Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support?

Posted by kdawson on from the now-we-will-never-know dept.

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?

5 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. It is not blanket immunity by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  2. Read the bill by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms by stinerman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Don't be so quick to judge! by General+Wesc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:True BUT by snarfer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.