House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity 341
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.
Wow (Score:4, Informative)
I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
Was this a different walk-out?
Walk out was not because of telecom vote (Score:5, Informative)
The
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
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:One can hope (Score:1, Informative)
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes (Score:5, Informative)
"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.... (Score:5, Informative)
our hero (Score:5, Informative)
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intel_chair_to_Bush_on_FISA_0214.html [rawstory.com]
I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear. We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won. Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Spontaneous media coverage (Score:5, Informative)
If you were watching MSNBC last night Olbermann ripped Bush and the Republicans over telecomm immunity and this staged walk out. They were showing clips of the "spontaneous" walk out to a place where there just happened to be cameras and a podium rigged with microphones. As if there are podiums and broadcast crews stationed all over in case any of our Congress critters suddenly decide to storm out of chambers in protest.
He called Bush and incompetent liar and fascist...in so many words.
Telcos have been dealing with wiretap law for decades, they knew what they were doing was wrong. If they're so certain their behavior was so lofty and patriotic, then let them take their chances with a jury.
We want companies to think twice before cooperating with an illegal enterprise, regardless of the perceived threats. The FISA court is a joke, they've never turned down a request. So, how is that virtual rubber stamp impeding terrorist investigations? Or is it that they're really afraid the FISA court won't authorize wholesale spying on the American public?
Good source for FISA background info (Score:4, Informative)
Today he posted an item called FISA 101 [salon.com] which is a good place to start.
Re:No Immunity (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Matters Instead (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
The first test case was Washington:
"In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents which were relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with Great Britain. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Therefore, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House."[2]
Also, here is the meat of the problem:
But as telecommunications--and especially the Internet--evolved, a communication between, say, Paris and Karachi, might actually be routed through the United States and thus become off-limits to government agents without a warrant.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171747 [slate.com]
Neither end of the conversation is privileged as they are not US citizens on US soil, but because it routed through here it is covered by FISA. (you do realize any mail you send or receive across the border can be read, don't you? Your rights end at the border)
Quite frankly, I am all for it if it expires every few years. It is a power granted in extraordinary times and it should not be perminate.
Re:One can hope (Score:3, Informative)
FTFA:
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
1. In addition to separation of powers, the constitution confers on Congress both the authority and the *duty* to conduct oversight on the operations of the executive. The executive has no comparable duty with respect to Congress. The powers conferred on congress by the constitution includes otherwise-judicial powers, including service of subpoenas and the right of enforcement of said subpoenas.
2. In the Washington case, Congress was exercising that authority. Washington *did* comply by providing the papers requested to the Congressional body with authority to oversee his actions: the Senate. He did not stonewall congress on this.
3. Congress is now attempting to exercise this same authority with respect to allegations of political manipulation of the Justice Department. The executive has denied access not only to papers and documents, but gagged witnesses Harriet Meirs and Josh Bolton, telling them that they may not testify to congress in any form. This is completely outside the scope of executive privilege, and congress has allowed the executive to get away with this stonewalling for over a year.
4. Congress has (finally) gotten around to voting on a contempt of congress resolution, which is the first step to enforcing those subpoenas. We will indeed have a court test of this, and fairly soon -- but the idea that the courts are "unlikely" to support congress' privileges in this is pretty silly.
Re:Partially Correct (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)