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. The telcos dont deserve immunity by jonwil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They used filters and monitors and logging to spy on all traffic passing through key peering nodes on the say-so of the white house and the intelligence agencies even though such spying was illegal at the time it happened. I say we should hang AT&T, Verizon and the others out to dry for what they did. If it means they make less profit this year, tough, its their own fault for following the directions of G.W.Bush and his cronies instead of following the law (and demanding warrants for the spying)

  2. Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here? by StringBlade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Democrats want immunity for big business. Republicans want big government.

    Are the parties flip-flopping again or are they finally coming into parity with the fact that they're just one big party with two masks so the people get a sense they they're getting a change every 4 or 8 years?

    The threat of a filibuster shouldn't have even been necessary if the government was really for the people by the people.

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  3. Re:not exactly a good record by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have had motivation as an essential factor in a crime for as long as law exists. It is called mens rea. If you run someone over because it's dark and you didn't see them, your punishment will not be the same as it would be if you run them over because you wanted to kill them.

    Mens rea is a "guilty mind". Yes, this means every crime committed consists both of a thought crime and a criminal act. The concept of thought crime in this context makes very good sense. The context in which it is not tolerable is when thought crime is punishable on its own, without a criminal act.