Slashdot Mirror
Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill
shma writes "This morning the senate has a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate on the FISA bill which grants retroactive immunity to telecoms who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have pledged to try and filibuster the bill, but require the vote of 40 senators to keep the filibuster alive. The article states that a similar 'threatened filibuster failed in February, when the Senate passed a measure that granted amnesty and largely legalized the President's secret warrantless wiretapping programs.' Should they lose the cloture vote, the bill is all but assured of passing. A proposed amendment stripping the immunity provision from the bill is also expected to fail."
Skipping a vote to avoid controversy is worse than taking a stand, even the 'wrong' stand. It would be nothing but cowardice. If he really believes what he says he'll vote against it.
Then again he skipped a LOT of votes in Illinois as a State Senator, probably for similar political reasons.
I simply don't understand why the Bush Administration doesn't want to use retroactive warrants. Spy on whoever you want just make sure you submit the warrants to the FISA courts later.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Which is the worst move he could make. If he wants to present himself as a leader, he needs to show leadership on such an important issue. He's done nothing so far on this, and many other issues. I can't think of a bill which has Obama's name attached. If you like his legislation or not, at least McCain has done something - McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman...
Once again, you'll have to choose for the candidate that goes backward the slowest...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Call and remind your representative that he or she has an oath of office and a public image to sustain, and voting for this bill cannot possibly be a supportive action for either.
Seriously, if this thing passes and becomes law, it should be the job of every /.er to write to their local newspaper and lambaste their representative for voting in support of a bill which violates every citizen's constitutional rights, and aids, abets, and forgives those who broke the law in ante facto.
Conversely, if a /.er's rep votes against it, that /.er should write in support of their representative's action.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Well, it's great that Dodd is filibustering this insane bill, but quite frankly I lost all respect for the guy when he supported giving a $300 billion tax-payer funded corporate bail out to Country Wide (who owns 10% of the mortgages in the US) because he's pals with the CEO. At least with Dubya the game is up and everyone knows him and his cronies for the corporate whores and oil lobby monkeyboys they are. With guys like Dobb, who posture around with a BS charade of integrity it's somehow worse. If you're going to be a festering piece of shit, please don't insult me or waste my time trying to convince me you're a white rose.
A-Bomb
As this bill was brought forth by the Democrats and expected to pass by a Democrat controlled majority why isn't this marked with a "Democrat" tag?
Yeah, must be that evil, lame duck Bush Administration using his monarchy powers to get this through with the Republican Sith... ]sic[
Because that would mean they're following the law. To quote a Bush Administration agent, "Badges!?! Badges?!? We don't need no stinking badges!"
That's their mentality.
Both parties are in favor of increasing government control. On one side, you have a party that's voting to increase power because it's what they want to do, regardless of what their constituents have to say. On the other, you have a party that secretly wants to increase power, but has more vocal constituents. So instead of just voting to increase power, they vote to increase power and say things like "it's an election year" and "we can't afford to appear soft on ."
There's *always* an election coming up. If you don't vote for people with a backbone when the chips are down, and keep accepting the excuses, nothing will ever change.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
People laugh at Jesse Ventura when he goes on Larry King and condemns both parties for exactly this kind of bill. But that's one ex-pro-wrestler who has Washington pegged PERFECTLY.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The way I see it, Bam supports the bill with the exception of the retroactive immunity. He has even stated that he will fight to strip it from the bill. If his words are true, he will support the filibuster.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
When you have elected officials, they learn rhetoric, idiocy, and how to play with the body politic. They rarely if ever campaign on what they truly intend to do. Now, in Greek democracy anyone could be elected through a lottery system for a one year term, based on regions of the country. It'd be awesome if we would institute something similar. No more pandering to lobbyists, etc. But oh no, that would be a democracy, and America doesn't want that.
I'm pretty sure they will try TO filibuster since they'll be speaking English.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. That's the line of crap they give us proles & the Telcos have squadrons of attack lawyers who should have knew better, if in fact they were consulted at all. Qwest had enough sense to say no, the rest of them can die in a fucking fire.
There is a war going on for your mind.
This is why your constitution protected your right to bear arms. The rest of the world has spent decades listening to Americans wax lyrical about how and why those rights are needed. If you don't use them now, then everyone who said you were just a bunch of nut jobs spouting empty rhetoric will be proven right.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
... in a Democratic Party controlled Congress? I am not trying to play partisan politics, but it is absurd to think that the party that claims to be "of the people" would bow so easily to Big Business and a President that they have made no bones about despising. This is one of the most patently offensive laws to civil liberties that I've ever seen, and I'm just stunned that there isn't enough Democratic support to either strip the retroactive immunity provision or filibuster the bill. Isn't it the Republican Party's job to acquiesce to big business?
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
* Global Poverty Act (S.2433)
* Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 230)
* Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation
There's three, related to three very different topics, and all were an improvement in my opinion.
As for McCain-Feingold... he violates the spirit of it every time he catches a ride in his multi-millionaire wife's company plane. With respect to McCain-Lieberman, he both spoke against it to the press as the vote came up a few weeks ago, and then didn't bother to show up and vote one way or the other on the bill itself. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he wasn't in a contested race for POTUS nomination at the time.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
You head on down to the Capitol building. I'll meet you there.
They were asked to help their country and got some bad legal advice.
The companies knew they were breaking the law. They have the best FISA lawyers in the world on retainer but decided to break the law anyway.
But it really isn't about the corporations or the outcome of law suits. By granting them immunity the illegal Bush programs will never make it to court and thus the public will never know exactly what went on or how extensive the spying is. Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is obeying any laws at all in an area they can keep in the dark just by mumbling "National Security"?
Well? A politician who needs to compromise in order to get where they want is nothing new.
A good negotiator will give up something he doesn't need for something he does. He doesn't give up something important for something trivial.
Why not show in your post that Obama needs the intelligence community and cannot afford to anger his constituents who have worked hard on a compromise?
If he is elected President, he will be the "intelligence community's" boss. If he isn't elected then as Senator he still holds power over them, not the other way around.
Granted, this compromise stills appears to be a potential death knell for the separation of the real church (big corporate money) and state
A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a vote for a politician beholden to the national religion (money worship and corporations). Both are corporate funded entities. Neither is pro-human, both are pro-corporate.
condemning someone for doing what may be necessary doesn't seem very productive especially when the alternative is someone who works toward very sinister ends as well (looking at you, Mr. McCain).
Dammit man, there are more than two candidates for President!!!!! So far I plan on voting for Barr, even though he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I stopped voting for "the lesser of two evils a while back.
If you say "if you don't vote Democrat or Republican your vote is wasted", well if that's so then a vote for loser Gore was a wasted vote too, now wasn't it? You should have voted for Bush rather than wasting your vote on a loser. Just look at the popularity polls, vote for the guy you think has the best chance of winning and vote for him so you don't waste your vote.
If you follow that twisted corporate logic, then I plan on wasting my vote this November. Wasting my vote on a loser is better than voting for a man who wants me in prison.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I met Dodd once. He was trying to sneak a relative into an event where I was interpreting for foreign dignitaries. The woman working security told him his guest did not have the proper credentials to enter the VIP area. His response was quick:
"But I'm SENATOR Dodds."
She wasn't impressed:
"Yes, I know that. And HE doesn't have the proper credentials."
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
If Obama votes to pass this, you know he is compromised.
If he skips the vote, you know he will not stand up for what is right in the face of intimidation by big business etc - which is almost as bad as the first choice.
If he votes the bill down, then he'll really be showing something...
Unfortunately I don't expect him to show much of anything when it really comes down to taking a risk.
He sounds great, and certainly is better than the other candidate(s), but anyone can get up and talk about freedom and healing, etc. It is an entirely diferent thing to stand up in front of the machine and refuse to play ball or roll over. If he cannot do this, then we're in for more of the same.
Lets get real. EVERY candidate that runs is simply out for the president's job. That is the nature of these beast. The question is, who is likely to make an improvement. At this time, it almost does not matter. Both of these will improve on the disaster that W has left.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, it's a lose-lose. If he votes against it, the Republicans will hammer him to hell about "not being tough on terrorists". If he votes for it, a bunch of his voters will be pissed with him.
How this is different from ANY bill with Republican support since 9/11/01? That's the way politics works. You have to take a stance and fight off the critics.
Then again he skipped a LOT of votes in Illinois as a State Senator, probably for similar political reasons.
That's a load of crap and should be downmodded to oblivion. Obama had an exceptional attendance record in the Illinois Senate, where he cast over 4000 votes in eight years.
Perhaps you're instead referring to his "present" votes, of which he cast about 130 total. Of course, if you knew anything at all about the Illinois legislature you'd know that his use of the "present" vote is entirely normal. And if you tracked his votes you'd see that it falls in line with his policy of using "present" to identify bills that either require further refinement, are unconstitutional at their face, or as part of a larger policy strategy (such as with Planned Parenthood). That's why in Illinois the "present" vote is called a "'no' with an explanation."
I know several people in the intelligence community, mostly hackers, CS researchers, and technical people. They are all against telecom immunity and against the current wiretapping procedures. (One of them actually works for the company that made the P2P throttling software for Comcast). Whenever I discuss the subject, they are sympathetic and tell me that the U.S. government abuses their powers far more than is publicly known.
Things will TRULY be bad when they are afraid to tell me that they are against it.
Come on, do you really think there's a non-trivial number of people willing to take up arms against the government at this stage? Hell, most of the most strident 2nd amendment boosters are the ones that are most vocally defending these types of bills and defending the President's right to take away our civil liberties in the name of "security".
Saying we have the right to overthrow the government by force is nice and all, but if you think it's actually going to happen any time soon, no matter how many freedoms are taken away, you're delusional. The only way to overthrow governments these days is via military coup, and the military doesn't seem in any hurry to get into politics in this country, and I doubt we'd be in any better shape if they did.
Dammit man, there are more than two candidates for President!!!!!
Don't tell me Hillary Clinton is still at it... "It's just a flesh wound!"
Don't dismiss something as rhetoric if you know nothing about it. Obama actually has a very impressive legislative record. In less than four years the US Senate he's gotten three major pieces of legislation passed:
Google For Government (earmark and government spending transparency)
Counter Weapons Proliferation (loose nukes, etc.)
Ethics and Lobbying Reform (banned a lot of the lobbyist perks)
If you go back to the Illinois Senate the list gets much longer, so it's easier to point to his death penalty legislation as his biggest achievement. The outgoing Governor put a moratorium on the death penalty because of too many questionable convictions. So, the issue spent about a decade treated as a political hot potato on both sides. Working groups were formed and dissolved, but nothing got resolved.
Obama took on the issue and got a compromise bill passed by an overwhelming majority. The only way he could do that was to get the police unions and civil rights groups to agree on a fair set of procedures for things like interrogations in death penalty cases. Just imagine what kind of skill it takes to get agreement between cops and the ACLU.
Anyway, those are just a few highlights. I really have neither the time nor inclination to list all of the major legislation he's sponsored or cosponsored. But that should give you a sense of some things he's devoted his time to.
House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last weeks FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org. CBS News.
Why am I not surprised?
I called my senators; I've never called a senator's office before and I found it to be incredibly easy. Took less than a minute each.
I told them I was from their state and was calling to urge the senator not to support the cloture vote for H.R. 6304 regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that I urge the senator not to support the bill because it takes away rights from every citizen.
You can find your senators' phone numbers at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Obama has missed 42.7% of votes, McCain has missed 61%.
Source
Well, it's a lose-lose. If he votes against it, the Republicans will hammer him to hell about "not being tough on terrorists". If he votes for it, a bunch of his voters will be pissed with him.
So what? He wants to be the president! He better be able to take a stand on things like this. If he can't, then he's wasting our time.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Indeed. To call it a "no with an explanation" is misleading at best, and just plain completely wrong at worst. And I support Obama.
Present == Abstain.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I think your perception of 2nd amendment supporters is a little off. They are generally the ones who do not trust the government on any level, hence the reason to arm themselves. Do you really think those nutjobs out in the middle of nowhere in Montana or Texas really want to give the government the right to freely monitor their phone conversations??
"But this one goes to 11!"
Actually, Obama claimed three pieces of legislation in one of his ads, and FactCheck.org debunked all three claims to varying degrees.
But a more careful review via thomas.loc.gov reveals the following:
110th Congress: 19 amendments to other bills sponsored and passed. All of these amendments (including parent poster's "ethics and lobbying reform" were passed by voice vote or unanimous consent.
109th Congress:
S. 2125, Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. Passed both Senate and House without recorded vote.
S. 3757, Named a post office after someone. House version passed both House and Senate without recorded vote.
A variety of other amendments to other bills were passed as well.
I didn't see any major pieces of legislation at all, and I must have missed the other ones the parent mentioned above (though I was only looking at legislation that became law).
As for compromise, Obama pales in comparison to his opponent.
You head on down to the Capitol building. I'll meet you there.
My ancestors did just that back in 1812, and it worked out pretty well. But you would probably be better off doing it yourself, otherwise your country will end up like Iraq.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
His British what?
I am not a crackpot.
If one is protecting their country from attack, then by extension they are also protecting their homes.
Also, the reason behind that amendment was also to allow people to protect themselves from the government itself. Granted, Shays Rebellion was a failure and occurred during the Articles of Confederation, but few questioned the right of the people to use guns against the government. In fact, if you go to the Wiki page, you will see Jefferson's quote that you cited as well as the sentences leading up to that quote. In effect, Jefferson said that uprisings and rebellions are a good thing that should happen from time to time.
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis of the arguments before the court.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In other words, I don't think they had the idea of people owning guns to protect their home and overthrow the government, but more for the idea of protecting the country against attack."
False. The "well regulated militia" part is a subordinate clause. And, if (as some scholars argue) you take "well regulated militia" to mean "all adult males, properly equipped to fight", the amendment still works.
If you read the supporting documents of the Founders, this becomes clear. It's quite explicit that the 2nd amendment is framed to be the final defense against tyranny.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Most Democrats did vote against the bill, 128-105, with only one Republican voting against and ten not voting. It's fair to point out that nearly half the Democrats in Congress, including many of their leaders, are also involved in this attempt to subvert the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, but to try and pretend that the Republicans aren't the greater offenders here is just wrong.
Attention moderators: if reading facts that contradict your opinion makes you want to flame someone, that doesn't mean he's writing flamebait, it just means you should be less flammable.
You simply gather together a bunch of morally bankrupt lobbyists and get major corporation to fund them and provide them with sufficient capital to funnel that cash to a bunch of criminal politicians. Also you arrange for a proportion of those bribes to go to, well, somewhat less than Christian leaders of the various Christian right organisations, to ensure a whole lot of blind, listen to the words but ignore the actions, voters , do the right 'er' wrong thing.
To push it all along you get the government department that is meant to ensure that mass media organisations do not become monopolistic, do not become a one eyed voice for the majority shareholders ands sociopath corporate executives, to do the exact opposite a work towards turning mass media into a propaganda network for endless war and corporate fascism.
Now it also helps if you get the telecoms to start monitoring everyone who disagrees or might even consider disagreeing as well as every opposition politician and their supporters, to keep one step ahead of them and to ensure you can enact measures to isolate them.
There you go, everything you need to over throw a government and blow me down but, you don't have to look to far to see the evidence of it. Now I can think of one reason why the immunity bill might make it through. It really all boils down to how much dirt the telecoms were able to dig up on the various political leaders and how much of this dirt would appear as evidence if those telecoms were prosecuted. Take a very careful look at the ones voting for immunity, they are likely not voting for the telecoms immunity from prosecution, so much as they are, voting for their own immunity from prosecution, really nasty stuff.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I heard about a lady at an airline ticket counter who wouldn't give a VIP something he asked for. He looked at her and said, "Do you know who I am?"
Her response was to get on the intercom: "Security, we have an amnesiac at the ticket counter."
You really need to learn how to use thomas.loc.gov properly. Although, if the best you've got is to knitpick an ad, then it's no wonder you don't understand how to use a simple website. Honestly, the biggest complaint in that FactCheck page is that he's touting his accomplishments in the Illinois Senate. They debunked nothing; they just took issue with him claiming to have "passed" legislation (as is their policy) and not noting the Illinois Senate legislation separately.
Now, I do have to admit that I was mistaken on the Feingold-Obama Ethics Reform Bill (S.230)--it hasn't been passed yet. However, here are three major pieces of Obama's legislation passed into law:
Coburn-Obama Google For Government (S.2590)
Global Poverty Act (S.2433)
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation (S.1949)
It's funny really, for all McCain's constant bluster on earmarks it turns out that Obama's the one who's actually enacted legislation to help fix the system (S.2590). Of course, McCain was supposed to be involved in the Obama-Feingold Ethics Reform Act too, but he turned the first attempt into a very public, partisan car wreck. The resulting bill ended up being a watered down mess. Fortunately Obama and Feingold had the dedication to revisit the issue and revive the legislation.
As for compromise, it's sounds like you've just bought into the McCain image. The fact is that being senselessly antagonistic doesn't make one a maverick, and flip-flopping for political expediency isn't compromising. You can take almost every issue McCain is campaigning on and make him debate his past positions. He was against the Bush tax cuts and now he's for them. He supported comprehensive immigration reform and now he's against it. He supported campaign finance reform after his Keating Five scandal, and now he's running a primary campaign in violation of finance laws and has established state funds allowing donations of up to $60k per contributor. He claims to be environmentally conscious but has a lifetime score of zero from the LCV and just flip-flopped on offshore drilling. I could continue, but frankly I'm getting bored.
Look, maybe in the future you should be less focused on your candidate's hype and pay a little more attention to the substance.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
"Actually, it's the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution"
The Bill of Rights is nothing more than a name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. And amendments are part of the Constitution, so you're quite firmly wrong on that.
"The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant rights to the people, they provide a list of rights that the government should be unable to take away from the people."
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Constitution does apply to all citizens, and does directly enumerate their rights, thank you Mr. Constitutional Scholar. You're using the same old lame argument that segregationists used, and it's no more valid when you write it than they.
" The actual text is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "
You should read the actual text yourself. The first part lays out the reasoning for the right, but the second part guarantees the right. Even if the circumstances for giving the right have changed (the left-wing "but we have the National Guard now" argument), the right itself still isn't voided. The only way to strike a Constitutional right is the ammendment process. You can't simply have a judge go "oh well, times are different, this right isn't needed any longer". You simply cannot void a Constitutional right without actually changing the Constitutuion itself.
SCOTUS will likely rule on the individual right issue, and if experts are correct, is likely to put this foolishness about the 2nd being a "collective right" to bed forever. There are no collective rights. Rights are by their very definition for individuals.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't take the time to read all six sentences of my comment. I would also encourage you to go back and reread my original comment, or just do a little research on the Illinois State Legislature if you're actually curious about how the "present" vote is used. Either way, please stop pretending to speak authoritatively on subjects you know nothing about. It just makes you look like an ass for getting it so wrong.
I need to learn how to use Thomas? Here's what I found out about your citations in less than five minutes:
109th Congress, S.2590: Half the freakin' Senate (47 senators) cosponsored this bill. Tom Coburn was the bill's sponsor. How does that translate into Obama being responsible for passing it into law?
110th Congress, S.2433: Neither it nor its House version (H.R.1302) have passed. The bill had been introduced in the 109th Congress in the House but not the Senate.
109th Congress, S.1949: Also did not pass. Obama is listed as its only cosponsor.
So if present is just "no, with an explanation" why not just vote NO and give an explanation?
-- Please insert another quarter
But perhaps you can tell me where a guy fits in who:
- Supports the first AND second AND fourth amendments
- Supports abortion rights
- Supports universal health care and malpractice tort reform
- Opposes wacko environmentalists, bible-thumpers, and political-correctness
- Distrusts big business and trial lawyers
- Hates the Iraq War
- Fully supports the Afghan War
- Thinks the government should help the poor more than the rich, but not to the point of fraud and dependency
- Supports higher taxes and less spending
- Thinks the government has a responsibility to balance the deficit before this country goes bankrupt
- Supports putting an income test on entitlements like Social Security
Now, tell me what party speaks for me. Jesse Ventura is the closest thing I've seen so far to my ideals. And alas, he doesn't have a party either.SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.