US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms 623
Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.
Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Informative)
McCain: No
Obama: Yes
Clinton: Did not vote
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/ [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:2, Informative)
To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.
Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea (Score:4, Informative)
She didn't. Couldn't be bothered apparently. Interestingly enough both McCain and Obama found the time to vote. Here's the vote itself [senate.gov] if you are wondering how your Senators voted on it.
At least my other Senator (Schemer) had the balls to vote against it. For all the good it did.
Clinton abstained (Score:4, Informative)
Re:just great (Score:5, Informative)
As linked in another post. Obama voted to strike the immunity clause from the bill.
NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.
Inaccurate Heading (Score:2, Informative)
Senators voted 67 to 31 to shelve the amendment offered by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). They did not vote for the bill yet (that's to come soon though).
Re:info request (Score:4, Informative)
What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.
More and more I think I may vote for Ron Paul, even if he's inconsistent.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't get much clearer than that!
(For those of you who do not know legalese, "ex post facto" means "retroactive".
Re:info request (Score:2, Informative)
This is not the will of the people (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment IV of our Constitution:
Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity
Re:You expected something different (Score:2, Informative)
Obama voted to block the immunity, yet you seem to be implying otherwise...
Denny
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Informative)
It's not over yet. It goes back to the House and into conferencing. The House is adamantly against telecom immunity; last week, the House leadership sent a letter to the Senate condemning it. I believe there's a strong chance that telecom immunity won't be able to make it out of the House, but it might be a good thing to call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)
Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:info request (Score:4, Informative)
But there isn't a restrictions against reducing or eliminating liability for criminal activity after the fact. For instance, if a criminal defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, and the Congress subsequently outlaws capital punishment, the death sentence is reduced in accordance with the new law. If they change their mind and reinstate the death penalty, the hypothetical criminal defendant is not eligible for an increase in his sentence. In particular, it is well established that Congress can pass laws in gray areas to clearly specify that something isn't criminal, even after convictions based on the old law, or to eliminate even very broad classes of liability after the commission of the offending action.
In this case, there is a claim of criminal activity that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute because it does not believe it was illegal. The plaintiffs have chosen to pursue civil cases on a theory of civil liability for those actions, based on Federal law. Congress may choose clarify (or eliminate, depending on your point of view) the law to state that the given behavior was not a crime. In this case, it clearly does not run afoul of Congressional power to do so. If that happens, there is no longer even a colorable argument that the plaintiffs have been been harmed, so the cases will be dismissed.
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:3, Informative)
Additionally, civil matters are generally not protected by the ex post facto clause, as well as laws that decriminalize an offense.
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Informative)
precisely what they intended to do.
It was worded to STRIKE the immunity provision. A Yea vote was one where they were to hold the telcos accountable for
civil violations of the law with regards to FISA. A No vote was to give the telcos a get out of jail free card.
McCain voted to give them a free out.
Clinton didn't bother to vote.
Obama voted to keep them accountable for their illicit activities. (Which, unfortunately, would be an accurate appraisal of the telcos' position right now...)
I suspect Obama, even if he wanted to give them a way out, just bought himself quite a bit of street cred with
a LOT of people if there's something of a big deal made about this.
Re:Who's on the conferencing committee? (Score:5, Informative)
At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.
More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.
In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:4, Informative)
It is illegal for the telcos to tap phone lines, and the only exception is when the government shows them a warrant or has probable cause. Essentially, if the government did not have a legal warrant, or probable cause with which to attain a warrant after the fact, then the telcos tapping was also illegal.
TFA even specifies this, not that I would point fingers at anyone for not reading it.
Re:Only 26 Senators voted against this (Score:3, Informative)
Roll Call. (Score:2, Informative)
Source: http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/12/fisa-vote-tallies-part-ii/ [holdfastblog.com]
"Voting with the Republicans were the following eighteen Democrats (again, rough count):
Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Joe Lieberman also voted against stripping retroactive immunity.
Not present and voting was Senator Hillary Clinton, the only presidential candidate serving in the Senate to miss the vote."
There you have it, Republicans in lockstep, and those Democrats mentioned are traitors. Including Sen. Clinton, in her silence, she consented. The roll call for Sen. Dodd's attempts to strip the immunity provision out read much the same. I would like to believe that all those listed have no political future (and this of course includes "all Senate Republicans who weren't mentioned by name"). Sadly, I'm probably wrong on that.
Last Chance to Stop Amesty (Score:5, Informative)
So sign the petition [firedoglake.com] to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's the last chance you have to keep some privacy rights when on the phone (hi, Dick!).
hand write or fax, emails get routinely ignored (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't I feel suckered (Score:3, Informative)
Check.
Please.
Thanks.
There are 51 Democrats in the Senate. 17 voted against this amendment (meaning they voted for telecom immunity).
90% of what now didn't vote for what?
You should be honest (Score:2, Informative)
Obama abstained from the final vote instead of voting against the overall bill. And given the margin, calling out Clinton seems pointless (since positions are usually known ahead of time).
Re:Stunned (Score:4, Informative)
The Democrats have a bigger majority in the House which already passed the bill *without* immunity.
Senate Voting History!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Constitution and resistance to change (Score:3, Informative)
Lastly, I think the UK has amply demonstrated that taking away guns cannot be done successfully enough to change the equation. In urban areas where they have had success seizing weapons, thugs *rent* weapons out for crimes, plus the fact that knife and other kinds of muggings, convenience store robberies have gone up because they know people are defenseless. Police often refuse to go after the criminals because no one was hurt, so violent crimes take priority (apparently some corners/stores are robbed pretty much on a regular schedule). Yes, their gun crime went down some, but it simply displaced a lot of the crime, and it did not go down enough that I would be comfortable giving up my right to defend myself when I know (and have experienced) that the police will not and physically can not defend me. An attorney locally in a city council meeting was reduced to throwing chairs at a shooter to try to defend himself after the attacker killed two police officers guarding the room *and took their guns* for use against the room's occupants. One of the council members actually had a carry permit but did not have his weapon with him. Bad mistake: carrying the thing for a hundred years without needing it is better than needing it once and not having it.
Re:Stunned (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Last Chance to Stop Amesty (Score:3, Informative)
But you're right not to have "faith" in politicians. Faith is a way of knowing something that can't be proven, and no one can know what these liars will do until after the check has cleared. But hope is different. It's a way of wanting something that hasn't been proven, fuel for doing something to get it. Which is why signing the petition [firedoglake.com] to pressure the House to stand by its partial progress against amnesty is worth doing. Because giving up hope means being defeated, and that's how you help the forces against you win. Signing the petition is another small but useful blow against them.