US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.

Comments

Stunned

[cmefford]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

Re:Stunned

[jo42]

I keep telling you guys to practice your "Heil Bush!". Yet I keep getting mocked and voted/modded down. One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!".

Re:Stunned

[Shining Celebi]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

It's not over yet. It goes back to the House and into conferencing. The House is adamantly against telecom immunity; last week, the House leadership sent a letter to the Senate condemning it. I believe there's a strong chance that telecom immunity won't be able to make it out of the House, but it might be a good thing to call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)

Re:Stunned

[veganboyjosh]

One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!".

That'll stop the downmodding, for certain.

Re:Stunned

[mea37]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about. Perhaps they could turn around and file a shareholder suit (on the grounds that AT&T worked against shareholder interests by cooperating with and being held liable for the wiretap program), though I'm told those types of suits aren't very common these days.

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself.

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?

What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Naturally those individuals would try to hide behind the shield of corporate liability; I would hope (though I can't remember if it's the case) that taking actions outside of -- and even contrary to -- the corporation's interests would make a case for PCV.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You Sir are a corporate shill.

At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it.

Absolutely not sir.

Both the government that asked them to commit something illegal and the people that actually commited the illegal act (this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal).

Its called a conspiracy sir.

All parties are at fault.

(sorry about spelling at work using IE yuck).

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

Well democracy erosion is being led by America. The greatest thing to happen to the greedy in the USA was 9/11. Lump everything together, try to make ya average american citizen paranoid, take away their freedoms to speak, and in the words fo Elvis 'Thank you very much'

I'm not saying that over the pond we are any better off. We have our fair share of lamed assed Politicians who's modus operandi if offered as evidence in a court of law would be considered fraud.

It all boils down to one great truth really...'we the powerfull/rich like money, we want more, we dont care how we get, we are damm sure its gonna be at your expense, but hey learn your level within the food chain'.

Now the Trend Micro attack on CLAMAV being included in another boarder gateway product, looks like it may be having a negative impact on potential future sales...god bless the enlightend.

There is one big hurdle to the use of 'voting with your credit card'..... apathy, we've got spades of it over here, god im guilty of it myself, but until people in large numbers get together and boycott companies/corporations aint nothing gonna change.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem pretty sure of yourself for someone who hasn't read the secret annexes to Directive 51.

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

For the people who don't know, here's what directive 51 is about, and how bush can stop elections and control the entire USofA without any checks from congress in any form (in fact, he'd be able to control congress). So all he has to do is provoke a war enough for him to want to declare a catastrophic emergency.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.

Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.

As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.

Re:Stunned

[Sponge Bath]

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes

AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.

I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.

Re:Stunned

[Gravatron]

Sorry, but the telecom's had a legal and ethical duty to demand a warrent, and if one could not be presented, to decline to cooperate. Anyone who didn't knew they were breaking the law, and should have to face the results. They deserved to lose millions, as money seems to be the only thing corperations understand, and losing a ton of it would have caused the shareholders to demand future adheriance to the law.

Instead, one of the foundations of our nation is eroded, that is the citizen's protection from search without warrents, and a major crime will go unpunished. This tells the citizens that we are at the mercy of the executive branch, who has time and time again showed that they are above the law.

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

Umm, no. President already controls military. This says "president can control all of congress" aka house, senate without their approval. Right now the only way president can declare war is with their approval. Do you understand the difference?

If all hell breaks lose, a: I don't trust the president
and B: maybe 550 people who are in the legislative body will have a better idea than our retarded president?
instead, we'd get A: president decides everything. aka its a method to have martial law without approval from any other branch of government.

Re:Stunned

[Xaositecte]

Here's what it boils down to:

1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.

2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.

3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.

4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.

5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.

Therefore:

We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.

Re:Stunned

[n dot l]

The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens. AFAIK, power is supposed to be divided in the USA. There are supposed to be many players and they are supposed to check each other. This should extend beyond the government. It's supposed to include the people (and the corporations) questioning government orders and refusing to comply with illegal orders. The problem isn't that some branch of the US government is corrupt - the US system is designed to cope with that sort of situation, it's that 90% of the power holders in the USA are playing along and letting them get away with it, something which is not supposed to happen.

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself. That is (or should be) a topic for the courts to rule on. It is not for Congress to do the job of AT&T's legal team.

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government? Well, why would you expect anyone to protest the wars, the civil rights abuses, the attempts to legislate morality, the awful fiscal policy, the wasted effort on security theater, the lack of any real border security, the decaying infrastructure, etc when they might run afoul of their home country's government? Corporations are supposed to be private endeavors. They're supposed to behave like "the people" when it comes to the way they deal with government.

And yes, I know, big business has been in bed with big government (and against "the people") for decades now. The point is that it's not supposed to work like that, and that this legislation threatens to close an opportunity to reverse some small part that.

What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Really? And how, exactly, are you going to get their names? Suing their directors at random won't work for the same reason the RIAA's random law suits don't, ultimately, work (and you wouldn't even have the advantage of being the large legal entity picking on a smaller one). The only thing there is to sue right now are the telcos themselves; individuals may be named as part of the discovery that would take place during the court proceedings but if they're given immunity then there's no way to reach that stage.

Re:Stunned

[frank_adrian314159]

I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?)

Well, by giving them immunity, you'll never know, will you?

In reality, the pressure was probably of the following form: If you cooperate with us , we'll give you lots of money; if you don't, you won't get another Government contract for the next 4-8 years (you do know that the taps started before 9-11, don't you?).

Re:Stunned

[NewAndFresh]

What makes you think the shareholders had (or in future cases would have) any influence whatsoever over a situation like this?

They probably had nothing to do with it. But what shareholders in their right minds wouldn't ban such behavior in the future? Are you really thinking this one out?

Re:Stunned

[jellie]

Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.

...is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. I would love to see the individuals who made the decision get punished for what they did! But tell me: do you think a low-level manager actually gave the "OK" to allow the NSA to build a secret room at AT&T? Similarly, do you think the receptionists at Enron participated in hiding its losses? Of course not. These things typically go all the way to the top of the ladder. I know that most of the cases are civil lawsuits, but these companies did violate agreements with its customers, as well as some privacy laws.

Furthermore, keep in mind that a company and its shareholders are liable for the actions of its employees, provided its employees are acting on its behalf. My employer earns money from my work; shouldn't they lose money if I break the law? Think of investments, like stocks. If the company beats expectations, the stock goes up and you earn money (usually). If the company performs poorly, we all lose. Did I have any say in their decision to hire employee X who then cost $7 billion in losses? No. But as a shareholder, I'll still lose money.

Re:Stunned

[Chris Burke]

AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.

I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.

Which just means that this AG's DoJ will not start any investigations or bring any charges, because that's the only power the AG has. The AG's opinions are nothing more than opinions, they aren't legally binding in any sense of the word, they only guide the actions of his department while he is head of it. The next AG who comes along is perfectly free to disagree and bring charges, at which case the only entity empowered to determine such things -- the courts -- will weigh in with a legally binding opinion.

And I have a strong feeling that the courts would weigh much more heavily towards the GP's stance that following orders is not a defense.

There's been a couple trends of what I can only call conditioning. The first, a fairly old one it seems, is that anything illegal is automatically immoral, which leads to the inverse that anything legal is automatically moral. Then there's what seems to be the more recent Bushian stance that as President he and his AG have the power to declare anything legal that they want.

Re:Stunned

[Ucklak]

It's basically what I said. A single point of failure. 1 DNS server and 1 web server.

I don't trust anyone except myself. If there is a threat coming my way, I think my state would have a better idea about how to defend itself rather than the feds.
The problem is that there are some weak governors (mine included) that would await federal approval for something they don't need approval for.

Re:Stunned

[homer_ca]

The Democrats have a bare majority in the Senate which passed the bill *with* immunity. Many Democratic Senators offered amendments to strip immunity or add oversight, but they were all voted down.

The Democrats have a bigger majority in the House which already passed the bill *without* immunity.

Re:Stunned

[KevinKnSC]

That's just it, though. The directive refers to a number of classified or non-publicly available annexes that Congress, let alone the average citizen, haven't been able to see. For all we know, the directive gives control of the country to the CEO of Halliburton or King Abdullah. Probably it's nothing that outlandish, but the whole point is that we don't know.

To put it in familiar terms, this is an act of closed source government, where the directive in question may have catastrophic vulnerabilities that we can't protect ourselves from because we can't see the source of these annexes.

Re:Stunned

[Dr. Hellno]

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.

Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.

Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes bad ones?

Re:Stunned

[Anguirel]

Google is playing by China's rules by adhering to their laws (even if it isn't necessarily moral). The Telecoms colluded with government officials to break the law (which wasn't necessarily immoral). The difference here is that what Google is doing in China is legal (since China has made the law such that it can be) and what the Telecoms did was illegal.

Re:Stunned

[KDR_11k]

but you don't even HAVE a sig!

Re:Stunned

[gr8scot]

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government? It is not rational to expect private entities to take a harder line with China than that taken by the government of the nation in which they're headquartered. The United States accepts preposterously imbalanced tariffs with China, and as far as I know so far, is not planning to boycott the upcoming Olympics, despite the UK gag order. Our government is not acting in a principled manners in its dealings with China in our name, and has not done so, for some time. The chorus that Google, a privately-owned entity, should be more principled in its dealings with China than the United States government is, amounts to holding it to higher standards as a "corporate citizen," a fallacious concept in the first place, than the real citizens are holding yourselves and your representatives. It is not Google's fault, and not its owners' personal responsibility, that access to the cheapest labor on Earth has been a higher political priority of our "representatives" than the interests of the general populace; that has been going on since before "Google" was so much as a Lego brick.

protest? chance of stopping this?

[notque]

Is there any chance the House will stop this? Anyone want to march to the Capitol?!

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Shakrai]

Is there any chance the House will stop this?

Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.

Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

Last year, there was one big-ass march in D.C. protesting the war.

What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.

March all you like...it doesn't matter. We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Shakrai]

We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.

Don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that the media was ever independent to begin with. Ever hear about yellow journalism? Ever read about the origins of the Spanish-American war?

The media has never been independent. That shouldn't stop people from fighting for change.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Red Flayer]

It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.

Poppycock.

The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.

It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Anonymous Coward]

We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media. No, we lost this country when we stopped being willing to die to prevent things like this happening. When we stopped being willing to die to not only defend our right for the future of our children, but even for the future of our fellow countrymen's children.

Are you willing to march, armed, on D.C. and fight, and die, to restore the idea that no man or company is above the law, and that things like retroactive immunity for the rich few are an abomination?

No? You're not willing?

Neither am I.

They know it. That's why we lose.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[UnknowingFool]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

That's why I like old school solutions. Marching with pitchforks and torches. Looting and pillaging every Starbucks on the way. Ah, I miss the old country.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[WilliamSChips]

Actually, if you look at the history of the United States from George Washington to now, you'll notice that the media is much more free now than it ever was. It's just that the illusions have been shattered.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TooMuchToDo]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

Democracy is the ability of the minority to keep the majority in check.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Kjella]

The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny. What's important to understand is that there are two kinds of majority decisions, those that protect minorities and those that suppress minorities. To take an example, consider that we're making laws about the color of clothes. Now say 20% like red, 20% blue, 20% yellow and the other 40% a variety of colors.

1) A law that says "Everyone has the right to choose the color of their clothes" is probably something a majority can get behind and protects the minorities
2) A law that says "Everyone must wear red, blue or yellow" is probably also something a majority can get behind but supresses the minorities

In a system where everyone has an equal vote (I'll leave the details of voting age and felons etc. out of this now) I don't see how a "rule by the minority" could possibly function, it seems logically impossible. Rather, what the founders understood and that they tried to pass on is that we should try to look past our own position and reach majority agreement on greater principles. I don't have to agree with what you or anyone else says, but together we can agree on freedom of expression. I don't have to agree with what you or anyone else believes in, but together we cna agree on freedom of religion. This is where you build freedom, the ability for everyone to lead different lifes according to their own choices.

Unfortunately, it just isn't feasible to describe everything in terms of freedoms, there are also restrictions where the majority can't agree with the minority's viewpoints. If I want to drive at any speed I want, and you want speed limits there's no "greater consensus" to be reached. If you can't suppress a minority, then that's anarchy and i'd like to think there are more options than tyranny and anarchy. The question is if the suppression is legitimate - if I insist on going 200mph through a residential area then I'm endangering not only myself, but the passengers and everyone else on or near that road - that's probably legitimate. If I insist on going 200mph alone on a closed track on private property, then I would say it's not - you're just interfering for the sake of interfering. Unfortunately, I doubt you turn turn that "legitimacy" into a quantifiable measure.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[pugugly]

Why would you want a middle ground. Impeach the SOB.

Pug

Don't I feel suckered

[bconway]

I helped vote in this Democratic congress under the belief they would change things, and the best they could do was come up with 31 votes? Business as usual, I guess.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[magus_melchior]

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: What makes you think that a Democrat is any less likely to wiretap without warrants (among other abuses) as the current administration, given that they'll do as much as possible to put a Dem in the White House?

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Bartab]

Numbers.
Check.
Please.
Thanks.

There are 51 Democrats in the Senate. 17 voted against this amendment (meaning they voted for telecom immunity).

90% of what now didn't vote for what?

Presidential Candidates Votes

[vitaflo]

In case you're curious of how the respective candidates for president voted on the amendment to block retroactive immunity:

McCain: No
Obama: Yes
Clinton: Did not vote

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[KublaiKhan]

Well, I guess I have to support Obama. Clinton doesn't have the stones, and McCain's actively antithetical to a free society.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[KublaiKhan]

If I read correctly, Obama voted for the amendment that would let people hold the telcos accountable. Clinton did not vote, and McCain voted to let the telcos get away scot-free.

So no, I do not support wiretapping without a warrant.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[evil agent]

Clinton: Did not vote

Hillary has been going on and on about the number of times Obama did not vote when he was in the Illinois Senate. Hopefully he'll use this as ammunition.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[UdoKeir]

I suspect she did this deliberately. She can now still claim to be "tough" on terrorism and pro-freedom.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Telco's do not need to protect my rights. They only need to obey that law, which they didn't do and like everyone else, they should face the consequences of there actions.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Svartalf]

In a typical amount of political weasel-speak, they worded the motion in such a way you had to re-read it at least once to parse
precisely what they intended to do.

It was worded to STRIKE the immunity provision. A Yea vote was one where they were to hold the telcos accountable for
civil violations of the law with regards to FISA. A No vote was to give the telcos a get out of jail free card.

McCain voted to give them a free out.

Clinton didn't bother to vote.

Obama voted to keep them accountable for their illicit activities. (Which, unfortunately, would be an accurate appraisal of the telcos' position right now...)

I suspect Obama, even if he wanted to give them a way out, just bought himself quite a bit of street cred with
a LOT of people if there's something of a big deal made about this.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Lost Engineer]

Of course she did it deliberately. The only way you could make her any worse on civil liberties is if you changed her name to Bush.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Chris Burke]

Privacy and wiretap laws.

It is illegal for the telcos to tap phone lines, and the only exception is when the government shows them a warrant or has probable cause. Essentially, if the government did not have a legal warrant, or probable cause with which to attain a warrant after the fact, then the telcos tapping was also illegal.

TFA even specifies this, not that I would point fingers at anyone for not reading it. ;)

Taxation without representation

[Captain Splendid]

Didn't the US just fight a big fucking war with the English a couple hundred years ago along the same lines?

I'm serious. I know all of you are paying taxes, and shit like this sure as hell means the common guys isn't represented. Time for a few tea parties, methinks.

Re:Taxation without representation

[bendodge]

No, you should elect Ron Paul.

Glimmer of hope

[techpawn]

The provision was not in the house passed bill. So, it has to go to committee for compromise. If we're lucky this can be killed there, and the final bill will be vetoed. They're on the radar of everyone and know what they do shines on their candidate now more than ever. So, who knows they may do what their constituents want.

But, my pockets aren't as deep as brother bells... So, I'm not betting on it

According to the article

[91degrees]

Sen Bond said "permitting lawsuits against the companies would ... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."

Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*

*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"

Re:Who voted for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Re:Who voted for it?

[bconway]

Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up.

info request

[Tom]

Why are retroactive laws even possible in the US system? I'm really wondering about that. Where I come from, the laws at the time of your action count, both for and against you.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Re:info request

[plague3106]

Not quite. If a law is rule unconstitutional, it is null and void. In the eyes of our Constitution, the law never existed to begin with.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.

More and more I think I may vote for Ron Paul, even if he's inconsistent.

Re:info request

[Shados]

Thats the question I have too. If you can make anything retroactive, then you have absolutely zero protection against any kind of government corruption.... they can always screw you over after the fact... that doesn't make any sense.

Can someone explain to me if this is a weird special case, or if its normal??

Re:info request

[Grandiloquence]

No, retroactive prosecution is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Retroactive immunity, however, is not.

Re:info request

[gstoddart]

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

I expect to see that within the next 5-10 years, max.

The US really has started slipping into a hole, and won't be digging out of it any time soon.

Cheers

Re:info request

[erroneus]

Yes. Ron Paul. As far as I can tell, he's not in anyone's pocket. He may come across as a crack-pot, but the reality is that he's as sincere about his convictions as can be imagined. Even if he's elected (and while it would be wonderful, I doubt he will be) I doubt he would be able to make any effective changes... in fact, the best we could hope for is that he blocks as many corrupt, corporate-sponsored bills as possible... the best we could hope for would be for him to prevent too much further damage. What we need is a bunch more "Ron Pauls" in the house and senate and to clear house in the judiciary.

Re:info request

[krlynch]

Many types of laws can be made retroactive, but not all. The U.S. Constitution says (Article I, Section 9)

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply "only to penal and criminal legislation and not to civil laws that affect private rights adversely." (see next link) This prevents criminalizing activities that were not criminal when they occurred, or increasing the penalty after commission of the crime, or getting in through the back door by calling a change in punishment a change in "procedure". (Cornell has a good discussion here and here in their annotated Constitution).

But there isn't a restrictions against reducing or eliminating liability for criminal activity after the fact. For instance, if a criminal defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, and the Congress subsequently outlaws capital punishment, the death sentence is reduced in accordance with the new law. If they change their mind and reinstate the death penalty, the hypothetical criminal defendant is not eligible for an increase in his sentence. In particular, it is well established that Congress can pass laws in gray areas to clearly specify that something isn't criminal, even after convictions based on the old law, or to eliminate even very broad classes of liability after the commission of the offending action.

In this case, there is a claim of criminal activity that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute because it does not believe it was illegal. The plaintiffs have chosen to pursue civil cases on a theory of civil liability for those actions, based on Federal law. Congress may choose clarify (or eliminate, depending on your point of view) the law to state that the given behavior was not a crime. In this case, it clearly does not run afoul of Congressional power to do so. If that happens, there is no longer even a colorable argument that the plaintiffs have been been harmed, so the cases will be dismissed.

Re:Who voted for it?

[10e6Steve]

Is this it

To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[RobBebop]

Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).

Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.

(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[Shakrai]

Also, how did Hillary "Yes, Tim, national security is more important than human rights" Clinton vote?

She didn't. Couldn't be bothered apparently. Interestingly enough both McCain and Obama found the time to vote. Here's the vote itself if you are wondering how your Senators voted on it.

At least my other Senator (Schemer) had the balls to vote against it. For all the good it did.

Re:Semantics

[peas_n_carrots]

"illegal" in the vernacular means against the law. The wiretaps *were* illegal. If the bill passes, it may not be illegal in the future. That doesn't diminish the fact that it was and currently still is illegal.

Perhaps the better question would be to ask yourself if you know what illegal means.

Clinton abstained

[pkbarbiedoll]

She decided not to jeopardize her campaign and just didn't vote at all. Obama voted against immunity. Most "blue dog" democrats voted for immunity.

Re:just great

[MBGMorden]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

As linked in another post. Obama voted to strike the immunity clause from the bill.

NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.

Pardon me?

[HTH NE1]

Is the only reason why Bush cares so much that Congress grant this immunity instead of just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations?

Re:Pardon me?

[Shakrai]

just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.

Inaccurate Heading

[micahfk]

Once again, another /. mistake:

Senators voted 67 to 31 to shelve the amendment offered by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). They did not vote for the bill yet (that's to come soon though).

Re:Who voted for it?

[Red Flayer]

To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

That's a little confusing, since the meaning of "it" changes during your sentence. Obama voted to strike the immunity measure, McCain voted to keep the immunity measure, and Clinton was too busy kissing babies to vote.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jane Q. Public]

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

It doesn't get much clearer than that!

(For those of you who do not know legalese, "ex post facto" means "retroactive".

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jimithing DMB]

Right. Meaning that the this little retroactive immunity provision is a stupid political statement. The people with open suits now can simply appeal the dismissals (if they even occur at all) on these grounds and the cases will again proceed. Whether or not the cases are eventually ruled for or against the telecoms is another matter. My understanding of things is that the telecoms are claiming that they only actually spied on communications with at least one foreign endpoint even though the equipment necessarily has the ability to spy on any communications.

Remember that this is the Foreign Intelligence/Surveillance Act. If they did use it to spy on purely domestic communications without a warrant then they are probably guilty because they stepped outside the bounds of the law. Most of the cases though seem to be brought by people who were indeed having an international conversation so I think it may be difficult to win these cases against the telecoms.

Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Black Parrot]

It doesn't get much clearer than that! What makes you think one part of the Constitution would stop them when they're voting to ignore another part?

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Dachannien]

The Supreme Court has made a number of decisions regarding that clause that weaken it substantially. For example, sex offender registration for offenders whose offenses were committed before the registration law was passed are still required to register. Another situation involves misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, who can also be barred from possessing firearms even if their offense was committed before the law barring firearm possession was passed.

Additionally, civil matters are generally not protected by the ex post facto clause, as well as laws that decriminalize an offense.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[ShinmaWa]

The President can only pardon a criminal action. What we are talking about here is immunity from civil lawsuits.

What I'd like to see

[causality]

Punish them once for helping the government spy on us.

Punish them 2x that amount for seeking immunity and generally trying to excuse it. Don't just fine the company (but by all means, do that too). Seize the personal assets of every executive who supported this and put them up for auction; disperse the proceeds to a variety of charities.

Impeach and imprison for life, on the basis of treason, every politician who supported what they knew to be an unconstitutional law. Isn't it funny how someone who assists our enemies is prosecuted for treason, but the far worse threat of elected officials who knowingly erode civil liberties is generally not even recognized to be a crime? Remember that politicians are generally also lawyers; they know very well what the 4th Amendment says.


I'd like to see all of the above happen in a court of law. Yes, I can keep dreaming. None of this will ever happen. I know that. But I'd like my country back, please.

Maybe when we're all marching the goose step we will have some insight and will collectively decide "hmm, maybe a free country IS worth a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack." The politicians of course are happy to increase their power for any reason or no reason at all, but it is DISGUSTING how the public is so cowardly that they always allow this to happen whenever a little more safety is promised to them. This is such a disgrace to anyone familiar with how and why the USA became a nation.

Re:Semantics

[fredrated]

I may not know what 'illegal' means, but I know that if you have to pass a law to make it legal, then it was illegal.

This is not the will of the people

[soren100]

This is totally unconstitutional. And I can guarantee you that there are extremely few citizens out there thinking that telecommunications companies should not be held accountable for breaking the law and helping our government subvert the Constitution. Senator Chris Dodd has to filibuster his own party to try to prevent this from happening, and he said he did it because there was so much concern from his constituents.

Amendment IV of our Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I would make a joke here about not welcoming our corpo-government overlords, but I wish I could find more of a sense of humor about this type of thing. The founders of our country knew this was going to happen, and worked extremely hard to avoid it, and the citizens of our country are sleep-walking right into it.

Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity :

The President has no right to secretly eavesdrop on the conversations and activities of law abiding American citizens and anyone who has aided and abetted him in these illegal activities should be held accountable, said Dodd. It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the President is the perpetrator. I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this Presidents agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness.

Re:You expected something different

[dennypayne]

Obama voted to block the immunity, yet you seem to be implying otherwise...

Denny

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Welcome to the Police State. I know! I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today. Two of them searched my trunk... and I don't mean the hatch-back of my car, if you catch my drift. Don't even get me started about the "secret police" that searched my house this morning at 3:00am looking for Obama literature. Thank God I got rid of that! Oh, and I expect I'll get to meet you in the reeducation camp later this week. We all know that you are not allowed to post stuff like that in a police state. /sarc off

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[KevinKnSC]

I think you mistyped that. In your link, a "yea" is a vote to strike the provisions granting immunity.

Who do these senators represent again?

[BirdDoggy]

Yet another indication that our government does not represent its people.

Americans tend not to want to be wiretapped without warrants or to give immunity to telecoms.

Here's a survey that shows Americans are against Warrantless Wiretaps, Blanket Warrants, And Immunity For
Telecom Companies.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf

Ex Post Facto = Not allowed

[corsec67]

How can any Ex post facto law be passed at all when Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."?

There aren't any clauses in there that could be interpreted as "unless it legalizes an act", so ANY law that changes the legal ramifications of an act that occurred before that law was passed is unconstitutional.

Of course, the Constitution is an optional, irrelevant document, so none of it really matters. Just look at (Amendments 1,2,9):

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
• A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
• The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Incorrect

[Raul654]

This point has already been mentioned on Slashdot before. As I said then, it is incorrect. The prohibition on ex-post facto laws means something cannot be retroactively made illegal; it can, however, be made retroactively legal.

Re:Incorrect

[Chris Burke]

The classic example being the crime of helping escaped slaves (or being an escaped slave), which retroactively became not a crime.

However if I'm not mistaken, this bill wouldn't actually make it retroactively legal for the telcos to conduct warrantless wiretaps whenever the government asks, it would only prevent any civil lawsuits from being brought against them for violating the relevant laws.

Limitations

[Rinisari]

Yet another reason why there should either a limit on the number of congressional terms a person can serve, or a complete dissolving every so many years like in parliamentary systems. The former would be more fitting with American politics.

Senators should serve no more than three terms (18 years) and congresspersons should serve no more than six terms (12 years). If a person wants to remain in congrees, he or she should run for the other half of congress. A person doing that would have served 30 years in congress, perhaps after serving graduating from law school at 25 or 26 years of age and working in a private practice or local government for six years, until 32. 30 years of congressional service puts the person at 62, and they can happily retire (or run for president or serve as a cabinet member or such).

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[yincrash]

The vote you linked to is actually a vote to invoke cloture, meaning that the bill can no longer be filibustered.

Re:Who voted for it?

[Belial6]

"Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up."

That is because she is the candidate with experience. This is just part of her "Comprehensive Government Reform" agenda. Clearly she abstained from the vote as a way to show how she is going to change government, since voting against the telco immunity simply wasn't on the table.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[TripMaster Monkey]

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

You really need to stop trying to be snarky long enough to open your eyes. Here's some reading for you:

Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
Milton Mayer: An excerpt from "They Thought They Were Free"

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately?

Re:How much will we abide?

[DreamingReal]

Perhaps everyone should start voting first before we start assuming the government is broken?

Voting is irrelevant. Rule of Law is not upheld by voting, it is upheld by bringing criminals to justice. When criminals control the dispensing of justice you have a broken system. Our forefathers rightly divided the government to institute checks and balances but what happens when all three refuse to maintain balance? You have the "nuclear option", clearly defined in our Declaration of Indepence; the governed must throw off their leaders.

Game over

[Deadplant]

It is all over folks.
The rule of law has now been abandoned completely.

The US government no longer even pretends to obey the law.

Your government just dropped its drawers and shat on your constitution.

Retroactive immunity for violations of the constitution.
I'd call that high treason.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Captain Splendid]

You know, a police state is not a binary thing. Your post is correct in not conflating the US with, say, Iran, but you could at least admit that the direction the US is heading towards isn't exactly anti-police state either.

Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.

Only 26 Senators voted against this

[WillAffleckUW]

Only 26 US Senators stood up and voted to put a hold on this legislation, including both of Washington State's US Senators and Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Clinton was ... not present.

Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.

Re:Only 26 Senators voted against this

[iamwahoo2]

Once again, Clinton chose not to vote on this amendment. That does not mean that she was not present. She was able to vote on the immediately preceeding amendments. She backed out of this one because she lacks integrity and backbone.

Who's on the conferencing committee?

[Dr. Manhattan]

call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)

I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?

Re:Who's on the conferencing committee?

[Red Flayer]

I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?

Both. The Senate and House must pass identical versions. E.g., there is no final bill until both Houses pass the same bill.

At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.

More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.

In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.

Re:Don't agree with the move.. but..

[UdoKeir]

The government and corporations should not be "friends", and should not be in the habit of "helping" one another out.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[SterlingSylver]

Congratulations! Your line of reason has just declared every country on the planet that bothers to maintain its border a police state! Welcome to this new and terrifying millenium!

Re:And the beat goes on.

[WilliamSChips]

Walk from the US to Canada. Walk from Canada to the US. The borders of the United States are for all intents and purposes a police state.

I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters

[Tanman]

when I ask, "Do you think the constitution is an outdated, unimportant document now?"

It amazes me all of his detractors that call him an extremist who is blindly supporting some outdated, irrelevant document -- people who then complain about this stuff being passed. Don't you realize that this is the kind of thing Ron Paul would stop?

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

This was not a vote on an amendment. This was a vote on cloture. Obama voted nay, same as did Dodd and Feingold.

United States of America, R.I.P. 2/12/2008

[sizzzzlerz]

Congratulations, bin Laden, you've won.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[c_forq]

I live in Michigan, which borders Canada. Going to Canada I have had my car searched a dozen times, and have spent upwards of 30 minutes talking to the border guard. Coming back I have NEVER been questioned for more than 10 minutes, have never had my car searched, and have been let through after NO questions and a quick check of IDs. I have had a bit more questioning when entering New York though. I think the border really depends on problems that particular crossing may have, and your citizenship. Getting into Detroit or Sault Ste. Marie is not a problem at all if you are a Michigander.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state. Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately? You're kidding, right? I tried to enter the Super Bowl, but some Gestapo Asshole was at the gate, blocking my way, asking to see my papers!

Strict border control does not make a police state. A state is deemed a police state by how it treats its law abiding CITIZENS, not foreign nationals who wish to enter the country. If border control and airport security is how you judge police states, can you show me a country that is NOT a police state? Is Canada a police state too? France? Japan?

I tried

[kilodelta]

I had an email exchange with the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse regarding this issue. He comes down on the fence in this but I suspect he voted yes which really disappoints me. But then I know which side his bread is buttered on and whose pocket he's in so it comes as no surprise.

Worst part is I used to work for the guy.

The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.

Yes and these lawsuits are in fact the point of the spear aimed at the root of the problem.

Punishing the telcos and getting damages isn't the important part. It's something that should be done, but it is really just a means to an end. The ultimate point is to find out through discovery what exactly the government did. The aim is to get evidence out into the open, in the public record, of the government's malfeasance.

Once the spear point has pierced the government's veil of secrecy, then we can drive it deeper into the government itself. With the information revealed in the suits, it may be possible to sue the government, get court rulings about the legality of the administration's practices, and ultimately set up the possibility of future prosecution. If it can create enough of a scandal to cost politicians and bureaucrats their careers, while not optimal, that can still serve as a check to keep the government in line for a while.

This is also, ultimately, what the immunity provisions are about. It's nothing to do with protecting telcos from having to pay damages, that's just the means to an end. It's all about preventing anyone from discovering what the government really did -- they even admit it when talking about why the provision is necessary, though of course they couch it in "national security secrets" terms. Bush and team are trying to cover their own ass, and cowardly Congress is going along with it.

By the way, you raise a good point about Google and China. Personally I don't forgive Google, but at the same time I recognize the realities of working with a government like China's, one such reality being that censoring the people is not illegal. At the same time our government is not China's, our government is supposed to respect human rights, and more importantly it is illegal for them not to just as it is illegal for AT&T. And also because our government is not China's, we the people should be able to discover when our government or corporations break the law and demand redress. Which, coming full circle, is exactly what these lawsuits are about.

Re:The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

So sue the government. Filing a lawsuit with the aim of outing information about a third party -- or indeed with any aim other than solely to impose just sanctions agains the defense -- is an abuse of the court system.

No it isn't an abuse. The lawsuits are just, because the telcos broke the law, and they should be punished for that.

I thought your complaint was that this wasn't addressing the true problem of the government breaking the law. I'm explaining how the lawsuits also address that. And just so you know, it is extremely common and not considered an abuse at all for an otherwise just and proper suit to have other strategic purposes, whether that be establishing a precedent, creating situations ripe for appeal and perhaps judicial review, to yes in fact exposing other crimes which leads to other lawsuits.

The problem with suing the government is that until we actually know for certain what they did any lawsuit isn't even going to get off the ground, its doubtful anyone would even have standing to do so until we know more. If you really think the government should be sued, the telco lawsuits are the best first step in doing so.

Roll Call.

[pyrr]

Source: http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/12/fisa-vote-tallies-part-ii/

"Voting with the Republicans were the following eighteen Democrats (again, rough count):

Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Joe Lieberman also voted against stripping retroactive immunity.

Not present and voting was Senator Hillary Clinton, the only presidential candidate serving in the Senate to miss the vote."

There you have it, Republicans in lockstep, and those Democrats mentioned are traitors. Including Sen. Clinton, in her silence, she consented. The roll call for Sen. Dodd's attempts to strip the immunity provision out read much the same. I would like to believe that all those listed have no political future (and this of course includes "all Senate Republicans who weren't mentioned by name"). Sadly, I'm probably wrong on that.

Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

The House of Reps passed their version of this bill without amnesty. When the two bills go into "conference", wherein the two chambers negotiate how to change their versions to come up with the single version that will be voted on in each chamber, the House can insist on no amnesty. Which, since amnesty did not pass in the Senate by an overwhelming (just a large) majority, the House might succeed in getting.

So sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's the last chance you have to keep some privacy rights when on the phone (hi, Dick!).

Re:Please do explain

[NewAndFresh]

Will the individual(s) who authorized these activities suffer if judgements are leveled against the company? No. It's not coming out of their paycheck.

How do you know this? Why wouldn't heads role? Especially if this ends up costing the shareholders millions or even billions. It would seem only natural that the individuals who made the important calls on this would get fired.

The purpose of the lawsuits

[Kenrod]

For those who think they know something about this dispute, quick...answer these questions:

1. Which telecoms get immunity?
2. What are the telecoms accused of doing EXACTLY? What actual actions did they take?
3. Who wants to sue the telecoms? What are their motives?
4. What is the purpose of the lawsuits? Money, or something else? Remember these are civil lawsuits (you knew that, right?), so no one is going to jail.

The real purpose of bringing civil lawsuits against the telecoms is to get them to fully reveal what information the government asked them for, and to reveal what was given. Revealing this information publicly would be a great boon to enemies of the US and will help them adjust their operations to elude the authorities.

It's too bad so many well-meaning libertarians are ignorant of the real dangers in the world, and the dangers brought by technology, and are so quickly willing to be stooges. And not the funny kind.

Re:The purpose of the lawsuits

[Felix Da Rat]

You know, I didn't think I could answer your questions, and I know I don't have all the details, but I was surprised at how much I have gleaned from this ongoing frakas...

1: AT&T is the one that gets all the Press, Qwest I think is out of it, with a boned CEO, but I'm sketchy on who all the players are.
2: Again, sketchy on this, but I believe it goes along the lines of: copying the communications of innocent, law abiding American citizens too government agencies for their perusal/review, with no clearly defined limits on retention or use (see 4th amendment in the bill of rights).
3: I know the EFF is big on this, pretty sure the ACLU is also participating. Probably others.
4: To hold those who have broken the law accountable via fiscal penalty? Yeah, I think that sounds about right.

Oddly enough, the only questions you asked that matter are 2 and 4. Who the players are is moot really.

Speaking as a well-meaning (or mean spirited, can never remember) libritarian, I can tell you that no one who has any interest in the goings on of government is 'ignorant of the real dangers in the world'. We all accept danger ever day in real life, from driving to work, to soap in the shower, to fat in our diets. All of those have killed a lot more of us than any enemy of the US ever has, or will. Especially if the government does not serve the will of the people, because at that point, there really is no US. There will just be a body of people living on the same land mass in a state of fear; and those real threats will have won.

Remember, terrorism only works if your fear keeps you from living life. So get out of your bubble, use your spine, and accept the risk and knowledge that bad things will happen.

hand write or fax, emails get routinely ignored

[StandardDeviant]

Just an FYI, the common advice for getting a Congress member to pay any modicum of attention to criticism is to send it via some tangible form: physical mail or fax transmission. Emails and online petitions and so forth appear to be generally ignored or held in much lighter regard. You can get the appropriate contact information for your senators via looking them up here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (the equivalent for the House would be https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml). As for voting histories, those are likely available with more digging on either senate.gov or house.gov. I think this is the relevant roll-call record for this issue: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00019

Re:Please do explain

[Xaositecte]

Yes, financial penalties for telcos who participated in illegal wiretapping programs will affect their willingness to participate in such programs in the future.

If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.

If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.

If harsh penalties are ascribed, the same risk\benefit calculations will occur, but corporate leaders will be much less likely to approve cooperation with the government as far as illegal wiretapping is concerned.

You should be honest

[Bored MPA]

Politics are complicated, as are sound bites.

Obama abstained from the final vote instead of voting against the overall bill. And given the margin, calling out Clinton seems pointless (since positions are usually known ahead of time).

Senate Voting History!!!

[newgalactic]

Here's a link to the recent senate voting records including the FISA bill. Go there regularly, monitor your senator. It's WAY more important then anything else on this site. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

The Constitution and resistance to change

[evought]

That's one reason why I personally don't respect parts of the constitution. If there's a majority in the future, then, well, there is a majority. If you do anything else, you will piss a majority of people off. It seems kinda funny because the constitution was designed with the people (read: the majority of people at the time) in mind. But their influence couldn't stay in their own times when it was relevant, it had to spread to times where their wants become increasingly irrelevant. There are new majorities now with new needs and wants, and they can speak for themselves if they want. The constitution should really just stick to making sure they can speak for themselves, and that those in power listen. To some extent, the system was designed purposely to slow down the process of change, to balance toward conservative decision making (dictionary definition of "conservative"). This is, in general, a very good thing. You don't want to change your government according to the latest fad, you want slow change where you can get an idea of how things work as you go forward. A conservative government structure also tries to prevent thrashing (shifting majorities just changing the same things back and forth as Congress changes hands) and to try to encourage more rational decision making in times of crisis.

You should never make any long term decisions in a crisis. People are horrible at it and tend to be highly irrational at such times. Look how badly we have done after 9/11. How much worse would we have done with a more fluid government system? That is why we have checks and balances (among other reasons), why Supreme Court appointments are for life, and many other things. At the same time, the system does allow slow change, through new laws, amendments, new appointments to the judiciary over time, and so forth. Our system has changes a good bit since the Founders' day (some to the good, at this precise moment, much to the bad). Our government and Constitution is not perfect, certainly, but the Founder's did a pretty good job, if you think about it, of anticipating a lot of potential problems, quite a few of which warnings we have ignored. Sure, it can use touching up in places (I can think of several off hand), but if you think about the number of popular revolutions which ended in total chaos and bloodbaths (e.g. France, Russia, China), we didn't do badly at all.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[evought]

There's a difference between retarding rate of change and blocking certain changes. Fast-changing governments are inefficient and unstable, but so are governments literally incapable of listening to their people. We're fine for now, because we are running into problems (that need to be overcome) that were predicted by the founding fathers, but it's inevitable that things will change whether our society likes it or not. Sure and they do, they have, and they will continue to. How many amendments do we have?

As an example, the second amendment protects every citizen's right to bear arms. That was a fair call back in the late 16th century, when power was unstable, and people were more accountable for their votes. It was a necessary protection to ensure that people felt secure in using their due influence on the government. Nowadays, there's very little need for it, now that the country is large and its people largely anonymous parts of a huge crowd. Politicians and zealots alike are no longer capable of threatening the public, and most of the people live in the cities, where there isn't much call for a gun, except for protection against other guns. The right to bear arms is only relevant today because it has continued to be granted for so long, that now any potential criminal can get their hands on one. Any attempts to institute gun control are now not only futile (because pro-gun spokesmen can claim it as a constitutional right), but detrimental as well, despite what it does for the murder rate.

I cannot disagree with this strongly enough, especially the idea that governments are somehow harmless today. The right to life is one of the most fundamental. If I do not have the ability to defend my life, I have no other rights. The police rarely get to the scene of violence in time to prevent anything. Also, many people still live outside of cities where guns are as much tools as weapons (e.g. protecting my sheep from coy dogs).

Lastly, I think the UK has amply demonstrated that taking away guns cannot be done successfully enough to change the equation. In urban areas where they have had success seizing weapons, thugs *rent* weapons out for crimes, plus the fact that knife and other kinds of muggings, convenience store robberies have gone up because they know people are defenseless. Police often refuse to go after the criminals because no one was hurt, so violent crimes take priority (apparently some corners/stores are robbed pretty much on a regular schedule). Yes, their gun crime went down some, but it simply displaced a lot of the crime, and it did not go down enough that I would be comfortable giving up my right to defend myself when I know (and have experienced) that the police will not and physically can not defend me. An attorney locally in a city council meeting was reduced to throwing chairs at a shooter to try to defend himself after the attacker killed two police officers guarding the room *and took their guns* for use against the room's occupants. One of the council members actually had a carry permit but did not have his weapon with him. Bad mistake: carrying the thing for a hundred years without needing it is better than needing it once and not having it.

Re:Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

The House has already indicated that it wants amnesty rejected, by passing their version of the bill without it, even as amnesty faced very vocal (though ultimately failed) opposition in the Senate. And John Conyers (D-MI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to head White House lawyer Fred Fielding insisting that there's no basis for amnesty. The House Intelligence Committee also rejected amnesty in approving the House bill. The Senate counterpart to Conyers' committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the one that produced a Senate bill rejecting amnesty (that failed to pass the Senate); the Senate committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) denounced amnesty as his bill was defeated, in solidarity with the House provisions. House Speaker Pelosi helped rescue the House bill from an October attempt by Republicans to stop it. So I think the House version of this "RESTORE Act" is a serious attempt by the House (its Republican minority notwithstanding) to stop amnesty.

But you're right not to have "faith" in politicians. Faith is a way of knowing something that can't be proven, and no one can know what these liars will do until after the check has cleared. But hope is different. It's a way of wanting something that hasn't been proven, fuel for doing something to get it. Which is why signing the petition to pressure the House to stand by its partial progress against amnesty is worth doing. Because giving up hope means being defeated, and that's how you help the forces against you win. Signing the petition is another small but useful blow against them.