in the last 8 years are mainly for control of the American people, not for any sort of "war on terror" or protecting us from Al-Qaida. The bigger lies are more easily believed. Keep waiving that flag!

A bit sensational

[stinerman (812158)]

Technically speaking, the bill doesn't provide for amnesty. What that bill does do is require telcos to provide the letters the Bush administration gave them that said the programs were legal. Essentially, if the telcos can prove that Bush et al. told them this was legal, they get off the hook.

So I suppose if the executive branch told your company it was legal to do anything, you'll never be held accountable for your actions.

That's a pretty dangerous precedent. Why doesn't Bush let our oil companies know it's legal to drill in ANWR? He can give them the CYA letter and off they go.

Re:A bit sensational

[Deadstick (535032)]

Article IV of the Nuremberg Principles of 1946 established the precedent that if your superior tells you to commit a crime, and you do it, you've committed a crime. And we hanged people for it.

Easy come, easy go...

rj

Unconstutional: Ex Post Facto

[corsec67 (627446)]

This law is an Ex Post Facto [wikipedia.org] law, making what was an illegal act legal, so if this law passes, it should be unconstitutional as per Article 1 Section 9 [wikipedia.org] of the Constitution.

Note that judges have somehow taken that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." sentence to mean that ex post facto laws that make the punishment worse are unconstitutional, but that isn't what the constitution says. Maybe that is one of those hidden things like in amendment 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10

Re:Unconstutional: Ex Post Facto

[stinerman (812158)]

Granted you have a right to your interpretation of the Constitution, but arguing that the SCOTUS made a "wrong" interpretation is a non-starter.

The SCOTUS can't possibly be wrong in their interpretation because their interpretations are infallible.

Arguing that the constitution says something, but that the SCOTUS got it wrong is essentially an exercise in intellectual masturbation. In practice, the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.

You fools, so fixated on Bush...

[tjstork (137384)]

Haven't even bothered to notice that Chris Dodd has slipped a provision into the housing bill that requires all internet businesses and payment providers to report their transactions to the IRS.

just all financial transactions [freedomworks.org]

So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.

Way to go Democrats! You guys are the best!

Democracy Isn't Working

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

This vote, the recent one in Sweden, wiretapping, surveillance, censorship; governments across the western world basically totally ignoring long held principles for individual rights and freedoms. They keep doing it, and nothing seems to be able to stop it.

I'm led more and more to the conclusion that our system of democracy isn't working anymore. I don't know why, and I'm pretty sure it did work before. Governments usen't be able to get away with even proposing this nonsense. Whatever we had that worked before doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Don't get me wrong now. I still believe in democracy, at least I think I do. Is the kind I believe in the one we actually have, or ever had? I vote. I see others voting. But I still see a disconnect between the actions of government and the will of the people. What has gone wrong? Is it just my vision that's in error here?

Is the fact that this recent shift occurred contemporaneously with the rise of the internet a coincidence? Is it just fallout from 9/11? Or something more? Is it the media? The corporations? The fall of communism? Globalisation? Or is it just the fact that we have indeed reached true democracy, and the currently evolving system of oppression is in fact what the people truly want?

I think there's a problem with our democracy. Something is broken, and I don't know what it is. The end result is that democracy is not working the way it once did. Maybe I'm just a fool raised on too many fairy tales about the way things should work. I'd like to think that, but I do perceive the shifts in our society, laws, and governments to be very real. Either the west is collectively shifting into some other system of government, or the very concept of democracy is itself undergoing some kind of phase change.

Re:Democracy Isn't Working

[CodeBuster (516420)]

Whatever we had that worked before doesn't seem to be there anymore.

A functioning democracy depends upon a well informed and educated citizenry engaging amongst themselves and with the government in the common communications space in equal exchanges of ideas, critiques, and debate. That is what is most lacking from our democracy today and among the main reasons why our system is not now functioning as it was originally intended. For a more complete and insightful explanation I recommend Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason [amazon.com], where the case is made for what is wrong and how we can go about restoring the vigor of our democracy and preserving it for the generations yet to come.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[CowboyNealOption (1262194)]

At least this vote will make it painfully clear which politicians should stay and which should be removed post-haste.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[palegray.net (1195047)]

So it goes like this:

1. Slashdotters identify policitians who represent a clear danger to civil liberties.
2. Slashdotters attempt to spread the word about these problems.
3. The vast majority of the voting populace either doesn't hear the message, doesn't understand it, or doesn't care.

Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[arkham6 (24514)]

their direct freedoms ARE being threatened, but they are more concerned by Jamie Lynn Spears's new baby than boring things like 'civil liberties'.

Media has replaced religion as the new opiate of the masses.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[bsDaemon (87307)]

No -- they care when its their freedom to:

1) own guns
2) have abortions
3) ban guns
4) ban abortions
5) have a gay marraige
6) ban a gay marriage

nothing else is going to active a critical mass of loud people to form a permanent bloc in the legislature.

At least not in America. But hey, at least this time the politicos can say "but Sweeden is doing it, too!"

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[spun (1352)]

At least not in America. But hey, at least this time the politicos can say "but Sweeden is doing it, too!"

Politicians know better than to confuse voters.

"Wait, what? What does wiretapping have to do with meatballs and massage? This guy is making my head hurt, that's it! I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[bsDaemon (87307)]

I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."

That explains Bush... not sure which way that indicates people going this time...

Re:I see

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

Laura at War & Piece has two good question for Pelosi [warandpiece.com] that get to the gist of the issue:

        Doesn't that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it's legal, it's legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn't that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?

Answers: Yes and yes.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

their direct freedoms ARE being threatened, but they are more concerned by...

I have to disagree. I think you confuse that which is being pushed by the soapsellers and corporate shills who own the media and that which is important to Americans.

The fact is, it's been a long time since the "mainstream" media has been "giving the consumer what they want". Today, the television and radio stations, along with the print media strictly exist to promote an agenda created by the most powerful corporate interests. Nobody cares about Jamie Lynn Spears' new baby (least of all Ms. Spears), but the media has made a decision that this story will occupy peoples' attention and divert them from the fact that they are being turned into 21st century serfs.

Beyond that, the media has done everything they can to convince the citizens that there's nothing they can do to protect their civil liberties anyway. They do this by pushing the lie that all the political parties and politicians are the same and that a politician's stance about these issues is not as important as whether or not they wear patriotic jewelry or have the right skin-color.

But, I believe you can only distract people from their disintegrating situation for so long. There are already signs of a coming backlash, and it's almost funny how when the rage and bitterness of the populace breaks the surface it sends the approved pundits and media mavens running to their fainting couches. We saw it when hundreds of thousands of citizens spontaneously demonstrated against the beginning of the Iraq War. The media said it was just a bunch of "dirty hippies" but anyone who was at one of these demonstrations could easily see that wasn't so. Or when the media assured us all that a particular corporate-sponsored candidate was "certain" to win the Presidential primary and an little-known (black!) progressive politician popped up and with the $20 and $50 donations knocked off the assumed "sure thing". Even today, they try to tell us that this young black man will not "play well" with certain segments of society, particularly "white women" and "working-class voters" (aka the stupid people they count on to watch American Idol), even though every single poll shows that this is not so!. Hell, they tried to convince us that George W. Bush was the "more likable" candidate when just about nobody liked him. I guarantee, these corporate lickspittles won't realize what's really happening until they're hung up by their feet in the public square.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[modestmelody (1220424)]

Yeah, but I just wrote to my representative now that I saw this. So it does do something: To The Honorable Peter T. King: It has come to my attention that once again telecom immunity has reared its ugly head in a bill authored in the House of Representatives. As my representative in the United States Congress I must request that you oppose this bill. Immunity for corporate entities who cooperated with federal officials to break the law is not acceptable. In America, we hold criminals accountable, whether they are businessmen, military men, government officials, or law enforcement officers. FISA courts have time and time again proven themselves to be adequately expedient and sagacious in its role protecting Americans-- both from external threats and from threats against their rights. I implore that you cut through the rhetoric of a more "safe" America and instead continue to ensure there is an America worth protecting-- one which treats all its citizens as equal under the law and respects their rights to privacy.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened.

here's my idea on how it could 'hit home':

wiretap a bunch of random people. scan for 'juicy embarassing things' that they are saying. of course (...) make sure its not a national security thing - just find embarassing personal things that people are saying in private.

THEN PUBLISH TRANSCRIPTS. once a day, from some random person, in the newspaper. keep doing it until people SEE THE LIGHT.

eventually people will see that the talk is mostly personal stuff and not at all 'security issues'. at THAT point, they'll finally understand that this is just a power grab to scare and control the population.

but until enough innocent people get caught in the net (heh heh) - nothing will change and our liberties will continue to erode.

For an ANON, you actually hit on part of the issue

[poetmatt (793785)]

One of the real problems is that people are ridiculously stupid and uneducated. I don't mean going through harvard/yale, I mean people actually researching issues. The kind of people who can acknowledge that both our republican and democratic candidates (all of them) are horrible horrible people, and our choices are merely between the lesser of evils.

Re:For an ANON, you actually hit on part of the is

[erroneus (253617)]

Today people are taught to pass tests, not to think. If people were thinking, they'd be dangerous. Since they aren't thinking, they're safe. Do you think it's a coincidence that the school system is set up the way it is?

The rare "thinking" people can't often thank the public school system for that. It is either due to some natural fluke, or parents that actually cared for and taught their children.

Re:For an ANON, you actually hit on part of the is

[erroneus (253617)]

Actually, it's rather hard to imagine a student not wanting to subject themselves to being a member of the "pathetic specimen of human waste" club. It's a big and popular club and many children cry themselves to sleep at nights wondering why they couldn't be [stupid] just like everyone else. Many people don't CHOOSE to be thinking people. Many, such as myself, had no choice in the matter and I was a very miserable child as a result. I simply couldn't understand the things other kids did and I couldn't accept the things I couldn't understand.

It took me a LONG LONG time to shift my understanding to the realization that my being different was an advantage of sorts... even now, it's something of a disadvantage. I can't use Windows because it's a big mess inside of the black box and I know it can't be trusted while other people lead perfectly contented lives with Windows and simply accept that their personal information is available to any 'evil doer' determined enough to get it.

Meanwhile, learning how to think can actually be taught and it isn't taught very often.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[Gewalt (1200451)]

Perhaps you didn't notice... The democrats agreed to pass the bill too. You see, we already voted the republicans out. It accomplished nothing.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[clampolo (1159617)]

It's actually a lot worse than you think it is. They run polling to see which issues are important to a persons constituents. They also factor in who is in a tight campaign and who is safe. And then they decide among themselves who will vote for or against a measure.

The most recent example I can think of this happening was the war appropriations bill. The Democratic Party wanted to pass the bill. But they made sure that Hillery and Obama were set to vote near the end, so that they could vote against the measure.

You have to vote both these parties out if you want to get rid of this stuff. Not just the candidates that voted for this bill.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[rainman_bc (735332)]

You have to vote both these parties out if you want to get rid of this stuff. Not just the candidates that voted for this bill.

Which is why I don't understand the absence of third party choice in the USA. There's nothing wrong with voting for a third party. You're showing that you aren't interested in the top two choices. If enough of you had the courage to vote for a third party, it wouldn't be a problem. The fear of vote splitting is an excuse. Your vote is never a throw away vote, even if it's for a third party.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[Darby (84953)]

Your vote is never a throw away vote, even if it's for a third party.

No, your vote is *always* a throwaway *unless* you vote for a third party.
Only with a third party is worthwhile change possible. Voting either of the two major parties is saying that the worst excesses of either are what you want to see more of.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[John Whitley (6067)]

You have to vote both these parties out if you want to get rid of this stuff.

THIS CAN'T WORK. The way the political systems in this country run right now, this is tantamount to asking all the air molecules to "just move to the left a bit" to give you a nice breeze.

Third parties face huge barriers to entry due to a collection of factors. The first cut: a lot of intelligent folks simply stay away from politics in the first place due to these and other issues. The second cut: those interested in pursuing all but the most minor political positions really must be career-minded the way things work today. To have a viable career, this pretty much means running with one of the two major parties. (Head of snake, meet tail.) The third cut: unfortunately, many of the folks left after the first two cuts seem to be wholly unelectable. As in, if you read their platforms in detail, you realize that they're fscking nuts. At best, they are well-meaning but lack requisite insight into human nature and/or the real-world ramifications of their lofty ideas. At worst, they're really nuts: spouting off about eliminating UFO influence on our toaster ovens and the like. (My state's voter pre-election voter pamphlets occasionally offer excellent comic-relief while researching candidate backgrounds.)

The more interesting question is why candidates in the "second cut" above don't rally around a third party. Part of the reason is simple: virtually none of the USA voting districts use a ranking-based system of election, such as IRV [wikipedia.org] or Condorcet [wikipedia.org]. This provides a barrier to entry most notably seen in the 2004 US Presidential election as the "Nader effect". Nader was never a viable candidate to win, so many voters felt they were forced to choose between "voting their conscience" and "voting for the lesser evil." The real effects are much deeper, however. An excellent third-party or independent candidate might win an election in such a system by garnering a lot of first and second place votes from voters across the spectrum. The effect could be rather de-polarizing, and would allow a foot in the door for new parties.

Now all of this neglects other serious issues, such as campaign funding and media influence and coverage. Third-parties have an additional barrier in the form of achieving sufficient fund-raising to win a campaign, and achieving media backing. As sad as it sounds, it is absolutely necessary today to get the word out and successfully market a candidate to the people in order to win a contested election. This can require large to massive amounts of money... and the strings that go along with that.

Media outlets get to further warp the funding/marketing issues by providing whatever balance and bias of coverage they want. Whether through carelessness, explicit bias, or even implicit biases, mass-media has come to have an astonishing effect on distorting our democratic processes. Not garnering media support can leave a campaign dead in the water. As a simple example, consider the viability of a candidate for any high-level office with a platform of serious media ownership reform. I have trouble imagining that getting very far.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

correct - people who realize what's going on are already freaking out.

the politicians either know what they're doing (and full well know its ethically WRONG); or they are kept out of the loop and lied to.

the ONLY way laws like this will get overturned is when it 'hits home' with someone in a position of power. and enough times to really make the news and make people think 'hmmm, this has some implications to NON terrorist people'.

if some person in power were to have THEIR emails and phonecalls tapped and some juicy bits were to leak out, maybe THEN people would take notice that swinging an axe around will sooner or later start harming innocent people.

privacy is like air (or it should be): air is a right to ALL human beings, even the evil ones. I wish privacy was valued as much as the things that physically keep us alive.

but as usual, society is decades behind when it comes to finding ETHICAL uses for technology.

Re:Amongst all this...the question remains...

[sm62704 (957197)]

the actual discussion should be covering calls between an American citizen and someone on a watch list who NEEDS his calls tapped

If someone NEEDS his calls tapped, law enforcement can get a warrant. That's how it's supposed to work here.

Stop fearing the terrorists; they want you to be afraid, but they're toothless. Bush's senseless war in Iraq has killed more Amerricans than all the terrorists this century. Meanwile ten times as many people die every year on American highways. IMO anybody who drives an SUV needs to be on a watch list and have his phone tapped; (s)he's far more of a danger to me than any Muslim terrorist.

And some of that "homeland security" money needs to go to guard rails!

Re:Amongst all this...the question remains...

[Beardo the Bearded (321478)]

Your FISA court allows a warrant to be obtained after the wiretaps. They have three days to get the warrant after the tap is in place.

So if there's a dire emergency, they can tap immediately then get a warrant later. The rule of law still applies to these emergency wiretaps. That's a good thing.

The only reason to grant immunity retroactively then forbid investigation is that some illegal wiretapping went on and someone doesn't want you to find out what it was.

Re:Amongst all this...the question remains...

[demachina (71715)]

The issue is that as soon as they took the program out from under the supervision of the FISA court it became nearly impossible for anyone to figure out who they were spying on or how sweeping and abusive the program became. It doesn't really matter if they were only listening to calls of foreign nationals, once they bypassed the courts they could spy on anyone they felt like and probably did. They violated the Constitution by spying on people without a warrant, period. When you let your government spy on you without court supervision, its really easy for your government to collect dirt on opponents to discredit and blackmail them, to snuff out dissent, to win elections, and then your representative Democracy is pretty much gone. We've been there before. Nixon and Hoover very nearly destroyed our Republic in the 60's and 70's which is why FISA was created.

By circumventing FISA the Bush administration was turning the clock back to a time when our government was abusively spying on people for no good reason. Since abuse was happening before FISA was created chances are its occurring now that FISA has been gutted. Chances are its even worse this time around since digital communications and computers make it possible to eavesdrop on a much larger scale than you could in 1968. Back then agents actually had to listen to and read everything. Now computers can sift through everything and kick out every email or phone call which has a keyword of interest.

I'm not sure I'm really that concerned about granting immunity to the telecoms. When the NSA and the President told them to do it, it took extraordinary balls to say no. Qwest did and their CEO ended up in prison partially because of his refusal to play ball with them. Qwest lost a big classified government contract because of their refusal to participate, their stock tanked and their CEO was charged for misleading shareholders because he couldn't talk about all this classified blackmail.

I'd be glad to let the telecoms go, as long as the people in the government who told them to do it go to jail, the people at the not, not the people in the middle or at the bottom. Throwing the telecoms in jails is about like throwing the privates in Abu Graib in jail. Its become clear the torture they were doing at Abu Graib and Gitmo was ordered by the highest levels of the Bush administration, especially Cheney and Addington. They should be going to jail, not the flunkies who did what their government ordered them to do in the panic post 9/11.

You're missing the big problem...

[argent (18001)]

The big problem is not that it grants them immunity, it's that in doing so it blocks an investigation into what the Government was doing. Which of course is WHY the bill is granting them that immunity.