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."

Comments

Good as far as it goes

[Zeinfeld]

The hold is quite likely to stick because Dodd is also backed by Arlen Specter and Leahey.

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.

The Senators Past Voting Record

[Satanboy]

In case anyone was interested, here's a good summary of his past voting record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chris_Dodd.htm

Relevent US CODE

[phantomcircuit]

1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General;" (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801
(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html#a_1

Give him your support!

[zestyping]

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.)

Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill?

[mr_mischief]

The Daily Kos link in TFS explains how it works. Bills generally get unanimous consent to be voted upon, even when people intend to vote against them. Dodd isn't giving his consent for this to come to vote. Since there's no unanimous consent to vote on the bill, someone needs to motion for a vote over it if they want to hold the vote.

That motion to hold the vote then has to be debated and voted upon. A senator could filibuster that debate, and it takes 60% of all current Senators (not just 60% of those present to vote) to break the filibuster (referred to as cloture). Then the vote over the motion to vote on the bill can proceed if there's no filibuster or if the filibuster is broken. Only if a majority vote to hold the vote on the bill will the bill actually be voted upon.

Once the bill itself is up for a vote, there's still the chance it could be defeated.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Nice to know...

[Attila Dimedici]

Poor Rush. He got caught with his big mouth flapping. And I'll bet you were incensed about the disrespect to General Betray-Us. But hey, that's different. Sorry, I have no respect or compassion for the fat windbag. He is now trapped by his own hypocrisy.

I'll bet if Rush were caught molesting a 3 year-old his defense would be it was taken out of context.
Well, you know context is everything. In the case where Rush referred to "phony soldiers", Rush was talking to a caller who called in about a particular person who claimed to have been an Army Ranger in Iraq and witnessed atrocities. The person in question was never an Army Ranger, never in Iraq and never even completed basic training. So, there is significant difference between the "General Betray-Us" ad (which was composed and claimed that General Petraeus was lying to Congress, before he had testified) and Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. Whether you like Rush or Moveon.org, it is important to know the facts before reaching judgement.