Senator Slaps Down FISA Telecom Immunity

cleetus writes "Today Senator Chris Dodd decided to put a hold on the FISA bill, one of the provisions of which would have granted immunity to any telecom which, if found to have acted in good faith, violated U.S. laws in turning over customer data to the government. According to TPM Election Central, "By doing this, Dodd can effectively hold up the telecom immunity bill, because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward. One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting to allowing it to go to a vote." This throws a fairly big roadblock in front of this bill, covered by Slashdot earlier today."

Reid may bring the bill up anyways

[jfern]

Tim Starks of Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to bring the Senate's surveillance bill up for floor debate in mid-November. That's despite the hold that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) plans to place on the measure....

See here [dailykos.com] for more information.

We need to put a lot of pressure on Senator Reid to do the right thing here.....

Good as far as it goes

[Zeinfeld]

The hold is quite likely to stick because Dodd is also backed by Arlen Specter and Leahey.

Talk of the 'Senate' caving is somewhat overstated. Only the intelligence committee has cut a deal. Judiciary is still holding out for details of the crimes that the telcos are alleged to have committed.

That said, it is probably nothing to get too excited about. I don't think that the Bush administration is going to giveup the information demanded, and I think the telcos will eventually get immunity but only after the information has been released under another administration.

I expect some sort of truth and reconciliation commission in the end up.

The Senators Past Voting Record

[Satanboy]

In case anyone was interested, here's a good summary of his past voting record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chris_Dodd.htm [ontheissues.org]

Relevent US CODE

[phantomcircuit]

1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General;" (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801
(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html#a_1 [cornell.edu]

Give him your support!

[zestyping]

If you care about this issue, show Chris Dodd your thanks RIGHT NOW.

Call him at [phone], send him a note [chrisdodd.com], contribute to his campaign [wiredforchange.com], or comment on the blog post [chrisdodd.com]. Show him you mean it.

To encourage politicians to stand up for the things we believe in, we have to send a message, loud and clear.

(I do not work for the Dodd campaign. I just believe that if you want to have influence, you've really got to show some reaction when something goes right.)

Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill?

[mr_mischief]

The Daily Kos [dailykos.com] link in TFS explains how it works. Bills generally get unanimous consent to be voted upon, even when people intend to vote against them. Dodd isn't giving his consent for this to come to vote. Since there's no unanimous consent to vote on the bill, someone needs to motion for a vote over it if they want to hold the vote.

That motion to hold the vote then has to be debated and voted upon. A senator could filibuster [wikipedia.org] that debate, and it takes 60% of all current Senators (not just 60% of those present to vote) to break the filibuster (referred to as cloture [wikipedia.org]). Then the vote over the motion to vote on the bill can proceed if there's no filibuster or if the filibuster is broken. Only if a majority vote to hold the vote on the bill will the bill actually be voted upon.

Once the bill itself is up for a vote, there's still the chance it could be defeated.

Better than your dad

[Unlikely_Hero]

Thank you Sen. Dodd, for starting to erase the black spot in my head over the name "Dodd" for your father's use of Nazi Gun laws to create our own.

Seriously, thats not a jab at your dad or changing the subject, I like being able to have heroes instead of a pantheon of banal villains.

Please don't get shot.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Nice to know...

[sumdumass]

Well, you have been played. He isn't a store owner that sells large quantities of fertilizer and the FBI never came in asking for receipts.

First, there are laws about fertilizer that went into place before the Oklahoma city bombing that tracks who bought what and how much over a certain amount. You have to have a name and address for orders not much larger then what would be needed for a big yard in one purchase. and if you buy in certain quantities, certain things require a chemical license which a copy must be left on file at the place of purchase with a record of the purchase. This is for environmental reasons/ they want to know who is polluting the waterways.

Second, after the OK city bombing, they started requiring IDs for certain fertilizers. The miracle grow stuff you get won't make a good bomb. Depending on what these guys were supposedly doing to attract the attention of the FBI who wanted to know about fertilizer purchases, I'm going to guess that they needed either a chemical license or an EPA reporting certificate which means he would have had a copy of the name, what was sold and how much was sold.

Third, I find it ironic that he is being sued by the 15 or so other customers who the FBI checked out. Well, The FBI won't look at stuff not related to the case just to be looking at it. I know everyone is worried about big government and all, but we are talking about a specific branch that has to justify it's time in order to gain funding. And to be more specific, we are talking about specific agents who are on an assignment and apparently looking into something dangerous. In order to check everyone out, something would have to be wrong like non of the credit cards matched the names of the suspects or immediate members of their circle. Next, they wouldn't notify anyone that they were looking into them because of it. In other words, how would those people know. The FBI isn't going to go up to them and say did you purchase X at Y's store and then tell them they are asking because the owner just gave them the receipts. They would likely only mess with them if the cards used didn't match the people they are investigating, and then they will saying something to the effect of investigating credit card fraud or something and they was wondering if they purchased anything at Y's store recently. Those other people are not going to have any idea that the government didn't have the right to the receipts. And if they did wonder, they aren't likely going to be upset at all. And if they are, then it is one hell of a strange area that he is from.

Anyways, he isn't telling the truth on this. But along the lines of your telco comment, They are going to be confronted by agents claiming they have a legal right. It isn't like they asked specifically if they would help do something illegal. So the order to cooperate could have bypassed the legal departments all together. And not talking to the judges could have been the result of a threat. They said it they couldn't say anything because of national security. So someone had been talking to them about it before they got into court. If I told you that you would be tried and convicted then executed for treason/giving aid and comfort to the enemy if you tell our secretes and I appeared to have the ability to do so (I was over the department of justice and stacked the supreme court) would you risk your life to tell on me? If for some reason you think you would, I suggest your not in the frame of mind that I could actually do it, or your just crazy. Most others would protect themselves. They would do as I said and I think the telco's might be in a similar situation.

Re:Nice to know...

[Orange Crush]

The problem here is that you trusted government agents to act in your best interests. Never make that mistake again. If *I* came up to you and said my credit card was stolen, and I think the thieves purchased a lot of merchandise from your store and proceeded to ask to rummage through your credit card receipts, would you let me? I hope your answer would be: "Hell no. Take it up with the credit card company."

You have no way of knowing if I'm lying to steal sensitive customer information as I'd just be some random guy who walked in. If my concerns are legitimate, then ensure I go through the proper channels.

The same goes for the FBI. They can flash their badges and make all sorts of demands. Do not comply. Ever. Insist they follow due process and obtain a warrant or subpeona for the specific information they need, and give them that and only that.

Never assume for a second that the ones with the badges are automatically "good guys." Be as suspicious and skeptical as if they were any random person off the streets. Insist they follow proper procedures. Because when you get sued, they won't lift a finger to help. (as you're unfortunately discovering)

Re:Nice to know...

[jamstar7]

I spent like 25 years living in Cleveland. We know 'Dennis the Menace'. He kept Cleveland electric bills a bit lower by NOT selling Muni Light out to CEI and rigging the deal to where CEI had to provide Muni Light with electricity at a discount. Fun guy, but constantly had run-ins with the head of the City Council, 'King George'.

On the plus side, at least the Cuyahoga didn't catch fire and spark up his hair like it did to Ralph Pirk.

Re:Your Tin Foil Hat

[Jtheletter]

Is in the mail. Wear it daily. What are you gonna do next? Light a fire under some chicken wire and jump up and down on it?

I don't normally feed the tolls, let alone anon ones, but seriously, WTF was this comment even supposed to mean? It's a published and verifiable fact that was linked to about the illegal spying of Americans without even the thin pretext of "it's to prevent terrorism." So you're saying that we're all paranoid conspiracy theorists because we're pointing out that the President actually broke the law? There's no paranoia, the law was broken. People were spied upon without warrants or judicial oversight in defiance of specific law prohibiting such actions. And because it was done before the terrorism event of the century the stupid excuse that it was to protect us from those same people isn't even applicable. If anyone can say that is not worrisome then THEY are the enemy. The rule of law, upholding the tenants of freedom and the Constitution are what make America a great place. To say that anyone can simply claim dictatorial powers and ignore the law for whatever reason they choose is the opposite of patriotism. It is the opposite of freedom. If you believe one man may, regardless of his office or beliefs or intentions, remake the law at will then you are living in the wrong country, that is not how our democratic republic was designed, nor how it is intended to operate.

Re:Nice to know...

[rizzo420]

general betrayus deserved to be smeared. he did not report anything true about the situation in iraq. he simply reported what bush wanted him to report. it's quite obvious if you actually listen to what he said in his report and what bush has been saying all along. they are almost word for word exactly the same thing.

Re:Nice to know...

[Attila Dimedici]

Poor Rush. He got caught with his big mouth flapping. And I'll bet you were incensed about the disrespect to General Betray-Us. But hey, that's different. Sorry, I have no respect or compassion for the fat windbag. He is now trapped by his own hypocrisy.

I'll bet if Rush were caught molesting a 3 year-old his defense would be it was taken out of context.

Well, you know context is everything. In the case where Rush referred to "phony soldiers", Rush was talking to a caller who called in about a particular person who claimed to have been an Army Ranger in Iraq and witnessed atrocities. The person in question was never an Army Ranger, never in Iraq and never even completed basic training. So, there is significant difference between the "General Betray-Us" ad (which was composed and claimed that General Petraeus was lying to Congress, before he had testified) and Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. Whether you like Rush or Moveon.org, it is important to know the facts before reaching judgement.