Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill

Posted by kdawson on from the talk-until-blue-in-the-face dept.

otakuj462 sends in an important followup to this morning's story on telecom immunity legislation. "Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance... [T]he threat of Dodd's filibuster... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period."

3 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Show Apprectiation by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you like Dodd's move, be sure to contact his office and express your support. Let him know he is doing the right thing.

    --
    Just because you can, does not mean you should.
  2. Re:Immunity is illegal anyway by worthawholebean · · Score: 5, Informative

    No - ex post facto applies to criminal law, not civil law. Here are the four types of laws considered "ex post facto" in the U.S., established in Calder v. Bull:

    "1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
    2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
    3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
    4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender."

    Ex post facto laws are only those which punish people who were formerly innocent - not the other way around.

    Disclaimer: IANAL

  3. Re:Mod parent up! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'm out of moderator points or I'd give you some. Why the hell is this immunity even being considered by politicians from either party?

    For the Democrats (e.g. Dianne Feinstein who can be reached at 202-224-3841), one motive is the obvious one: telecoms contribute to campaigns.

    Much more is at stake for the Republicans, since the president broke at least several federal statutes relating to wiretapping. While this is all something that "everybody knows", that has no legal significance and no one bears any meaningful responsibility to do anything about it. But if the EFF lawsuit (among others) doesn't have its legal basis legislated right out from under it, then it will be revealed in a court of law that the president committed federal crimes. The telecom immunity legislation was designed by the executive branch to extend immunity not just to telecoms who broke these laws, but to anyone in the government who asked them to do it (PDF):

    [N]o action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.
    Obviously the EFF lawsuit presents a pickle for the Republicans if it is legally shown that Bush was complicit in lawbreaking, and they don't want the lawsuit to proceed further. But this is a problem for the Democrats too. Once it becomes legally evident that Bush broke the law, it becomes incumbent upon them to do something about it, or they are breaking the law with their inaction. Everyone knows Bush is a criminal, but nobody wants to be responsible for knowing. Politics as currently practiced is a fragile thing, home to a glassy web of unspoken agreements and hard-won compromises. A development like this would come stampeding in on all that like a bull in a china shop. This telecom immunity law will make a lot of headaches go away for a lot of people- the telecoms themselves are actually minor players here.