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."

Nice to know...

[Eric Smith (4379)]

that out of 100 Senators, there is ONE that thinks that telecom carriers should not be above the law.

Re:Nice to know...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

Well at least 1 democrat is actually doing something in the senate.

Note to republicans: Dont get a boner over this comment, your band of idiots suck too.

Re:Nice to know...

[Attila Dimedici (1036002)]

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.

Re:Nice to know...

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

No, he just cares about the Constitution and the Rule of Law. He is running for President, but even if he does not make it, he still wants the Constitution and the Rule of Law to be front and center in the world of political discussion.

Link [salon.com]

Re:Nice to know...

[liquidpele (663430)]

You can submit a thank you message to him here [chrisdodd.com] to let him know you support his hold on this bill...

Re:Nice to know...

[by Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to help the FBI track down people you know are up to no good, it's another thing to just willfully comply with a program that has no oversight so no one knows exactly who is being spied on and for what purpose. Best of luck to you.

Re:

[evanbd (210358)]

And I'd really rather you hadn't given them my receipt, if I was among the customers. Just because you meant well doesn't mean you did the right thing. (On the flip side, our legal system is rather screwed up, and it seems entirely possible you'll get hit with far more than you deserve. Well intentioned minor problems should get minor punishments, and you certainly don't deserve to face the potential for complete financial ruin that any lawsuit carries these days.)

You've got multiple different trusts t

Re:Nice to know...

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

I'd really rather not have to go bankrupt defending myself so I think that, since I was clearly acting in good faith, I need to get immunity.

"Good faith" IS NOT SUFFICIENT. The phrase that comes to mind is, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

All kinds of people do dangerous things because they don't know any better. That doesn't make what they did any less dangerous. This attitude of giving the government anything it asks for because of it's own self-justifiying fear-mongering is probably the most dangerous thing to happen in the US since 9/11.

How many fertilizer bombings of any significance has there been in this country? What, two over the last 20 years?

Do you really think that such a small number of actual cases deserves the massive level of invasion of privacy that has been committed since then? Aren't there better things to be spending our resources on than undermining the founding principles of our country to try to stop such rare events? 40,000 people die each year in car accidents. Averaged out over the last two decades, less than 10 people have died per year because of fertilizer bombings.

Re:Nice to know...

[sumdumass (711423)]

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.

Good as far as it goes

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

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 (253169)]

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]

Proxy war...

[nebaz (453974)]

This whole thing seems to be a proxy war between the Legislative and Executive branches over the entire concept of FISA and illegality. It kind of puts the telco's in a bind. What do you do when first the Executive branch tells you to do something which is probably illegal, and which if you don't do you'll likely lose money (see QWEST), and if you do do you will face Congressional hearings, and possibly be punished for illegal activity. While I don't agree with what the telco's did, they are not the real law breakers here.

Re:Proxy war...

[shawnmchorse (442605)]

Well first you talk to your lawyer if you have one (I suspect the telcos do). And then you don't do it.

Re:Proxy war...

[Dunbal (464142)]

What do you do when first the Executive branch tells you to do something which is probably illegal, and which if you don't do you'll likely lose money (see QWEST), and if you do do you will face Congressional hearings, and possibly be punished for illegal activity.

      You're supposed to do what's RIGHT. That's what people voted you into office for. That's why "I was only following orders" wasn't a valid defense at Nuremburg, and it's not a valid defense today.

If You Want the FISA Bill to Fail . . .

[unamiccia (641291)]

. . . consider sending some money [chrisdodd.com] Chris Dodd's way. I just did this afternoon (my first political contribution this election cycle) and it felt good. He's still not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, but the other candidates will be interested to see how bravery is rewarded. I would sure the hell like Chris Dodd's voice to be louder in the next days and weeks.

Re:If You Want the FISA Bill to Fail . . .

[Jtheletter (686279)]

consider sending some money Chris Dodd's way.

Now I'm not knocking your right to support a candidate or vote with your wallet. But honestly, what you basically just suggested was that if we want a law to pass (or not) we should pay someone directly for it. That's what this country has come to. Just outright admitting that vote-buying and influence peddling are the only way for the rule of law to prevail. It's not enough that retroactive immunity is forbidden by the Constitution, no, we have to SEND SOMEONE MONEY to see that the founding tenant of the law is upheld.

Where is the outrage?

Relevent US CODE

[phantomcircuit (938963)]

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 (928433)]

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.)

Since most of the Net goes thru the US

[WillAffleckUW (858324)]

It isn't just US citizens who are impacted by this - it's the whole world.

looks like Reid might ignore the hold

[Scudsucker (17617)]

According to this link [tpmmuckraker.com], the majority leader has promised to bring the bill up for a vote regardless of Dodd's hold. Which is pathetic on so many fronts - the Republicans even whisper about obstructing a bill, and the Democratic majority buckles like a belt. But when another Democrat tries to stop a bill, he is ignored. Makes you wonder if Reid made a deal for something, and exactly what that deal is.

It is simply unfathomable to be why so many Democrats don't take a firm stand against NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, etc. If they are principled, they would block it. If they only care about their political skins, they would still block Mr. 25% approval rating to make political points. Instead they buy shares in his messes by voting for them.

immunity needs to be off the table

[crayz (1056)]

Here's the EFF describing what the telcoms were doing [salon.com]:

We have evidence of an NSA-controlled room in the Folsom Street AT&T facilities in San Francisco. We have evidence that AT&T diverted copies of everyone's Internet traffic into that room. And we know that there's very sophisticated equipment in that room that is capable of doing real-time analysis analysis of the Internet traffic that is getting routed into there.

Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill?

[mr_mischief (456295)]

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.

Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill?

[Rich0 (548339)]

For once I'd like to see a Filibuster threat actually called.

Right now nobody actually opens a bill for debate if a filibuster is threatened and there isn't a sufficient majority to invoke cloture. I'd like to see the filibuster bluff actually called. Make the minority actually stand up and talk 24x7 straight for a few weeks until they're all carted off to the hospital, and then call for a vote. My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time). You'd see a lot fewer filibuster threats if people actually had to lose their voices to accomplish them.

Personally I find the whole concept repugnant. Essentially we're watching a bunch of well-paid elected officials act like little children manipulating the rules to avoid the democratic process (ie the majority actually getting what it wants). I don't understand why limited debate wasn't put in place one hundred years ago in the Senate. Ditto for all the parliamentary games that get played with rules and committees. I'm not a big fan of direct democracy but at least it looks like democracy...

Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill?

[Bottlemaster (449635)]

Personally I find the whole concept repugnant. Essentially we're watching a bunch of well-paid elected officials act like little children manipulating the rules to avoid the democratic process (ie the majority actually getting what it wants).

A democratic government is as dangerous as any other government, and the majority shouldn't always get what it wants. Filibustering is an important check on the not-always-righteous majority.

Re:Thank You!

[jfern (115937)]

This does have a damn thing to do with Osama.

Bush started this illegal spying 6 months [washingtonpost.com] before he ignored the August 6th, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden determined to Strike in US [wikipedia.org].