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.
Read my lips, Bush: We ain't skeered of no terrorists.
My blog
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
The republicans walked out in protest of a vote to cite two former white house officials (Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten) with contempt of Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner argued that the House should instead be voting on an extension of the FISA bill which expires Saturday.
/. teaser seemed to indicate that the walk out was due to a refusal to vote on the FISA bill. That is not correct.
The
Well, he could always order them waterboarded. I mean, he's already determined that isn't torture.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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
The President himself doesn't feel the need to mention that. He was admonishing Congress yesterday, claiming that:
Of course, as you said, all previously authorized wiretaps under the expiring act go on, and as the House Intelligence Chair put it:
In summary: There really doesn't seem to be a need for this law at all, let alone the provisions like telecom immunity.
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.
Yes, the House can enforce the contempt citation without the aid of the Justice Department. Under the rules for inherent contempt, after the citation is passed, the cited party would be arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House and brought to the floor to answer charges. However, the statutory procedure, which is the one that involves the Justice Department, has been used more often since its inception in 1857, and the inherent procedure hasn't been used since 1934.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Contempt of Congress...WTF! I hold nothing but contempt for Congress, guess i better start packing.
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.
>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."
The vote was to remove the immunity clause. Democrats voted for the removal, Republicans for its retention.
Silvestre Reyes is the hero of this. here is a link to the letter he sent the bushenfurer, and the last paragraph (the best imho). we need more ppl like him that understand the constitution is not just a 'goddamn piece of paper'. personally, i think anyone dismissing the constitution like that is guilty of treason, and we know how to deal with that. (grandpa simpson voice)That's a hangin'
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intel_chair_to_Bush_on_FISA_0214.html
I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear. We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won. Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
-.no
If you were watching MSNBC last night Olbermann ripped Bush and the Republicans over telecomm immunity and this staged walk out. They were showing clips of the "spontaneous" walk out to a place where there just happened to be cameras and a podium rigged with microphones. As if there are podiums and broadcast crews stationed all over in case any of our Congress critters suddenly decide to storm out of chambers in protest.
He called Bush and incompetent liar and fascist...in so many words.
Telcos have been dealing with wiretap law for decades, they knew what they were doing was wrong. If they're so certain their behavior was so lofty and patriotic, then let them take their chances with a jury.
We want companies to think twice before cooperating with an illegal enterprise, regardless of the perceived threats. The FISA court is a joke, they've never turned down a request. So, how is that virtual rubber stamp impeding terrorist investigations? Or is it that they're really afraid the FISA court won't authorize wholesale spying on the American public?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Most good skins are ones where you can tell one side from the other.
I agree. If the telecoms have immunity, then they have no reason to maintain their records proving that our government mandated their cooperation - they can simply sit back and wave the immunity flag and sit smug.
For some reason I just can't see giving companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc immunity to prosecution for failure to take proper care of my privacy with information they collect. Maybe it's the completely dishonest PR I've seen out of Comcast recently with relation to P2P trafficing. Maybe it's the anti-competitive buyouts of AT&T. Maybe it's just a general mistrust of anyone worth over a million dollars.
So yea - if there are breaches of my privacy, someone should be held accountable. If it's the government mandating it unjustly, they need publicly defamed and removed from office. If there's no public official - then let the suing of large private information collecting giants like the telecom industries serve as a lesson that maybe, just maybe, they should stop tracking everytime I sneeze.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
That's a completely disingenous take on both issues in the congress, as well as the constitutional powers involved, and the Washington case:
1. In addition to separation of powers, the constitution confers on Congress both the authority and the *duty* to conduct oversight on the operations of the executive. The executive has no comparable duty with respect to Congress. The powers conferred on congress by the constitution includes otherwise-judicial powers, including service of subpoenas and the right of enforcement of said subpoenas.
2. In the Washington case, Congress was exercising that authority. Washington *did* comply by providing the papers requested to the Congressional body with authority to oversee his actions: the Senate. He did not stonewall congress on this.
3. Congress is now attempting to exercise this same authority with respect to allegations of political manipulation of the Justice Department. The executive has denied access not only to papers and documents, but gagged witnesses Harriet Meirs and Josh Bolton, telling them that they may not testify to congress in any form. This is completely outside the scope of executive privilege, and congress has allowed the executive to get away with this stonewalling for over a year.
4. Congress has (finally) gotten around to voting on a contempt of congress resolution, which is the first step to enforcing those subpoenas. We will indeed have a court test of this, and fairly soon -- but the idea that the courts are "unlikely" to support congress' privileges in this is pretty silly.
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.
Ted Kennedy on FISA:
Kennedy on YouTube.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---