New FISA Bill Would Grant Telcoms Immunity; Vote Is Tomorrow

An anonymous reader writes "This just in: a new 'compromise' FISA Bill (PDF) was just made public, which, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, 'contains blanket immunity for telecoms that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans.' The House vote is tomorrow, June 20. After all the secret rooms and everything ... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone." CNN covers this get-out-of-lawsuit play as well.

Call Barack Obama

[Protonk (599901)]

He can put a stop to this.

866-675-2008 option 6, if you don't get a person then, press 0. If you get a voicemail, leave a message, then call back and dial 0 during the voicemail prompt to get a human.

Let them know:
-You are a progressive.
-Civil lawsuits are the ONLY remaining route to disclosure for the spying the bush administration perpetrated on americans.
-What the telecommunications companies did was ILLEGAL.
-He should call Hoyer and Pelosi to stop this RIGHT NOW. One phone call from the head of the democratic party should kill this nonsense.

If you have donated in the past, let them know that you will seek to have your donations returned if he does not speak out on this issue. If you haven't, let them know that you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.

The first step to making democrats strong on national security is standing up to republicans.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[The Warlock (701535)]

Also, if this bill gets to the Senate, keep your eye on how Obama and McCain decide to vote on it. I know I will.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[stinerman (812158)]

Very likely neither will vote on the bill because they will be out campaigning.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

How a candidate acts when it is politically profitable is no indication of how they will act when they have all the power they want.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[QCompson (675963)]

Except we all already know exactly how both of them are going to vote: They're not. When asked about it, they'll claim that they were "too busy campaigning" to bother voting on this "minor" issue. Too busy despite the fact that the primaries are over, and the real campaigning won't start until after the respective party conventions in August. You can look forward to both candidates taking that stand on issues. At least McCain has been in the senate long enough that he has a real voting record. Obama's a complete unknown, and you can bet he's going to work his hardest to stay that way.

Except just a few months ago, during the campaign, Obama voted against a similar bill that would have given telecoms immunity. Hillary is the one that didn't show up. Sorry to interrupt your preconceived notions.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[damn_registrars (1103043)]

At least McCain has been in the senate long enough that he has a real voting record. Obama's a complete unknown, and you can bet he's going to work his hardest to stay that way.

A complete unknown? Which talking points are you reading from? Obama was elected to the US senate in the 2004 elections, and therefore has over 3 years of voting experience in the senate. The US Senate [senate.gov] even tracks the voting records for senators, and you can read Barack Obama's voting record [senate.gov] if you really want to.

Not sure how you can call that a "complete unknown", when its right out there in plain view for the whole world to read.

Why just Progressive?

[bsDaemon (87307)]

Don't you think that it might send a bigger message if, for example, Obama could come to the floor with a list and/or recordings of say, 15-20000 phone calls saying that they're switching parties to vote for him because of bullshit legislation like this?

Playing to your own base is one thing. Playing to the enemy by showing you're up in their base, stealing all their votes is quite another -- and that's the sort of show stopper.

Who says you even have to actually be a Republican. Just call and say you're switching parities because of it. Then call your legislator and say the same.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Protonk (599901)]

I thought Howard Dean was the head of the Democratic party.

head of the DNC. the presidential nominee is basically the head of the party in notion and title.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Protonk (599901)]

This isn't really about "progressive" (left) or conservative (right) politics.

This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.

sure, but you pick your pressure point. voting for a third party candidate in a first past the post election system is pointless. That isn't a crack on the libertarians, but the political system doesn't provide power to third parties (in the US). there is a REASON why the French have dozens of parties and the US has only two major parties, it isn't because the french dig pluralism more.

Call Barack Obama's office tonight.

Re:Call Barack Obama

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

Voting for the person/party that represents my views the best is never pointless. If you suggest that voting 3rd party is pointless because they'll never win, is much like saying developing Linux Kernal in 2001 when Linus released version was pointless because it couldn't compete with Windows or Mac.

It is only pointless, until it is not. Then it becomes something bigger than most imagined it could in the beginning.

Besides, if you want to keep voting for the same old same old two parties, and expect things to actually change, then you're insane.

People want real change this year, and neither Obama nor McCain offer it, not really. Both offer more of the same crap we've had since 88. I'm also a tad disillusioned by Barr winning the (L) ticket.

That being said, I can never vote for people willing to take from others for political expediency, or for whatever "greater/common good" they think is important.

The message this would send

[jollyreaper (513215)]

Don't worry about breaking the law. As Nixon said, "If the President does it, it's legal."

In my ideal world, the people who make and enforce the rules would be held to a higher standard than the proles who merely have to follow the rules. It's bad enough when the infraction is minor like a cop doing 20 over the speed limit but when we're talking about the crimes committed in this case, it's the sort of thing that erodes faith in our very society.

I know there are people who say that there shouldn't be trials after Obama is elected, that it would be divisive and bad for the nation. Those people can kindly go fuck themselves. That same logic was used to praise Ford for not investigating Nixon. That same logic was used to praise Clinton for not seriously investigating the scandals of the Reagan and Bush administrations. All this did was let the same shit-weasels get back into positions of power the next time a Republican slithered into office. No. As a nation, we need hearings, we need trials. Bush and his henchmen need to answer for their crimes. A standard needs to be set in stone: we are a nation of laws, not men, and no man is above the law. Even Presidents will be forced to account for their actions and pay for their sins.

This will be part of our process for reengaging with the world. We've burned a shitload of bridges over the past eight years. When everyone can see an American President sitting in jail for his crimes, they'll know that justice has returned.

Re:The message this would send

[BobMcD (601576)]

As an aside, did you notice that the bill also makes it illegal to even INVESTIGATE what happened?

Unconstutional: Ex Post Facto

[corsec67 (627446)]

This law is an Ex Post Facto [wikipedia.org] law, making what was an illegal act legal, so if this law passes, it should be unconstitutional as per Article 1 Section 9 [wikipedia.org] of the Constitution.

Note that judges have somehow taken that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." sentence to mean that ex post facto laws that make the punishment worse are unconstitutional, but that isn't what the constitution says. Maybe that is one of those hidden things like in amendment 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10

Re:Unconstutional: Ex Post Facto

[stinerman (812158)]

Granted you have a right to your interpretation of the Constitution, but arguing that the SCOTUS made a "wrong" interpretation is a non-starter.

The SCOTUS can't possibly be wrong in their interpretation because their interpretations are infallible.

Arguing that the constitution says something, but that the SCOTUS got it wrong is essentially an exercise in intellectual masturbation. In practice, the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.

You fools, so fixated on Bush...

[tjstork (137384)]

Haven't even bothered to notice that Chris Dodd has slipped a provision into the housing bill that requires all internet businesses and payment providers to report their transactions to the IRS.

just all financial transactions [freedomworks.org]

So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.

Way to go Democrats! You guys are the best!

Democracy Isn't Working

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

This vote, the recent one in Sweden, wiretapping, surveillance, censorship; governments across the western world basically totally ignoring long held principles for individual rights and freedoms. They keep doing it, and nothing seems to be able to stop it.

I'm led more and more to the conclusion that our system of democracy isn't working anymore. I don't know why, and I'm pretty sure it did work before. Governments usen't be able to get away with even proposing this nonsense. Whatever we had that worked before doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Don't get me wrong now. I still believe in democracy, at least I think I do. Is the kind I believe in the one we actually have, or ever had? I vote. I see others voting. But I still see a disconnect between the actions of government and the will of the people. What has gone wrong? Is it just my vision that's in error here?

Is the fact that this recent shift occurred contemporaneously with the rise of the internet a coincidence? Is it just fallout from 9/11? Or something more? Is it the media? The corporations? The fall of communism? Globalisation? Or is it just the fact that we have indeed reached true democracy, and the currently evolving system of oppression is in fact what the people truly want?

I think there's a problem with our democracy. Something is broken, and I don't know what it is. The end result is that democracy is not working the way it once did. Maybe I'm just a fool raised on too many fairy tales about the way things should work. I'd like to think that, but I do perceive the shifts in our society, laws, and governments to be very real. Either the west is collectively shifting into some other system of government, or the very concept of democracy is itself undergoing some kind of phase change.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[CowboyNealOption (1262194)]

At least this vote will make it painfully clear which politicians should stay and which should be removed post-haste.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[palegray.net (1195047)]

So it goes like this:

1. Slashdotters identify policitians who represent a clear danger to civil liberties.
2. Slashdotters attempt to spread the word about these problems.
3. The vast majority of the voting populace either doesn't hear the message, doesn't understand it, or doesn't care.

Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[arkham6 (24514)]

their direct freedoms ARE being threatened, but they are more concerned by Jamie Lynn Spears's new baby than boring things like 'civil liberties'.

Media has replaced religion as the new opiate of the masses.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[bsDaemon (87307)]

No -- they care when its their freedom to:

1) own guns
2) have abortions
3) ban guns
4) ban abortions
5) have a gay marraige
6) ban a gay marriage

nothing else is going to active a critical mass of loud people to form a permanent bloc in the legislature.

At least not in America. But hey, at least this time the politicos can say "but Sweeden is doing it, too!"

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[spun (1352)]

At least not in America. But hey, at least this time the politicos can say "but Sweeden is doing it, too!"

Politicians know better than to confuse voters.

"Wait, what? What does wiretapping have to do with meatballs and massage? This guy is making my head hurt, that's it! I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[bsDaemon (87307)]

I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."

That explains Bush... not sure which way that indicates people going this time...

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[clampolo (1159617)]

It's actually a lot worse than you think it is. They run polling to see which issues are important to a persons constituents. They also factor in who is in a tight campaign and who is safe. And then they decide among themselves who will vote for or against a measure.

The most recent example I can think of this happening was the war appropriations bill. The Democratic Party wanted to pass the bill. But they made sure that Hillery and Obama were set to vote near the end, so that they could vote against the measure.

You have to vote both these parties out if you want to get rid of this stuff. Not just the candidates that voted for this bill.

Re:Politicians will vote for the law

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

correct - people who realize what's going on are already freaking out.

the politicians either know what they're doing (and full well know its ethically WRONG); or they are kept out of the loop and lied to.

the ONLY way laws like this will get overturned is when it 'hits home' with someone in a position of power. and enough times to really make the news and make people think 'hmmm, this has some implications to NON terrorist people'.

if some person in power were to have THEIR emails and phonecalls tapped and some juicy bits were to leak out, maybe THEN people would take notice that swinging an axe around will sooner or later start harming innocent people.

privacy is like air (or it should be): air is a right to ALL human beings, even the evil ones. I wish privacy was valued as much as the things that physically keep us alive.

but as usual, society is decades behind when it comes to finding ETHICAL uses for technology.

Re:Amongst all this...the question remains...

[sm62704 (957197)]

the actual discussion should be covering calls between an American citizen and someone on a watch list who NEEDS his calls tapped

If someone NEEDS his calls tapped, law enforcement can get a warrant. That's how it's supposed to work here.

Stop fearing the terrorists; they want you to be afraid, but they're toothless. Bush's senseless war in Iraq has killed more Amerricans than all the terrorists this century. Meanwile ten times as many people die every year on American highways. IMO anybody who drives an SUV needs to be on a watch list and have his phone tapped; (s)he's far more of a danger to me than any Muslim terrorist.

And some of that "homeland security" money needs to go to guard rails!