Slashdot Mirror
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."
You can find Chris Dodd's voting record on this site. I live in CT, by thw way.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Don't you wish the rest of congress could grow a spine?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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.
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)
Despite the favourable outcome in this case, isn't a filibuster a kind of Denial Of Service attack on democracy?
Blancmange
Don't look at this as a permanent victory either guys- the pressure needs to be kept up on all of the members of the Senate, especially those that may be on the fence (the other spineless democrats). Calls and emails made a difference today- Orrin Hatch was livid about "the blogs" spreading misinformation, and Reid obviously heard by the end of the day that his constituents were not happy that he was going to try and ram this bill through. When this comes back up in January, be heard. And better yet, contact your senator between now and then and let them know you won't accept retroactive immunity.
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.
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...
Libertas in infinitum
It was quite refreshing to listen to Dodd describe in fair detail the crap that's been going on:
The installation of systems poorly suited to specific taps but ideally suited to dragnet surveillance. In major fiber exchanges that aren't where the main foreign fiber trunks or satellite dishes are (i.e. the San Fransisco case that started it). And now we learn that Qwest balked because they wanted to put a dragnet on a switch center that handled almost entirely local traffic.
Then Orrin "destroy their computers" Hatch started speaking. About how the American government didn't do {the bombings in Beruit, the Bali nightclub bombing, the bombings in Kenya, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and (of course) 9/11}, the Turrists did. And I'm sitting here trying hard not to scream "And how would dragnet surveillance of domestic calls have stopped a single damn one of those things!?!?"
Glenn Greenwald had a good report on this today; incredibly, only 10 senators voted against this bill. Reid allowed the bill to proceed despite Dodd's hold (the only one Reid has disallowed). You'd think Reid was bought and paid for by AT&T or something.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
In the Constitution, See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:
Which means no retroactive anything is legal. I'm amazed that the media continues to overlook this critical bit.
On second thought, no I'm not. There can be no compromise on this. The telcos colluded with Bushco to perform illegal acts, and granting them immunity after the fact is not allowed.
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.
the 10 votes were against cloture, not against the bill itself. But it's still bad - some Dems try the cop out of voting for cloture but then voting against the bill/nominee.
Let's see...
He seems to like the Thought Crime concept. Rather than merely punishing people for bad actions, he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him.
He's OK with the government taking people's legally owned firearms during an emergency or major disaster. (as in Katrina... where the cops were followed by thugs preying on the now-unarmed residents) Got a disaster? Time to steal from the people!
He somehow thinks that firearm suppliers should be held liable for the actions of firearm users. If this seems sane to you, consider applying it to computers or vehicles. (on the plus side, that kind of liability would put Microsoft out of business and solve all our traffic problems)
He likes the PATRIOT act. Oh dear...
He's a CAN SPAM kind of guy.
He's OK with shovelling money to sugarcane growers.
In short: yay!
(Reply follows)
----
Dear Mr. InvisiblePinkUnicorn:
Thank you for expressing your views on legislation that would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance program.
In December of 2005 it was first reported that President Bush had authorized the NSA to monitor communication between U.S. citizens and terrorist suspects outside the United States without first obtaining a warrant. Some telecommunications companies participated in this program and provided the government with access to phone records. Serious questions arose about the legality of this program and its compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
In August 2007, Congress passed revisions to FISA, which I opposed, expanding the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of foreign targets. Under this legislation telecommunications companies that assist the government in the future implementation of this program were granted immunity from criminal and civil action.
This legislation expires in early February, and Congress is currently considering further revisions to FISA. President Bush has requested that any further modifications to FISA contain retroactive immunity for any telecommunications company that participated in the program since its inception. While developments in technology may require modest modifications to our intelligence laws, I will oppose efforts to provide retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping as it is inconsistent with our democratic principles. All citizens must have legal recourse when their rights are infringed upon, and companies must bear the responsibility for breaking the law.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
The Dodd Gambit is a success.
And as he reluctantly tabled the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was heard muttering "Dodd Gambit" under his breath.
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.
So really, what's at stake here is not actually ending the practice of wiretaps, its about a bunch of lawyers wanting to cash in and sue the people that did it.
Ah ha ha ah ha. No. It's about massive, serial lawbreaking and attempts to sweep it under the rug. And who gives a shit if it ends up in the hands of lawyers! Give it to Britney Spears, burn it, open a mime school - the point is that it's out of the hands of those who conspired to violate our Constitutional rights.
One of the few industries we have left in the USA not destroyed by litigation, and now, that's all going down the shitter to.
AT&T's market cap is 425 BILLION DOLLARS Yes, poor beleaguered AT&T REALLY needs legal protection here.
What's even more amazing, at the end of the day, is that Democrats will ultimately create a legal framework that says a corporation doesn't actually even have to listen to the government at all
When you're done drinking the Kool-Aid, try reading up on the Nuremberg trials.
The problem is that democracy sucks. Democracy leads to countless evils. Slavery in the US was democracy in action, as were Jim Crow Laws. The South splitting from the US was democracy in action. Hitler rising to power was democracy in action. There is nothing "good" about democracy other than it leaves a way to kick someone who is utterly incompetent out of power. Democracy is less likely to cause brutal oppression than a dictatorship due to the electorate having the ability to remove the government, but it is by no means a guarantee.
The US constitution, something that is generally revered as being as a model constitution is an example of an UNDEMOCRATIC document. The constitution sets in place limits that a democratically elected government must follow, irregardless of what the will of the people is. It sets in place a method of changing the constitution that demands far more than a "democratic" majority vote. The Supreme Court which upholds the constitution is an example of an undemocratic institution. In fact, I would say the things I like best about the American part are its undemocratic parts, not the democratically elected pieces of it.
So, is a filibuster an example of an anti-democratic purpose? Hell yes, and I love it! The best thing about the American system is the fact that a simple majority can't impose its will upon the minority. In order to get even the simplest of things done, you need a majority of 60%. To get truly earth shattering done (like changing the constitution), you need a super majority well over 2/3's. This is a good thing. This is one of the reasons why despite Europe being far more liberal than the US, the US still has much strong free speech laws. It isn't because Americans are hippies, it is because the non-democratic aspects of the American government make it virtually impossible to pass anti-free speech legislation, and even when it is passed, it promptly gets struck down.
I say hurray for the non-democratic institutions. I think we need MORE of them. This world needs more liberal (liberal as in liberty, not leftist) institutions and less democracy.
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.
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): 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.
The committee that wrote the immunity bill had eight democrats on it, of which six voted for it: Rockefeller (WV), Feinstein (CA), Bayh (IN), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), and Whitehouse (RI). Only Feingold (WI) and Wyden (OR) voted against.
In addition, Dodd's first attempt to stall the legislation failed, 76-10. Only 9 other Democrats supported him.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Try this instead of money: Punishing companies for assisting the President acting within the scope of his Article II powers to protect the lives of Americans from terrorist attacks is bad policy and stupid politics.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The idea that "inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution" is somehow beyond the pale is directly contradicted by the plain meaning of the 9th Amendment.
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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.
Property is theft.
While getting every oath breaking (protect the Constitution) coward out of office would be nice, it's not very practical. But that's okay - a few primaries can have great effect. After Lieberman was successfully primaried, the Dems finally pulled their outs out of their ass when it came to criticizing the occupation of Iraq. A few more and the Dems might finally pull their heads out of their asses on ending the war in Iraq and block any legislation that does not have a hard withdrawal date. Jane Harman for example has improved considerably just at the threat of being primaried.
Republicans fear their base. Too many Democrats deliberately vote against theirs, and with the most unpopular president in history. This is because they think they have nothing to fear from the left or the center, only the right - so they move to the right. Oh, and they crave approval from the Joke Line beltway pundits. They need to learn that is not the case.
One point is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the Warrantless Wiretapping program.
//Btw, I didn't read your link because I couldn't get to it through the corporate firewall here.
Second point, I don't see how this falls under Article II of the Constitution unless you are saying that it's part of the Presidents war powers. If it is part of his war powers then we actually need a declaration of war. This crap that has been pulled the last 60 years of getting us into "conflicts that aren't wars" is bullshit and an end run around the Constitution.
Last point, while I don't like the idea of wiretapping other people outside of the US (where all parties are outside the US). I don't see anyway for us to stop it Constitutionally, so it would be allowed.
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.