Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senator Slaps Down FISA Telecom Immunity

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the not-so-fast dept.

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."

9 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Good as far as it goes by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. If You Want the FISA Bill to Fail . . . by unamiccia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . 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.

  3. Give him your support! by zestyping · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

  4. Re:Nice to know... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No, he just cares about the Constitution and the Rule of Law. He is running for President, but even if he does not make it, he still wants the Constitution and the Rule of Law to be front and center in the world of political discussion.

    Link

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  5. Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Nice to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's one thing to help the FBI track down people you know are up to no good, it's another thing to just willfully comply with a program that has no oversight so no one knows exactly who is being spied on and for what purpose. Best of luck to you.

  7. looks like Reid might ignore the hold by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:Thank You! by jfern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.