Slashdot Mirror

Email senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I oppose S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008. Not only does this bill create more financial responsibilities the country can't afford, but it turns a civil matter of copyright infringement into another expansion of government.

It also asks all levels of government to spend more time on intellectual property rights enforcement, which I believe is not something that deserves "high priority" status. Moreover, the seizure provisions of this bill will inevitably harm innocent people in technology, which are documented at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html.

Please vote against S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 and keep the government from growing into another area of monitoring our freedoms.

The most honorable Senator Joseph Isadore Lieberman would certainly not promote widespread media censorship and bullying of the press concerning so-called ''anti-semitic' 'self-hate' views on Middle East issues...

All of this may end up affecting no more than a few bomb-making tutorials and turbant fashion-shows, non?

Anyway, Senator Lieberman deserves much praise for his deep concern about videos disseminating propaganda and showing `gratuitous violence or people getting "hurt, attacked, or humiliated."'.

Finally, we should not forget some valuable insight on "the domestic radicalization process" which, with Joseph Lieberman as Chairman, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has included in the report "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat". Apart from minor detais on player identification, the four-stage model in page 4 seems remarkably insightful when confronted with recent US history and even with the good Senator's own radicalizing messages. Will such 'aiding and abetting' discourse be removed from YouTube as part of the ongoing un'unamerican' First Amendment Amendment?

The most honorable Senator Joseph Isadore Lieberman would certainly not promote widespread media censorship and bullying of the press concerning so-called ''anti-semitic' 'self-hate' views on Middle East issues...

All of this may end up affecting no more than a few bomb-making tutorials and turbant fashion-shows, non?

Anyway, Senator Lieberman deserves much praise for his deep concern about videos disseminating propaganda and showing `gratuitous violence or people getting "hurt, attacked, or humiliated."'.

Finally, we should not forget some valuable insight on "the domestic radicalization process" which, with Joseph Lieberman as Chairman, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has included in the report "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat". Apart from minor detais on player identification, the four-stage model in page 4 seems remarkably insightful when confronted with recent US history and even with the good Senator's own radicalizing messages. Will such 'aiding and abetting' discourse be removed from YouTube as part of the ongoing un'unamerican' First Amendment Amendment?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3325/show
Sponsor
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]

Co-Sponsors:
and 7 Co-Sponsors
Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]

I can't find who in the committee voted for it or against it. It passed committee 14 - 4.

Members on the committee:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Committee Members
Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, D-Vermont

Edward M. Kennedy
D-Massachusetts

  Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, R-Pennsylvania

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-Delaware

Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah

Herb Kohl
D-Wisconsin

  Charles E. Grassley
R-Iowa

Dianne Feinstein
D-California

  Jon Kyl
R-Arizona

Russell D. Feingold
D-Wisconsin

  Jeff Sessions
R-Alabama

Charles E. Schumer
D-New York

  Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina

Richard J. Durbin
D-Illinois

  John Cornyn
R-Texas
Biography

Benjamin L. Cardin
D-Maryland

Sam Brownback
R-Kansas

Sheldon Whitehouse
D-Rhode Island

  Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma

If you don't think the US is making an effort then I find it hard to believe that you will think that much of anyone is making an effort. I'm not totally convinced that the global warming is even totally a man made issue. We might be contributing, but I don't think we're the ONLY thing that is causing this, and I don't think that we can just reverse it by cutting back on CO2 emissions by 5% of 1990's levels. Is that really the margin of error for us? 5% was the tipping point?

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, read this.

And remember, this was done during an environmentalist democrat run Senate.

So I guess Elizabeth Dole said no. After all, she couldn't possibly have been behind Gov. Palin on the short list, could she?

I think he's lost his mind. This is like Harriet Miers all over again.

--
Toro

35 women have served in the United States Senate. Care to take a guess as to how many black senators have preceded Obama? Only four.

completely agree that the two major parties are largely dishonest about their goals; the Libertarians are the only ones who seem to be very honest

Yeah and look how many elections the Libertarians have won recently./p>

I really think it comes down to that more than anything else with the Republicans and Democrats. I don't think most of them set out deciding that they are going to be dishonest. They set out to win elections and eventually come to believe that the ends justify the means because the other side will ruin the country.

Nobody with half a brain thinks that John McCain is going to bring us four more years of GWB. They obviously agree on several big issues but do you really see McCain as the type that is going to alienate our oldest Allies and run a permanent campaign once in office? Do you really see him as somebody who would have dropped the ball on Katrina as badly as GWB did? But "McCain equals four more years of GWB" is a good sound bite so that's what they keep repeating until our ears bleed.

Likewise, nobody with half a brain thinks that Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. Is he really more liberal than the self-described socialist? I doubt it. Yet it sounds good and scares people so that's the sound bite the Republicans use.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

I agree. On one hand, we'll have a president who is somewhat tech savvy and a vice-president who despite our contradictions with his philophy of the Internet, knows something about technology law. We just need him to get out of the MPAA, RIAA, and the NCTA's pockets first. Hopefully, Joe Biden has no ties to Jack "Videogames raped me" Thompson.

In terms of foreign policy, Biden is perfect for the job.

In terms of a pro-technology Senate, I believe that in the furture that there WILL be more pro-tech congressmen. Guys in their 30s and 40s running for office who used to be fans of Metal Gear Solid. Former-Iraq War Vets who are angry that the Grandpas in the senate gave them the lowest-common-denominator (the cheap-ass stuff) when they were in battle while the anti-tech grandpas and their special ed bible thumping leaders send their drunken kids on a world-wide vacation to write childrens books.

The Internet is here to enlighten people as to what is really going on. It is impossible to cover up what is really going on with propaganda. Eventually, the truth roars into perspecitive after hiding in the underground until the people of power are put into an embarassing or weak position.

Obama voted for an amendment taking out the retroactive immunity, and it failed. He had to play politics and vote for it, so people wouldn't nail him for being soft on terrorism.

Remember four years ago, right before the election: the terrorism alert kept being raised, even though it was later admitted there was no actual terrorism threat. Imagine if the neo-conservatives can get that kind of fear into the American public again. The TV ads would be full of "he voted against stopping terrorism", and people would believe it, since 99% of the population doesn't even bother to read what the bill was actually about. Obama, despite actually having a better plan against terrorism, would sink as the "soft on terror" candidate.

People need to drop the FISA issue. I hated that bill too, but be angry against the coward Democrats that voted against striking out immunity (link). There are some surprising names on that list...

Don't get me wrong: I hate the mafIAA's just as much as anyone here. But I'm way more concerned about the economy, and the huge money-drain in Iraq, and net neutrality, than copyright law. Neo-conservatives will ALWAYS side with big business, so the copyright issue is not a deciding factor for me in this election.

When FISA came to a vote as HR.6308 on July 9, 2008, Biden voted against it, Obama voted for it.

he changed his mind on granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms

here is his former view

here is him voting for it

and here is his responce to complaints of him voting for it

he changed his mind on granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms

here is his former view

here is him voting for it

and here is his responce to complaints of him voting for it

What is your opinion on NN, as it is defined in the two definitions I called "legitimate"?

My "particular view" is rather common. I can't take credit for it.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf[pdf]

For some reason, I get the feeling that it is your "particular view" that is novel.

If your opinion is the exact opposite of the opinions expressed in the links above (i.e., you think that ISPs and backbones have a god-given right to inspect and molest traffic, and "net neutrality" means no regulation), then you are, in fact, against NN. That is, of course, unless you change the semantics to mean the exact opposite of what they are accepted to mean.

That's an interesting observation. Unfortunately, there are two major parties which reinforce their duopoly and have for decades. Both are largely corrupt, so the system would seem to have failed.

The discouraging of banning together for sinister purposes is indeed listed as one of many reasons for rotating Senate classes on the Senate's own history page. Other included less popularist views, a longer view of issues, more stability, and more continuity. By having a group that served longer than the terms of presidents or members of the House, a turnover in the governing bodies would not leave the federal government completely fresh and inexperienced.

In the senate, it passed 91 to 8. Of the 8 No votes, 6 were Republicans, 2 were Democrats.

I know there are some difficulties with blanket classifying all R's as conservative and D's as liberal but the voting records only list party, not ideology. That said, I would call 197 to 10 House Democrats and all but 2 Senate Democrats as quite solid evidence of across the board support.

The funniest thing that Limbaugh ever did was call for harsher penalties for drug users then get himself busted for being an oxycodon addict.

What's scary is that little episode didn't really cost him many viewers or respect. I guess Republicans only care about hypocrisy if it's the gay kind....

I visited this GIFC site. Noted that there is no way to contact anyone there! (freedom ??) .. and its statements seem to be written by some right-wingers who believe in some 'sanctity' of 'freedom of information' in these United States of America

According to its Deputy Director, Shiyu Zhou, GIFC is "a small team of dedicated volunteers, connected through their common practice of Falun Gong, who have come together to work for the cause of Internet freedom." GIFC recently asked the US Senate for $50 million in funding to continue its work.

Please note that I'm not posting this information to discredit GIFC - I agree with what they're doing (see my homepage), but I think we should pay attention to why they're doing it and who's paying the bills.

On the final version of the bill that came out of conference committee and went to the White House

House: 380-49
Senate: 83-8

Why do we need to link to the "open source!" info when the original source is also open to the public (and, in my opinion, more useful)?

What actually happened, of course, was that the House adjourned for its August recess. As scheduled. Just like it does every year. Presumably it was scheduled months in advance. Everyone knew it.

Except this time the minority party refused to, you know, leave. Though the government is not in session, the Republicans insist on hanging around anyway.

Actually, Congress is going into recess a week earlier than they had planned. You can see here the original date for them to start August recess was August 9th.

Plain and simple this is an effort to freeze debate on matters central to the upcoming presidential election, most notably the offshore drilling issue. This issue hinges on the theory that the current gas price crunch could be significantly helped by opening up offshore drilling, a theory heavily supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The truly interesting fact is that the Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat from Nevada) previously threatened to CANCEL the August recess if two key Democratic bills weren't decided in time for the recess.

Smells a bit of hypocrisy if you ask me.

At least they're not engaging in fisticuffs.

like they did around the civil war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks#Sumner_Assault

and again in 1902:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Fistfight.htm

Or like they do in Bolivia:
http://www.blinkx.com/video/fist-fight-in-bolivia-congress/BUTRtHbu7LQxO1wF

And we can at least be glad no one got shot by the vice president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks#Sumner_Assault

Er... uh... well, rather at least no one was MURDERED by the vice president in this instance.

• House of Representatives
• Senate
• President

There, fixed that for you.

Okay, to all the people who are arguing with you, I respectfully implore: Please read the "fine" decision. The courts have said that border searches don't require reasonable grounds for suspicion because they are "different" than searches within the U.S.

Now, if this upsets you and you live in the U.S., complain to Congress. It'll take you maybe fifteen minutes to bang out a letter to your congressman/woman and your two senators explaining that you think DHS is going too far. I have already done so, and I got back nice, polite letters explaining that there's a war on terror going on, etc., etc. They're not going to listen to me and the handful of people from EFF and the ACLU. But if their email boxes are swamped with complaints from Slashdotters (and their friends and families), maybe Congress will do something. Otherwise, resign yourself to the possibility that your electronic toys may be impounded and scrutinized at the border.

Dude, they already CAN. In most cases all of the internet traffic flows through phone lines called "the backbone". The phone company owns them. The phone company has just recently recieved immunity in law for letting them (the government) listen illegally. Unless your traffic is going to a server in the same room, it is most likely passing through one of the major peer exchanges (read that article, please) which are these rooms, usually at a phone company building. They are almost always phone company buildings because they used to need huge buildings for their switches but now an exchange is only about 10 feet, and most of that is the connectors. So they have tons of room. Plus they used to need tons of batteries and backups. Now they use "SONET" rings and frame relay and stuff which rely on local (on-site) power backup. Your home line is probably still standard, but business lines account for the vast majority of active phone lines nowadays.. So the phone company leases "rack space" to these "ISPs" who basically also lease Copper or Fiber from the phone company to move their data on. Unless they've pulled their own copper or fiber or use some other expensive WAN technology like microwave (which is easily listened to, also), they go thru the phone company.

So, they turn on a span port on the peer point router (usually a Cisco 12000 type router), and just copy traffic off, probably using some sophisticated filtering technology. It's a lot of data, but they only check when they want to. Yep, in almost any large phone company datacenter in most metro areas there's this little "room"...... anyway, EVERYONE knows about the room, and it doesn't matter. The government is more than just a few guys. Sure, they are fucking corrupt, but really this country is run by us. If we don't get out and vote, and choose the right leaders, NOT just by listening to Cable News but by actually READING the testimony in Congress or the Senate, looking at the voting records of your representatives, GETTING involved. You can actually MEET your senator if you're in a small state, and you can almost definitely meet your congressperson. I think they should probably expand congress again, but that's neither here nor there.

So, you can keep the fear and paranoia stuff, but that's SO 2005. We are looking for solutions now. Maybe a better faster networking technology would help us communicate even more effectively, and find those solutions more quickly.

Thanks for your post. I got it from this web site: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4572001 They in turn copypasted it from this link: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015 But as you not it was a bad copypaste. Apologies for that. Next time I'll do my own.

BTW note someone "moderated" my post as a troll and it went straight to zero. Presumably not over not copypasting Webb. I though Obama was great until he did the FISA backflip, but say anything back about him and get whacked down. Slashdot needs a way to moderate the "moderators"; moderator points are handed out far to freely.

Just so we all know who we are talking about here. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

Because a grand total of 0 Republican senators and 1 Republican representative voted against it?

Because it was sponsored by a "Democrat" from Texas and two Republicans?

Because 28 out of 51 senate Democrats voted against it and 128 out of 233 house Democrats voted against it?

Because the proposed amendment to remove Telco immunity was sponsored by Democrats?

You know who created this mess? The individual congressmen who voted for the amendment.

Not the right list. The one you want is here.

I'm not sure where you got your list from, but I noticed it leaves off Webb (D-VA), and further searching reveals it doesn't seem to match up with the Senate's own records at all.

... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

McCain abstained.

They DID vote cloture. It passed, 72-26. Check it out:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00167#position

If they hadn't, Dodd or Sanders or the like would have probably let a filibuster.

Hillary HAD to vote everything she had against the issue. Shes from the most liberal state in the nation, after all. Her vote on the Iraq war came back to bite her in the ass, so she couldn't risk it again. She had to vote with her state's population in mind.

I'd still like to see what people's opinions are of this being a defensive move by Obama. Had he voted against it, and we had another terrorist attack -- even a small one -- what would have been his chances of winning the election?

And the congressional approval rating has always been a joke. It is almost always below the presidents, and most people rate their own congressional representatives highly while rating the congress low. Most people don't even know how congress works -- I've explained cloture and supermajorities and vetos to more people I can count. (Not to say there's anything wrong with not knowing the specifics of congress. It's just that people shouldn't approve or disapprove of things they don't take the time to understand. It would be like a non-linux user talking about which distro is the best...)

That "majority" in the Senate is 51-49, with both the Independents caucusing with the Democrats. This includes the Blue Dog Democrats, and Joe Liberman, who very often sides with Republicans on votes. The only reason that they have been given the title of majority without dispute in the media is so that when things go wrong in the country, they can be blamed... despite the ability of the president to veto everything they pass, and the ability of the Republicans to filibuster damn near everything. (They set a 2-year record in only 10 months.)

If you don't like your current leaders, don't just vote them out of there: start supporting the good candidates at the local level, so they can go on to do better things. Town treasurers turn into mayors, who turn into senators, who turn into presidents. ;)

That doesn't excuse his vote for it, and I wish he had voted against it, but giving McCain and the right an easy attack point ("Look! He's soft on the terrerrsts!") probably isn't something he can afford at this point

I love the guy here on /. a couple of years ago (I wish he would read this post and say it himself or point out his post of a few years back) who wrote, and I paraphrase:

• If you are not voting Independent you are wasting your vote.
• If you are not voting third party you are wasting your vote.

During my life I had not understood the stereotype of a bunch of ornery OLD guys, outside a grocery store, or an old porch railing against politicians, or Washington "whore" politicians.

A few facts are clear to me now that I am older. But all can be boiled down to one axiom.

All politicians are whores. Left, Right and Center.

Barack Obama refused negative campaigning, admirable. It cost him during the primaries and yet he gambled on. Admirable. But now as you say, he is going Clintonian. To wit, s/he will say what ever it takes win. I do not blame him, Republicans will say anything to win, as the end justifies the means to that bunch off assholes! Anyone remember the Jon Stewart-Tucker Carlson CNN gem.

So Obama seems brave, and Obama may be brave and principled, and Obama may be a leader to speak the truth and lead from truth but who knows??? I fell for that during Bill Clinton 1992! I rationalized: Clinton was just saying that to get elected but he will govern honestly. Clinton gave the nation the DMCA amongst other interest group non sense. He was in love with Hollywood -- see Bloodworth-Thomason's?

Forward to 2000, a carpet bagger spouse rolls into New York, claims the right to run for US Senate having never lived there, wins. Within months of election the New York Times runs insider sources stories describing the laying of groundwork for Senator Clinton's presidency run post her next election to the US Senate!

IOW, all politicians are whores. The longer I live the truer it is.

But there is one guy who I give kudos. He put his money where his mouth is. Russ Feingold, US Senate, Democrat.

So what am I saying? Obama seems like JF Kennedy. Odd are against it though. But you know what:

1. If you are not voting Independent you are wasting your vote.
2. If you are not voting third party you are wasting your vote.
3. All politicians are whores.
4. Eat your vegetables.

Except for the fact that, y'know, Clinton didn't vote on the bill

Actually, she voted No.

Can you explain to me what Hillary Clinton has to do with this?

Especially since she, apparently, voted against the bill.

Um.... check your facts.

according to wikipedia

the current division is...

Senate 51% to 49% Democrat favor

House 54.3% 45.7% Democrat favor

Making the house and Senate majority Democrat

FYI that is 223 of the available 435 seats Democrat

That is more then enough to shut out the Republicans, the problem here is that frankly the elected officials are not doing their jobs.

Of the 49 Democrats that voted (one did not)

23 voted Yea
27 voted Nay

Of the 40 Republicans that voted (two did not)

40 voted Yea
0 voted Nay

source

So yes I do blame the Democrats

I wonder how John McDork and Barack O'DumbDumb voted. Oh, this shows that O'DumbDumb voted for this and McDork was too scared to actually vote. And one of these loosers are going to be the next president? I feel sooooo good about the next 4 years.

Someone needs to mod this up. The real battle was over the amendment that would deny the telecoms immunity until after an investigation cleared them.

Here's the vote

Further notes:

• McCain didn't vote because he wasn't there. He has publicly supported telecom immunity is recent days, however, so it's safe to say he would have voted for it.
• While Clinton voted against it this time, she didn't bother to show up to vote when this came up earlier this year (to vote on the bill or to help with the filibuster). It still potentially speaks well of her that she was against this, but apparently she wouldn't stand up for it when it was really politically dangerous.
• As for Obama, last time around he spoke out against it and voted to against cloture (i.e., to filibuster). He didn't show up to vote on the bill itself, but it's fair to say that that vote was probably seen to be a foregone conclusion (I'd still have rather he did vote, but it was a primary election day). This time he voted for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster). He did vote for various amendments to limit or strip the immunity provisions, but they all failed, and he voted for the final bill with immunity. It was well known he was going to do this but I, for one, am still quite disappointed.

Dodd Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
To strike title II.
        YEAs 32
        NAYs 66
        Not Voting 2

Specter Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00165
To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
        YEAs 37
        NAYs 61
        Not Voting 2

Bingaman Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00166
To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.
        YEAs 42
        NAYs 56
        Not Voting 2

It's that last one that really hurts. We were just eight votes from getting it passed. These are the Democrats who voted against it: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)

Dodd Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
To strike title II.
        YEAs 32
        NAYs 66
        Not Voting 2

Specter Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00165
To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
        YEAs 37
        NAYs 61
        Not Voting 2

Bingaman Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00166
To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.
        YEAs 42
        NAYs 56
        Not Voting 2

It's that last one that really hurts. We were just eight votes from getting it passed. These are the Democrats who voted against it: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)

Dodd Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
To strike title II.
        YEAs 32
        NAYs 66
        Not Voting 2

Specter Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00165
To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
        YEAs 37
        NAYs 61
        Not Voting 2

Bingaman Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00166
To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.
        YEAs 42
        NAYs 56
        Not Voting 2

It's that last one that really hurts. We were just eight votes from getting it passed. These are the Democrats who voted against it: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)

I'm quite annoyed that one of my two senators voted in favor of this amendment, and I've already written her an email, not that she'll ever read it.
Anywho, Feingold had a really nice position-point short written up on this subject, and I found myself to be largely in agreement with his views.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/07/20080708.htm
When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that, in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear that some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power â" the power to listen in on peopleâ(TM)s personal conversations...
...So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companiesâ(TM) legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and is immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the governmentâ(TM)s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.

Rather, the war was about having an excuse to drive up the price of oil, which benefits... all of the oil companies. Who runs the oil companies? Mostly friends of Bush and his cronies.

Who makes the most profits on Big Oil? Take ExxonMobil for example. Of the $142 billion in pre-tax profit they made, $101 billion went to the Government.

Put another way, for every $1.00 that ExxonMobil made in profit, the Government made $2.50.

And who owns ExxonMobil? Less than 1% of ExxonMobil is owned by insiders (managment). Over 99% of ExxonMobil is owned by individual investors, mutual funds, and retirement funds. That $40 billion in profit they made last year? $39.6+ billion belongs to the stockholders. And ExxonMobil pays you a dividend, and you can sell their stock to get your cash back. You probably own ExxonMobil if you're invested in a mutual fund.

I know its oh-so-progressive to attack Big Oil because of their record profits (which come from their record sales volumes); even Congress likes to do it. But the real beneficiary - at least financially - is the Government.

Just remember next time you're filling up, probably $1.00 to $1.25 of each gallon you buy is going to the Government. The oil company selling you the gas is making around 10% - Government is making 25%.

Oh, and instability in the Middle East? We invaded in 2003. By 2006 Iraq had really settled down. But the price of oil has tripled since then, and gas has doubled. As Iraq and instability is decreasing, costs are increasing. I thought the new Democrat Congress was going to lower our gas prices - that's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) promised, and that's what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) promised.

It's not tension over the Middle East that's causing the increase in oil - it's that worldwide production has not kept up with demand. And fundamentally it is because of our reduced production, here in the US. We now pump only 40% of our own oil.

You do know that we have approximately two TRILLION barrels of oil in the US that is currently locked up by that same Congress. That same Congress, who's leaders promised to lower the price of gas back in 2006, who have presided on a doubling of oil and gas prices, won't let us access the world's largest oil reserves.

Put those reserves in perspective. At a daily consumption rate of 20 million barrels of oil, that is (2 trillion / 20 million) 100,000 days of consumption available. That is 273 YEARS of consumption. The US would have enough oil for nearly the next three centuries - longer than the US has existed as a nation - if Congress would let us access it.

We have literally more oil in the US - available to produce for under $50 per barrel, than the entire Middle East's proven reserves. Oil costs in the US could be cut by 65% - gas would be down under $1.40 per gallon if Congress was serious about fuel and energy costs.

Who's manipulating the market to keep their profits high? Well, the Government seems to get most of the profit, and they're responsible for locking up the biggest deposits in the world. I think the real racketeers and obscene profit takers are plainly obvious. It's the ones asking the questions at those mock trials of the oil execs, not those answering.

I sent a message to Ben Cardin telling him about H.R. 6304, and asking him not to support the Senate version.

His (or rather, his office's) response was kind of funny. Remember, HR 6304 is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and talks about wiretaps and telecom immunity.

I'm wondering whether to vote him out next election... his response follows, complete with inexplicable extra spaces.

Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on the Bush Administration's detainee policy. It is time for Congress to assert its own con stitutional prerogatives on these issue s .

Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to enact legislation that creates fair trials for accused terrorists that will be upheld by the courts. We also have an obligation to protect our troops that fall into enemy hands, and to uphold American values and the rule of law. Even during wartime, the President must work with Congress and the courts to uphold our Constitution. In 2006 , the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld struck down the President's military commissions, since they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Court noted that Congress, not the P resident , has the authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to ``define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations . '' Congress alone can "constitute tribunals . "

I voted against the Military Commission s Act as a member of the House of Representatives in 2006 . I do not believe it is sound legislation, and I think it is susceptible to challenge in the courts. We should be bringing terrorists to justice quickly, and we must create a system that meets basic rule of law standards. I have co-sponsored S. 185, the Habeas Restoration Act, to restore the right of habeas corpus for accused terrorists to petition for a court hearing before an independent judge and challenge their detention.

In December 2007 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on these issues, and in June of that year the Helsinki Commission also held a hearing on th ese issue s and the implications of Guantanamo for U.S. human rights leadership. I am privileged to serve as the Senate Co-Chair of the Commission. The credibility of the United States demands that we answer our critics when they raise human right issues with us, just as we hope representatives of other countries will respond seriously and substantively when we raise concerns with them. In all the years that I have served as a member of the Commission, no other concern has been raised with the United States by European colleagues as often or earnest ly as Guantánamo.

The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights. Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counter-terrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country. It is a dangerous situation for our country if we cannot build and maintain effective global alliances. I am disappointed that the Administration, over 6 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has failed to work with our allies.

On the issue of torture and mistreatment of detaine e s, I strongly disagree with the President's views on this matter. I voted for the Intelligence Authorization bill for 2008, H.R. 2082, which requires the intelligence agencies to adopt the Army Field Manual's restrictions on "enhanced" interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual complies with U.S. law and our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The Manual prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation." This legislation therefore create

The only reason we have this delay is because the cloture vote occurred on the eve of a week long holiday. When cloture is invoked, there is a limited amount of time you can delay in the senate before a full vote must be held. When the senate returns it will be forced to vote on this wiretap bill, and unless 51 senators vote against the bill, it will pass. I'd like to believe this is possible, but it really isn't. Telecom immunity is all but guaranteed.

One additional piece of information: the results of the cloture vote. Look very carefully at the names under "not voting".

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 provides the basic framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. Over time, FISA has been amended to expand intelligence gathering to physical searches and access to certain business records. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act made significant changes to some FISA provisions in order to aid in the capture of suspected terrorists.

On August 5, 2007, the President signed the Protect America Act of 2007 into law. The Protect America Act updated FISA to close a critical gap relating to the surveillance of suspected terrorists and to address limitations on surveillance created by a 2007 FISA Court. The Protect America Act was a temporary measure that expired on February 16, 2008 after one 15-day extension. After months of careful analysis, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported S. 2248, a comprehensive bill reforming FISA and extending critical collection authorities for a period of six years. The bill includes important safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties, including procedures to prevent the dissemination of information about U.S. citizens that has been collected incidentally during certain surveillance activities.

S. 2248 contains a number of other provisions, including an extension of liability protection to electronic service providers that may have cooperated with the federal government after 9/11. Many of these firms face class action lawsuits in which the government may assert its privilege in order to protect sources and methods of intelligence collection. This privilege limits the ability of the companies to provide evidence to defend their alleged conduct. I recognize that some oppose the liability protection, but I joined 67 of my Senate colleagues in supporting the Senate Intelligence Committee bill because I believe that it is untenable to allow the lawsuits to proceed at the same time that we limit the ability of the defendants to produce evidence critical to their cases. The potential liability awards that might result could be catastrophic, negatively affecting the broader economy and signaling to these companies, and to other private entities that we may need to rely upon in the War on Terror, that their cooperation carries major risks. On a bi-partisan basis, the Senate passed S. 2248 with the liability protection provisions. The Senate now awaits action by the House.

Please know that I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to safeguard the security of our nation while upholding our personal privacy rights and civil liberties.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/

I called my senators; I've never called a senator's office before and I found it to be incredibly easy. Took less than a minute each.

I told them I was from their state and was calling to urge the senator not to support the cloture vote for H.R. 6304 regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that I urge the senator not to support the bill because it takes away rights from every citizen.

You can find your senators' phone numbers at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I'm not supporting McCain, but I did support Ron Paul.

I would say it's likely Obama will vote for the bill whatever comes of it. Even though Obama talked about Civil Liberties, with the renewal of the Patriot Act all he really did was push for being kinder, gentler.... and most of those provisions were stripped out later on and he still voted for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations

Obama also supports banning the burning of flags (which is also the proper way to get rid of a delapitated flag, btw) with just a law, not even amending the Constitution:
"I support legislation introduced by Senator Durbin that makes it illegal to burn the flag without changing the Constitution."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060627-obama_statement_29/

I'm sorry, but I'm not excited about this election at all (I voted and campaigned in the primary so I could be).

I did RTFA, all of it, and just went back and looked again... the AC seems to be talking about something else, or perhaps some provision of this bill which isn't therein discussed.

However, I thank the AC for the informative link about credit card interest rate abuse: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=288169