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.
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.
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.
Yes, that much becomes glaringly obvious when the ostensibly "spontaneous" walk-out ends in front of a bunch of microphones and cameras conveniently set up on the House steps.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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
>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.
But they are responsible for following the law, as Quest did by refusing their request. Fact is, the telecos broke the law by following those orders and should be held responsible just like anyone else.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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."
Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as a blowjob?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
... about a blowjob?
... about a war on a sovereign nation under false pretense?
vs.
Fixed that for you. Now you fix your country please.
Why was he even under oath if republicans didn't feel a blowjob was more important than anything the Bush administration has done? Bush hasn't had to testify under oath over ANY of the insane shit his administration has pulled. If you don't think the republicans were just looking for a way to hang Clinton when they forced him into either: 1) lying under oath ...or 2) guaranteeing extreme embarrassment for himself, his family, his party and the entire country, then I really don't know what to say....
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
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.
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.
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.
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