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?

Comments

McCain is owned by the telecoms

[analog_line]

He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.

Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms

[Psion]

Any readers who live in his district should give him a call and voice their opposition to the bill, reminding him we need hope and change from his office.

The rest of us ... call your senators and tell them to vote no.

Don't just grumble and complain here, make your voice heard where it really counts.

Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms

[stinerman]

You can always have your shadow senators crash the party and demand the floor.

Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms

[Shining Celebi]

He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.

McCain voted for telecom immunity the first time around, so it would indeed be pretty hard to imagine him not voting for it now, especially with him ramping up his pro-administration rhetoric more and more, lately. His campaign has issued multiple statements that McCain wholeheartedly endorses telecom immunity. Here's to hoping Obama actually votes against this, and the Senate does something to block it -- although I doubt it, since the Senate is split evenly (49-49) between Democrats and Republicans, and most of the Democrats don't have the spine to be seen voting against something that's PROTECTING US AGAINST TERRORISTS OMG.

Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms

[stinerman]

To the gentleman who modded me "troll":

DC has shadow senators which are elected just as US Senators are, but are not recognized as such by the United States.

For your edification.

It is not blanket immunity

[modmans2ndcoming]

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

Not if he can help it

[torstenvl]

Not if he can help it

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

Time for Paul & Libertarians to join a coaliti

[maynard]

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.

Here is Obama's statement on the FISA bill

[maynard]

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.

Don't be so quick to judge!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is fighting to remove immunity.

Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...

Re:Don't be so quick to judge!

[General Wesc]

Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...

Ummm...the only? The article you quoted has Reid saying he'd fight. Conyers fought it. Nadler fought it. Feingold fought it. Now that it's going to the Senate, Leahy and Dodd will likely lead the charge against it. (My not-paying-much-attention understanding is that Dodd's been pretty amazing about this stuff for some time now.)

There are a lot of Democrats putting up a decent fight. Just not enough. (And to be Fair and Balanced about it, there are some Republicans doing the right thing too, including our usually-hated Senator Arlen Specter.)

Pelosi, however, is made of fail.

Read the bill

[maynard]

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

Title II of H.R. 6304 is in substance the same as the original telecom immunity provisions of S. 2248, with only a few inconsequential changes. Most critically, it still prevents the court from ruling on the legality of the telecomsâ(TM) assistance in warrantless surveillance.

This may not be immediately evident on first read since the structure has changed considerably: the provisions for so-called "retroactive" immunity in the original billâ(TM)s Section 202 have been combined with the so-called "prospective" immunity from the original Section 203.

But the substance of this unconstitutional bill is still the same:

Cases Will Still Be Dismissed Based On A Permission Slip From The President.

As before, cases against telecoms that provided assistance "in connection with" (p. 89:20) the Presidentâ(TM)s warrantless surveillance program âoeshall be promptly dismissedâ (p. 89:2) so long as the AG certifies to the court that they got a piece of paper "indicating" (p.90:10) that the surveillance was "authorized by the President ... and ... determined to be lawful" (p. 90:12-13), i.e., the piece of paper that we already know they got, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report.

McCain

[General Wesc]

Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?

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. :-)

Re:True BUT

[snarfer]

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.

Vote Roll Call / Breakdown

[Anonymous Coward]

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