Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill

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."

Comments

DoS against Democracy

[Blancmange]

Despite the favourable outcome in this case, isn't a filibuster a kind of Denial Of Service attack on democracy?

Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping

[SonicSpike]

If you search for writings and speeches by US Rep Dr. Ron Paul (who is running for President) you'll notice that he wouldn't allow secret wiretapping etc...

Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>wants to pull out of the UN,
Something many Americans actually want as well, and many more couldn't be bothered with one way or the other.

>remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose,
Wow, inflammatory much?

He wants to remove the Federal influence on this because the constitutionality is highly debated.
The tricker the question, the more local it should be.
That's part of the founding principles

>remove public education

No, he doesn't mind public education, in fact I suspect he supports it.
He just sees no place for the Fed in it under our constitution.
It's a State deal, and there is should lie.

>but there more important issues out there which Paul loses most voters including this one on.
Just make sure you're arguing the same thing.

Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping

[SonicSpike]

Ron Paul does not want to "prevent women from having an abortion" as you have said.

He wants Roe v Wade overturned so that individual states can make their own decisions.

Have you ever even read any of his papers on abortion (by the way, he was an OB/GYN for years delivering over 4000 babies)

Either you are misinformed or intellectually dishonest. In case it is the later,

See this:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21

Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping

[mOdQuArK!]

If you'd done any research on his positions at all(it's all over the web), you'd have read that he bumps any abortion-decisions off to the states - as is consistent with his its-none-of-the-federal-government's-business position.

There is no denying that he has a firm anti-abortion personal opinion, but when it gets down to the legislation, he has been pretty darn consistent about trying to push everything down to state-level decisions.

If you're going to criticize stuff about him, please research (and report back) on his opinions on the separation between church & state. Evangelicals have been giving me a serious case of the political heebie-jeebies for years, and the thought of those irrational numbskulls gloating over being able to plaster religious mumbo-jumbo all over government offices & in schools puts me on edge.

Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping

[Anonymous Coward]

RP sent all of his children through public schools. He doesn't want to get rid of public education, he wants to get rid of the unconstitutional federal DOE setup in the 1980s and return control to local government.

Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping

[mOdQuArK!]

Yes, I've read that blurb (and others) - and noted that he isn't actually advocating legislation to force Christianity upon the public, only that there NOT be legislation which stops anyone from pursuing their own religious agendas. As much as I dislike blind religious faith, this is entirely consistent with his other stances on the Constitution.

As far as abortion is concerned, again, although I dislike his personal opinions, his Constitutional stances are still consistent. There's enough controversy about the way that Roe v Wade decision stretched the bounds of the privacy Amendment that (given the new makeup of the Supreme Court) that his state-rights interpretation of the abortion issue might get traction there.

At that point, depending on how repressive various states become, there might be a lot of young women who will realise how much they were taking for granted by not becoming involved in the political process to protect their own right of choice. Either way, it's a conclusion that should be coming from the grass-roots up, not imposed from the topdown.

OTOH, if another case goes through the Supreme Court, and they make another Roe v Wade decision again, I'm pretty sure he'll abide by it due to his respect for the system (unlike people like Bush & Co).

Reid is a tool

[Scudsucker]

Dodd put a hold on this bill; under Senate traditions that should have killed it. And under Harry Reid's turn as majority leader, that's still the case...if you're a Republican. Lindsey Graham placed a hold on a bill to prevent the CIA from using torture. Or when Tom Coburn placed a hold on a nondiscrimination bill. But when a Democrat wants to place a hold on a bill to protect our rights, he is simply ignored.

Re:Now only

[Mr. Slippery]

You should investigate the voting record of Ron Paul...

You should also investigate his postition on Roe v. Wade - he'd do everything in his power to overturn it, and allow state legislatures to control women's bodies.

Ron Paul is no friend of liberty.

Re:Now only

[Poppler]

his postition on Roe v. Wade - he'd do everything in his power to overturn it, and allow state legislatures to control women's bodies. He has also voted in favor of federal legislation restricting abortion. He's only in favor of "leaving it to the States" when it suites his purposes.

Re:Glenn Greenwald reports on Harry Reid's duplici

[Nefarious420]

Wow, Poor Harry Reid, I wouldn't even cut off my hair for 22k, who knew senators were so cheap to buy. Soon they will probably be available on Ebay.

nice Youtube clip

[Scudsucker]

Of Sennator Kennedy protesting immunity. Money quote:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.

Re:Let him know how you feel

[Themer]

Done.
Here is my message to him.

Even though I am not in your constituency, I felt the need to write you and tell you how proud I am of how you stood up today in congress and demanded that the telecoms be held accountable for their actions.

I only hope to be represented by someone of your stature in my state.

Re:The telcos dont deserve immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Its worthy to note here that Qwest Communications was also approached by the N.S.A., and they refused to provide data without a court-issued warrant. The CEO of Qwest was later charged and convicted of 19 counts of Insider Trading. Read about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html

BOR is So Yesterday

[mqduck]

Would someone remind me why we wanted to kick out the Republicans by bringing in the Democrats again? I seem to recall being told that they'd be better than this, but I'm sure it's just me 'cause I always get that feeling after Democrats are elected.

Re:Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here?

[Scudsucker]

Nixon set the tone for today's GOP. "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

EPA. China. Compromise. Nixon did have his authoritarian side, but he didn't go out of his way to be a complete asshole on as many issues as possible. And what Nixon was to impeached for is a molehill next to the Bush/Cheney mountain of lawbreaking: NSA wiretapping, torture, lying us into war, using federal agencies for partisan gain, trying to lie us into war AGAIN, and so on.