Telco Immunity Goes To Full Debate

Dr. Eggman notes an Ars Technica analysis of the firefight that is the current Congressional debate over granting retrospective immunity to telecoms that helped the NSA spy on citizens without warrants. A Republican cloture motion, which would have blocked any further attempts to remove the retroactive immunity provision, has failed. This controversial portion of the Senate intelligence committee surveillance bill may now be examined in full debate. At the same time, a second cloture motion — filed by Congressional Democrats in an effort to force immediate vote on a 30 day extension to the Protect America Act — also failed to pass. The Protect America Act has been criticized for broadly expanding federal surveillance powers while diminishing judicial oversight. While the failure of this second cloture motion means the Protect America Act might expire, a vote tomorrow on a similar motion in the House will likely bring the issue back into the Senate in time. It seems, according to the article, that both parties feel that imminent expiration of the Protect America Act is a disaster for intelligence gathering, and each side blames the other as progress grinds to a halt."

Comments

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, well, since your family hasn't been consumed by the white-hot aftermath of an Islamic terrorist's suitcase nuke, I'd say it has accomplished quite a bit, wouldn't you?

Re:What are you smoking?

[blcamp]

Is your idea of debating a legitimate issue - intervening and interdicting terrorism - launching a straw man attack against politicians and "evil" big corportations... or private citizens who don't happen to agree with you?

This is why those on the left don't manage to get anything done. Their whole strategy is to bash others who propose solutions and come up with no solutions on their own.

Why not come up with an ACTUAL WORKING SOLUTION to the problem terrorism, as was the original topic of this discussion?

Other lawbreaking (such as the allegations against telcos and whatnot) can still be dealt with - that is a separate issue. Leave out there, don't sweep it under the rug... but don't use it as a means of obstructing our national defense, either.

Re:Hmm

[jo42]

so that they can hide how inffective this whole boondogle has been - except for the war profiteers which have made hundreds of billions of dollars off it.

Re:Radicals

[Nimey]

On behalf of Missouri, I apologize for that douchebag and say that I have never voted for him. At least we got rid of our other Republican senator and Bush lickspittle in 2006.

Re:What are you smoking?

[blcamp]

I never said deal with immunity "later". I said deal with them as separate issues.

You may claim I don't have my facts straight (which is nonsense), but putting words into my mouth is not helpful either.

And all these ideas of let's set aside security and worry about civil liberties first is a very dangerous road. BOTH MUST BE HANDLED WITH THE SAME HIGH PRIORITY AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

How is anyone at liberty under the threat of being bombed anywhere at any time?

Likewise, how is anyone at liberty if Uncle Sam listens to ALL phone calls, including my 97-year old grandmother? I never suggested the government DO that!

I NEVER SAID GIVE UP ONE OR THE OTHER. I said BOTH must be handled AT THE SAME TIME.

Yet all the loonies come out and say - "ooohh, he has some dangerous ideas and must be silenced" (or at least modded down on slashdot - not much different, just not carried out to the same extreme).

Look at what you people are writing.

Do you ever wonder that you would really, truly do... if you ever had the reins of power in your own hands?

Last time I checked, I was an American Citizen with First Amendment rights, the same as all of you.

Wow, folks...