Slashdot Mirror
Senator Slaps Down FISA Telecom Immunity
cleetus writes "Today Senator Chris Dodd decided to put a hold on the FISA bill, one of the provisions of which would have granted immunity to any telecom which, if found to have acted in good faith, violated U.S. laws in turning over customer data to the government. According to TPM Election Central, "By doing this, Dodd can effectively hold up the telecom immunity bill, because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward. One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting to allowing it to go to a vote." This throws a fairly big roadblock in front of this bill, covered by Slashdot earlier today."
that out of 100 Senators, there is ONE that thinks that telecom carriers should not be above the law.
See here for more information.
We need to put a lot of pressure on Senator Reid to do the right thing here.....
Talk of the 'Senate' caving is somewhat overstated. Only the intelligence committee has cut a deal. Judiciary is still holding out for details of the crimes that the telcos are alleged to have committed.
That said, it is probably nothing to get too excited about. I don't think that the Bush administration is going to giveup the information demanded, and I think the telcos will eventually get immunity but only after the information has been released under another administration.
I expect some sort of truth and reconciliation commission in the end up.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It seems to me that if that were really the case, it would mean no bill would ever work unless it had 100% support.
In case anyone was interested, here's a good summary of his past voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chris_Dodd.htm
The good guys can play that game too.
Technoli
This whole thing seems to be a proxy war between the Legislative and Executive branches over the entire concept of FISA and illegality. It kind of puts the telco's in a bind. What do you do when first the Executive branch tells you to do something which is probably illegal, and which if you don't do you'll likely lose money (see QWEST), and if you do do you will face Congressional hearings, and possibly be punished for illegal activity. While I don't agree with what the telco's did, they are not the real law breakers here.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
. . . consider sending some money Chris Dodd's way. I just did this afternoon (my first political contribution this election cycle) and it felt good. He's still not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, but the other candidates will be interested to see how bravery is rewarded. I would sure the hell like Chris Dodd's voice to be louder in the next days and weeks.
If you care about this issue, show Chris Dodd your thanks RIGHT NOW.
Call him at (202) 224-2823, send him a note, contribute to his campaign, or comment on the blog post. Show him you mean it.
To encourage politicians to stand up for the things we believe in, we have to send a message, loud and clear.
(I do not work for the Dodd campaign. I just believe that if you want to have influence, you've really got to show some reaction when something goes right.)
that I've been proud to be from Connecticut. :)
It isn't just US citizens who are impacted by this - it's the whole world.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sometimes it takes one man to stand up, before others will support him. My hopes are that the rest of the senate will wake up and take this as an opportunity to take action and stand for what is right.
According to this link, the majority leader has promised to bring the bill up for a vote regardless of Dodd's hold. Which is pathetic on so many fronts - the Republicans even whisper about obstructing a bill, and the Democratic majority buckles like a belt. But when another Democrat tries to stop a bill, he is ignored. Makes you wonder if Reid made a deal for something, and exactly what that deal is.
It is simply unfathomable to be why so many Democrats don't take a firm stand against NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, etc. If they are principled, they would block it. If they only care about their political skins, they would still block Mr. 25% approval rating to make political points. Instead they buy shares in his messes by voting for them.
I think the better analogy would've been if the FBI came into your store and you gave them all receipts and all customer information from the last couple of years... regardless of whether it had anything to do with fertilizer or not. Also, your promised the FBI that you'd ensure that every camera you sold in your store, had a direct uplink to the FBI, so they could observe any and all pictures and video taken by your customers.
Thank you Sen. Dodd, for starting to erase the black spot in my head over the name "Dodd" for your father's use of Nazi Gun laws to create our own.
Seriously, thats not a jab at your dad or changing the subject, I like being able to have heroes instead of a pantheon of banal villains.
Please don't get shot.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
If they aren't US citizens in these "cells", then the law doesn't protect them from monitoring. If they are US citizens, then the law needs to be followed, which allows for 72 hours of monitoring prior to acquiring a warrant. It's really pretty simple.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This does have a damn thing to do with Osama.
Bush started this illegal spying 6 months before he ignored the August 6th, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden determined to Strike in US.
Don't know what else to say except go there if ya care about the Constitution.
http://chrisdodd.com/fisa
Let's imagine for a moment that some average schmo can sue the telecom companies for eves-dropping on their phone calls. What's to keep the telecom companies from suing the U.S. Gov. because the gov told them to eves-drop? In the end the tax payers pay the bill.
The reaction was a bit more than they expected. He's just trying to tread on us a bit more softly... for now. We'll take the (boot)lickin' and keep on tickin'. Meanwhile, the fact is, the lines are being tapped anyway. And as we follow the example that these people set, we can only sink deeper.
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
What?
Basket warrants aren't really warrants at all. They're just a blank check to scoop up lots of data without naming an individual like you normally need to.
I'm not sure if so-called "basket" warrants made it into the Senate version or not. If so, they should go.
True. But in one case, you have continuing secrecy
and further erosion of your rights, and in the other
the truth will likely come out.
Which one would you rather pay for?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The phrase "fair's fair" comes to mind, given how they've been fucking the government sideways for a while regarding subsidies and extra charges allowed for new infrastructure that mysteriously never materialized. So I guess this is just a big orgy of sorts. Only somehow it's not one I really want to watch.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Taxpayer's aren't paying for ANYTHING in the Bush administration.. it's all thank-you loans from China, Debai, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Worried yet?
PS - It's extraordinarily difficult to sue the government. You need not worry about telcos standing up for us at anyone's expense.
"He who has rediscovered his testicles."
My Senator (Klobuchar, MN) has been a dick on both the August FISA bill and voting for the MoveOn.org condemnation. I want to see her vote, not this good-old-boy "unanimous" stuff.
The DailyKOS is a rancid, maggot infested group of ultra leftists that would just as soon see something else in America blown all to hell than to agree with anything Bush or Republicans say or do.
mod this up (washingtonpost link) as informative please
The sinking of Enron took Arthur Andersen with it.
It is only through great folks like Dodd that we may possibly avoid an utterly catastrophic Enron-like collapse, except instead of one company, and all it's employees, this will have a little bit bigger impact.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
These guys have spent the last 8 years protecting each other and the damn bureaucracy that justifies their existence.
.. I guarantee (ok maybe not guarantee) that his motivation is PURELY political.
.. It's About Frakin' Time!!!
Though don't read too much into this Dodd isn't sticking up for the American people or the People of Connecticut
Nevertheless
Thought it was against the law to sue the government without its permission. I don't see the government giving permission to be sued.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I see alot of people pretty pissed off about the whole spying row, but how many of you have tossed your Iphones and cut ATT out of your households? Will you stand up and take away the money from these criminal companies? or just bitch endlessly on the internet? Personally I will not spend one cent on any of their products or services again, I switched ISP's the day I read about this bullshit and I will not use one of these companies ever again, even if I have to sacrifice some services to do so. I hope I'm not alone.
Is in the mail. Wear it daily. What are you gonna do next? Light a fire under some chicken wire and jump up and down on it?
I don't normally feed the tolls, let alone anon ones, but seriously, WTF was this comment even supposed to mean? It's a published and verifiable fact that was linked to about the illegal spying of Americans without even the thin pretext of "it's to prevent terrorism." So you're saying that we're all paranoid conspiracy theorists because we're pointing out that the President actually broke the law? There's no paranoia, the law was broken. People were spied upon without warrants or judicial oversight in defiance of specific law prohibiting such actions. And because it was done before the terrorism event of the century the stupid excuse that it was to protect us from those same people isn't even applicable. If anyone can say that is not worrisome then THEY are the enemy. The rule of law, upholding the tenants of freedom and the Constitution are what make America a great place. To say that anyone can simply claim dictatorial powers and ignore the law for whatever reason they choose is the opposite of patriotism. It is the opposite of freedom. If you believe one man may, regardless of his office or beliefs or intentions, remake the law at will then you are living in the wrong country, that is not how our democratic republic was designed, nor how it is intended to operate.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
The problem is:
Dems fear they will Win.
Republicans fear they will lose.
Fear of losing is what made the Wehrmacht fight fiercely during 1944-45.
Unless Dems act like the republicans instead of whining they might actually brow beat the republicans...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Accusations of delusions and/or paranoid schizophrenia generally should be reserved for those who advance conspiracy theories not based on verifiable fact.
That is to say, calling it a conspiracy is rational if there is/was a conspiracy demonstrably in effect.
....or when I hear about a politician actually doing something good and sensible the very first cynical thought I have is "what does he/she get out of it?"
thats very depressing.
Normally I have a very disgusted response for all the loopholes and retarded practices in politics whose roll is to subvert the political process itself, such as filibustering, but in this one case it's a refreshing change of pace to see such tactics that actually result in an outcome that favors the People.
If that senator were in my district, that one action alone would get him my vote.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Or at least, that's what the Nixon doctrine says.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?
NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.
--G
Contribute $25 to his campaign. That's the language that politicians hear and understand. If Dodd's fundraising sees a boost from his actions here, perhaps the rest of the field of worthless, spineless Democrats will take notice and maybe we'll get some action.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This is a BIG "if", though..
I'm not a Dodd supporter. Would prefer Kucinich or Gravel to be in the white house, but showing support for anyone doing the right thing, financially or by volunteering or spreading the word etc is a good idea IMHO. Rewarding good behavior and all that.
I'm from Minnesota and I agree, I've been disappointed by Amy Klouchar as well. I still prefer her to Mark Kennedy... but, I believe Tim Penny was the independent candidate, he would have made a terrific senator. Either way, she's zounds better than Norm Coleman, who has been a lapdog for a while. I recently heard Al Franken speak at an Education Minnesota workshop and I think I could get behind him as a candidate. But back on topic, yes, Klobuchar's votes, particularly the Move on and some anti-"terror" bills has disheartened me.
I don't know how well that's going to go, my understanding is that he'd probably pretty easily get a cloture vote to shut him down, but at least he's doing something.
GO DODD!
GO SOX!
"I wish to God these calculations would have been made by steam." -Charles Babbage
If the US government asks a telecom carrier to violate the FISA laws, Congress argues that the carrier "acted in good faith". If the US government asks me to buy drugs, and I do, nobody says I'm acting in good faith. Instead I wind up behind bars.
The fact that government asks a person (or corporation) to do something wrong shouldn't excuse either the person or the government from responsibility for the action.
From a conservative newsite: (http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=4499)
...
"RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?
RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.
CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose -
RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
CALLER2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER2: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.
RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.
CALLER2: Yeah.
RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER2: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER2: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country."
Note the plurals: "soldiers". It's pretty clear from context that they are referring to any soldiers that have spoken out against the Iraq war. The immediate trigger was the prior caller Mike, who has nothing to do with "Jesse Macbeth" that Rush mentioned some 2 minutes later on.
Don't just look at his edited video, read the transcipt.
It IS indeed good to know the facts.
Interesting you mention the Nuremburg trials. Chris Dodd's father, Thomas Dodd was one of the principal prosecutors there.
Seems to me the bill passed... am I reading this wrong?
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4101/36
Does this mean that Chris Dodd is an impotent fool?