Slashdot Log In
Senate Delays Telecom Immunity Vote Until After July Recess
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Jun 27, 2008 07:50 AM
from the after-all-why-ruin-the-4th dept.
from the after-all-why-ruin-the-4th dept.
ivantheshifty writes with news of a delayed vote (failed filibuster attempt aside) on the updated FISA bill which has been discussed here recently, in particular because it would grant telecom companies immunity (under certain conditions) from suits for wiretapping conducted at government request. According to the Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post, "Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and more than a dozen other senators who oppose telecom immunity threw up procedural delays that threatened to force the Senate into a midnight or weekend session. The prospect of further delays was enough to cause Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to postpone the vote until after the weeklong July 4 vacation."
Related Stories
[+]
FISA Bill Vote Today, With Telco Immunity 465 comments
Bimo_Dude writes "Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card. Here are comments from the EFF. Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"
[+]
Politics: Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill 368 comments
shma writes "This morning the senate has a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate on the FISA bill which grants retroactive immunity to telecoms who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have pledged to try and filibuster the bill, but require the vote of 40 senators to keep the filibuster alive. The article states that a similar 'threatened filibuster failed in February, when the Senate passed a measure that granted amnesty and largely legalized the President's secret warrantless wiretapping programs.' Should they lose the cloture vote, the bill is all but assured of passing. A proposed amendment stripping the immunity provision from the bill is also expected to fail."
[+]
Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill 1088 comments
zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So, there's a chance here, in this brief window of opportunity, to drum up proper opposition to this bill."
Yes, but it will fail. Tough luck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares. Let it fail, and let the politicians voting for it take the political hit to their reputations. It's not going to stand up in the courts anyway. And the Telecom companies can spend extra tens of millions in legal fees defending the law (or let the subpar public defender presidential administration attorneys lose even bigger for them), before it's overturn and thrown away, and they have to defend against civil damages suits later (and perhaps criminal violations).
I foresee Telecom executives being
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be joking. The Supreme Court, I guarantee, will allow this law to stand by 5-4... assuming that it would even grant that a plaintiff has "standing" to bring the suit. The 4 conservative justices would almost certainly find for the government, and Kennedy would probably go with them.
Parent
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism. He's between a rock and a hard place, voting against the bill will give serious ammunition to McCain and voting for it hopefully goes against his principles and pisses off the party base. I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place. I think 3rd parties candidates for cong
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think that either major party gives a flying fsck about you or about any principles?
Large clue stick: they don't. They care about their campaign war che$t$. That's it. So they are going to do whatever they feel will garner the most cash from their brib^H^H^H^Hlobbyists.
Really. Why are people in this country so naive?
Parent
Deal with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
So? Deal with it! He wants to be the President. And he's willing to fold on this issue? Just because he MIGHT not be elected if he doesn't fold?
Courage would be standing up to the Republicans (and the bought and paid-for Democrats) and saying that we do NOT need this law and that it would violate our Constitution.
Folding just so he can be elected ... that's the opposite of courage.
Take the fight to the Republicans. Explain to the people HOW this bill is needed or NOT needed. No more of the platitude of "fight terrorism".
Parent
Re:Deal with it! (Score:4, Informative)
That actually won't happen. I suggest that you read the extent of the texts in the bill and existing laws. It provide a legal remedy to authenticate whether or not the telecoms where acting in accordance with the law at the time. When the AG takes a case out of a civil court the AG has to certify that it was at their direction and that they presented it as a lawful order. There are no real criminal punishment avenues available if it was. At best, they can go after the people who authorized the taps but not the telecoms who aided once it is demonstrated that they were working under the seemingly lawful orders of the government.
Parent
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bear in mind that this is the same "Vital anti-terrorist" FISA bill that President Bush refused to sign last time when it came through without telecom immunity.
In other words, it's all about covering their ass and has little or nothing to do with actual terrorist monitoring. If it was so important for national security, why would Bush refuse to sign it without telecom immunity?
Unless I'm mistaken, all activities started before the most recent FISA bill expired on Feb 2007 are still valid for a whole year, so survielence will continue up to Feb 2008 even if this bill does not pass.
That makes this bill doubly-moot and perfectly "safe" to vote against. Unfortunately the public will never understand this.
=Smidge=
Parent
Not really opposing? He supports it. (Score:5, Informative)
Not really opposing it? He supports [washingtonpost.com] it according to every [cbsnews.com] report that I have seen [cnn.com]. This is after saying he'd never support the bill if it had immunity for the telcos in it.
Parent
Re:Not really opposing? He supports it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's just doing what every Democrat does after the primary season -- running to the center.
If you look at it from his perspective, he knows he's already got the liberal vote, so why should he try and speak to their issues anymore? He has to go after the "swing vote". You know, the people who pay attention to the elections starting sometime around late October and vote based on network news reports and campaign commercials. It really gets me that ignorant, low information voters are courted more than people who actually try to make a reasoned and informed decision. That's just the nature of one man, one vote.
If we had more than two major parties, Obama (and McCain on the other side) couldn't get away with simply flip-flopping on important issues because the farther left and farther right parties would step in to fill the void.
Parent
Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton campaigned as the candidate of change too.
Tell me how much different he was from any other administration. It is nothing more than a motto that implies more than it delivers.
I am concerned strictly by how they have voted in the past. What is more telling are what votes they skipped out on or merely voted "present". The more important the issue that a candidate misses out on or votes present the more damning things it implies.
Parent
"Recess" Is Their "Constituent Conference" Time (Score:3, Informative)
People like to point at all the Congressional "recesses" as vacation time for lazy congressmembers. Some probably do fly on corporate jets to Scotland to play golf with strippers, but most of them spend the time flying back to their home district (or state, for senators) and meet with local people to work on their constituents' issues. Sure, those people are primarily local corporate types and other rich/powerful people who live, work or happen to pass through their home office neighborhood. But they're wor
Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, honey Daddy is going undercut the constitutional checks and balances and basic civil rights that have formed the basis of this Union since its creation."
"But daddy, aren't you a Democrat?"
"Yes honey, but daddy's very scared of standing up to the President, so he's decided to just PRETEND to stand up--like when you pretend you're a princess."
"Daddy, when will the burgers be done?"
"Sorry honey, Daddy can't reach the top of the grill on his knees."
Parent
Good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm just too cynical... (Score:5, Insightful)
The attorney general and national intelligence director on Thursday said President Bush would veto the bill if the immunity provisions were stripped from it.
So it's vital to national security but not so vital if they can't have immunity along with it.
They say they haven't broken any laws but are fighting like hell to make sure they can't be prosecuted.
Is there any reasonable way to appear more guilty?
Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any reasonable way to appear more guilty?
Accidentally give the defense counsel call logs of wiretapped conversations they had with their client?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Al+Haramain+log+wiretap [google.com]
Parent
Certain Conditions (Score:4, Insightful)
It's important to note that these "certain conditions" boil down to basically any time the administration says, "We really want to".
On the one hand, I'm utterly sickened by the fact that this is still up for debate. No one should have protection from doing something unconstitutional. It was the telecoms' duty as American citizens to tell the government to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and then call the newspapers and blow a huge freaking whistle. On the other hand, I'm glad it hasn't just flown through Congress without any resistance.
Maybe a full-scale filibuster failed... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds to me like a lot of Senators and Congressmen (from both parties) need to be given a permanent holiday. And the added joy of a fine-tooth-comb tax audit as a going away present.
This delays the inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
One additional piece of information: the results of the cloture vote [senate.gov]. Look very carefully at the names under "not voting".
Cowardly, stupid Democrats. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, there is a non-partisan way to hit back at these bedwetters. A contribution here http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa [actblue.com] will support campaigns against anybody who voted to approve this bill.
Huge Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I don't have to say this, but I will anyway.
The point that I find most alarming is that with this thing Bush did, he has made all of our consumer goods and services into something we need to be suspicious or untrusting of. And a point I attempted to make before, this also makes moves in the direction of enlisting all US (and other) providers of goods and services into government espionage programs which makes spies of these people. It is a dangerous and slippery slope short-sighted-Bush has taken us down and it's time to stop the slide before it starts. And YES let the telecoms be sued! They NEED to be sued. The can afford to be sued. And they deserve to be sued! Qwest didn't take the blue pill and the others shouldn't have either. So the issue of right or wrong, or legal or illegal was probably pretty well known by the decision makers when they decided to comply.
I would go so far as to say not only should they be sued as a company, but the actual decision makers should also be sued personally for the abuse of their company resources for illegal purposes and actually removed from their jobs.
All of this, of course, hinges on whether or not this immunity bill passes. It should not be allowed to pass. It's among the most dangerous bits of legislation yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forge a revolutionary workers party
--------
Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. - at least as they are traditionally understood.
We now lack enforceable party platforms. This weakened the ability of the citizens to make deals between different interest groups in society. IMO: A classic case of "divide and conquer." (the electorate)
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8 [tinyurl.com]
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a develop