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.
One can hope (Score:4, Insightful)
The telecoms do not need immunity, and any existing wiretaps can continue for up to a year. But of course, President sockpuppet prefers not to mention that....
Matters Instead (Score:5, Insightful)
A bill that would give the president more power is more important than maintaining checks and balances?
Re:Matters Instead (Score:3, Insightful)
Better than passing it! (Score:4, Insightful)
How? Bush said that people would Die, the Tarrraaarrusts would win if the bill isn't signed.
However, he'd veto the bill without Telecom immunity
So, let's see. It's more important to protect the Telecoms than to "Stop the Tarraa"
Come on. Fascism isn't any clearer than that. We'll let terrorists kill people (if you believe
you need one a bill at all, which you don't) instead of passing one without support for
the Corporate Sponsors.
Got Fascism? Yup. Damn, now you've even got proof.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
No Immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A Conservative Voice on the Issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. If it were written properly it would show that the Republicans got all pissy when the House Democrats made it a point to show that the executive branch is not above the law. Although something tells me you wouldn't be pleased with that either. Somehow you need to pin it all on the Democrats because the Angelic Republicans can never do any wrong.
Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
WIsh I could walk out... (Score:2, Insightful)
Partially Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Republicans Are Lying About FISA (Score:5, Insightful)
The lie I'm talking about is "FISA will expire right away". That's a moronic lie:
Section 2 of the Protect America Act:
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:
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.
I have faith (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember that the amount of executive authority the President should have is based on the political party of who you're asking.
Were it a Democratic President who was stomping all over our civil liberties, the situation in Congress would be reversed.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Matters Instead (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?
Several reasons, actually:
Re:Correction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Impeachment (Score:3, Insightful)
For those out there who oppose Constitutional checks and balances, and oppose impeachment of the Pres. and VP for running roughshod over our rights, consider what will happen if Hillary Clinton gets into office with that impunity and immunity and absolute power established by Bush's precedent. That should make you shudder. I know it does me.
Correction #2 (Score:4, Insightful)
vs.
Fixed that for you. Now you fix your country please.
Re:Correction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correction #2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One can hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the reality is that you do not know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Normally, I have respect on your opinions, but on this, I do not. Bush has NO capabilities to invoke executive powers on them WRT this. The reason is that ALL have claimed that they had no dealings with Bush on the very matters that congress wants to see them on. If they had dealings, well, then maybe. But bush and the others have all claimed that they did not. Or are they all liars?
As to impeachment, there is zero doubt in my mind that W and his cronies belong in prison. But it will never happen. The reason is that dems do not control congress and I think that even if they get control of congress on the next go, they will give W and his entire staff a pass because they are afraid that it will come back to haunt them. I am not sure which is worse. The fact that so many of these GD pubs have been as illegal and corrupt as they have been or that the dems have appeared to join them in that they do not go after where the real evidence is; Sibel Edmunds. If the dems REALLY wanted to bring down bush, all that would have to happen is that they would ungag sib edmunds, which is in their powers. Yet, waxman and others who PROMISED her that they would do this, will not even take her calls.
Re:One can hope (Score:5, Insightful)
For some reason I just can't see giving companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc immunity to prosecution for failure to take proper care of my privacy with information they collect. Maybe it's the completely dishonest PR I've seen out of Comcast recently with relation to P2P trafficing. Maybe it's the anti-competitive buyouts of AT&T. Maybe it's just a general mistrust of anyone worth over a million dollars.
So yea - if there are breaches of my privacy, someone should be held accountable. If it's the government mandating it unjustly, they need publicly defamed and removed from office. If there's no public official - then let the suing of large private information collecting giants like the telecom industries serve as a lesson that maybe, just maybe, they should stop tracking everytime I sneeze.
There's something hidden that we don't know. (Score:5, Insightful)
There has to be something really embarrassing for Bush that will come out unless "telecom immunity" passes. The political push for this from the White House doesn't make sense otherwise. Bush has limited political capital left, and he's spending it on the "telecom immunity" issue. Not the surveillance issue, which might actually have something to do with terrorism, but the immunity issue.
Re:Fucking Moron Alert (Score:2, Insightful)
It's beyond believable that there are actually people in this world as totally fucking devoid of intelligent thought as your comments indicate you must be.
You sir, completely lose at life and there is no reset button this time. Get your special brand of retardation off my country please.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I have, too, but all I find is the Department of Justice asserting in a 2005 opinion that they don't: IMPERMISSIBILITY OF DEPUTIZING THE HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS AS A SPECIAL DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL [usdoj.gov]. Rather pre-emptive, isn't it?
IMHO, this is either going to turn out like Iran/Contra or Watergate. My guess is that it's not so much public opinion and approval ratings as it is media mogul opinion and Nielsen ratings.
Or it could turn out like the 2000 Presidential election, i.e., the Supreme Court rules, and that's that.
Is it just me, or does anyone else keep hearing this message that We the People don't really have any say?
Re:One can hope (Score:5, Insightful)
"We can't do this mission without their help," he said. "Currently there is no retroactive liability protection for them. They're being sued for billions of dollars."
He said the lawsuits are causing them to be less cooperative and that their actions are not illegal.
Re:Correction.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've haven't mischaracterized anything.
My point being that the republicans slowed legislation to a crawl and caused a media frenzy over the Clinton impeachment. It is these SAME republican congressmen that demanded the full respect of congress during the impeachment (over a blowjob) of Clinton, that are actively turning a blind eye toward the Bush administration. They are walking out protesting that congress is over-stepping their bounds when it comes to forcing the Bush administration to abide by our laws over REAL issues, but they are the ones that created the precedence during the previous administration.
We all know that the impeachment and the Kenneth Star investigation were nothing but a fishing expedition to take away executive privilege from President Clinton. Ironically, it is this same executive privilege that they are trying to reinforce in a attempt to keep President Bush in power.
Or did you mean that the impeachment was more about lying to congress than about an extra-marital affair? Hmmm. A funny thing happened during the Bush administration, when Libby lied under oath about the Valarie Plame leak. Let's look in Wikipedia about how the current administration handled it:
"On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. His sentence included a $250,000 fine, 30 months in prison and two years of probation. On July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, removing the jail term but leaving in place the fine and probation, calling the sentence "excessive."
So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?
Now call your representatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Ringdev, your reasons 1 and 3 are just plain wrong. Republicans didn't prevent the contempt issue from being "settled". Democrats had a quorum and passed the contempt of congress resolution yesterday [speaker.gov].
Which leaves your reason 2, which is closer to the truth. The real reason these idiots walked out are:
1. To make a stink about not passing the telecom immunity act the way the President wanted.
2. To spare themselves the popular heat of voting against the contempt of congress resolution. Had they done so, they're going to look awfully phony once Miers and Bolton testify and the Justice Department scandal blows up again.
Re:One can hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately the reporter didn't ask the obvious follow up question . . .
"If they've done nothing wrong, why do they need a law granting them immunity?"
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: You really should do something about that cold. It's starting to lower your IQ.
Re:One can hope (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not to say these telecom's should get off, either. Those involved should be fired and investigated.
It's not just foreign terrorists we need to protect ourselves from, but the fascist government ours relentlessly attempts to become when unchecked. By allowing our government to violate our privacy in such a crass way, I see it as no different than housing a terrorist or providing secrets to the enemy.
TREASON [wikipedia.org]. "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
Any time you diminish The Constitution, you are doing just that.
There is no accountability in this world anymore.
Re:One can hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Matters Instead (Score:3, Insightful)
Following orders can be an excuse. Personally, I would be fine with the aides saying "I have been ordered not to testify," getting off scotfree, and having the person who gave them the order take their place in the hotseat. Repeat as necessary until someone is responsible.
Kieth Olbermann's Excellent Review of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now, than it was, then.
"Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: if the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"
You know, like The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Or Executive Order 90-66.
Or The Alien and Sedition Acts.
Or Slavery.
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability! You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger!
This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand.
For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act. You. By your own terms and your definitions -- you have just sided with the terrorists.
You got to have this law or we're all going to die.
But practically speaking, you vetoed this law.
It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an Ex Post Facto law, which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail. But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.
"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."
Believed?
Don't you know?
Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you?
Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here?
If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business -- come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. Fascism.
You're a fascist -- get them to print you a t-shirt with "fascist" on it!
What else is this but fascism?
Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?
Mark Klein was the AT&T Whistleblower, the one who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all AT&T circuits -- everything -- carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your web browsing into a secure room, room number 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it. Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy -- a spy both patriotic and telepathic -- might able to divine had been sent or spoken by -- or to -- a terrorist. Everything!
Every time you looked at a naked picture.
Every time you bid on eBay.
Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat.
"My thought was," Mr. Klein told us last November, "George Orwell's 1984. And here I am, forced to connect the big brother machine."
And if there's one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, is that he is -- you are -- a liar.
"This Saturday at midnight," you said today, "legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning, will be compromised... You said that "the lives of countless Americans depend" on you getting your way.
This is crap.
And you sling it, with an audacity and a speed un
what Bush said (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this bill jeopardize the security of any citizens? Is he serious?
Secrecy in his administration is a more serious threat to the citizens. Why doesn't his administration reveal its e-mail, telephone, and written communications to the people? Executive branch secrecy jeopardizes our security.
Why can't we have an open government? We pay the bills. Or stop using our taxes to pay for the executive branch.
Re:One can hope (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny, but the job of president only has one task:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's his/her only job. It's not a lot to ask for. So breaking that oath is a big deal, and should come with some jail time.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
That he can leverage Pardons and Commutations of his co-conspirators to get them all off scot free becomes the basis of the executive privilege he's asserting.
The one chink in the armor is the investigatory arm of a civil suit against the cooperating telecoms. Unless he can convince Justice that his power to Pardon can block a civil suit. It would be difficult argument to win without a better stacking of SCOTUS, which is why he'd rather get Congress to do it for him.
Re:One can hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, as much as I consider Capital Hill Blue an untrustworthy resource (Call it a left-wing Drudge Report. At one time they were known to single source things, though they told you when they did.), they've had way too much of a tendency to be ahead of the curve on stuff for me to assume they're wrong on anything.
Pug
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't *want* Obama or Hillary to have this kind of power, and I certainly don't want McCain to have this kind of power.
The only reason I can come up with that the Republicans haven't bucked the White House on this is that, fundamentally, they don't think the Democrats will have the imagination to really abuse it the way they have. What the hell are they going to do if Obama get's elected, and turns out to be a charming, charismatic, and ruthless SOB?
I hate to say it - but 60% of the country hate's Bushes guts. What the hell are they going to do if we have a likable person with a 65% job approval rating doing unto them as they've done to us?
Pug