FISA Bill Vote Today, With Telco Immunity

Bimo_Dude writes "Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card. Here are comments from the EFF. Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"

Comments

Treason

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.

Re:Treason

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

There's one small detail that you are overlooking.

Companies shouldn't be breaking the law just because the government tells them to!

And if they do, they SHOULD be punished! As should the people in the government that told them to break the law.

Re:Treason

[mlwmohawk]

They took an oath to uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. This is a violation of that oath. I would call this treason, yes.

Lets fund some primary challengers

[maynard]

On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.

I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."

Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.

tar and feather the sob's

[Spacepup]

Since both presidential candidates are in congress, they way that they vote on this bill should be the tipping point for anyone on the fence between the two. Unless of course they both vote for this, then they should both be tarred and feathered.

Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Gat0r30y]

It sounds like fascism to me. Just my .02$

What will Obama do ?

[mbone]

As the new de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and as a Senator, Barack Obama could stop this with a word. What will he say ? Will he stand up for liberty ? Or betray it before he even gets elected ?

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[DaedalusHKX]

You forgot the most important quote that should be on your chain:

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

To translate for those hard of reason: "Any government big enough to redistribute the fruits of other people's labor to YOU by force, is big enough to take everything it wants from you, also by force. It is also big enough to run your life, and kill you or enslave you on a whim or a trumped up charge. It can also watch you and make a panopticon of your daily life. And you will like it, and clamor for it to change only enough that you won't notice the ubiquity of the abuses. Yes indeed, you will... like it." - Me

You Deserve It

[geggam]

You gave up your weapons to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You gave up your rights to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You feel safe because you abdicated your responsibility to ensure the govt did not run over the people.
Look ! Its American Idol. You can quit reading now.
You are safe.

Should we really expect any less??

[crazytisay]

This type of encroachment on civil liberties was commonplace during the Red Scare and through the Vietnam era. There was backlash, some high profile scandals, and we got the FISA. 9/11 was the impetus for changing the balance of power back to the state. Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the government has been steadily grabbing at more (unconstitutional) powers to surveille its citizens. Hopefully there will be public backlash, but the power structure of the country is quite a bit different from previous eras. I would argue the US is more corporatist than in any previous era, and now we're fighting on two fronts. Hence the telco immunity provisions. Corporations and the state are getting a bit too cozy for my taste, and capitalism be damned, I don't want to end up in a facsist state.

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[Kjella]

(B) the subject of a written request or directive [from the Executive Branch] indicating that the activity was
(ii) determined to be lawful. Now, there's nothing wrong with the Attorney General making a legal opinion - that's pretty much his job:

The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments." What happens when you instruct the courts to drop any case against any action that has been "determinaed to be legal"? Folks, you have the wonderful choices of:
a) the Legislative branch instructing the Judicial branch to obey the Executive branch
b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not
c) creating government-sponsored thugs outside the law, free from the restrictions of the government
d) all of the above