House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity

freedom_india alerts us to news that the House of Representatives declined to bring the surveillance reform bill to vote, prompting House Republicans to walk out in the middle of a session. The bill, recently passed by the Senate, includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies who assisted with illegal domestic wiretaps. The walk-out comes after a proposal was shot down on Wednesday that would have extended the current legislation for another three weeks.

Bush's comments on the issue

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

"The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill," Bush said, adding that not doing so would "put the American people at risk."

*sigh* I'm soooo tired of these scare tactics and I'm sure the rest of America is, too. Look, we're no better off than we were before 9/11 with regards to 'safety' from terrorists, and in many ways, we're worse off.

Read my lips, Bush: We ain't skeered of no terrorists.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[QuantumRiff (120817)]

and in many ways, we're worse off.
How can you say this? The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. We have systematically been eliminating their reasons for hating us! In just a few short years, I am sure they will love us again!

Matters Instead

[techpawn (969834)]

Turned to contempt of congress charges against Bush aides who did not testify when subpoenas. This outraged some republicans because they thought that the FISA was more important...

A bill that would give the president more power is more important than maintaining checks and balances?

Re:Matters Instead

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Trying to charge the White House aides is an interesting tactic, as it was Bush himself who invoked executive powers to keep them from testifying. Yet they know they can't charge the President himself (short of impeachment, they can't touch him) so the House chose to chase down the aides instead.

Re:Matters Instead

[raehl (609729)]

as it was Bush himself who invoked executive powers to keep them from testifying.

1) Bush doesn't have those powers. He's just pretending he does.
2) Following orders isn't an excuse. The aides are in contempt of Congress if they refuse to testify, whether someone else told them not to testify or not.

Separation of powers means the executive branch can't legislate and the legislative branch can't ... uh ... execute. It doesn't mean that the Executive branch isn't subject to the lawful acts of Congress.

I'm confused...

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

I thought the Republican walk-out was staged in response to the Dems daring to bring contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers [rawstory.com].

Was this a different walk-out?

Walk out was not because of telecom vote

[funnyguy (28876)]

The republicans walked out in protest of a vote to cite two former white house officials (Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten) with contempt of Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner argued that the House should instead be voting on an extension of the FISA bill which expires Saturday.

The /. teaser seemed to indicate that the walk out was due to a refusal to vote on the FISA bill. That is not correct.

No Immunity

[PaK_Phoenix (445224)]

There should be no retroactive immunity for the telcos. They broke the law, they knew they were breaking the law when they did it. They should now be open to civil litigation, now that their actions are out in the open.

To pass a bill granting retroactive immunity, would set a precedent I'm not comfortable with. The government(executive branch) violated citizens rights (wether or not they had a 'good' reason), and are now looking to protect their cohorts in crime.

What's next? Retroactive immunity for Microsoft, for installing a back door in windows, to help us catch terrorists?

I'm just afraid that immunity will send the message, that it's okay to violate civil rights, if the government asks you to. The government is the last people you should want violating your rights, it says so right in the constitution.

Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

Most vocal Slashdot'ers, including myself, feel that in the balance between (effective counter-terrorism) and (personal freedom, open government), Bush and Congress err far too much in the (effective counter-terrorism) direction.

Are most private citizens like us in this regard, and it's an authoritarian-vs.-population issue? Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[blindd0t (855876)]

Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?

Voluntary Response is the answer to your question. Those who do care voluntarily voice their opinion in various ways, such as posting /. comments. ^_^ Many if not most citizens don't appear care enough to even follow what's going on with government. They're too preoccupied with their own little worlds, and until those bubbles are burst, they will continue living their lives in deliberate and blissful ignorance. Mod me as flamebait/troll for saying it for all I care, but when Britney Spears requiring medical treatment makes front page news, yet Russia resuming cold war patrol flights and threatening to point missiles at Ukraine (I'll refrain from writing a book of my opinions on that matter) is seemingly nowhere to be found (on the larger, more popular American news web sites), I'd say it's pretty difficult to deny this sad truth.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[ATMAvatar (648864)]

Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?

Several reasons, actually:

• Many of us realize that the choice isn't between liberty and effective counter-terrorism. The choice is between liberty and a security illusion meant to make people feel safer.
• Knowing that we aren't actually becoming safer, it is much easier for us to realize how scary it is to be placing these kinds of powers in the hands of people who are already blatantly corrupt and whose interests clearly lie contrary to the public's.
• There is a fair amount of skepticism that anything beyond simply locking cockpit doors on airplanes is a necessary response to 9/11. Even if you could convince us that we are actually more secure, it could still be a hard sell that the additional security is worth the cost in liberty.
• There are many other causes of death in our country besides terrorism that vastly outweigh the losses suffered on 9/11... on a yearly basis. Why haven't we taken any steps to solve those? Why is a single event where 3,000 people died cause to go batshit insane protective give-up-our-liberties mode, when Heart Disease [cdc.gov] causes over 200 times that many deaths on a yearly basis, and we can't convince ourselves to hit up a gym?

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes

[webword (82711)]

How did YOUR representative vote?

"To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government."

FIND OUT! [senate.gov]

McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Not

Re:I'm confused....

[Winders (784885)]

The vote was to remove the immunity clause. Democrats voted for the removal, Republicans for its retention.

Partially Correct

[Ranger (1783)]

Yeah, as some other commenters have noted, the Republicans walked out because of the contempt vote. They were upset the House chose not to vote over telecom immunity. I'm pleased to see the Democrats finally showing they have a spine. It's only a baby step compared to what they should be doing, but after having let their spine atrophy for so long I guess it'll take a while before they actually do anything meaningful. I won't be holding my breath though.

If the Dems don't capitulate again, and that's a BIG IF, and Protect America Act expires tomorrow, we are still protected under the old FISA law. Not only that, had the Bush Administration used the old FISA law, the telecoms could have gotten immunity easily. So why didn't they? Oversight, which seems to be anathema to this administration.

Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

I know, it's certainly not news that "Republicans Are Lying About FISA". But it's still important, because they're getting away with it. And as geeks (and probably as nerds), we're the most likely to have something we care about spied on.

The lie I'm talking about is "FISA will expire right away". That's a moronic lie:

Section 2 of the Protect America Act:

`ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States

Even the "sunset" provisions that Republicans are lying about making the PAA expire don't actually apply:
Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act:

(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The PAA that Republicans are clamoring to replace "because it sunsets" was passed late last Summer. It's got another six months left for spying, even if that spying is un-Constitutional.

Every single thing about this spying not only violates the Constitution, but it's being forced on us with the worst kinds of lies. (Hi, Dick!)

That's why you sould sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill [firedoglake.com]. It's your last chance to say something publicly to the government on a voluntary basis.

Re:Wow

[dreamt (14798)]

Ok, so the article didn't mention the important part that the House wants to hold the president accountable for his actions. Its not one-sided, its taking it easy on idiot-boy's insistence that his people have to follow the law. Stating both of these actions make the House look even better!

Now, its just up to the House to enforce the contempt of Congress charges themselves, as the Justice Department isn't going to do its job in enforcing them (I read _somewhere_ that Congress does have some sort of enforcement capabilities for cases like this when Justice won't do their job).

Re:Wow

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass. In fact, the immunity bill may have had nothing to do with the events at the Capital. Spinning the story like that is simply irresponsible.

As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.

IMHO, start the impeachment process or don't. All this pussyfooting around is 100% impotent and accomplishes nothing more than a lot of publicity to make voters feel warm and fuzzy.

Re:Wow

[Shining Celebi (853093)]

As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.

I'm curious why you think the judicial branch would uphold his claims of executive privilege. That's not a Constitutional privilege. If Presidential aides break the law, should they be immune from investigation as long as the President invokes executive privilege? The real issue is that the Justice Department has said they won't investigate and bring charges, meaning it wouldn't go to court in the first place -- seems a bit of an odd choice if the court wouldn't do something about it. But Congress still has its own power to enforce the citation. And how can you impeach if you don't have any evidence to go on? That's the entire point of calling the aids to TESTIFY, which they refused to do.

And this is related to the FISA bill. Boehner was mad they weren't going to get straight to the spy bill like the President wanted.

Re:Wow

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

Yes, the House can enforce the contempt citation without the aid of the Justice Department. Under the rules for inherent contempt, after the citation is passed, the cited party would be arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House and brought to the floor to answer charges. However, the statutory procedure, which is the one that involves the Justice Department, has been used more often since its inception in 1857, and the inherent procedure hasn't been used since 1934.

Re:Wow

[JediN8 (941637)]

Contempt of Congress...WTF! I hold nothing but contempt for Congress, guess i better start packing.

Re:Correction....

[Bill_the_Engineer (772575)]

Were it a Democratic President who was stomping all over our civil liberties, the situation in Congress would be reversed.

Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as a blowjob?

Re:One can hope

[Shining Celebi (853093)]

But of course, President sockpuppet prefers not to mention that....

The President himself doesn't feel the need to mention that. He was admonishing Congress yesterday, claiming that: [whitehouse.gov]

Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching. They said it themselves. They've had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act, and pass legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.

Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk.

Our government has no greater responsibility than getting this work done, and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire. I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail, and vote on the Senate bill before adjourning for their recess. , and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill.

Of course, as you said, all previously authorized wiretaps under the expiring act go on, and as the House Intelligence Chair put it:

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year - until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

In summary: There really doesn't seem to be a need for this law at all, let alone the provisions like telecom immunity.

Re:One can hope

[Kierthos (225954)]

Well, he could always order them waterboarded. I mean, he's already determined that isn't torture.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

The idea behind doing this was to make a big fuss so that what was going on in Congress yesterday would be covered by the news.

Yes, that much becomes glaringly obvious when the ostensibly "spontaneous" walk-out ends in front of a bunch of microphones and cameras conveniently set up on the House steps.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[EllisDees (268037)]

>I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals.

But they are responsible for following the law, as Quest did by refusing their request. Fact is, the telecos broke the law by following those orders and should be held responsible just like anyone else.