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.

Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

My Quote Chain:

"Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of."
--Arthur Dent

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine

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

You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.

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.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Gat0r30y]

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

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

Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been writing and calling my Congressman, Elliot Engel, on this issue for months. Yesterday I received an email from his staff stating he was happy to tell me there was no telecom immunity as of the March FISA vote. Upset that this completely neglected to mention how he planned to vote on this bill today, I called his office. The staffer said she'd never heard of FISA or telecom immunity. I called a different office, and they said they didn't know where he stood on the issue but they'd be happy to call me back once he voted. Talk about a joke. This has really been eye-opening to me.

Game over man, game over!

[the_macman]

Done and done. The house just voted to pass the bill. Kiss telco prosecution goodbye, kiss accountability goodbye, kiss your civil liberties goodybye.

I was watching it live on CSPAN, pretty disgusting. Just remember who voted for this when elections come up.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[KevinKnSC]

This is a vote in the House of Representatives. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago. For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Guppy06]

"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."

On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.

"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."

If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

Final vote in the House

[Goobergunch]

YEA 293
NAY 129

The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it.

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:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[KevinKnSC]

The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though. It's up now: Roll Call 437

Hmmm

[copponex]

Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism. And that is the inevitable result of free market capitalism, or fascist states where the government is "the shadow of business cast over society."

Well regulated markets work the best. Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage, or prevent greed from wrecking society. Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption. If that hierarchy is in a corporation, there's nothing the public can do about it. If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle.

So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism. I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state.

Public officials should not be allowed to seek employment after their service with any firm that does business with the government. If you don't like it, don't run for office. You're running because you want to participate as a proud citizen of our democracy, not so you can enjoy power and kickbacks. Right?

Re:Hmmm

[Tacvek]

Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.

[snip]
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).

The problem is that even if the state cannot manipulate the market, there will still be business interests attempting to manipulate the government to effectively enforce said business's
monopoly. You do correctly identify the end problem though being the state. The state must not be corruptible, or corporations will work tirelessly to corrupt it. It is as simple as that.

And please do note that the state does not have a monopoly on force. Physical force, sure, but sufficiently large corporations have a surprising amount of market force, which can sometimes be just as effective as physical force.
(Consider a cabal of the worlds largest 30 or so corporations, and how they would be able to manipulate completely unregulated markets if no general regulation (such as anti-trust laws) were also present.).

Properly working regulation may keep corporations in check, but it still requires a state that the businesses really cannot corrupt. So the state is to blame for being corruptible, but the corporations are to blame for exploiting that fact. End result though is that the state needs to change.

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

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[Fallen Kell]

We still might get the lawsuits. If you read that, the section 4(B)(ii) requires it to be "determined to be lawful", only the Courts can determine that the acts are lawful, not the President. As such, if the Court decides that the act was not lawful, the Telecom is still not immune to the activity.