Slashdot Log In
Senate Delays Telecom Immunity Vote Until After July Recess
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Jun 27, 2008 06:50 AM
from the after-all-why-ruin-the-4th dept.
from the after-all-why-ruin-the-4th dept.
ivantheshifty writes with news of a delayed vote (failed filibuster attempt aside) on the updated FISA bill which has been discussed here recently, in particular because it would grant telecom companies immunity (under certain conditions) from suits for wiretapping conducted at government request. According to the Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post, "Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and more than a dozen other senators who oppose telecom immunity threw up procedural delays that threatened to force the Senate into a midnight or weekend session. The prospect of further delays was enough to cause Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to postpone the vote until after the weeklong July 4 vacation."
Related Stories
[+]
FISA Bill Vote Today, With Telco Immunity 465 comments
Bimo_Dude writes "Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card. Here are comments from the EFF. Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"
[+]
Politics: Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill 368 comments
shma writes "This morning the senate has a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate on the FISA bill which grants retroactive immunity to telecoms who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have pledged to try and filibuster the bill, but require the vote of 40 senators to keep the filibuster alive. The article states that a similar 'threatened filibuster failed in February, when the Senate passed a measure that granted amnesty and largely legalized the President's secret warrantless wiretapping programs.' Should they lose the cloture vote, the bill is all but assured of passing. A proposed amendment stripping the immunity provision from the bill is also expected to fail."
[+]
Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill 1088 comments
zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So, there's a chance here, in this brief window of opportunity, to drum up proper opposition to this bill."
Yes, but it will fail. Tough luck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares. Let it fail, and let the politicians voting for it take the political hit to their reputations. It's not going to stand up in the courts anyway. And the Telecom companies can spend extra tens of millions in legal fees defending the law (or let the subpar public defender presidential administration attorneys lose even bigger for them), before it's overturn and thrown away, and they have to defend against civil damages suits later (and perhaps criminal violations).
I foresee Telecom executives being
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be joking. The Supreme Court, I guarantee, will allow this law to stand by 5-4... assuming that it would even grant that a plaintiff has "standing" to bring the suit. The 4 conservative justices would almost certainly find for the government, and Kennedy would probably go with them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
no "Ex post facto" laws means (and is intended to mean) that you can't make something illegal after-the-fact. Not that you can't absolve people of wrongdoing, or make something that was illegal legal.
"Ex post facto" is not the appropriate grounds to object to the telecom bill.
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism. He's between a rock and a hard place, voting against the bill will give serious ammunition to McCain and voting for it hopefully goes against his principles and pisses off the party base. I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place. I think 3rd parties candidates for cong
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think that either major party gives a flying fsck about you or about any principles?
Large clue stick: they don't. They care about their campaign war che$t$. That's it. So they are going to do whatever they feel will garner the most cash from their brib^H^H^H^Hlobbyists.
Really. Why are people in this country so naive?
Parent
Deal with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
So? Deal with it! He wants to be the President. And he's willing to fold on this issue? Just because he MIGHT not be elected if he doesn't fold?
Courage would be standing up to the Republicans (and the bought and paid-for Democrats) and saying that we do NOT need this law and that it would violate our Constitution.
Folding just so he can be elected ... that's the opposite of courage.
Take the fight to the Republicans. Explain to the people HOW this bill is needed or NOT needed. No more of the platitude of "fight terrorism".
Parent
Re:Deal with it! (Score:4, Informative)
That actually won't happen. I suggest that you read the extent of the texts in the bill and existing laws. It provide a legal remedy to authenticate whether or not the telecoms where acting in accordance with the law at the time. When the AG takes a case out of a civil court the AG has to certify that it was at their direction and that they presented it as a lawful order. There are no real criminal punishment avenues available if it was. At best, they can go after the people who authorized the taps but not the telecoms who aided once it is demonstrated that they were working under the seemingly lawful orders of the government.
Parent
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bear in mind that this is the same "Vital anti-terrorist" FISA bill that President Bush refused to sign last time when it came through without telecom immunity.
In other words, it's all about covering their ass and has little or nothing to do with actual terrorist monitoring. If it was so important for national security, why would Bush refuse to sign it without telecom immunity?
Unless I'm mistaken, all activities started before the most recent FISA bill expired on Feb 2007 are still valid for a whole year, so survielence will continue up to Feb 2008 even if this bill does not pass.
That makes this bill doubly-moot and perfectly "safe" to vote against. Unfortunately the public will never understand this.
=Smidge=
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html [washingtonpost.com]
The war spending bill, for example, includes $162 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending on programs such as unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans. Bush, who had threatened for months to veto the legislation, said he will sign it.
Leading Democrats acknowledged that the surveillance legislation is not their preferred approach, but they said their refusal in February to pass a version supported by the Bush administration paved the way for victories on other legislation, such as the war funding bill.
The Democratic leadership feels that increased veterans benefits & increased unemployement is more important than rejecting de facto telecom immunity.
The Democrats are literally allowing their votes to be bought by the Republicans.
/Shame
Re: (Score:2)
>Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.
Honestly, who cares? The Democrats won the house in the last election by running on a 'Get out of Iraq' ticket, which could have certainly painted them as soft on terrorism, but they won by a landslide. Most Americans recognize what a sham the whole thing has been at this point, and a politician who panders to the opposition like this doesn't deserve our votes. I was seriously thinking about voting for Obama this fa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The party wouldn't be pissed off if they actually paid attention.
Under existing law at the time, the telecoms should have have immunity already. the so called lawsuites aren't really about damage, they are to find dirt on the administration because the telecoms would simply show the orders they received authorizing the taps and all. But there is a hitch, the administration has declared them all classified and remanded them as a state secrete which means that the telecoms can't give any of the information ou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I foresee him conveniently missing the vote on this one"
Good call - Vote Smart [votesmart.org] says his record on FISA, Guantanamo and Real ID is to be "out of the loop".
Not really opposing? He supports it. (Score:5, Informative)
Not really opposing it? He supports [washingtonpost.com] it according to every [cbsnews.com] report that I have seen [cnn.com]. This is after saying he'd never support the bill if it had immunity for the telcos in it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I am thinking that I'll vote for Kodos.
As for Obama, I'm still surprised that anyone at all fell for his trying to come off as some kind of 'new, post partisan' politician who decrys 'Washington politics as usual'. He's no different than any other politician, and frankly having lived in Chicago I can't imagine anyone who isn't a typical dirty lying politician to rise up like he did. Chicago is especially known for it's dirty politics.
I'm not saying he's any more evil than any other politician. I'm just s
Re:Not really opposing? He supports it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's just doing what every Democrat does after the primary season -- running to the center.
If you look at it from his perspective, he knows he's already got the liberal vote, so why should he try and speak to their issues anymore? He has to go after the "swing vote". You know, the people who pay attention to the elections starting sometime around late October and vote based on network news reports and campaign commercials. It really gets me that ignorant, low information voters are courted more than people who actually try to make a reasoned and informed decision. That's just the nature of one man, one vote.
If we had more than two major parties, Obama (and McCain on the other side) couldn't get away with simply flip-flopping on important issues because the farther left and farther right parties would step in to fill the void.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yup, just like they're ignoring is somber promise not to use private campaign funds if McCain did the same, because the public campaign finance system was so important to support. And of course, he's completely lied about that, and is opting for big bucks from private bundlers, and has the gall to say it's really his way of supporting change ("Change We Can Believe In!" - [tm]) in the public financing system. Puh-lease. It's right up there with his ofte
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton campaigned as the candidate of change too.
Tell me how much different he was from any other administration. It is nothing more than a motto that implies more than it delivers.
I am concerned strictly by how they have voted in the past. What is more telling are what votes they skipped out on or merely voted "present". The more important the issue that a candidate misses out on or votes present the more damning things it implies.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Recess" Is Their "Constituent Conference" Time (Score:3, Informative)
People like to point at all the Congressional "recesses" as vacation time for lazy congressmembers. Some probably do fly on corporate jets to Scotland to play golf with strippers, but most of them spend the time flying back to their home district (or state, for senators) and meet with local people to work on their constituents' issues. Sure, those people are primarily local corporate types and other rich/powerful people who live, work or happen to pass through their home office neighborhood. But they're wor
I guarantee you that (Score:2, Interesting)
this bill will not be voted on until after November.
Which tells us what a hot potato it is and give us time to turn it into a rotten potato for the politicians. IOW, lobby them to not vote for it.
Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, honey Daddy is going undercut the constitutional checks and balances and basic civil rights that have formed the basis of this Union since its creation."
"But daddy, aren't you a Democrat?"
"Yes honey, but daddy's very scared of standing up to the President, so he's decided to just PRETEND to stand up--like when you pretend you're a princess."
"Daddy, when will the burgers be done?"
"Sorry honey, Daddy can't reach the top of the grill on his knees."
Parent
Good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and my letter is going to be rather simple so that the message remains clear. I won't have to spend time explaining why they should vote against it, or why it's a bad thing. Simply put, if they do NOT vote against telecom immunity I will work to scupper their next bid for office. That might be voting for an opposing candidate, or maybe just writing in bugs bunny. In any case the best they can hope for if they do not vote against it is a lost vote from this constituent. It will probably be worse than th
Maybe I'm just too cynical... (Score:5, Insightful)
The attorney general and national intelligence director on Thursday said President Bush would veto the bill if the immunity provisions were stripped from it.
So it's vital to national security but not so vital if they can't have immunity along with it.
They say they haven't broken any laws but are fighting like hell to make sure they can't be prosecuted.
Is there any reasonable way to appear more guilty?
Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any reasonable way to appear more guilty?
Accidentally give the defense counsel call logs of wiretapped conversations they had with their client?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Al+Haramain+log+wiretap [google.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what sort of expectation do you have of the telecoms. Under the law, someone presents them with a certification that they have authority for the tap they are requesting. This could be a court order or a certification from the AG or one of the offices desig
Certain Conditions (Score:4, Insightful)
It's important to note that these "certain conditions" boil down to basically any time the administration says, "We really want to".
On the one hand, I'm utterly sickened by the fact that this is still up for debate. No one should have protection from doing something unconstitutional. It was the telecoms' duty as American citizens to tell the government to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and then call the newspapers and blow a huge freaking whistle. On the other hand, I'm glad it hasn't just flown through Congress without any resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from what I read, it's a directive from the executive & legislative branch directing judges to dismiss cases if the Telco has a written request from the Govt requesting a tap. From what I know of judges, there are a lot of them that would look at that directive & decide the paper was too course to wipe their ass with. You do not tell a judge to toss out the law & dismiss a case because you want it done. You either change the law, or argue why the action is within the law - those are yo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're correct; most good judges wouldn't deign to listen to an illegal directive. However, the federal courts are being stacked with cronies - people who are going to listen to the directive and know that there is no one that can second-guess that decision.
My biggest fear is that despite seeing the obvious corruption in the system, few people realize the extent to which the neo-conservative (fascist) movement has infiltrated the mechanics of our system. They're breaking down the matrix of checks an
Maybe a full-scale filibuster failed... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds to me like a lot of Senators and Congressmen (from both parties) need to be given a permanent holiday. And the added joy of a fine-tooth-comb tax audit as a going away present.
What a Relief! (Score:2)
This is heartening! (Score:2)
I thought the bill had already passed, but apparently the last vote was just to stop a filibuster. Now I have more than a week to get my hopes up only to have them dashed again!
This delays the inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
One additional piece of information: the results of the cloture vote [senate.gov]. Look very carefully at the names under "not voting".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Kennedy gets off with a doctor's note. He's got brain tumors. The others have all tacitly supported immunity by not voting.
It shows a distinct lack of character, but more importantly a total lack of patriotism and also oathbreaking.
They swore an oath to enter the senate to the constitution. This bill tears apart a critical piece of the bill of rights because someone somewhere is afraid of crazy men with beards halfway around the world.
The republicans keep their fascism out front, which embarrasses
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cowardly, stupid Democrats. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, there is a non-partisan way to hit back at these bedwetters. A contribution here http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa [actblue.com] will support campaigns against anybody who voted to approve this bill.
While it's hard to overestimate cowardice... (Score:2)
I'm betting on "Bribes from telcos".
Why the Dems Don't Object to Republican Abuses (Score:2, Interesting)
I called my Senators! (Score:2, Informative)
Virginia's Senators' Response (Score:2, Informative)
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me. As you know, the FISA Amendments Act would amend current law by expanding the intelligence community's authority to collect foreign intelligence through electronic means. Having served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy and as Assistant Secretary of Defense, I relied on decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence when I voted in favor of final passage of this bill on February 12, 2008. I also met with a wide variety of people who were both supportive of, and opposed to, these changes. During the Senate debate, I supported a number of amendments that were designed to improve the constitutional protections of our citizens. Further, Senators Russell Feingold, Jon Tester, and I introduced an amendment that would have added additional checks and balances with respect to assessing the appropriate use of surveillance. Unfortunately, this amendment was not passed by the full Senate. After passage of the Senate bill, I sent a letter urging Members who sit on the Senate-House Conference Committee to strike a more appropriate balance between protecting constitutional rights and providing the intelligence community with the tools needed to monitor terrorists. Regarding retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program, I do not support full immunity for companies who aided Government surveillance. I prefer a middle-ground solution that would allow court cases to proceed under appropriate circumstances. For example, I supported an amendment offered by Senators Arlen Specter and Sheldon Whitehouse, which would have allowed the U.S. government to be substituted for telecommunication companies in certain civil actions. I also supported an amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which would have allowed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to determine whether telecommunication companies acted in good faith when complying with government surveillance request. If the FISC determined a telecommunication company did not act in good faith, the company would not be immune from consumers' legal actions. As the U.S. Senate continues to debate matters pertaining to electronic surveillance, please be assured I will keep your views in mind.
Warner:
Thank you for writing to share your views on surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance CourtAct (FISA) court. I appreciate your thoughtful inquiry. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a statutory framework for the federal government to engage in electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence. Under current law, the FISA court, an eleven-member court created by Congress in 1978, reviews government requests to conduct certain domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. If the court finds probable cause to believe that the target of the proposed surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, the court may issue an order authorizing surveillance. As you know, citing his authority under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President authorized the NSA to collect signals intelligence from communications involving foreign persons who were reasonably believed to be al-Qaida members and who called into the United States or someone in the United States. The President's program was intended to fill a gap in intelligence collection for those calls that were not purely domestic and not purely foreign. On August 17, 2006, a federal district judge ruled court ruling in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union determined that the NSA surveillance program was unconstitutional and ordered that the program be halted. On October 4, 2006, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA program may continue while the Department of Justice continues to appealed the ruling of the District Court. And, on July 6, 2007, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court on the grounds that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed the Protect America Act (S.1927) by a vote of 60 to 28, with my support. Subsequently, the House of Representatives also passed this legislation, and President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2007 (P. L. 110-55). S.1927 allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General to authorize jointly, with a detailed certification, the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States for periods of up to one year. As I stated on the Senate floor at that time, I strongly believe that any solution to reforming FISA must have the certification of the DNI that the legislation will provide the intelligence capabilities needed to protect our nation and our allies. I am pleased to note that S.1927 meets this criteria. Because the Protect America Act had a six-month sunsetA number of the provisions of S.1927 sunset on February 15, 2008. While the Senate has acted and passed legislation on thismatter, the House of Representatives has not concurred with the Senate-passed measure. Specifically, on October 18, 2007, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, of which I am pleased to be a member, continued to review the law subsequent to its enactment and voted to report favorably the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.2248). The Committee approved this legislation by a vote of 13 to 2, with my support. The Committee's report on this legislation noted that, among its provisions, S.2248 would mandate FISA Court review and approval of procedures used by the intelligence community to minimize the collection, retention, and dissemination of non-public information regarding United States persons and their identities. Also, S.2248 would provide narrowly circumscribed civil liability protectionimmunity to companies that may have participated in the Terrorist Surveillance Program based on written requests or directives from the government that asserted the program was determined to be lawful. After extensive debate on this legislation before the full Senate, on February 12, 2008, the Senate passed this legislation by a vote of 68 to 29, again with my support. Unfortunately, the Protect America Act expired on February 16, 2008 and S.2248 TheSenate-passed measure has not been acted upon by the House of Representativesat this time. In my view, it is critically important for the Congress to pass this bill. I believe that S.2248, as originally passed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as amended and passed by the full Senate, strikes an important balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that our dedicated intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect the nation. While concerns have been raised about carrier liability protection, the companies who participated in the Terrorist Surveillance Program did so voluntarily to help America preserve its freedom and security. The protections extended to these companies only includes protection from civil liability; further, this legislation does not prevent those individuals who believe that the federal government violated their civil liberties from pursuing legal action against the government. I value the benefit of your views on this legislation. There is little question that we must leverage all available assets against terrorist organizations to prevent further attacks on America, but in the process, it is vitally important that all such actions be lawful within the law and the rights of Americans be protected.
July 4th (Score:2)
So let me get this straight, after celebrating July 4th - the day we declared independence from a tyrannical leader, we're going to have the senate vote that the president has the power to command the courts to avoid the issue of illegal wiretapping?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature'
Use this extra time to... (Score:3, Insightful)
Write your damn representatives and senators. Let them know their job is on the line. People are pretty pissed about this one, we need to stand up and be heard. Write them, protest, march! Lets do this!
Huge Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I don't have to say this, but I will anyway.
The point that I find most alarming is that with this thing Bush did, he has made all of our consumer goods and services into something we need to be suspicious or untrusting of. And a point I attempted to make before, this also makes moves in the direction of enlisting all US (and other) providers of goods and services into government espionage programs which makes spies of these people. It is a dangerous and slippery slope short-sighted-Bush has taken us down and it's time to stop the slide before it starts. And YES let the telecoms be sued! They NEED to be sued. The can afford to be sued. And they deserve to be sued! Qwest didn't take the blue pill and the others shouldn't have either. So the issue of right or wrong, or legal or illegal was probably pretty well known by the decision makers when they decided to comply.
I would go so far as to say not only should they be sued as a company, but the actual decision makers should also be sued personally for the abuse of their company resources for illegal purposes and actually removed from their jobs.
All of this, of course, hinges on whether or not this immunity bill passes. It should not be allowed to pass. It's among the most dangerous bits of legislation yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forge a revolutionary workers party
--------
Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. - at least as they are traditionally understood.
We now lack enforceable party platforms. This weakened the ability of the citizens to make deals between different interest groups in society. IMO: A classic case of "divide and conquer." (the electorate)
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8 [tinyurl.com]
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a develop