Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government News Your Rights Online

House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support? 436

We discussed telecom immunity yesterday ahead of the House vote. It passed by 293 votes to 129. Only one Republican voted against the bill; Democrats were evenly split. It now goes to the Senate. Reader Verteiron points out that Glenn Greenwald has up a post titled "Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill." It says that Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway. I couldn't find this on Obama's official site. Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support?

Comments Filter:
  • Hope and Change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:38PM (#23887103)

    Perhaps that slogan only really means that we can hope all we want for some change, 'cause we're never going to get it.

  • What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?

    This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.

    The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.

  • by modmans2ndcoming ( 929661 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:56PM (#23887281)

    Umm... This bill makes the acts post 9/11 possibly non-liable. pre-9/11 acts are still liable. That is not Bush bashing that is fact stating.

  • by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @03:08PM (#23887421)
    I would, but like the other residents of the District of Columbia, we don't get a say in the matter.
  • Civil vs Criminal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21, 2008 @03:22PM (#23887557)

    Something to keep in mind. On Olberman last night a constitutional law expert basically said that this law procludes the telcos from civil liability for their actions. This is obviously bad and stupid. However it doesnt proclude them from criminal liability. The problem is no criminal case will be allowed through the justice department under this administration. The only chance of that happening would be for a new administration to make it a priority. Now, simple question, what are the chances of a McCain administration doing so?

  • by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @03:33PM (#23887667) Journal

    ...make your voice heard where it really counts.

    Sorry, my wallet is just not that fat. These people are not looking to protect our rights. We're on our own now. I beg those with the resources to find a technological solution. It's our only way. If they want a war, let's "give them a war they won't believe". And let's show that part of the population that is for all this that they can't have their way with the rest.

    That old rat bastard, Barry Goldwater said it best:
    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
    How so very true.

  • by Perp Atuitie ( 919967 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @03:39PM (#23887731)
    At least wait and see if he keeps his promise to fight the immunity provision. If he does, and succeeds, Bush has promised to veto the whole bill. In that case Obama would come out a hero for standing up for American democracy.
  • Speaking of Paul, is it safe to assume that he was the one Republican that voted against the bill?

    Of course it's not []. As with all politicians, their number 1 priority is watching out for themselves.

    The sole Republican (aka the only one with balls) was Timothy Johnson (IL). Ron Paul (and our local hero, moron Chris Cannon from UT) abstained from voting at all. Considering that it's their job to read up on and vote on laws, and that's what we pay them for it would be nice if they actually did it.

    That said, considering that Congress isn't even required to read a law before voting, what the hell's the point? We'd probably be better off right now if the treasonous bunch just voted randomly on every bill that comes through.

  • by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @04:58PM (#23888537)

    "Pelosi, however, is made of fail."

    Pelosi is shrub's little bitch now, because she knew about the White House's plans for illegal detention and torture back in 2002 or 2003 and didn't raise the bullshit flag. Her career is the reason Bush hasn't been impeached and locked in Gitmo.

    Bitch can go to Gitmo, too, as far as I'm concerned.

  • by Casey Bowman ( 1311919 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @05:33PM (#23888879) Homepage

    If you are able to remove your party blinders--I know it's difficult--, please consider Bob Barr. He's in this to win.

    Here's his press release from Thursday - Bob Barr Urges Congress: No Surveillance of Americans Without Fourth Amendment Protections []

  • by Khaed ( 544779 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @05:42PM (#23888963)

    Pelosi is one of the reasons I can't respect the Democratic Congress. She's an utter failure and a moron, and there are so many candidates for Speaker that they should have looked at before her. She is basically an affirmative action choice, and a poor one at that.

    But that's just my opinion.

  • Re:Hope and Change (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @05:43PM (#23888979)

    Well Obama is a change, a democrat who is willing to look at the big picture and not just try to punish the rich. Let be realistic if the Telco get a huge fine, who will pay for it in the long run... Us... Trickle down theory works very well when you take money away from the rich. It works a lot slower if you give money to the rich.

    A lot of people on slashdot are so polarized on the issue of the illegal action of invasion of privacy that you are out for blood even if it will not help anything. All it will accomplish is the average joe (the victim of the privacy abuse) paying more for service and he will pay more in the longer run, besides any fine there will be the extra costs of the companies now having to use more Lawyers for every decision that goes on.

  • by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @06:36PM (#23889393)

    You are overlooking the largest reason she is speaker - money. She was an enormously successful fundraiser for the Dems, and she was imbibed hardball machine politics like mother's milk from her family in Baltimore.

    So many other democrats owed her they HAD to vote for her when she threw her hat in the ring - they owed her literally and figuratively.

  • by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @08:00PM (#23889985) Homepage

    Yes, but Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution also seeks to overturn certain "norms" that have been around since the time of Alexander Hamilton (200+ years ago).

    Ron Paul is on the fringe, and always will be. There's no way on earth he's actually going to be able to convince the senate, and the rest of the US that the gold standard is a good idea.

    For a geeky point of comparison, Paul's a bit like RMS. He seems to have his heart in the right place, but is far too extreme to win over the hearts of the masses.

    As a sidenote, he's not even an ardent supporter of small government. He supports a small federal government, and huge overbearing state governments. Small groups of Texans have been blowing this horn for as long as Texas has been a part of the union.

  • by Tony ( 765 ) on Sunday June 22, 2008 @11:58AM (#23894797) Journal

    Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.

    As a lover of conspiracy theories, though, I believe the oil companies are intentionally jacking up the price of gasoline to make it extremely uncomfortable (and to reap greater-than-usual profits).

    Then, around October, the price of gas will plummet to about $3/gallon, and Bush will look good, and McCain will ride his coattails into office.

    It's unfortunate that the price of a gallon of gas may determine the outcome of this election. It makes the entire process susceptible to manipulation by powerful corporations.

    Nothing new there, really. Corporations already have more say than citizens. Look at the subject of this thread for evidence. Retroactive immunity has been shot down before, yet keeps coming back like a zombie in a bad movie.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford