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?
Perhaps that slogan only really means that we can hope all we want for some change, 'cause we're never going to get it.
He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.
no change
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).
I can't think of anything profound to say. I hate to be the bearer of hopelessness, but I think that the US is too far down the road to being a police state. There is no way this will get reversed. I don't see this thing being defeated in the Senate. There are too many powerful lobbies behind it. Sorry.
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not. This has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the betrayal of rule of law by both political parties. They have eviscerated the fourth amendment without so much as a peep from the Supreme Court.
This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States. Otherwise, everything our founders stood for in the creation of the Bill of Rights will be diluted to nothing before our eyes. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian United States of America.
Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway.
This is just another case where multiple issues are stacked into one bill, forcing legislators to either support something they don't want or vote against something they do want. Yes there is supposed to be a solid connection between all the parts of a bill, but legislators can't vote yea on one line item and nay on another and often time the connections between items on a single bill are tenuous. Tagging unpopular items to otherwise popular bills is one of the more common forms of corruption in our legislative process.
We are all just people.
You know, as much as I don't like seeing the telco companies getting of completely, I must admit I blame the government more than the companies themselves.
It was the government that started this whole ball rolling and the telcos were (more or less) just following orders.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?
This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.
The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.
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.
Here's the thing. I look at a lot of Obama supporters today and I see in them a lot of the same things I saw in myself when I was big into the Republican Party.
The moral of the story is that you can't buy into any single party's message, and that you need to make either political party work hard for your vote. Nobody gets screwed over by a political party more than its most loyal supporters...
We need to get past the game that we are being worked towards, where we see Democrats and Republican as enemies, and re-learn to appreciate each other as citizens. We need to tell ourselve that it is as ok to be a redneck with his cars up on blocks (that's me), as it is to be a gay couple getting married, that a man has as much right to own rifle as he does to burn the flag, that, we together have natural rights that encompass not just the bill of rights, but beyond them. And, we need to understand that when someone else is trying to get us caught up in a civil war of even a political sort, they are only doing so that in the cause of protecting us from these imagined fellow citizens as enemies, that they are taking the rights of everyone.
This is my sig.
Something to keep in mind. On Olberman last night a constitutional law expert basically said that this law procludes the telcos from civil liability for their actions. This is obviously bad and stupid. However it doesnt proclude them from criminal liability. The problem is no criminal case will be allowed through the justice department under this administration. The only chance of that happening would be for a new administration to make it a priority. Now, simple question, what are the chances of a McCain administration doing so?
You (and others) are of the belief that this proof doesn't exist. I assure you it does and it is widely believed it does. Fmr. AG Gonzales testified to this fact and the telcos have used such arguments in their legal cases.
Congress said "yeah, we'll get your back if you can prove Bush asked you to do it" knowing full well that the telcos have such proof. It was a compromise in name only.
same as the old boss.
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
The Bush Administration are the real criminals in this case, why aren't they being held accountable? Everyone is gung ho about crucifying the Telco's, what about the people who ordered them to do the spying?
While I don't agree with what they did, I can understand why the Teclo's agreed to the situation. The Bush Administration probably assured them that were the program ever exposed, they would be granted immunity, and in the mean time they made a fair bit of money off the illegal activities of the government. Both groups should be tried for their actions, but people should be much more upset with the government over this.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
BUT it only gives immunity to wiretapping that started after 9/11. The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact. This was when the Bush people were ignoring terror threats so it was not about terrorists.
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter because it seems so contrary to the views of most economists, and your ideas intrigue me.
I for some reason feel inclined to believe you despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and without any evidence being presented by you.
What about 9/11/2001 is legally relevant? Ie, what makes wiretapping (or whatever it is being called) okay after that date?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I prefer no spying on US citizens at all, without a signed warrant.
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. :-)
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
Never have, we live in a representative republic.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
(1) Obama turned down federal financing the other day.
(2) He is totally reliant on private contributions to carry the campaign to the White House.
(3) It is the internet fund raising that has brought in huge dollars for him.
(4) Stop being adoring fans and start thinking like empowered citizens
(5) Get on Reddit, Digg, twitter, Facebook, etc.: NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS until Obama proves leadership on Telecom Immunity
(6) Learn what it feels like to have real power.
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.
If you are able to remove your party blinders--I know it's difficult--, please consider Bob Barr. He's in this to win.
Here's his press release from Thursday - Bob Barr Urges Congress: No Surveillance of Americans Without Fourth Amendment Protections
This is why the current weapons laws are completely backwards. The weapons that are illegal are exactly the ones we need to protect democracy, and the weapons that are legal are exactly the ones we should ban.
For instance, there is no reason for handguns to be available. They are not tools of war so much as of murder.
Antitank weapons, RPGs, and heavy-caliber machineguns, however, we should have. You can't arm a rebellion with the "Saturday night specials" used to rob take-out pizza restaurants.
I know that at first glance this sounds absurd, like I'm trying to write satire -- but I'm not. It's true that I'm not sure that I'm entirely serious, but I really do think that the logic is there.
I am directing my money toward those candidates who genuinely fight this absurd bill. I'm still hoping Obama will rejoin those ranks, but until then there is no shortage of campaigns I can contribute to. The 128 House Democrats who voted against it, for example.
(Oh, and I am noting who voted which way on this one. In two years I will be picking amongst about 105 primary challengers. Pelosi, Hoyer, I'm looking at you.)
All that said, voting third party is more effective than not voting at all, and whoever modded you flamebait is an idiot for doing so.
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.
Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.
Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet
Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications
Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards
Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy
How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers
I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.
People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.
That's fine.
Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"
Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.
I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.
I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.
If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.
This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.
Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.
For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!
I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.
Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).
he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"
The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,
Tweet, tweet.
If Obama wants to get the money and support of the democrat party
Obama doesn't need party funding. He's got the largest war, er campaign, chest by collecting millions of dollars off of individuals over the net. Actually he went back on his pledge to use public financing because he's doing so well fund raising. McCain is starting to use that as an issue.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.
As a lover of conspiracy theories, though, I believe the oil companies are intentionally jacking up the price of gasoline to make it extremely uncomfortable (and to reap greater-than-usual profits).
Then, around October, the price of gas will plummet to about $3/gallon, and Bush will look good, and McCain will ride his coattails into office.
It's unfortunate that the price of a gallon of gas may determine the outcome of this election. It makes the entire process susceptible to manipulation by powerful corporations.
Nothing new there, really. Corporations already have more say than citizens. Look at the subject of this thread for evidence. Retroactive immunity has been shot down before, yet keeps coming back like a zombie in a bad movie.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.