Slashdot Mirror
House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity
freedom_india alerts us to news that the House of Representatives declined to bring the surveillance reform bill to vote, prompting House Republicans to walk out in the middle of a session. The bill, recently passed by the Senate, includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies who assisted with illegal domestic wiretaps. The walk-out comes after a proposal was shot down on Wednesday that would have extended the current legislation for another three weeks.
that the House doesn't end up bending over AGAIN for that sockpuppet masquerading as a President.
The telecoms do not need immunity, and any existing wiretaps can continue for up to a year. But of course, President sockpuppet prefers not to mention that....
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Turned to contempt of congress charges against Bush aides who did not testify when subpoenas. This outraged some republicans because they thought that the FISA was more important...
A bill that would give the president more power is more important than maintaining checks and balances?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
For anyone paying attention, the Democrats have just shown Bush to be the Lying Fascist he is.
How? Bush said that people would Die, the Tarrraaarrusts would win if the bill isn't signed.
However, he'd veto the bill without Telecom immunity
So, let's see. It's more important to protect the Telecoms than to "Stop the Tarraa"
Come on. Fascism isn't any clearer than that. We'll let terrorists kill people (if you believe
you need one a bill at all, which you don't) instead of passing one without support for
the Corporate Sponsors.
Got Fascism? Yup. Damn, now you've even got proof.
No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass. In fact, the immunity bill may have had nothing to do with the events at the Capital. Spinning the story like that is simply irresponsible.
As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.
IMHO, start the impeachment process or don't. All this pussyfooting around is 100% impotent and accomplishes nothing more than a lot of publicity to make voters feel warm and fuzzy.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Same walkout, different spin on the story. To be honest, TFA is misleading and bordering on sensationalist. Not even once mentioning the contempt issue is just plain irresponsible journalism.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
There should be no retroactive immunity for the telcos. They broke the law, they knew they were breaking the law when they did it. They should now be open to civil litigation, now that their actions are out in the open.
To pass a bill granting retroactive immunity, would set a precedent I'm not comfortable with. The government(executive branch) violated citizens rights (wether or not they had a 'good' reason), and are now looking to protect their cohorts in crime.
What's next? Retroactive immunity for Microsoft, for installing a back door in windows, to help us catch terrorists?
I'm just afraid that immunity will send the message, that it's okay to violate civil rights, if the government asks you to. The government is the last people you should want violating your rights, it says so right in the constitution.
This space intentionally left blank.
A Republican representative, I forget who, was giving a speech, and basically said: "I'm tired of the democrat's grandstanding, I call on my fellow Republicans, and any Democrats who wish to join me, I'm leaving." The idea behind doing this was to make a big fuss so that what was going on in Congress yesterday would be covered by the news. Essentially, they felt that by making sure they got on CNN saying the Democrat's were busy sticking their tongues out at the Bush administration, when there was an important bill to pass. The bill in question, on granting immunity to companies helping the federal government, has enough support to pass the House, but not enough to force a vote on it if Nancy Pelosi doesn't want there to be. I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals. That is the job of the executive and judicial branch. (Executive enforces laws, judicial makes sure the laws are fair, legislative writes them) . A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no. Even though a judge should have been involved.
No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass.
You're right. If it were written properly it would show that the Republicans got all pissy when the House Democrats made it a point to show that the executive branch is not above the law. Although something tells me you wouldn't be pleased with that either. Somehow you need to pin it all on the Democrats because the Angelic Republicans can never do any wrong.
I wish I could walk out of my job and still keep it AND get paid when I don't agree with something...Man, I could be at home asleep right now and getting paid for it if that were the case!
Yeah, as some other commenters have noted, the Republicans walked out because of the contempt vote. They were upset the House chose not to vote over telecom immunity. I'm pleased to see the Democrats finally showing they have a spine. It's only a baby step compared to what they should be doing, but after having let their spine atrophy for so long I guess it'll take a while before they actually do anything meaningful. I won't be holding my breath though.
If the Dems don't capitulate again, and that's a BIG IF, and Protect America Act expires tomorrow, we are still protected under the old FISA law. Not only that, had the Bush Administration used the old FISA law, the telecoms could have gotten immunity easily. So why didn't they? Oversight, which seems to be anathema to this administration.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I'm curious why you think the judicial branch would uphold his claims of executive privilege. That's not a Constitutional privilege. If Presidential aides break the law, should they be immune from investigation as long as the President invokes executive privilege? The real issue is that the Justice Department has said they won't investigate and bring charges, meaning it wouldn't go to court in the first place -- seems a bit of an odd choice if the court wouldn't do something about it. But Congress still has its own power to enforce the citation. And how can you impeach if you don't have any evidence to go on? That's the entire point of calling the aids to TESTIFY, which they refused to do.
And this is related to the FISA bill. Boehner was mad they weren't going to get straight to the spy bill like the President wanted.
Voluntary Response is the answer to your question. Those who do care voluntarily voice their opinion in various ways, such as posting /. comments. ^_^ Many if not most citizens don't appear care enough to even follow what's going on with government. They're too preoccupied with their own little worlds, and until those bubbles are burst, they will continue living their lives in deliberate and blissful ignorance. Mod me as flamebait/troll for saying it for all I care, but when Britney Spears requiring medical treatment makes front page news, yet Russia resuming cold war patrol flights and threatening to point missiles at Ukraine (I'll refrain from writing a book of my opinions on that matter) is seemingly nowhere to be found (on the larger, more popular American news web sites), I'd say it's pretty difficult to deny this sad truth.
The lie I'm talking about is "FISA will expire right away". That's a moronic lie:
Section 2 of the Protect America Act:
Even the "sunset" provisions that Republicans are lying about making the PAA expire don't actually apply:
Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act:
The PAA that Republicans are clamoring to replace "because it sunsets" was passed late last Summer. It's got another six months left for spying, even if that spying is un-Constitutional.
Every single thing about this spying not only violates the Constitution, but it's being forced on us with the worst kinds of lies. (Hi, Dick!)
That's why you sould sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's your last chance to say something publicly to the government on a voluntary basis.
--
make install -not war
That our ever brave Democratic congresspeople will cave at some point today and give the Bush administration everything they want. Wouldn't want people to think you're "soft on terror", even if that means allowing anyone that has Bush's approval to break whatever laws he says are necessary.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
but felt that REPUBLICAN President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege.
Remember that the amount of executive authority the President should have is based on the political party of who you're asking.
Were it a Democratic President who was stomping all over our civil liberties, the situation in Congress would be reversed.
paintball
Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?
Several reasons, actually:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If Republicans are angry with Democrats for pursuing the matter of contempt citations against Bolton and Miers instead of voting to condone the telecom's crimes, then I'm angry with the Congress for holding hearing after hearing on steroids in baseball instead of holding hearings on impeaching Bush and Cheney for repeatedly breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
For those out there who oppose Constitutional checks and balances, and oppose impeachment of the Pres. and VP for running roughshod over our rights, consider what will happen if Hillary Clinton gets into office with that impunity and immunity and absolute power established by Bush's precedent. That should make you shudder. I know it does me.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
... about a blowjob?
... about a war on a sovereign nation under false pretense?
vs.
Fixed that for you. Now you fix your country please.
the truth. Neither do I. We have absolutely NO idea why they walked out. You also have NO idea of what the media was told. For all you know, the reporters heard exactly what they reported. Calling it spin makes you just as guilty of what you are accusing the media of doing. That is talking and making accusations before you have all the facts.
Normally, I have respect on your opinions, but on this, I do not. Bush has NO capabilities to invoke executive powers on them WRT this. The reason is that ALL have claimed that they had no dealings with Bush on the very matters that congress wants to see them on. If they had dealings, well, then maybe. But bush and the others have all claimed that they did not. Or are they all liars?
As to impeachment, there is zero doubt in my mind that W and his cronies belong in prison. But it will never happen. The reason is that dems do not control congress and I think that even if they get control of congress on the next go, they will give W and his entire staff a pass because they are afraid that it will come back to haunt them. I am not sure which is worse. The fact that so many of these GD pubs have been as illegal and corrupt as they have been or that the dems have appeared to join them in that they do not go after where the real evidence is; Sibel Edmunds. If the dems REALLY wanted to bring down bush, all that would have to happen is that they would ungag sib edmunds, which is in their powers. Yet, waxman and others who PROMISED her that they would do this, will not even take her calls.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There has to be something really embarrassing for Bush that will come out unless "telecom immunity" passes. The political push for this from the White House doesn't make sense otherwise. Bush has limited political capital left, and he's spending it on the "telecom immunity" issue. Not the surveillance issue, which might actually have something to do with terrorism, but the immunity issue.
It's beyond believable that there are actually people in this world as totally fucking devoid of intelligent thought as your comments indicate you must be.
You sir, completely lose at life and there is no reset button this time. Get your special brand of retardation off my country please.
I have, too, but all I find is the Department of Justice asserting in a 2005 opinion that they don't: IMPERMISSIBILITY OF DEPUTIZING THE HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS AS A SPECIAL DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL. Rather pre-emptive, isn't it?
IMHO, this is either going to turn out like Iran/Contra or Watergate. My guess is that it's not so much public opinion and approval ratings as it is media mogul opinion and Nielsen ratings.
Or it could turn out like the 2000 Presidential election, i.e., the Supreme Court rules, and that's that.
Is it just me, or does anyone else keep hearing this message that We the People don't really have any say?
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
I'm going to call my representative right now and tell them how pleased that I am that the House sided against the Senate and with the American people. Give your Congress-critters some positive feedback people.
Batman is, as usual, a completely biased right-wing idiot. FISA had almost nothing to do with the walkout yesterday. That there is such confusion about it on this site is just another demonstration of how really wonderful and effective the right wing are at obfuscating reality.
Ringdev, your reasons 1 and 3 are just plain wrong. Republicans didn't prevent the contempt issue from being "settled". Democrats had a quorum and passed the contempt of congress resolution yesterday.
Which leaves your reason 2, which is closer to the truth. The real reason these idiots walked out are:
1. To make a stink about not passing the telecom immunity act the way the President wanted.
2. To spare themselves the popular heat of voting against the contempt of congress resolution. Had they done so, they're going to look awfully phony once Miers and Bolton testify and the Justice Department scandal blows up again.
If veto=oversight, then a police arrest=investigation. Not.
BTW: You really should do something about that cold. It's starting to lower your IQ.
Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now, than it was, then.
"Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: if the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"
You know, like The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Or Executive Order 90-66.
Or The Alien and Sedition Acts.
Or Slavery.
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability! You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger!
This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand.
For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act. You. By your own terms and your definitions -- you have just sided with the terrorists.
You got to have this law or we're all going to die.
But practically speaking, you vetoed this law.
It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an Ex Post Facto law, which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail. But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.
"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."
Believed?
Don't you know?
Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you?
Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here?
If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business -- come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. Fascism.
You're a fascist -- get them to print you a t-shirt with "fascist" on it!
What else is this but fascism?
Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?
Mark Klein was the AT&T Whistleblower, the one who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all AT&T circuits -- everything -- carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your web browsing into a secure room, room number 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it. Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy -- a spy both patriotic and telepathic -- might able to divine had been sent or spoken by -- or to -- a terrorist. Everything!
Every time you looked at a naked picture.
Every time you bid on eBay.
Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat.
"My thought was," Mr. Klein told us last November, "George Orwell's 1984. And here I am, forced to connect the big brother machine."
And if there's one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, is that he is -- you are -- a liar.
"This Saturday at midnight," you said today, "legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning, will be compromised... You said that "the lives of countless Americans depend" on you getting your way.
This is crap.
And you sling it, with an audacity and a speed un
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
[Bush said,] "The House's failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens."
How does this bill jeopardize the security of any citizens? Is he serious?
Secrecy in his administration is a more serious threat to the citizens. Why doesn't his administration reveal its e-mail, telephone, and written communications to the people? Executive branch secrecy jeopardizes our security.
Why can't we have an open government? We pay the bills. Or stop using our taxes to pay for the executive branch.
That he can leverage Pardons and Commutations of his co-conspirators to get them all off scot free becomes the basis of the executive privilege he's asserting.
The one chink in the armor is the investigatory arm of a civil suit against the cooperating telecoms. Unless he can convince Justice that his power to Pardon can block a civil suit. It would be difficult argument to win without a better stacking of SCOTUS, which is why he'd rather get Congress to do it for him.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I confess - I mainly want them impeached because I want this whole "Unitary Executive" theory challenged and sent back to the bowels of hell from which it came.
I don't *want* Obama or Hillary to have this kind of power, and I certainly don't want McCain to have this kind of power.
The only reason I can come up with that the Republicans haven't bucked the White House on this is that, fundamentally, they don't think the Democrats will have the imagination to really abuse it the way they have. What the hell are they going to do if Obama get's elected, and turns out to be a charming, charismatic, and ruthless SOB?
I hate to say it - but 60% of the country hate's Bushes guts. What the hell are they going to do if we have a likable person with a 65% job approval rating doing unto them as they've done to us?
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media