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."

28 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Chris Dodd's voting record. by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can find Chris Dodd's voting record on this site. I live in CT, by thw way.

  2. Now only by eclectro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Now only by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely ridiculous. Your position makes the assumptions that choice is always a good thing, and that the free market is always the best mechanism to provide that choice. This is the fundamental flaw in libertarianism. The free market has no inherent quality that makes it more or less "correct" than anything else. It is not a natural order, it is not a universal truth or force. Applying it to health care would give people a choice between paying for care (which will likely very in quality depending on how much they can pay), and not paying. That's not a choice you should give someone. What about people who choose not to get insurance, or can't afford it? Those people deserve care just as much as you or I. Some things are just not meant to be run as a business, health care is at the top of that list. Profit maximization and all the practices that make business work are diametrically opposed to providing quality care for sick people. The two interests cannot be met at the same time.

      The real question is this: is health care a business or a public service? Neither is fundamentally more right than the other, but they do lead to very different outcomes. I know what world I want to live in.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  3. 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.
  4. 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)

  5. DoS against Democracy by Blancmange · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    Blancmange
    1. Re:DoS against Democracy by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be clear, the US isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic. That means once the people are in office, they can do pretty much what they want regardless of what 'the people' want. So after the public election, it's all up to the elected as to what happens next. There is no ability for 'the people' to vote for an individual law or any such thing.

      Now that said, a filibuster is a kind of interruption to the flow of legislative activity. But it's sometimes necessary since there are times when majorities take advantage of minorities in the process. The filibuster helps to ensure that the minority is heard even when the majority would rather not listen to them. I have watched some pretty atrocious stuff happening on C-SPAN where the majority was simply ignoring proper procedure during legislative activities giving no voice at all to the minority side or their interests. When the gang or the mob is in control, the filibuster ensures that a minority can be heard.

  6. Re:Show Appreciation by toofishes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. 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.
    1. Re:Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here? by Scudsucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      "Small government" was only ever a marketing slogan for the GOP. It didn't mean cutting the size of government at all, it meant cutting regulation and social spending - but baby, bring on those military and pork barrel projects.

      Sell out Dems like Reid, Hoyer, Feinstein, and Rockefeller need to be kicked to the curb just as soon as they can be primaried. As for the Republicans - well, their party needs a complete enema as Nixon would almost be a communist in today's GOP.

  8. Watching it on CSPAN... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!?!?"

  9. Glenn Greenwald reports on Harry Reid's duplicity by Scareduck · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:Mod parent up! by infonography · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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? Money
    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  11. Immunity is illegal anyway by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the Constitution, See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    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.

    1. 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

  12. not exactly a good record by r00t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:not exactly a good record by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your post is exactly the reason I like to encourage people to look at the whole spectrum of a politician's activities, instead of focusing on a hot special interest issue. A lot of Slashdotters spend a lot of time complaining that special interests in Washington control everything, but are quick to support a politician on the merits of a single day's "work."

      Thank you for your post; it's just what I'd hoped for in a reply.

    2. Re:not exactly a good record by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should someone be punished any less for killing someone they love rather than someone they hate?

      Hate crime legislation is thought crime legislation. What matters is you denying someone their rights, not your reasoning for doing it.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    3. Re:not exactly a good record by crashfrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hate crime legislation is thought crime legislation.

      No, it's not. It's the recognition that the harm caused by burning a cross on a black family's lawn (for instance) is a whole lot more harmful to the victims than, say, burning some garbage out back behind your neighbor's house.

      Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims. Clearly that's an indisputable goal of the justice system. Things that fall under the level of "hate crime" represent acts that harm their victims far, far more than the basic act (just burning something on somebody else's property) might suggest.

      Hate crime legislation doesn't have anything to do with thought. It has everything to do with action. It's the actions that are being punished commensurate with the harm they caused. Completely consistent with the aims of the justice system.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    4. 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.

    5. Re:not exactly a good record by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hate crimes are misnamed. The salient point isn't hate. The salient point is intimidation, not just of the victim, but every member of the group he belongs to.

      The racist who assaults an individual black person isn't just indulging in his personal depravity; he's sending a message to every black that while the law may say they can live, work or go to school wherever you like, he is going to make sure you stay where he thinks you belong.

      The bigot who kills a gay person isn't just acting on his hatred of that individual. He's telling all gay people that they'd better keep their relationships secret.

      A hate crime is an ordinary crime that is committed in a way calculated to undermine society's liberty and democracy. It is everything the basic crime is, plus an attempt by the criminal to impose his personal political, racial, or religious views on others through intimidation. What we call a "hate crime" would more accurately be called terrorism: terrorism for impulsive and poorly organized people. If you and your buddy are having a couple beers and decide to go out and torch the local synagogue, that's what we call a "hate crime". If you're more organized, if you write down a list of synagogues, visit the locations and make notes of when people are using the building and what kinds of security measures they have, then we call that "terrorism".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ron Paul also wants to pull out of the UN

    While I don't favor this, you would be hard pressed to argue that the UN has had a very productive impact in most of the activities they have undertaken. And even when their stuff has worked, it has usually been with the US doing most of the legwork. The UN is mainly an organization that allows its members to say they support international partnerships, while performing relatively few useful functions of its own.

    remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose

    Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that.

    remove public education

    Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted.

  14. The Dodd Gambit by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  15. nice Youtube clip by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
  16. Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping by SonicSpike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  17. 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.
  18. it'd take quite some primarying by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. Re:to be fair, not exactly watertight by jonatha · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Supreme Court also has a long history of inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

    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.