Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: senate.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to senate.gov.

Comments · 2,348

  1. Re:Posse Comitatus ain't what it used to be. by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment

    "And here are Senator Leahy's remarks on the Senate floor about this Act, which has since been passed and signed into law. The first paragraph is all you really need to read:

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html"

    From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122

    "Sep 30, 2006: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept."

    So he thought that part of the bill was awful, but not awful enough for him to do anything about besides make speeches? Real moral bravery there.

  2. Posse Comitatus ain't what it used to be. by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Informative · on Administration Claimed Immunity To 4th Amendment

    Posse Comitatus was altered by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007. It's not really what it used to be anymore.

    Here are some articles:

    http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5150

    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/martial_law_made_easy.html

    And here are Senator Leahy's remarks on the Senate floor about this Act, which has since been passed and signed into law. The first paragraph is all you really need to read:

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html

    And the wiki, for good measure:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

  3. Re:A bit presumptuous, no? by InfoVore · · Score: 1 · on The Coming Digital Presidency
    Name me one instance where you voted with Republicans.(If you could answer that question for me, I'd appreciate it.)

    The Google search took all of 10 seconds. I count at least 7 Senate votes where Obama matched the Republicans:
    Vote 42: H R 2
    Vote 19: S 1
    Vote 262: H R 6061
    Vote 29: H R 3199
    Vote 249: H R 2863
    Vote 213: H R 6
    Vote 9: S 5

    I only listed the matching YES votes. He matches on some of the NO votes as well. My favorite though is one that isn't listed on the Washingon Post senate votes page I linked to: S.2390 COBURN-OBAMA Bill - Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. It established a web-accessible database of over $1Trillion in federal spending. Any citizen can go in and search that database. It sheds sunlight on a vast pit of government contracts and spending. Obama co-sponsored the bill with Tom Coburn (R-OK). Tom's a pretty conservative guy. How's that for crossing over and working with Republicans?

    By the way, the spending web site is up. You can get to it here

    Perhaps instead of making an unfounded claim about a politician's record and then asking someone to give you evidence countering that claim, you could keep an open mind and do that 10 seconds of research yourself.

    You seem like a decent enough guy. What bothers me is that you have fallen into the "liberal/conservative" label trap that has crippled our government for who knows how long. I suggest that instead you keep an open but suspicious mind, be open to views and evidence that don't seem to support your own, and work to find the commonalities not the differences. If more of us did that, we would be much better off. I'm an Independent and that is what I try to do.

    Oh, and as far as GWB and the Texas Democrats, I can only offer the late Molly Ivan's comment about the situation:

    Yes, but you must remember that a Democrat in Texas is called a Republican everywhere else.


    Something to consider when you tout W's "Unitier" cred.

    Cheers from North Texas,
    I.V.

  4. Re:Not so fast... by Phroggy · · Score: 1 · on White House Says Hard Drives Were Destroyed

    When he says he stands for change, he's not talking about just the last 7 years.


    No, instead he's talking about vague changes with few particulars and a startling recurrent inability to handle questions concerning his policies and views. He equivocates and sidesteps issues with a deftness of, say, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, and he has the press and young voters eating out of the palm of his hand - largely, I suspect because their memories don't go back as far to dissuade their naivete. True, but unfortunately with the way our political system works, he has to be very careful about what sound bites he feeds the media right now. He has to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign, without saying anything that will bite him in the ass in the general election campaign against John McCain. I expect he'll be a little more forthcoming with the particulars once he's secured the nomination.

    Obama is still, at his heart, just another two-party candidate Anyone who isn't, can't get elected. Work within the system, or change the system, those are your options.

    who proudly voted for the renewal of The Patriot Act and other unnecessary and harmful expansions of the federal government. I wouldn't say he was proud; he specifically called it "far from perfect". Read his floor statement. Obama had already been working on trying to modify the Patriot Act to better protect civil liberties, and successfully voted down an even worse version a few months earlier.

    He talks about change and a lot of overly optimistic people think he'll bring change, but ask most of them what his policies are and they'll have few ideas. Ask most supporters of any candidate what that candidate's policies are and they'll have few ideas. That doesn't mean he doesn't have any.

    Let's just hope that by some miracle the new Kennedy handles our Bay of Pigs and Vietnam a little better. We'll see.
  5. Re:Not so fast... by Phroggy · · Score: 1 · on White House Says Hard Drives Were Destroyed

    When he says he stands for change, he's not talking about just the last 7 years.


    No, instead he's talking about vague changes with few particulars and a startling recurrent inability to handle questions concerning his policies and views. He equivocates and sidesteps issues with a deftness of, say, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, and he has the press and young voters eating out of the palm of his hand - largely, I suspect because their memories don't go back as far to dissuade their naivete. True, but unfortunately with the way our political system works, he has to be very careful about what sound bites he feeds the media right now. He has to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign, without saying anything that will bite him in the ass in the general election campaign against John McCain. I expect he'll be a little more forthcoming with the particulars once he's secured the nomination.

    Obama is still, at his heart, just another two-party candidate Anyone who isn't, can't get elected. Work within the system, or change the system, those are your options.

    who proudly voted for the renewal of The Patriot Act and other unnecessary and harmful expansions of the federal government. I wouldn't say he was proud; he specifically called it "far from perfect". Read his floor statement. Obama had already been working on trying to modify the Patriot Act to better protect civil liberties, and successfully voted down an even worse version a few months earlier.

    He talks about change and a lot of overly optimistic people think he'll bring change, but ask most of them what his policies are and they'll have few ideas. Ask most supporters of any candidate what that candidate's policies are and they'll have few ideas. That doesn't mean he doesn't have any.

    Let's just hope that by some miracle the new Kennedy handles our Bay of Pigs and Vietnam a little better. We'll see.
  6. Re:Not so fast... by Phroggy · · Score: 1 · on White House Says Hard Drives Were Destroyed

    When he says he stands for change, he's not talking about just the last 7 years.


    No, instead he's talking about vague changes with few particulars and a startling recurrent inability to handle questions concerning his policies and views. He equivocates and sidesteps issues with a deftness of, say, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, and he has the press and young voters eating out of the palm of his hand - largely, I suspect because their memories don't go back as far to dissuade their naivete. True, but unfortunately with the way our political system works, he has to be very careful about what sound bites he feeds the media right now. He has to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign, without saying anything that will bite him in the ass in the general election campaign against John McCain. I expect he'll be a little more forthcoming with the particulars once he's secured the nomination.

    Obama is still, at his heart, just another two-party candidate Anyone who isn't, can't get elected. Work within the system, or change the system, those are your options.

    who proudly voted for the renewal of The Patriot Act and other unnecessary and harmful expansions of the federal government. I wouldn't say he was proud; he specifically called it "far from perfect". Read his floor statement. Obama had already been working on trying to modify the Patriot Act to better protect civil liberties, and successfully voted down an even worse version a few months earlier.

    He talks about change and a lot of overly optimistic people think he'll bring change, but ask most of them what his policies are and they'll have few ideas. Ask most supporters of any candidate what that candidate's policies are and they'll have few ideas. That doesn't mean he doesn't have any.

    Let's just hope that by some miracle the new Kennedy handles our Bay of Pigs and Vietnam a little better. We'll see.
  7. Re:Naive by AgentSmith · · Score: 1 · on Lessig Bets On the Net To Clean Up Government

    To impeach, one must have evidence.
    How can one have evidence without investigation and tracking?

    The best a single citizen can do is say -
    "Gee, yer honor. I know in my gut that Rep. Foobar is dirty and guilty of . . . "

    Guilty of what? Violating his campaign promises? A possible ethical violation, but hardly a crime.
    And that's if the violation is clear cut. These days of semantic, hair splitting and defining was "is" is
    you can't really see much integrity. More spin than an atomic orbital level.

    The oath of office

    as plucked from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm


    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
    the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
    that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
    that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
    and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

    Nothing in there about being a lying, backstabbing, opportunistic money grubber as long as the Constitution and the US is defended.

    Voters in collective groups are scared and ignorant with short memories.
    The best we can do is watch these congressmen likes hawks and have everything open and transparent as possible.

    When they realize their past will be accurately recorded for quality assurance you will
    see them starting to be afraid.

    I am bitter. . .naw no no no no. Yes.

  8. Re:This has to be good news by jo42 · · Score: 5, Informative · on DOE Shines $14M on Solar Energy Research

    $14 million is barely over an hour of the cost of the US occupation of Iraq: senate.gov

  9. Is this about Patriots spygate? by us7892 · · Score: 1 · on Democrats Propose Commission To Investigate Spying

    For a second there, I thought this news item was regarding the "New England Patriots Spygate". Perhaps the most overblown, who-gives-a-shit story of the past year. I'm sure Arlen Specter http://specter.senate.gov/public/ would much rather talk NFL football spying than dig into FBI domestic surveillance.

  10. Politics and financial consequences. by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Electronic Arts Offers $2B For Take Two

    Given Hillary Clinton's ongoing fight to convince America that she's better at parenting our kids than we are, these sorts of buyouts may wind up being poor judgment calls should she somehow get elected...

  11. Time to write some letters by sneakyimp · · Score: 2, Informative · on Competitors Ally With Comcast In FCC P2P Filings

    If you think this issue is important, you should write some letters. Today, I wrote both my Senators, my House Rep, the FCC, and my cable company. Personally, I am appalled at this douchebaggery. Someone else said it best: selective throttling is censorship. It is therefore a violation of the First Amendment. Also keep in mind that some would-be ISPs are the same folks offering illegal wiretaps. Lastly, as consumers we *must* demand better. I live in Los Angeles, one of the most urbanized areas in the United States and, in my neighborhood, Time Warner is my only viable option for high speed internet access. It's just plain wrong. We must demand better.

    Find your Senate rep here:
    http://www.senate.gov/

    Find your house rep here:
    http://www.house.gov/

    You can comment on the FCC proceedings here using proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7
    http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

    I would highly encourage use of snail mail. It has greater impact when bags of mail arrive in somebody's office.

  12. Why not do something about it? by wizzahd · · Score: 1 · on Lawmakers Debate Patent Immunity For Banks

    You can email Sessions here: http://sessions.senate.gov/email/contact.cfm

  13. Re:Solution without a Problem by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1 · on New Material Can Selectively Capture CO2

    I'm not getting my data from a quick Google search, but as you are unfamiliar with large sections of the topic at hand, I thought it might benefit your currently existing knowledge base. Your image isn't detailed enough to discern a two year climate decrease, and ignores a decade of available data since 1998. Sources indicating that global warming ceased in 1998 are, in part, http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf, http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38 and http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/global-warming-movement-falling-apart/. You guys can't even keep your story straight anymore.

  14. Re:Obama + Lessig = Win by m3000 · · Score: 1 · on Lessig For Congress?
    So "feels good but actually means nothing"?

    Lets see what the candidates have to say:
    Immigration
    Obama's plan and record on immigration. Now lets compare that to
    McCain's platform. Who's more "feels good but means nothing"?

    Patent Reform
    Obama's stance on his website. McCain doesn't even *mention* patent reform at all on his website, and even after a cursory Google search the best I could find is this quote from PC World:

    When Mossberg asked if we needed to fix copyright policy, McCain gave a tentative yes: "I think we probably do," to applause from the audience. "But it's got to be carefully thought through--most members of Congress do not understand the complexity of these issues." However, when Mossbrg said that many people think that U.S. patent law is allowing companies to patent existing ideas, and asked McCain if this was a problem on his radar screen, McCain gave such a firm "No!" that it prompted audience laughter.

    "I want to focus on the big things," he said.

    http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/004506.html

    Meanwhile Obama's co-sponsoring legislation with a Democrat and a Republican like this:

    Stop Tax Shelter Patents by prohibiting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from issuing patents for "inventions designed to minimize, avoid, defer, or otherwise affect liability for Federal, State, local, or foreign tax"

    http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=269479

    I'd also like you to show me an instance in this campaign where McCain has gone into great detail about his patent and immigration stances beyond platitudes in a nationally televised speech. It's what all politicians do, because talking about patent reform for 5 minutes is terrifically boring to most people. But as long as there are lazy people, I guess they'll continue to just automatically swallow the pill that he's all talk and no action instead of actually looking for themselves and seeing it's not the case at all. It's a false choice that's being presented, you can have BOTH a great speaker and a detailed policy.

    Remember kids, knowledge is power!
  15. Re:One can hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity

    This is a slight tangent, but "bipartisan"? Blech. In a uselessly literal sense, yes, members of both big parties and one independent voted for it. But if we look at the actual roll call there ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020 ) we can see for ourselves that EVERY Republican present voted Yea, and EVERY Nay vote was from a Democrat plus one independent. Not exactly a shining happy universal endorsement.

  16. write your senators and congresspersons by codygo · · Score: 1 · on House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity

    Go here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015/ Find out how your senators voted, then contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm/ You can also contact your Congressperson: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml/

  17. write your senators and congresspersons by codygo · · Score: 1 · on House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity

    Go here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015/ Find out how your senators voted, then contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm/ You can also contact your Congressperson: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml/

  18. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes by webword · · Score: 4, Informative · on House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity

    How did YOUR representative vote?

    "To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government."

    FIND OUT!

    McCain (R-AZ), Nay
    Obama (D-IL), Yea
    Clinton (D-NY), Not

  19. Re:How will they enforce it? by HidingMyName · · Score: 3, Informative · on White House Must Answer For Missing Emails
    As mentioned in one of the other replies most likely Livingood, since he works for the House of Representatives, who voted on contempt today. If I understand, there are 2 forms of contempt of congress, typically congress uses a variant that goes through the executive branch for enforcement, but there is also a variant called inherent contempt that is enforced directly by congress, via the sargeant at arms. However Gainer's web page has an interesting quote (maybe a hint?).

    The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.
  20. Re:It's of no consequence by RetardsForRonPaul · · Score: 1 · on US Set to Use Spy Satellites on US Citizens

    He voted yea for the amendment to strike telecom immunity from the FISA bill. McCain voted nay (leave the telecom immunity in). Hillary didnt vote. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

  21. Re:I tried by Sabriel · · Score: 1 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Actually, he did vote yes - *against* the immunity provisions. Here's the voting record on the amendment. Note the wording of the "Statement of Purpose". To vote "yes" was to say, "telcos should be held accountable for their actions".

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

    Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 )
    Vote Number: 15 Vote Date: February 12, 2008, 11:03 AM
    Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
    Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3907 to S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
    Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

    31 YEAs:

    Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Tester (D-MT), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR).

    67 NAYs:

    Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bayh (D-IN), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Feinstein (D-CA), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Inouye (D-HI), Isakson (R-GA), Johnson (D-SD), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McCaskill (D-MO), McConnell (R-KY), Mikulski (D-MD), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA), Webb (D-VA), Wicker (R-MS).

    2 Not Voting:

    Clinton (D-NY), Graham (R-SC).

  22. Re:Obama voted to stop immunity; Clinton absent. by James+in+PDX · · Score: 1 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    I beg to differ with you. According to the records, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm Clinton did not vote on anything that day. I do not support her, but need to have the correct facts posted.

  23. Senate Voting History!!! by newgalactic · · Score: 2, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Here's a link to the recent senate voting records including the FISA bill. Go there regularly, monitor your senator. It's WAY more important then anything else on this site. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

  24. hand write or fax, emails get routinely ignored by StandardDeviant · · Score: 2, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Just an FYI, the common advice for getting a Congress member to pay any modicum of attention to criticism is to send it via some tangible form: physical mail or fax transmission. Emails and online petitions and so forth appear to be generally ignored or held in much lighter regard. You can get the appropriate contact information for your senators via looking them up here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (the equivalent for the House would be https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml). As for voting histories, those are likely available with more digging on either senate.gov or house.gov. I think this is the relevant roll-call record for this issue: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00019

  25. hand write or fax, emails get routinely ignored by StandardDeviant · · Score: 2, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Just an FYI, the common advice for getting a Congress member to pay any modicum of attention to criticism is to send it via some tangible form: physical mail or fax transmission. Emails and online petitions and so forth appear to be generally ignored or held in much lighter regard. You can get the appropriate contact information for your senators via looking them up here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (the equivalent for the House would be https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml). As for voting histories, those are likely available with more digging on either senate.gov or house.gov. I think this is the relevant roll-call record for this issue: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00019

  26. Re:Info on how the Senators voted? by Dracos · · Score: 1 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Ask and ye shall receive.

  27. Call your whore Sentator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Here is the roll call of votes. Call and thank them if they voted against immunity and chide them if they sold you out.

    Yea vote = No immunity!
    Nay vote = sold out to telcos

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

  28. Re:Who voted for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    You have it backwards. (or it least is sounds like you do.) Look at the votes here.
    The "Yeas" are voting for the amendment which would remove telcom immunity from the FISA bill.
    Obama==yea
    McCain==nay

  29. This is not the will of the people by soren100 · · Score: 5, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms
    This is totally unconstitutional. And I can guarantee you that there are extremely few citizens out there thinking that telecommunications companies should not be held accountable for breaking the law and helping our government subvert the Constitution. Senator Chris Dodd has to filibuster his own party to try to prevent this from happening, and he said he did it because there was so much concern from his constituents.

    Amendment IV of our Constitution:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I would make a joke here about not welcoming our corpo-government overlords, but I wish I could find more of a sense of humor about this type of thing. The founders of our country knew this was going to happen, and worked extremely hard to avoid it, and the citizens of our country are sleep-walking right into it.

    Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity :

    The President has no right to secretly eavesdrop on the conversations and activities of law abiding American citizens and anyone who has aided and abetted him in these illegal activities should be held accountable, said Dodd. It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the President is the perpetrator. I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this Presidents agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness.

  30. Re:Voting Record? by nonsequitor · · Score: 1 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Found it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm
    I guess someone posted it higher in the thread too. This link is to the index of all the recent votes.

  31. Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea by clem.dickey · · Score: 0 · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    The parent is the vote on the final bill. Here is the vote on the Dodd-Feingold amendment. A "Yea" is a vote for immunity. In my state, Diane Feinstein (D-CA) continued her near-perfect voting record against the Bill of Rights. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) opposed immunity.

  32. Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Also, how did Hillary "Yes, Tim, national security is more important than human rights" Clinton vote?

    She didn't. Couldn't be bothered apparently. Interestingly enough both McCain and Obama found the time to vote. Here's the vote itself if you are wondering how your Senators voted on it.

    At least my other Senator (Schemer) had the balls to vote against it. For all the good it did.

  33. Re:Who voted for it? by 10e6Steve · · Score: 2, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    Is this it

    To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

  34. Re:Who voted for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative · on US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

  35. Re:Real frog-boiling by rifter · · Score: 1 · on U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border

    I think what the poster mangled saying was that people will elect Clinton because she promises to deliver the things which by her own admission she has not delivered on (she's been working on it for 35 years! Why does she think it is a positive point?) while forgetting that she will also be doing the things that she HAS been working on "for 35 years," i.e. a decrease in civil liberties.

    Incidentally, as Senator she has voted for the PATRIOT ACT, the authorization of force against Iraq, and the authorization of force against Iran. She did apparently vote against the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which, given her record to date was actually surprising. Of course, Obama voted against all of these things, except the PATRIOT Act, (he was not a Senator when it was passed). However, both Obama and Clinton voted to renew the PATRIOT Act.

  36. Re:Real frog-boiling by rifter · · Score: 1 · on U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border

    I think what the poster mangled saying was that people will elect Clinton because she promises to deliver the things which by her own admission she has not delivered on (she's been working on it for 35 years! Why does she think it is a positive point?) while forgetting that she will also be doing the things that she HAS been working on "for 35 years," i.e. a decrease in civil liberties.

    Incidentally, as Senator she has voted for the PATRIOT ACT, the authorization of force against Iraq, and the authorization of force against Iran. She did apparently vote against the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which, given her record to date was actually surprising. Of course, Obama voted against all of these things, except the PATRIOT Act, (he was not a Senator when it was passed). However, both Obama and Clinton voted to renew the PATRIOT Act.

  37. Re:I personally by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1 · on Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

    >>I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of reversing the current trend of rights erosion

    I'm sorry I'm so late to this thread, but you do know that Obama voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT act, right?

    http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

    He is trying to strengthen americans' civil liberties and such, but the fact remains that he did vote for it.

    He also supports the DMCA.

    I kind of like the guy, too. The most depressing thing about this election is getting excited about a candidate only to learn enough about them to get turned off.

    -b

  38. Re:It's not too late to contact your representativ by garnetlion · · Score: 2, Informative · on Reform Could Kill EFF "Patent Busting Project"

    I have teh dumb. That senate link should point to:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

  39. Re:Although I'm not an Obama fan... by patrik · · Score: 1 · on Ron Paul Campaign Answers Slashdot Reader Questions
    Don't be a fool. Obama only voted for it after working to take a lot of the teeth out of it. It's nice that Ron Paul can say he took ideological stance but the reality is that it was going to get passed so instead of sticking his fingers in his ears, Obama worked with other other legislators to do what he could do to reduce it's "evil"-ness.

    Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. --http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

    Yes it sucks that it got renewed at all, but it was still a republican held congress at that point and Obama probably traded his support for for those changes, and without them we'd have a much worse law on the books.
  40. Re:The problem with consolidated multimedia by Thirdsin · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Time-Warner Considers Per-Gigabyte Service Fee, After iTunes

    I could not agree more. However, when we let elected officals pander to these conglomerates it only gets worse... If you don't like it, write a letter to your state's Senators, Representatives, and most importantly... VOTE.

  41. Parent post is verifiably false. by Behrooz · · Score: 3, Informative · on Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

    The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.

    Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily available and seem to be noticeably not dominated by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.

    This matches up with Obama's vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

    It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency for lobbyists.

    Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.

  42. Parent post is verifiably false. by Behrooz · · Score: 3, Informative · on Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

    The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.

    Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily available and seem to be noticeably not dominated by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.

    This matches up with Obama's vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

    It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency for lobbyists.

    Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.

  43. Re:I personally by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative · on Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

    and in payment he turned around and voted for "bankrupcy reform"

    Umm, I've been through Chapter 7 and I followed the bankruptcy bill pretty closely. I don't recall Obama voting for it. In fact, this and this both say that he voted "nay" on the bill. Ironically enough Hillary managed to miss the vote, though in her defense, I think that was around the time that Bill was having his heart surgery.

    That bill is going to make a lot of middle class people lose their homes, and I don't consider that very "liberal".

    How do you figure that? The primary "enforcement" mechanism behind the bankruptcy "reform" bill is the means test that can force you into a Chapter 13 instead of a Chapter 7. Chapter 13 actually makes it easier to keep your home. Generally speaking you can't keep your home at all under a Chapter 7 if you are behind on the payments -- and if you are current then you have to look at the amount of equity vs your states exemptions. Bottom line: It's much harder to keep your home under a Chapter 7 then a Chapter 13.

  44. Re:Ponies, Rainbows, and Unicorns, Oh My! by Shakrai · · Score: 1 · on Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

    Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has the political clout and the experience on the hill to work with an often intractable Congress to get the Democratic agenda passed and to usher in a new era.

    Hillary isn't going to be able to usher in a "new era". She will probably get large parts of her agenda passed (assuming the Democrats keep Congress, which looks very likely), but that doesn't mean she can usher in a "new era".

    How do you feel about George W. Bush? Because that's how a large part of this country feels about Hillary Clinton. We can debate the reasons for that until the cows come home (personally, I don't see what she's done to piss them off, other then her controversial 1975 decision to marry Bill.....) but I don't think you can dispute that fact. A Hillary administration condemns this country to four (eight?) more years of partisan rancor and discord. And that's assuming she can defeat McCain, which is not a sure thing at all.

    The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.

    Given that Obama will likely have a Democratic Congress to work with, what makes you think he is any less likely to be able to get his agenda passed then Hillary is?

    there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama propose

    I haven't heard Obama advocating for using paycheck garnishment to force people into his health care system. It'll be interesting to see how quickly she backpedals from that promise if she wins the nomination and needs to go to the "center".

    Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her views

    What personality??? Hillary's "personality" is whatever she thinks will earn the most points with the crowd she happens to be talking to at that moment in time. And you want a compelling argument against her views? Well, right here is a view off her own fucking webpage that I would argue against. Do we really need the Government in the business of regulating video games or the sales thereof?

    Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.

    We (the young voters) need to be on our best behavior? Sorry, but we don't bear the blame for the last 14 years of partisan bickering that has taken over Washington. We don't bear the blame for the influence of corporations and lobbyists that overshadow the needs of the people. We don't bear the blame for the erosion of personal liberties. We don't bear the blame for the Iraq War.

    Obama wants to inspire people and get them involved in the political process. Obama thinks that YOU know what's best for the country. Hillary thinks that SHE knows what's best for the country. Your entire argument seems to boil down to the idea that Obama is more style and less substance. That may be so -- but Hillary's substance is not what this country needs and frankly I'm not ready for another eight years of Clinton.

  45. Ponies, Rainbows, and Unicorns, Oh My! by BeeBeard · · Score: 1, Interesting · on Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

    It is true that we live in a world where perception carries more weight than reality, but Obama is simply not the uniter he frames himself to be. His Pollyanna approach to reaching across the aisle and dealing with entrenched Republican leaders is unrealistic and, worse, has already proven an abject failure during his few years in the Senate.

    Consider Obama's letters to John McCain on bipartisan lobbying reform. Be sure to read McCain's absolutely withering reply to the junior Senator.

    This demonstrates two things: First of all, it says that John McCain is probably not a very pleasant or reasonable man on the job; he is an aged Republican with tenure who is unafraid to play the "Don't you know who I am?" card when approached by someone who is relatively new to the political game. But that's practically to be expected. The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.

    Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has the political clout and the experience on the hill to work with an often intractable Congress to get the Democratic agenda passed and to usher in a new era. I say "Democratic" agenda, because--as both candidates will readily admit, there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama propose. Really, their stated goals about health care reform, equitable tax rates, and so on are a callback to what real Democrats have been trying to get passed for at least the last 12 years. (Just as an aside, in this day and age, there is NO credible reason why U.S. citizens should not have access to universal health care, just like literally every other leading nation. But we can thank a Republican congress and a complicit President for that.)

    Because of the similarity of their proposals, Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her views. That's fine, Obama supporters--you're allowed to like or dislike any candidate for any reason at all. But just understand that when you're not engaging the issues, you've done little more than turn the presidential race into an inane popularity contest. ("I don't like her, and he can talk in public places to groups of people...just like every other politician!")

    Many Obama supporters tend to skew so young that they barely even remember the Bill Clinton era, and have instead latched onto the potential idea of the President being a man of color. Again, that's fine, young voters. First of all--welcome to the political discussion. It is wonderful that you've found a candidate that you feel you can rally behind. Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.

    These are exciting times for the Democratic party. We have not one but two credible candidates ready and willing to hold the office. With cooperation, I'm sure we can work together to ensure that the next President will be from our party.

  46. Re:Check the candidate web sites by m3000 · · Score: 1 · on Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology?

    The thing that impressed me the most was when I heard his podcast on Net Neutrality back in mid 2006: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/

    And I thought "Wow, this guy gets it!" I had semi-followed him since the 2004 DNC speech, and in everything I read about him I like him that much more.

    There is also an interview with TechCrunch that goes into a lot of details: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/
    (a shorter summary is here: http://www.techpolicycentral.com/2007/11/barack-obamas-take-on-tech.php)

    Also I LOVE the fact that his entire campaign is supported by individual donations (of which I am one of them, and it's also the first time I've ever given money to a politician). He's not beholden to any special interest group once he gets in.

  47. Re:Call your senators by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1 · on Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act

    don't bother calling,just vote them out. That is the only message they understand. Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you: Dear Friend: Thank you for contacting me regarding foreign intelligence surveillance. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 provided the U.S. intelligence community with a framework to regulate the collection of electronic surveillance on foreign intelligence targets, while protecting the Constitutional civil liberties of U.S. citizens. FISA was written to distinguish between the collection of information on a physical wire versus collection of signals broadcast in the open air. In 1978, almost all U.S. domestic calls were on a wire and almost all international communications were transmitted via satellites through the air. Therefore, FISA required all U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain a court order to intercept a wire-to-wire communication or any communication transmitted domestically. FISA, however, did not require court orders to intercept and collect wireless communications outside the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) modernizes our collection of foreign intelligence. This measure clarifies that FISA's requirement of prior court approval does not apply to surveillance that is targeted at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States in accordance with the bill's procedures. S. 2248 would allow the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year. S. 2248 in addition requires prior court approval for surveillance of U.S. citizens who are overseas. S. 2248 will provide, upon a certification by the Attorney General, retroactive immunity to carriers that allegedly participated in the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. It also provides prospective immunity to participating telecommunications carriers for certain assistance. Throughout the history of our republic, we have always been concerned about the proper balance between security and freedom. Those who are generally concerned about the power of government to trample on the rights of free citizens when necessity dictates are right to insist on maintaining the individual civil liberties afforded by our Constitution, most especially in times of crisis. The FISA Amendments Act now being contemplated by the US Congress is precisely concerned with maintaining such protections. We must remember we are at war with a ruthless enemy that has no regard for human life and exploits the openness of our society to harm us at home and abroad. I believe S. 2248 is a necessary update to FISA in order for us to continue to protect ourselves from these threats. However, having experienced life under a totalitarian regime, I value our Constitutional civil liberties, and I will continue to protect these rights as your Senator. Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. Do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or comments you may have. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov./ Sincerely, Mel Martinez United States Senator **Note: PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. If you would like to reply to this message, please contact me through my website at http://martinez.senate.gov./

  48. Re:Call your senators by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1 · on Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act

    don't bother calling,just vote them out. That is the only message they understand. Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you: Dear Friend: Thank you for contacting me regarding foreign intelligence surveillance. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 provided the U.S. intelligence community with a framework to regulate the collection of electronic surveillance on foreign intelligence targets, while protecting the Constitutional civil liberties of U.S. citizens. FISA was written to distinguish between the collection of information on a physical wire versus collection of signals broadcast in the open air. In 1978, almost all U.S. domestic calls were on a wire and almost all international communications were transmitted via satellites through the air. Therefore, FISA required all U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain a court order to intercept a wire-to-wire communication or any communication transmitted domestically. FISA, however, did not require court orders to intercept and collect wireless communications outside the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) modernizes our collection of foreign intelligence. This measure clarifies that FISA's requirement of prior court approval does not apply to surveillance that is targeted at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States in accordance with the bill's procedures. S. 2248 would allow the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year. S. 2248 in addition requires prior court approval for surveillance of U.S. citizens who are overseas. S. 2248 will provide, upon a certification by the Attorney General, retroactive immunity to carriers that allegedly participated in the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. It also provides prospective immunity to participating telecommunications carriers for certain assistance. Throughout the history of our republic, we have always been concerned about the proper balance between security and freedom. Those who are generally concerned about the power of government to trample on the rights of free citizens when necessity dictates are right to insist on maintaining the individual civil liberties afforded by our Constitution, most especially in times of crisis. The FISA Amendments Act now being contemplated by the US Congress is precisely concerned with maintaining such protections. We must remember we are at war with a ruthless enemy that has no regard for human life and exploits the openness of our society to harm us at home and abroad. I believe S. 2248 is a necessary update to FISA in order for us to continue to protect ourselves from these threats. However, having experienced life under a totalitarian regime, I value our Constitutional civil liberties, and I will continue to protect these rights as your Senator. Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. Do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or comments you may have. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov./ Sincerely, Mel Martinez United States Senator **Note: PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. If you would like to reply to this message, please contact me through my website at http://martinez.senate.gov./

  49. Re:Fall on sword by theodicey · · Score: 1 · on Telco Immunity Goes To Full Debate
    Sorry, how is this tripe "insightful"?

    The Republicans want spying. It's popular with their constituents, who have been led to believe that the President^H^H^H^HCommander in Chief^H^H^H^HGod's Anointed One can direct "patriotic corporate citizens" to do anything he wants (and declare them immune from prosecution later).

    Democrats, with the exception of a few yahoos, pretty much want the rule of law to be upheld. As do many of their civil libertarian supporters. They don't want widespread domestic surveillance, and they don't want legislative immunity for the telco wrongdoers.

    If you want a moral compass, go read Senator Chris Dodd's website (Democrat - Connecticut). Or if you want to be cynical in an informed way, go read Glenn Greenwald.

  50. Re:The answer to our challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on World's Most Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to US Navy

    I'm sure a President like George Bush will only use these in a just war.

    Like one authorized by Congress, including Clinton and Edwards?