Slashdot Mirror
House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support?
We discussed telecom immunity yesterday ahead of the House vote. It passed by 293 votes to 129. Only one Republican voted against the bill; Democrats were evenly split. It now goes to the Senate. Reader Verteiron points out that Glenn Greenwald has up a post titled "Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill." It says that Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway. I couldn't find this on Obama's official site. Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?
He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.
This does not stop law suits. It gives telcos who have written requests from the government, dated after 9/11/2001, that state the president authorized the specific wire tap to not be liable.
1)The telcos still have to go to court and file papers
2)so many people were violated that there will be many many suits
3)they have to have written proof that the president authorized it (not likely given the fact that Bush wanted to not be caught)
4)there is evidence that Bush had been doing this domestic wire tapping before 9/11
5)A judge still decides if the proof provided by the telcos meets the standard
I'm not supporting McCain, but I did support Ron Paul.
I would say it's likely Obama will vote for the bill whatever comes of it. Even though Obama talked about Civil Liberties, with the renewal of the Patriot Act all he really did was push for being kinder, gentler.... and most of those provisions were stripped out later on and he still voted for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations
Obama also supports banning the burning of flags (which is also the proper way to get rid of a delapitated flag, btw) with just a law, not even amending the Constitution:
"I support legislation introduced by Senator Durbin that makes it illegal to burn the flag without changing the Constitution."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060627-obama_statement_29/
I'm sorry, but I'm not excited about this election at all (I voted and campaigned in the primary so I could be).
Ron Paul and his supporters and trying to change the Republican Party. This will be a slow process, probably taking 5-15 years before we have significant leadership positions in that party (such is libery, eternal vigilance). We need people running on all levels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlqXq8YxQFQ
Not if he can help it
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml
FTA:
"The contrary Republican was Representative Tim Johnson of Illinois, described by the Almanac of American Politics as a lawmaker "with maverick tendencies," as demonstrated by his opposition to much of the Bush administration's record on the environment."
I suppose Ron Paul was not there, perhaps because this is not the final bill. I'd have to look, but I don't have the HR#, which the article should have included to make looking it up easier.
Paul and his minions can't do this on their own. You'll need to create a Libertarian / Liberal coalition to win this. IMO: Libertarians and Civil Rights activists have more in common than they have in opposition right now.
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/11689
ActBlue appears to be attempting this type of Libertine/Liberal coalition. I've donated.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
He supports it. He supposedly opposes retroactive immunity, and once last October even declared that he would filibuster a FISA bill with immunity, but he appears to have changed his mind at the last minute.
If he filibusters, perhaps I'll change my mind on donating to his campaign. But right now, he has signaled that he won't oppose this FISA bill - and further, he may even vote for it.
If you're OK with that, I suggest you campaign for him. I'm not OK with that.
Obama is fighting to remove immunity.
Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...
Text of the House bill, see section 802.f:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304
EFF analysis of the immunity portion of the bill:
http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf
Last I checked, Qwest wasn't brought up on "not doing the executive branch's bidding"
That's because you didn't really check at all, did you?
C'mon, admit it.
Perhaps that slogan only really means that we can hope all we want for some change, 'cause we're never going to get it.
The only way the United States is going to see any real change for the better is if a bomb dropped on Washington DC during a State of the Union address.
Anymore I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing to have happen.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Sure have. Apparently, we shouldn't grant immunity to the telecoms--no, wait, I mean we should grant immunity to the telecoms. Of course, the wiretapping was legal anyway, though on second thought maybe it wasn't.
So there you have it: John McCain's stance on wiretapping and telecom immunity. hope that cleared things up for you. :-)
Nice try. I know that in Republican ideology everything bad is Clinton's fault. But don't just make stuff up, please.
See "Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11 "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html?fta=y
From the story:
The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companyâ(TM)s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.
Official House Roll Call for H R 6304
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
Breakdown of votes by state, representative, etc.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437
I'm not, because Obama ain't magic. He's the best shot we have at a sane nation on 20 January, but he still has to play ball right now (and he still will when he's President, just to a lesser degree). It wasn't Republican pressure or even the election that meant he had to vote for this bill - it was Nancy Pelosi. Nate Silver at 538 gives a better analysis than I can:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/large-majority-of-swing-district.html
If you don't want to click, here's the summary: Pelosi threw her weight behind this compromised bill, and she's been Obama's primary ally in the Democratic party. Snubbing her on this vote would have meant a much tougher fight to get meaningful health care reform passed. You might even call this his first political move in a presidential role.
About the only thing I agree with McCain on is that we need one heck of a lot more nuclear power plants. But our global diplomatic stance, Iraq (drawing down), Afghanistan (stepping it up), health care, taxes, net neutrality, education, Supreme Court nominations, transparency and information availability from government - all of these are why I'm voting for Obama. His FISA vote, while it's unfortunate that he had to do so, won't change my vote in November.
Why do we keep relying on "leaders" (read "rulers") to do what is right for us, even when it is almost never in their interest to do so?
Because we're stupid.
As usual, we have exactly the government we deserve.
He hasn't had the opportunity to vote on it at all yet. We're just pissed that he's not stumping against it wholeheartedly.
He still has ample opportunity to make it right. A drop in donations to his campaign (with explanations from the droppers as to why) might yet convince him that doing the right thing is worth any political cost that might be involved. Or a jump in donations to this page, set up specifically to reward valor and punish cowardice on this very issue.
It might even redound to his benefit. I honestly believe it would.
Oh, and as I mentioned in another reply, Paul is the Representative for the Texas 14th district. He is most certainly not a Senator.
Well Obama is a change, a democrat who is willing to look at the big picture and not just try to punish the rich. Let be realistic if the Telco get a huge fine, who will pay for it in the long run... Us... Trickle down theory works very well when you take money away from the rich. It works a lot slower if you give money to the rich.
A lot of people on slashdot are so polarized on the issue of the illegal action of invasion of privacy that you are out for blood even if it will not help anything. All it will accomplish is the average joe (the victim of the privacy abuse) paying more for service and he will pay more in the longer run, besides any fine there will be the extra costs of the companies now having to use more Lawyers for every decision that goes on.
I'm personally quite willing to pay a couple bucks a month more for phone service to send a clear message that invasion of privacy is not an acceptable practice. What's the solution that you're proposing here, have no penalty for companies who violate the law because it could raise prices?
Even if they raise prices, it takes them time to make that capital back, and hurts them competitively (as competitors who did not break the law do not pay comparable penalties), so the deterrent value is still maintained. Corporations cannot be jailed (they can have their charters revoked, if only it ever happened in practice, but it does not), so financial penalties are really all there is.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I think the practical aspect of not granting telecoms immunity is that they will think twice about doing it again.
Fact is the rates are regulated by local governments; any increases due to lawsuit payments will have to be negotiated there.
In my opinion, bringing this issue to court is worth it.