Senate Delays Telecom Immunity Vote Until After July Recess

ivantheshifty writes with news of a delayed vote (failed filibuster attempt aside) on the updated FISA bill which has been discussed here recently, in particular because it would grant telecom companies immunity (under certain conditions) from suits for wiretapping conducted at government request. According to the Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post, "Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and more than a dozen other senators who oppose telecom immunity threw up procedural delays that threatened to force the Senate into a midnight or weekend session. The prospect of further delays was enough to cause Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to postpone the vote until after the weeklong July 4 vacation."

Comments

Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[paroneayea]

So, there's a chance here, in this brief window of opportunity, to drum up proper opposition to this bill. I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt deeply hurt by Obama not really opposing this bill. Perhaps now's a good chance to get him to show us that he's a candidate of change we can actually believe in?

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Daimanta]

"So, there's a chance here, in this brief window of opportunity, to drum up proper opposition to this bill."

Yes, but it will fail. Tough luck.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Ngarrang]

Obama is lying to his supporters as much as any politician will, if it gets your vote. I foresee him conveniently missing the vote on this one, to avoid having taken sides, to placate all of this liberal supporters in not supporting it, while not giving the conservative the ammo of "he limits your rights!". Wow, lotsa commas in there, sorry about that. Ultimately, Obama and McCain will be blasted by all three sides as the agendas of each see fit.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Erie Ed]

So, there's a chance here, in this brief window of opportunity, to drum up proper opposition to this bill. I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt deeply hurt by Obama not really opposing this bill. Perhaps now's a good chance to get him to show us that he's a candidate of change we can actually believe in?

Don't get your hopes up on that. The big telecos already have the senators in their pockets. Now maybe if all of us /.'ers put our money together we can stop this evil force...

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Obama thought things through before deciding to support this bill. He is essentially a politician, and he does things for political reasons. Getting him to change his mind wouldn't be any easier than getting George W. Bush to change his mind.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Falstius]

Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism. He's between a rock and a hard place, voting against the bill will give serious ammunition to McCain and voting for it hopefully goes against his principles and pisses off the party base. I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place. I think 3rd parties candidates for congress will have record turn out this fall.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[morgan_greywolf]

I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place.

Do you really think that either major party gives a flying fsck about you or about any principles?

Large clue stick: they don't. They care about their campaign war che$t$. That's it. So they are going to do whatever they feel will garner the most cash from their brib^H^H^H^Hlobbyists.

Really. Why are people in this country so naive?

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is essentially a politician, and he does things for political reasons.

I am a politician, you insensitive clod!

-Barack

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Shivetya]

Clinton campaigned as the candidate of change too.

Tell me how much different he was from any other administration. It is nothing more than a motto that implies more than it delivers.

I am concerned strictly by how they have voted in the past. What is more telling are what votes they skipped out on or merely voted "present". The more important the issue that a candidate misses out on or votes present the more damning things it implies.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[stewbacca]

Actually, to me, this actually strengthens Obama's position. It shows he's willing to break from the expected stance, based on party affiliations. If Obama can run with common sense because of issues of National Security, I am comfortable voting for him (his Iraq policy being his only weakness in my book).

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[mspohr]

It's been widely reported that Obama does not support telecoms immunity but he has said he will vote for the bill even if it has the immunity provisions... so no lying here (but I'm not particularly happy that he says he will vote for the bill). The Dems have rolled over far too easily on issues like this under the Republican threat of being 'soft on terrorism'.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Smidge204]

Bear in mind that this is the same "Vital anti-terrorist" FISA bill that President Bush refused to sign last time when it came through without telecom immunity.

In other words, it's all about covering their ass and has little or nothing to do with actual terrorist monitoring. If it was so important for national security, why would Bush refuse to sign it without telecom immunity?

Unless I'm mistaken, all activities started before the most recent FISA bill expired on Feb 2007 are still valid for a whole year, so survielence will continue up to Feb 2008 even if this bill does not pass.

That makes this bill doubly-moot and perfectly "safe" to vote against. Unfortunately the public will never understand this.
=Smidge=

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because most of us have gone to public schools:

"America is the best country"
"We enjoy more freedoms then any other country in the world"
"Join the military, support your country!"

Also, things such as this would not surprise these people, schools have been essentially desensitizing people to this kind of control and unfairness for quite some time, along with montras of how great our country is, and implying how our country (government) can do no wrong by passing laws.

That is why people in the USA are 'naive".

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[FurtiveGlancer]

There's also a good chance of alienating a key vote by bothering them over their break.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[MobyDisk]

Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.

The real mistake here is that they have failed to communicate with the public. This bill does not help counter-terrorism, but they never seemed to have even tried to send that message. They live in a world of neocon spin, and by accepting it they trap themselves.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[monxrtr]

Who cares. Let it fail, and let the politicians voting for it take the political hit to their reputations. It's not going to stand up in the courts anyway. And the Telecom companies can spend extra tens of millions in legal fees defending the law (or let the subpar public defender presidential administration attorneys lose even bigger for them), before it's overturn and thrown away, and they have to defend against civil damages suits later (and perhaps criminal violations).

I foresee Telecom executives being paraded in handcuffs just like we saw mortgage brokerage employees being paraded in handcuffs last week. This is the process by which big city and State Attorney generals get their names in the paper to run for the next terms of governor.

Congress would have been better off passing a legal defense fund act for Telecom companies and executives. So think of this law as more of a corporate welfare subsidy to the legal profession. Just look at the non-stop lawsuits against municipal employees. It wouldn't surprise me if massive corruption kick backs were involved in setting up such law suits to bilk taxpayers money toward law firms.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[TubeSteak]

I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html

The war spending bill, for example, includes $162 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending on programs such as unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans. Bush, who had threatened for months to veto the legislation, said he will sign it.

Leading Democrats acknowledged that the surveillance legislation is not their preferred approach, but they said their refusal in February to pass a version supported by the Bush administration paved the way for victories on other legislation, such as the war funding bill.

The Democratic leadership feels that increased veterans benefits & increased unemployement is more important than rejecting de facto telecom immunity.

The Democrats are literally allowing their votes to be bought by the Republicans.
/Shame

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Nimey]

You must be joking. The Supreme Court, I guarantee, will allow this law to stand by 5-4... assuming that it would even grant that a plaintiff has "standing" to bring the suit. The 4 conservative justices would almost certainly find for the government, and Kennedy would probably go with them.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Intron]

"I foresee him conveniently missing the vote on this one"

Good call - Vote Smart says his record on FISA, Guantanamo and Real ID is to be "out of the loop".

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[EllisDees]

>Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.

Honestly, who cares? The Democrats won the house in the last election by running on a 'Get out of Iraq' ticket, which could have certainly painted them as soft on terrorism, but they won by a landslide. Most Americans recognize what a sham the whole thing has been at this point, and a politician who panders to the opposition like this doesn't deserve our votes. I was seriously thinking about voting for Obama this fall, but this has made me reconsider throwing my vote away on him.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[orielbean]

try a dash or a semicolon in place of some of the commas next time - it helps break up the flow of your thoughts.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Miseph]

Maybe you should move out of the Bible belt to somewhere that actually wants to run decent public schools.

I went to public school, and that's not at all what my curriculum sounded like. In fact, I seem to recall that my 10th grade U.S. History teacher was the first person to ever suggest reading Howard Zinn. It came up early in the semester when he was describing how bad the previous textbook had been in terms of pro-Anglo-American bias and hawkishness; he'd apparently tried to instead of merely replacing it with something less bad bring in A People's History and use both and also give us a lesson in finding a reasonable middle ground between extremes. I'm kind of sad he failed.

I also had an economics teacher who, when asked what type of economy he supported, would basically say that if he weren't a highly educated member of the upper middle class who'd been born into reasonable privilege and never really been a part of the underclass, he'd probably be more comfortable describing himself as a Communist, but as it was felt like something of a fraud. I admit my school holds a place on the tail end of a bell curve.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the Constitution explicitly states that no "ex post facto" laws can be passed, I fail to see how conservative "strict constructionist" judges would let it stand.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[UncleTogie]

Probably because most of us have gone to public schools...

Not all public schools are the indoctrination type. Some of the most fun I had in high school was {with friends, and surprisingly administration support} was forming the "Anarchist Party" during student elections... Worked well enough that they had to start bribing students to vote. ;)

...and ended up doing similar to a local mayoral election. We forced a run-off {in a city of around 1,000,000, it only took around 500 votes!} that cost the "evil" candidate around $200,000 of his OWN cash. He made it in, but he was frazzled, and quickly became a laughingstock for insisting his campaign manager was stalking him.

Not all of us buy the "happy, shiny America" line.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[sumdumass]

The party wouldn't be pissed off if they actually paid attention.

Under existing law at the time, the telecoms should have have immunity already. the so called lawsuites aren't really about damage, they are to find dirt on the administration because the telecoms would simply show the orders they received authorizing the taps and all. But there is a hitch, the administration has declared them all classified and remanded them as a state secrete which means that the telecoms can't give any of the information out.

What this particular bill does isn't "provide immunity", that was already there. It provides a vehicle to where the telecoms can use a lawful defense that they already have available to them but can't because of the administration's actions. For some people, they seem to think that getting the administration is so important that we can effectively post facto remove rights under a law and abuse that in order to persecute an action of the government. This bill, in all it's luster, does not say that the telecoms can't be prosecuted. It says that if certain things are true and the telecoms should have had immunity or an affirmative defense already, that certain actions like the AG certifying whether they ordered a tap or not, so the laws in place at the time of the action could be exercised without disclosing "state secretes" and placing them in a violation of another law.

It is a little disingenuous to make a claim that this bill give immunity. It actually gives access to rights under the law that existed when certain actions happened which equate to immunity. So it doesn't give immunity, it gives access to immunity that should have already been in place. Now this doesn't mean that if the telecoms did anything illegal, they will get off. It means that if they did what the government asked under the presumption of a lawful order, whether acting under color of law or not, they can finally realize the defense already available to them under the law which was removed when it was classified and deemed a state secrete.

To all those that say they shouldn't of had the immunity in th first place, That's fine. But removing a law after the fact in order to go on a personal vendetta is one of the most heinous breaches of trust we can do. When a citizen or even a corporation looks to the law for guidance in an action, we shouldn't be changing the rules after that action happened. You wouldn't like life in prison for speeding because 2 months after you were caught speeding, they changed the speed limit on the stretch of road to 30 MPH lower making your penalty a newly found felony reckless op with no tolorance. I'm sure it would be even worse if you weren't allowed to make the claim that the speed limit was 30 or 50 MPH higher when you drove down the road meaning that you were only 5 MPG over the limit when that action occurred.

Section D of the law 2520 says

(d) Defense.-- A good faith reliance on--
(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;
(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2518 (7) of this title; or
(3) a good faith determination that section 2511 (3) or 2511 (2)(i) of this title permitted the conduct complained of;
is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.

Number 2 mentions 2518(7) which says:

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines th

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Abcd1234]

It shows he's willing to break from the expected stance

"Expected" only because it was his own, previously expressed stance.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[darkshadow]

They wanted the extra week of fundraising before caving.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[visualight]

Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.

Telecom Immunity is the primary reason and purpose to this bill, and everyone in Congress knows this. They think we don't realize that however, and the spin on TV reflects that disconnect. For some reason, they see their spin and talking points on CNN and they think that's all most of us are aware of. That's why I'm so pissed. When Barak Obama goes on television and says something like "fight terrorism is more important than suing phone companies" he's lying. He knows damn well that this Bill brings nothing new to the fight against terrorists, it only shields people who broke the law.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[roystgnr]

Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.

Yup. And his two possible reactions include the moral and intelligent response:

"I'm willing to fight as hard as it takes to preserve our Bill of Rights against anyone who would try to use terror to take those rights away from you."

Or the immoral and stupid response:

"I'd kinda like to do the things I'm being accused of, but I must not have any good reasons for it since I'm willing to cave as long as I'm pushed hard enough."

The Republicans and Democrats often get stereotyped as the "Daddy party" and the "Mommy party"; perhaps the "Wife-beater party" and the "Co-dependent party" would be more accurate by this point? Would someone call Social Services already?

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[T.E.D.]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt deeply hurt by Obama not really opposing this bill. Perhaps now's a good chance to get him to show us that he's a candidate of change we can actually believe in?

As long as its a cloture fight, and he stays out on the campaign trail rather than comming back to vote to stop the filibuster, Obama's essentially one more vote on the side of the senators fighting the bill. I'd rather see him on the Senate floor supporting the filibuster and using this as more fodder for his campaign (with free national media coverage to boot), but at this point I'll take what I can get.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[mitgib]

Now maybe if all of us /.'ers put our money together we can stop this evil force...

I donate to EFF whenever possible, they seem to be the most in-line with my thoughts and feelings on most of the issues they raise. I do believe they offer a monthly subscription as well.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Sloppy]

Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism.

But if he votes for retroactive immunity, he's "soft on crime" and threatening to civil liberties. I'm not saying it isn't worth a few thousand dollars to him to vote in favor of crime, but there's no way he (or anyone else) can do it and not look dirty.

Of course, McCain has the same problem, so it balances out.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Joeyspecial]

I disagree, I don't think judges like it when the legislature tells the courts what to do. Sometimes 'my branch vs. your branch' trumps political affiliation.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[drinkypoo]

Not all public schools are the indoctrination type.

The officially recommended curriculum and the choice of approved course materials are mandatory in some cases and have a chilling effect even when only "recommended" in practice - and are even then most frequently mandatory in all but name. Everything down to the pledge of allegiance is designed to be manipulative - you are no longer required to pay obeisance to Yahweh, but the entire culture in public school is one of conformity.

We forced a run-off {in a city of around 1,000,000, it only took around 500 votes!} that cost the "evil" candidate around $200,000 of his OWN cash. He made it in, but he was frazzled

He had two hundred large to blow on this election and he was "frazzled" and you're happy about the outcome? Odds are that money should never have been his to begin with, and he didn't know what to spend it on anyway.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[drinkypoo]

You wouldn't like life in prison for speeding because 2 months after you were caught speeding, they changed the speed limit on the stretch of road to 30 MPH lower making your penalty a newly found felony reckless op with no tolorance.

Ah, a car analogy! I believe I can come in and clarify things here once again. (dun dun dun DUN!)

The actual situation here is more closely analogous to a turn on a 50 mph road around which the safe speed is, say, 15 mph, but which is not posted. You go around the turn unsafely at 50 mph and somehow make it, but you seriously endanger the lives of others.

Performing an illegal act is not legal, no matter who instructs you to do it. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier or a telecom exec. That's why we have such a thing as "war crimes" and that's why a violation of the privacy of millions of Americans (or anyone, but this is happening in the USA after all) should be punished regardless of who told them to do it.

The law, while it is by definition the law of the land, is not the highest standard. It's simply the codified standard.

I mean, it's arguably legal for Bush to declare himself dictator, but would it be right?

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[UncleTogie]

He had two hundred large to blow on this election and he was "frazzled" and you're happy about the outcome?

Yup. He had to spend money to win a political position where he was regularly ridiculed until he left office. A local public access show had a royal mad on with this guy due to his allowing a killer nurse to go loose so his hospital wouldn't look bad. So yeah, making the guy pay 200 grand to get made fun of is just ducky.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a long winded, foul smelling, pile of crap. A perfect example of why you shouldn't pretend to be a lawyer.

Under existing law at the time, the telecoms should have have immunity already.

Bullshit. FISA was the operative law at the time. The law was decades old and its provisions and procedures well understood.

the telecoms would simply show the orders they received authorizing the taps and all. But there is a hitch, the administration has declared them all classified and remanded them as a state secrete which means that the telecoms can't give any of the information out.

Wrong. Warrants, warrants, warrants. That's what was required and the telecoms knew it. You are trying to say the corporations have a defense if they can say "the government told us to do it". Not so. The law was clear: warrants from the FISA court required.

For some people, they seem to think that getting the administration is so important that we can effectively post facto remove rights under a law and abuse that in order to persecute an action of the government.

What's up and what's down, Alice? There were no rights in the first place. You have managed to totally flip reality. Are you a clever liar or mentally challenged? It's hard to tell.

The rest of your ridiculous post is premised on this crap and salted with misguided links to law sites in a sad attempt to add legitimacy. It doesn't work.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[zippthorne]

no "Ex post facto" laws means (and is intended to mean) that you can't make something illegal after-the-fact. Not that you can't absolve people of wrongdoing, or make something that was illegal legal.

"Ex post facto" is not the appropriate grounds to object to the telecom bill.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone like BlueAmerica should run ads in those districts where (A) House members voted for the bill but previously opposed it, (B) the representative got a ton of $ from the telecoms, and (C) a Senator is also up for election. (I think that's one senator per state). The ad should look like this:

"In 2007, Representative Smith was against letting phone companies get away with illegally spying on American citizens. That is, until the phone companies gave his campaign $X,000. Last week, he voted to change the law to retroactively get the phone companies "off the hook". Even worse, he voted to block citizens from ever finding out the truth of what happened.

Next week, it's Senator Johnson's turn to vote. Senator, will you vote for rule of law? Or the rule of big companies? We'll be watching."

(I hereby release the above text to the public domain, JIC)

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[sumdumass]

Ah, a car analogy! I believe I can come in and clarify things here once again. (dun dun dun DUN!)

The actual situation here is more closely analogous to a turn on a 50 mph road around which the safe speed is, say, 15 mph, but which is not posted. You go around the turn unsafely at 50 mph and somehow make it, but you seriously endanger the lives of others.

Actually, if your going to go that route, imagine the sign said caution 50 MPH curve ahead when it should have said 15
MPH. Either way, your or mine, you did not break any laws and if you did, instructions from the state (the speed limit sign) saves you from prosecution or lawsuits.

Performing an illegal act is not legal, no matter who instructs you to do it. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier or a telecom exec. That's why we have such a thing as "war crimes" and that's why a violation of the privacy of millions of Americans (or anyone, but this is happening in the USA after all) should be punished regardless of who told them to do it.

Actually, as the is written, it doesn't extend your violation to me if you presented me with authentic documents. Seriously, would you get busted for counterfeiting if you received counterfeit bills as change from your dinner? Would you be guilty of breaking the law? If you goto the store and buy a radio that was stolen when a truck going to a different store was hijacked, did you break any laws? The answer is no because you have to be aware of your violations for receiving stolen property to kick in. You definitely aren't locked into the stores theft of the truck or guilty of anything they did. The existing law says that they have a defense if they were presented with authentic documents. Because someone else broke a law doesn't make them guilty or in violation of anything. Why, because they took no action that was knowingly illegal. Even though the program might have been, the authorization presented to the telecoms showed that they were complying with a lawful order.

This has nothing to do with war crimes and can't remotely be compared to the concept either. The analogous comparison show how stupid one person can be.. A war crime is an action that the person should have known wasn't right. It involved murder, rape, and so on. The telecoms were instructed by law to accept certain documents and provide wiretaps or access to facilities for wiretapping pertaining to the people listed in them. This has all been assumed and proven to be legal. Now, when the administration does not follow the law and presents those documents to the telecoms, they are doing nothing but following the law that is legal. That is why the law gives the "a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law."

The law, while it is by definition the law of the land, is not the highest standard. It's simply the codified standard.

That might be true but you cannot use other laws of the land in contradiction to this law. The courts can't be used either. At best, they can declare the law unconstitutional but because of the post facto clause, any infringement before that time can't ignore the law as it stood when it happened. That was the entire point of the car analogy. You changed the analogy but not the point it made.

I mean, it's arguably legal for Bush to declare himself dictator, but would it be right?

This sort of shows how far off you are. Bush can't declare himself dictator but we can make him one. All it would take is a constitutional amendment and 3/4s of the senate or the states to agree with it. It could be instituted by congress or the states. And no, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it if that is what the country wants. But there seems to be a problem with connecting reality with your Ideology. You see, Bush can't do that on his own, he has never suggested that he wanted to or would, and this concept has absolutely nothing at all to do with the telecoms neither in your head or real life.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a long winded, foul smelling, pile of crap. A perfect example of why you shouldn't pretend to be a lawyer.

Lol.. You got some real class there buddy.. Perhaps you should second guess your entire life.

Bullshit. FISA was the operative law at the time. The law was decades old and its provisions and procedures well understood.

How did you not read the sections of the law when I pasted them right into the post that you are replying to? I mean did you even bother reading it or are you just screaming to hear yourself scream while thinking that if you ignore something it will go away. The law says it "is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law." Do you understand what that means? It means that under any law, if that is true, it is a complete defense. This means that no law, even FISA or one created tomorrow can defeat that law's claim of it being a defense unless that law is changed.

Wrong. Warrants, warrants, warrants. That's what was required and the telecoms knew it. You are trying to say the corporations have a defense if they can say "the government told us to do it". Not so. The law was clear: warrants from the FISA court required.

Dude, I provided links to the laws and everything. If you still can't get it maybe you should just shut the hell up. The law, not you or your friends, or your mom, but the LAW decides what is and isn't needed and what is legal and what isn't. Again, this was presented to you when I copied the texts of the law and pasted it into the post and you somehow missed that. Now don't pretend that you looked it up yourself, I have presented links to the laws so you can do so and you still failed. Perhaps it is time you stopped commenting on important things like this. Tell your mom I want to speak with her when she gets a chance.

What's up and what's down, Alice? There were no rights in the first place. You have managed to totally flip reality. Are you a clever liar or mentally challenged? It's hard to tell.

Wrong, when a law says you have something as a complete defense you have a right the use of that law. And because your mental aptitude isn't large enough to comprehend the information before you, it doesn't make me or anyone else a liar. It makes you severely handicapped though. I seriously don't know how to dumb it down any more so you can understand it.

The rest of your ridiculous post is premised on this crap and salted with misguided links to law sites in a sad attempt to add legitimacy. It doesn't work.

Lol.. I guess you didn't even follow the links. That's fine but everyone else will. So far you have offered nothing in refute of what I said but your blind faith in that your mom or someone close to you is right. Perhaps you could show where Cornell Law School is representing the laws wrongly or where thomas.loc.gov is presenting false information about bills in the senate. Maybe you know some great insight to some other law that negates all that. But to date, you have managed to only refute by "but, but, but, I don't want anything else to be true".

Seriously, grow up or shut the hell up.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[wclacy]

Why is everyone on /. so hell bent to punish the phone companies for helping to route out terrorists? If you can find any incident in which these phone taps were used to against someone in the US that was not associated with a terrorist then fine go after whoever was involved. Until then I see nothing wrong with what was done by the phone companies! This is a political Witch Hunt! The same stuff was going on when Clinton was in office.

If you want to be outraged over violations of privacy be outraged at the violation of gun rights that has been in place since 1975 in DC.(Where I live everyone owns at least 1 gun most own 5+ and crime is extremely low)

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[drinkypoo]

Either way, your or mine, you did not break any laws and if you did, instructions from the state (the speed limit sign) saves you from prosecution or lawsuits.

NO, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that the laws state that you should not take a turn too fast for you to take it. It doesn't say that as long as you're under the speed limit, that if you run off the road, you're not at fault. Guess your nickname was well-chosen.

Seriously, would you get busted for counterfeiting if you received counterfeit bills as change from your dinner?

No, because counterfeiting is the act of creating counterfeit money.

If you goto the store

You shouldn't use goto.

and buy a radio that was stolen when a truck going to a different store was hijacked, did you break any laws?

What does the truck have anything to do with it? Oh, you mean a radio that was stolen from a truck going to a different store. What if the radio was stolen off a truck that was going to the store where I bought the radio? Is that illegal? Your examples are exceeding the range of your grammar.

The answer is no because you have to be aware of your violations for receiving stolen property to kick in.

That's right, it's called operating in good faith.

An order which asks you to commit a crime is called an illegal order. It is illegal to comply with an illegal order. Period, the end. No if statements allowed with your goto.

The law, while it is by definition the law of the land, is not the highest standard. It's simply the codified standard.

That might be true but you cannot use other laws of the land in contradiction to this law. The courts can't be used either. At best, they can declare the law unconstitutional but because of the post facto clause, any infringement before that time can't ignore the law as it stood when it happened.

But a Jury can decide that someone is or is not guilty of violating a particular law regardless of the letter of the law.

A war crime is an action that the person should have known wasn't right. It involved murder, rape, and so on. The telecoms were instructed by law to accept certain documents and provide wiretaps or access to facilities for wiretapping pertaining to the people listed in them. This has all been assumed and proven to be legal

Uh, what? You're certainly assuming that it's legal, but I have missed where it was proven to be legal. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it has been proven to be illegal by the law and by simple logic: complying with an illegal order is an illegal act. Will I feel the need to type it three times? Beetlejuice!

Bush can't declare himself dictator but we can make him one.

You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you? In a "state of emergency" the president can now seize dictatorial powers for an indefinite period of time. I am by no means in touch with politics, but you are completely out of touch. You obviously have internet access, maybe you should take a little time to acquaint yourself with the world beyond the end of your nose.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[hedwards]

Because, they broke the law, knew they broke the law and should be punished. The feds and telecoms could have used FISA to do the same thing without violating the law. FISA itself sets an incredibly low standard for getting the taps, and it can be done after the fact.

The reality is that there was no legitimate reason for getting the warrantless wire taps, and the administration knows they'd lose if it went to court. Hence the effort to grant immunity.

I'd have modded you flame bait if I had the points. The standard you're setting is impossibly high, you say you need proof, but you're willing to accept the administrations word and automatically declined law suits as good enough. Why don't you move to China, we don't want that kind of thinking here.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[FiloEleven]

It doesn't have to fail. You just have to go about it in the right way. I'm still not entirely sure what that is, but I do know this - it has little to do with the Internet (save perhaps as a way to find others in your area willing to help out or to share resources) and everything to do with local life and dealing with real people.

The first step is to raise awareness of the issue and help people to understand why it is important. This involves a fair amount of work with no guarantee of a big payoff, so I guess you have to weigh your rights against your laziness. If we are lucky, some intelligent, eloquent individuals will write concise documents about the issue that we can use everywhere. We have to make a compelling argument without being argumentative, a task that is traditionally hard for geeks to do. Off the top of my head, I think an FAQ would be one good way to present it:

"What's going on?"
"Why is this important to me?"
"Doesn't allowing these lawsuits hurt our fight against terrorists?"
"If I have nothing to hide..."
etc.

Well-written answers to these and more questions, without a patronizing tone, can and will have an effect on people. Once created, these guys can be printed and posted on telephone poles, stuffed into mailboxes (yeah, I know it's illegal; if it bothers you then mail 'em), and given to interested local businesses (who know a lot more people than you do) to hand out and discuss with their patrons. If you have money to burn, see if your local paper will give you a full-page ad or pack-in - you'd be surprised how willing they are to work with you, especially in small towns (where IMO the information is most needed). This is _by far_ the most important step, because the long-term goal should be to increase issues-based multi-tier rather than party-based single-tier participation in American politics.

As I said though, raising awareness is only the first step. Helping people to realize that "yes, we have a problem, but we can also fix it" comes next. If you are in an area whose congressman voted for telecom immunity, be sure to put that in the document along with his contact information. Reiterate that his job is to look out for your rights, that he failed miserably this time, and that he'll continue to fail unless YOU tell him that he is on the wrong track. Give contact info for your state's senators too and explain that it's even more important to tell them what you think since they haven't voted on the issue yet. If you're really industrious you can provide stationery and pre-addressed stamped envelopes to facilitate a letter campaign.

If that all sounds like too much trouble to you but you still want to do something, try writing a letter to the editor of your newspaper. That's one thing I may be doing this weekend in addition to figuring out how to best awaken the sense of injustice of the residents of my area.

We are a community that is spread out enough to do this sort of thing on a national scale if we get organized. I'm not qualified to do that - I'm more of an idea guy than anything else, and ideas are cheap unless they're implemented (or patent trolled =p) which is why I am focusing only in my area. If enough people decide to do something similar, we will have an effect. That doesn't mean this thing will get killed, but it's all about patterns: if you get into the pattern of caring about what goes on and helping other people to do the same, you start a trend. If you fail to do anything except complain on the Internet, that's your prerogative, but you only enforce the pattern of lethargy that brought us here in the first place and threatens to consume our once-great nation from within.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[sumdumass]

NO, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that the laws state that you should not take a turn too fast for you to take it. It doesn't say that as long as you're under the speed limit, that if you run off the road, you're not at fault. Guess your nickname was well-chosen.

You spelled out that he made it through the turn. That means he did not take it too fast for him to take it. In order to make it through the turn, he would have had to stay in his lane, not lose control of the car, and basically drive like he should have. Now if you meant that he went left of center or lost control of his vehicle, or whatever, then you should state that. Taking a turn faster then the advised speed limit doesn't not constitute a crime and does not in and of itself offer any legal punishment if you make it through the turn.

You didn't say that making it through the turn meant running off the road or anything. I guess you should have my nickname.

No, because counterfeiting is the act of creating counterfeit money.

And according to the law, unless the telecoms specifically tap without being presented with legal authority and when not necessary to maintaining their equipment, the wiretaping law being broken is the government's who illegally authorized it. The law says that the telecoms aren't responsible when presented with certain document claiming authority.

You shouldn't use goto.

I should use anything I want. It isn't like I'm talking to the brightest mind in the country.

That's right, it's called operating in good faith.

Hmnm.. Were have other people operated in this way? The telecoms when they were presented with lawful orders?

An order which asks you to commit a crime is called an illegal order. It is illegal to comply with an illegal order. Period, the end. No if statements allowed with your goto.

Actually no. The damn law says that they didn't do anything illegal. What is so hard for you to follow there? I started by listing the laws, linking to them so you can look them up yourself, and here you are arguing against reality. It is utterly amazing. Don't take this personal, it isn't your fault that congress proved you wrong many many years ago.

But a Jury can decide that someone is or is not guilty of violating a particular law regardless of the letter of the law.

When a law says it is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law., the jury has to follow the law and find them not guilty. I don't understand how you think a jury break the law in the pursuit of following the law. As a matter of fact, it won't even hit a jury. The case is made, the defendant says I have a complete defense, here and here, and then asks for a dismissal before the jury is ever selected. And if there is a question and it does goto court, the jury has to follow the law or it will be thrown out on appeal. It is no different then a law saying the penalty for speeding is $500 and 7 days in jail maximum and the judge ignoring the law and giving you 7 years instead.

Trust me on this. No matter how much you want it to be different, it isn't.

Uh, what? You're certainly assuming that it's legal, but I have missed where it was proven to be legal. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it has been proven to be illegal by the law and by simple logic: complying with an illegal order is an illegal act. Will I feel the need to type it three times? Beetlejuice!

No.. You have a warped brain.. seriously. Wiretapping is legal. No one of competence has ever said it wasn't. What isn't legal is when you don't follow the statutes. But when the telecoms do follow the stat

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I provided links to the laws and everything.

What a dork. You can't even post a message as an AC without outing yourself!

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[statemachine]

In addition to hedwards' comment, AT&T split fiber into NSA rooms across the country. These fibers carried all traffic, not just foreign bound/incoming. Therefore, since a live copy of everything was (still is) being handed over without controls to the government -- that is a warrantless wiretap on everyone.

Based on leaked details of how these NSA rooms were setup, I am absolutely certain that my packets were copied into the NSA room. What none of us know (without lawsuits) is whether this information was stored or inspected.

I want to know why the current president wants to hide wiretaps from FISA. Are the targets and reasons so ridiculous that even FISA would turn off its rubber-stamping machine? Without the lawsuits, we won't find out.

It took malicious jerks like J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon to get Congress to realize there needs to be judicial oversight of these operations. Let's not go down that road again.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Falstius]

I'm going to ignore all the bullshit and ad hominum because this started out as an interesting thread and go back to the linchpin of your argument

The law says that the telecoms aren't responsible when presented with certain document claiming authority.

Were the teleco's presented with what looked like legitimate paperwork?

From my limited understanding that would mean a warrant. If they were presented with a plausibly legal warrant that was obtained illegally then I would agree that they aren't liable. But then why do they need this bill, the case should be trivial to win in court.

Somewhere else it was pointed out that the papers the telecos need to prove their case are sealed for national security. If so then congress should be investigating the administration's abuse of power. Since they effectively aren't, then we the people need to be able to sue the telecos to find out the truth (supposedly the congressional bill allows the case to go to court, but then advises the court to let the telecos win).

Yes it is important to go after Bush, it is not a pointless vendetta. No other administration should think they can get away with this crap.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[wclacy]

Who says they broke the law? Congress? They followed an executive order from the President. You can disagree with that executive order, but that does not make it illegal.

Are you sure that the immunity isn't just to keep someone from the Middle East from suing the phone company for millions of dollars? You must be wanting your phone and Internet rates to go up!

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[wclacy]

Can you tell me another way to use data mining to uncover a terrorist/extremist plot being planned online? Is there any other way to get access to data communications than to tap into lines carrying all Internet traffic? What can be done even with a warrant without a setup like this? Would it be reasonable to put a sniffer box at every house where you have a warrant? Do you think they may notice? You would have to put the box at the ISP and even at that the ISP may not be equipped to tap into a single connection. What if they use the computer at the Library? The only real way to have access to this data is to do what they have done, with our without a warrant. If they have a warrant for xyz they can filter on xyz's traffic.

I would hope they have captured some of my packets that way they know I have nothing to hide.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[sumdumass]

Were the teleco's presented with what looked like legitimate paperwork?

The claim is yes, they were.

From my limited understanding that would mean a warrant.

I'm glad you said limited knowledge because since the 70's the Attorney General and after Carter's Executive order, people he appoints, have been able to authorize wire taps themselves. The order states that they are for foreign intelligence purposes, the targets are a foreign power or entity as the law defines it, and the no us persons would be part of the part the listened to. Upon being presented with a declaration by the AG or the authorized persons thats ordering the tapping of a call, the telecoms are immune to future civil and criminal damages.

If they were presented with a plausibly legal warrant that was obtained illegally then I would agree that they aren't liable. But then why do they need this bill, the case should be trivial to win in court.

Your assuming too much. I already explained this but I will again. The president classified all the warrants and AG authorizations as a national security secrete. The telecoms should normally be able to present the authorization and get off scot free. But seeing how they are classifies, the telecoms, more specifically, the persons offering it as a defense would be committing a felony. The president argues that aspects of the warrants and so on are detrimental to on going foreighn inteligence programs and even file a brief to this matter in an attempt to halt the lawsuits. Traditionally, if the government declared a national security issue, the courts would drop the case not allowing it to move forwards. A judge in California refused to do that this time so the telecoms have to either not present their evidence or face a felony for something that they already have.

This bill isn't really immunity either. It simply requires the AG to certify if it authorized or presented the legal authority to the telecoms on a case by case instance and provides for a "we didn't monitor". If the AG did provide authorization, No court can hear it. It is the same as the complete defense. If they didn't monitor and the complainer doesn't have proof that they were monitored, the the case gets dismissed. If he does have proof, then the telco is liable.

Somewhere else it was pointed out that the papers the telecos need to prove their case are sealed for national security. If so then congress should be investigating the administration's abuse of power. Since they effectively aren't, then we the people need to be able to sue the telecos to find out the truth (supposedly the congressional bill allows the case to go to court, but then advises the court to let the telecos win).

So you understand what your saying here? Your saying that "We the people" should ignore the existing law and persecut someone who should be shielded from it just to extract revenge because the congress is lazy. How about we start punishing the passenger of the car for your speeding too because cop doesn't like the mayors attitude. It doesn't make sense at all. You don't unjustly prosecute someone because your pissed at someone else. This goes against the very essence of fairness and all the rights the constitution is proudly proclaimed to restrict the government from doing. These right include a fair trial and all that happy stuff. Would you like for this to present the precedence for them to ignore giving you a fail trial?

Yes it is important to go after Bush, it is not a pointless vendetta. No other administration should think they can get away with this crap.

It is not important enough to go after him in the same ways that you and others are decrying foul on. In essence, you would be his equal and lack any moral authority to do so.

You can understand the situati

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[yndrd1984]

Who says they broke the law? Congress?

Congress, lawyers, judges - there isn't a lot of debate about whether or not what they did was illegal.

They followed an executive order from the President.

Which has the legal value of a note from your mom.

You can disagree with that executive order, but that does not make it illegal.

If it wasn't illegal, why would they need immunity?

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

reagan ran up monster defict, clinton cut it almost back to zero.
reagan had scandal after scandal screwing over America; CLinton had scandals pretty much screwing anything with a skirt.
SO, yeah, he was different.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[statemachine]

I have two things to say in response:
1.

Can you tell me another way to use data mining to uncover a terrorist/extremist plot being planned online? Is there any other way to get access to data communications than to tap into lines carrying all Internet traffic?

Yes, the telco needs to put an appliance gateway that will only divert warranted traffic into the NSA room. These appliances already exist. However, our telcos are just lazy. With this setup one can divert packets based on criteria in the warrant, such as source/destination IP addresses, and can narrow it down by application and content triggers, if need be. I am *not* simply against tapping traffic. I just want a justification and for it to be presented to FISA for a warrant. Otherwise, expect more crap like Watergate and McCarthy era files (except we won't ever know).

2.

I would hope they have captured some of my packets that way they know I have nothing to hide.

What is your house address and when can I come over and set up video cameras? No? Then you have something to hide. I want that phrase to die a horrible death because it is pure BS.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition?

[ClamIAm]

no "Ex post facto" laws means (and is intended to mean) that you can't make something illegal after-the-fact. Not that you can't absolve people of wrongdoing, or make something that was illegal legal.

Excuse my ignorance, but how does this make any sense at all? I mean, apparently it's possible to grant amnesty to people/companies in this way, but it really just doesn't make logical sense; instead, it appears ripe for abuse.

I guarantee you that

[Anonymous Coward]

this bill will not be voted on until after November.

Which tells us what a hot potato it is and give us time to turn it into a rotten potato for the politicians. IOW, lobby them to not vote for it.

Re:I guarantee you that

[Drakin020]

No, if anything they want to rush it out before November.

Think about it, if Bush leaves office that gives you a 50/50 chance of someone not supporting it. If McCain is elected, he will sign it in, if Obama is elected, I don't think he would.

While Bush is in office, I would think they would want to get it out as quick as they can.

Shameful

[slashqwerty]

If you want people to talk about your fine work you do it just before a big holiday. Then families will get together and chat about how great things are. If your work is a shameful disgrace that you don't want people talking about you do it after everyone returns from their gatherings.

Re:Shameful

[elrous0]

"What are you going do to celebrate America, daddy?"

"Well, honey Daddy is going undercut the constitutional checks and balances and basic civil rights that have formed the basis of this Union since its creation."

"But daddy, aren't you a Democrat?"

"Yes honey, but daddy's very scared of standing up to the President, so he's decided to just PRETEND to stand up--like when you pretend you're a princess."

"Daddy, when will the burgers be done?"

"Sorry honey, Daddy can't reach the top of the grill on his knees."

Re:Shameful

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone should check out this video of a speech just given by SEN Dodd regarding the FISA renewal. Very elucidating. So what is really going on with these proposed amendments to FISA, which if remaining in its current form would still do perfectly well what it was designed for. Carefully think about who is being protected by the amendments and why.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/25/dodd/index.html

Good news

[sixintl]

This is the best outcome anyone hoping to hold politicians accountable for this could hope for. Now they can't just vote and shuffle it off into the past and tell people to get over it; their constituents have plenty of time to slam them with letters and phone calls and make them seriously rethink their support. Is it likely to still pass? Yes, that's the US for you. But now at least the bill's opponents have got a fighting chance.

Re:Good news

[zappepcs]

Yes, and my letter is going to be rather simple so that the message remains clear. I won't have to spend time explaining why they should vote against it, or why it's a bad thing. Simply put, if they do NOT vote against telecom immunity I will work to scupper their next bid for office. That might be voting for an opposing candidate, or maybe just writing in bugs bunny. In any case the best they can hope for if they do not vote against it is a lost vote from this constituent. It will probably be worse than that.

Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[Henry Pate]

The attorney general and national intelligence director on Thursday said President Bush would veto the bill if the immunity provisions were stripped from it.

So it's vital to national security but not so vital if they can't have immunity along with it.
They say they haven't broken any laws but are fighting like hell to make sure they can't be prosecuted.

Is there any reasonable way to appear more guilty?

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[raind]

Maybe were are not cynical enough.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[TubeSteak]

Is there any reasonable way to appear more guilty?

Accidentally give the defense counsel call logs of wiretapped conversations they had with their client?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Al+Haramain+log+wiretap

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[jank1887]

Actually, it's immunity for the telecom companies, not for anyone in the administration who broke laws to get the wiretaps turned on.

I wrote my senator a few months back about the telecom immunity provision. His response (Dem-MD) was that he supports holding the administration, and any specific government individuals, legally responsible if they took illegal steps in getting the warrantless wiretaps. But, he didn't agree with holding the telecom companies liable, as they were acting at the behest of the administration, and he wouldn't want to create future resistance to legal telecom cooperation with the administration by smacking them down on this one.

While I can see his point (put the legal pinch where it belongs on the administration for the illegal authorization), I'd hate to see the telecoms get away scott free when they acted as they did without requiring proof of legal authority for the actions.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[sumdumass]

While I can see his point (put the legal pinch where it belongs on the administration for the illegal authorization), I'd hate to see the telecoms get away scott free when they acted as they did without requiring proof of legal authority for the actions.

what sort of expectation do you have of the telecoms. Under the law, someone presents them with a certification that they have authority for the tap they are requesting. This could be a court order or a certification from the AG or one of the offices designated. The telecoms don't institute a court proceeding to see if the order is legal or anything. They take from the order that they certification is there. they check for a signature and check to see if that signiture is from a judge or the AGs office. If this is done, they did all their part according to the existing law.

So what do you expect them to do that would have satisfied your "requiring proof of legal authority for the actions" statement? I mean the law gives them exemption from recourse if the order was from a judge or the AG and his authorized AG agents. It does this because if any of them request action, it is presumed to have been legal already. It shows that if they have that, the person who broke any law was someone besides the telecoms. I guess what makes this confusing is that the Bush administration Classified all the orders as state secretes and it is a felony for the telecoms or anyone to disclose the orders to anyone. This is why the so called immunity is needed. And this current bill doesn't give immunity, it gives a vehicle to which existing immunity can be reached. It requires the AG to certify if they gave orders claiming they had the authority and provides for a court to review abuse. It is also limited to the areas that is classified.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[Stew Gots]

Under the law, someone presents them with a certification that they have authority for the tap they are requesting. This could be a court order or a certification from the AG or one of the offices designated. The telecoms don't institute a court proceeding to see if the order is legal or anything.

So you are saying that after more than 30 years of FISA the telecomms didn't know that installing taps that suck up virtually ALL the phone and internet traffic on millions of people wasn't illegal because someone may, or may not, have given them a piece a paper? This didn't strike them as the slightest bit odd? Their $800/hr lawyers took one look and said all was peachy keen, no worries? Just how much glue to do you inhale on a daily basis?

Your second paragraph is complete rubbish as well, as another poster noted elsewhere.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[sumdumass]

So you are saying that after more than 30 years of FISA the telecomms didn't know that installing taps that suck up virtually ALL the phone and internet traffic on millions of people wasn't illegal because someone may, or may not, have given them a piece a paper? This didn't strike them as the slightest bit odd? Their $800/hr lawyers took one look and said all was peachy keen, no worries? Just how much glue to do you inhale on a daily basis?

You also want to inclide Echelon and canivor in there too. After all, they are massive taps sucking all information possible in. Perhaps you are also not aware of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. It was passed in 1994 and mandates that the telecoms make access to the facilities and use certain equipment in order for law enforcement and agents to tap phones. I mean your little strawman sounds a little different when there is a law saying that they are supposed to make these types of things happen as well as existing programs that do just as your comment suggests. Perhaps the $800 an hours attorneys simply looked to see if the legally had to cooperate because of the CLEA and if the orders looked valid and came from valid sources because if it did, an existing law gave them immunity.

Your second paragraph is complete rubbish as well, as another poster noted elsewhere.

Only in the vacuum of your mind. I mean you attempted to make something look obscenely ridiculous only by ignoring other things directly related. I'm willing to be that you don't even understand the what the claim of the TSP was about. I'll give you a hint, domestic spying is a lot misleading- that is why only the people opposed to it use that name.

This isn't about what you want, it isn't about what I want. It is about what happened and what is relevant. What I presented is relevent and if you can't see that, then you better look again.

I can imagine how this conversation will play out in your mind.

you: 1 apple plus 2 apples equal 3 apples.
Me: Uhh, there are five apples there.
You: No! there are only three.
ME: your ignoring these two right there.
You: Shut up.. I don't want there to be more then three and three is all we will count.
Me: But that wouldn't be accurate and it would wrongly support the idea that there isn't enough apples for all 5 of us.
You: I don't care! that's how I see it and nothing you do or say can change my mind. Now shut up before I start calling you names.

This is metaphorically how things are playing out. Either look at it all, or don't look at any of it.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[ssstraub]

Your whole point can be invalidated in a single fact: The telecoms and the president are extremely eager to get immunity in there. Do you not agree? It doesn't take a genius to realize they are so extremely eager because they know what they did was illegal under the law at the time and they did it anyway.

Why should anyone respect the law when neither the Executive Branch nor businesses have to?

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[sumdumass]

Your whole point can be invalidated in a single fact: The telecoms and the president are extremely eager to get immunity in there. Do you not agree?

I seriously don't see how that invalidates anything. If we take the arguemtns at fact value and don't impose any preconceived notions, in one hand you have the telecoms who should already be able to present the documents and have immunity under existing law. On the other, you have the administration that classified the documents and claims that releasing them would reveal state secretes. So the telecoms are in a hurry to get the immunity they should already have and the president is hoping to get the issues cleared up before any state secretes get disclosed. That is an accurate representation of the "facts" as they claim. I don't see how that would mean that anything illegal was done nor do I see how your able to honestly put a connection there. Of course it is probably likely that the administration's classifying documents was done to hid improprieties committed by them, and that accusation is speculative at best. But their wrongful or illegal action doesn't make the telecoms actions the same.

It doesn't take a genius to realize they are so extremely eager because they know what they did was illegal under the law at the time and they did it anyway.

It doesn't take a genius to look at the "known facts" and see how this scenario could wanted without any association to illegal actions. The fact that you are convinced that something illegal has been done shouldn't rule your ability to cognitively process the information at hand.

Why should anyone respect the law when neither the Executive Branch nor businesses have to?

Because they can turn the argument back around and use it on you. If you think they should have to respect the law, then using that approach only defeats your goal by allowing them to make the same claims about anyone else who doesn't respect the law. The ends only justifies the means only when the means are consistent with your goals in the end.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[WindowlessView]

You also want to inclide Echelon and canivor in there too

The fact that you don't know the differences between how Echelon, Carnivor, and CALEA taps work obviates the need for further discussion. Not only are you just trying to blow smoke, you make my case.

Perhaps the $800 an hours attorneys simply looked to see if the legally had to cooperate because of the CLEA and if the orders looked valid and came from valid sources because if it did, an existing law gave them immunity.

Perhaps the cow jumped over the moon too because a first year law student would not have confused this with CALEA.

And please refrain from imaginary conversations. Your real ones are puerile enough.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[sumdumass]

The fact that you don't know the differences between how Echelon, Carnivor, and CALEA taps work obviates the need for further discussion. Not only are you just trying to blow smoke, you make my case.

The fact that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you ruins your point. I made no assertions whatsoever at all over echelon, Carnivor, or CALEA taps and how they work other then they are designed (the first two anyways) to suck information up. I made no assertions whatsoever at all about CALEA other than it requires the telecoms to used certain equipment and allow taps to be performed. As long as we are talking about facts, how do you decide what a fact is? I mean nothing I posted was factually wrong, you incorrectly assumed that I didn't know the differences between the somehow and never contested anything I mentioned.

In fact, your case is nothing outside of your head. Are you attempting to say that Carnivore didn't snort the interweb? Are you attempting to claim that Echelon doesn't monitor all communications and listen for key words and records them? Are you attempting to claim that CALEC doesn't require the telecoms to use certain equipment or that it require them to give access to authorizes agents? Because if you are, then your completely wrong. So why don't your stop imagining things and join the real world. Like I said, your strawman sounds a little different when there is a law saying that they are supposed to make these types of things happen as well as existing programs that do just as your comment suggests.

Perhaps the cow jumped over the moon too because a first year law student would not have confused this with CALEA.

Oh yea, this tells the world where your mind is. I make a type and you start thinking of fairy tales and nursery rhymes.

And please refrain from imaginary conversations. Your real ones are puerile enough.

Yes, and please join the real world. If something I said is inaccurate, point it out. Otherwise take your spanking and go on with your life.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>If this is done, they did all their part according to the existing law.

Sounds like a good defense to me, possibly even grounds for a summary judgment. In which case immunity doesn't buy them anything they don't already have. So why do they want it so badly?

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG! Under the law they require a WARRANT* to wiretap. You should look -- Qwest's lawyers pointed out the documentation they were given was not legal, AND REFUSED TO WIRETAP. It wasn't some clear cut case of "oh, what they did was legal because we got a paper saying so." THIS is why telecom immunity should not be passed -- Qwest had
costly contracts cancelled, but stood their ground under the knowledge that the other telecoms were breaking the law and would be fined for it. They SHOULD be fined for it.

*Or, one or two other SPECIFIC types of documents.. not just any letter signed by an attorney general.

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the SC declare your 'detainment' policy to be unconstitutional and a violation of human rights?

Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[sumdumass]

The problem is that the administration has locked their defense away in national security secretes. All the warrants and information surrounding the programs have been classified making it a felony for the telecoms to present it. They want the immunity because they should rightly have it but with those restrictions in place and the administration not budging, the only answer left is either flat out immunity or some means for the AH to certify if they presented the proper documents or not according to each case.

The bill being considered right now specifically allows for the AG to do this. It provides a means for the administration to certify that it presented legal authority to the telecoms without divulging national security secrete. It also has a provision for abuse where a court reviews accusations of abuse and allows the AG to categorically deny accusations when no monitoring took place. I think it is a fair trade. If the government presented the documents to the case, the AG will certify it. If they didn't, then the AG says so and the telecoms are held liable. Frivulous cases get tossed out and if the administration abuses this process, an abuse complaint can get things back to legal.

Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is the Antichrist. He is the charismatic leader.

Certain Conditions

[Kintar1900]

...because it would grant telecom companies immunity (under certain conditions) from suits for wiretapping conducted at government request.

It's important to note that these "certain conditions" boil down to basically any time the administration says, "We really want to".

On the one hand, I'm utterly sickened by the fact that this is still up for debate. No one should have protection from doing something unconstitutional. It was the telecoms' duty as American citizens to tell the government to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and then call the newspapers and blow a huge freaking whistle. On the other hand, I'm glad it hasn't just flown through Congress without any resistance.

Re:Certain Conditions

[tinkerghost]

Actually, from what I read, it's a directive from the executive & legislative branch directing judges to dismiss cases if the Telco has a written request from the Govt requesting a tap. From what I know of judges, there are a lot of them that would look at that directive & decide the paper was too course to wipe their ass with. You do not tell a judge to toss out the law & dismiss a case because you want it done. You either change the law, or argue why the action is within the law - those are your options.

One thing I have never understood in these cases is why the plaintiffs are letting them quote the 60's case of 'State Secrets' unopposed**. If anything that case is the absolute perfect case for why 'State Secrets' shouldn't be an instantly accepted argument to block evidence.

** The current standard for 'State Secrets' involves the govt declaring the results of a crash investigation a 'State Secret' supposedly because releasing the information would provide foreign powers with top secret information about the contents of the plane. This was used to block wrongful death suits by the families of the crash victims. When the report was declassified, the only secret was that the govt wasn't performing maintenance on engines properly.

Re:Certain Conditions

[Kintar1900]

Actually, from what I read, it's a directive from the executive & legislative branch directing judges to dismiss cases if the Telco has a written request from the Govt requesting a tap.

My point was that the written request doesn't have to be a legal warrant, it simply has to be a "note from Daddy" that says it's important that this get done. I think the past eight years should show us that the mechanisms for acquiring warrants exist for a very good reason, and nobody should be allowed to bypass them. We certainly shouldn't tell large corporate entities that they don't have to perform the basic reality check that any individual would do should they be presented with an obviously illegal request from the government.

Re:Certain Conditions

[EgoWumpus]

I think you're correct; most good judges wouldn't deign to listen to an illegal directive. However, the federal courts are being stacked with cronies - people who are going to listen to the directive and know that there is no one that can second-guess that decision.

My biggest fear is that despite seeing the obvious corruption in the system, few people realize the extent to which the neo-conservative (fascist) movement has infiltrated the mechanics of our system. They're breaking down the matrix of checks and balances in a systematic way, and it's going to cost us in the long term.

(Hell, the short term, too, if you consider what this war has done to our economy.)

Maybe a full-scale filibuster failed...

[hyades1]

...but threaten to get between these a-holes and a week off and they'd even put legislation that would save starving children and kittens on the back burner.

It sounds to me like a lot of Senators and Congressmen (from both parties) need to be given a permanent holiday. And the added joy of a fine-tooth-comb tax audit as a going away present.

Re:Maybe a full-scale filibuster failed...

[jank1887]

My government agency just switched from the old pay system to a 'pay for performance' scale. (A lot of us are quite pleased with the change.) I propose Congressional pay be put on a similar scale. I guess the voters would have to regularly determine their performance rating, however. Maybe a few negative pay periods would wake them up a little.

Re:Maybe a full-scale filibuster failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they're all Congressmen and women. The Senate is made up of Senators and the House is made up of Representaives, together the House and Senate make up the Congress. I only point this out because is goes to show you how much the author and quite frankly the whole lot of commentors actually know about our governmental system.

See here for further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

What a Relief!

[FurtiveGlancer]

Now I won't have to worry about the scoundrels for a week. The issue is, am I referring to congress, the telcoms or both? Hmmm.

This is heartening!

[SirLurksAlot]

I thought the bill had already passed, but apparently the last vote was just to stop a filibuster. Now I have more than a week to get my hopes up only to have them dashed again!

Not really opposing? He supports it.

[dreamchaser]

Not really opposing it? He supports it according to every report that I have seen. This is after saying he'd never support the bill if it had immunity for the telcos in it.

Re:Not really opposing? He supports it.

[ya really]

Not really opposing it? He supports [washingtonpost.com] it according to every [cbsnews.com] report that I have seen [cnn.com]. This is after saying he'd never support the bill if it had immunity for the telcos in it.

Sadly, people on here seem to be ignoring that fact. It was posted in another thread (a wired.com article) in the previous telecomm article on /. as well and it was pretty much ignored. I have and had hopes for Obama turning out to be something decent, but the closer it comes to election day, my hopes are slowly starting to decay into apathy once again. I guess there doesn't exist a candidate willing to stand on issues, at least not one who gets elected. I guess I can always throw my vote away to a 3rd party candidate...the election world's equivilant to picking "Cowboy Neal."

Re:Not really opposing? He supports it.

[dreamchaser]

I am thinking that I'll vote for Kodos.

As for Obama, I'm still surprised that anyone at all fell for his trying to come off as some kind of 'new, post partisan' politician who decrys 'Washington politics as usual'. He's no different than any other politician, and frankly having lived in Chicago I can't imagine anyone who isn't a typical dirty lying politician to rise up like he did. Chicago is especially known for it's dirty politics.

I'm not saying he's any more evil than any other politician. I'm just saying that it's the same old same old. Still, many people seem to think he is some kind of messiah.

Re:Not really opposing? He supports it.

[stinerman]

Obama's just doing what every Democrat does after the primary season -- running to the center.

If you look at it from his perspective, he knows he's already got the liberal vote, so why should he try and speak to their issues anymore? He has to go after the "swing vote". You know, the people who pay attention to the elections starting sometime around late October and vote based on network news reports and campaign commercials. It really gets me that ignorant, low information voters are courted more than people who actually try to make a reasoned and informed decision. That's just the nature of one man, one vote.

If we had more than two major parties, Obama (and McCain on the other side) couldn't get away with simply flip-flopping on important issues because the farther left and farther right parties would step in to fill the void.

Re:Not really opposing? He supports it.

[ScentCone]

Sadly, people on here seem to be ignoring that fact.

Yup, just like they're ignoring is somber promise not to use private campaign funds if McCain did the same, because the public campaign finance system was so important to support. And of course, he's completely lied about that, and is opting for big bucks from private bundlers, and has the gall to say it's really his way of supporting change ("Change We Can Believe In!" - [tm]) in the public financing system. Puh-lease. It's right up there with his often repeated assurances that he'd sit down with hostile dicatators for photo ops without any preconditions... um, not counting all of the preconditions that he's now saying would, of course, be necessary for such a thing.

It isn't just that he's a typical politician... he's far worse, because the ONLY thing he has (had) going for him, since he utterly lacks executive experience and studiously avoids exposure to the foreign policy players and issues that are so important, was his supposed pristine post-partisan ethics. He's been saying, essentially, the despite his lack of any experience, the ONE thing you should keep in mind as a reason to vote for him are his pure, unflappable convictions and character. And he's very handily been demonstrating for months that those are simply not present, or at the very least no more so than in many other politicians... and since the others DO have some experience and a more rational take on the issues about which Obama is thrashing around, you've gotta wonder what people actually think they're voting for with this guy. Other than some vague and pointless racial guilt soothing (another topic on which he's trying very hard to have it both ways).

Re:Not really opposing? He supports it.

[ScentCone]

There we go! There's the flamebait mod from one of the very people I'm talking about. Thanks for being so predictable! Obama is counting on that, too. Excellent work. Now, do as he says, and write a check to Hillary Clinton like he did today, since it's the right thing to do. How can you not like a guy with priorities like that? She agreed to endorse him if he agreed to get her back the money she loaned herself. Party Of Unity, man!

Deal with it!

[khasim]

Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism. He's between a rock and a hard place, ...

So? Deal with it! He wants to be the President. And he's willing to fold on this issue? Just because he MIGHT not be elected if he doesn't fold?

Courage would be standing up to the Republicans (and the bought and paid-for Democrats) and saying that we do NOT need this law and that it would violate our Constitution.

Folding just so he can be elected ... that's the opposite of courage.

Take the fight to the Republicans. Explain to the people HOW this bill is needed or NOT needed. No more of the platitude of "fight terrorism".

Re:Deal with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only hope remaining is that the law is unconstitutional.

Fat chance of that though.

Re:Deal with it!

[Aiyeeeee]

Keith Olbermann put up a post on this last night on Daily Kos explaining that John Dean calmed his fears about Obama's stance. Dean observes that the bill would "only" pre-empt civil suits and that Obama's ammunition is that his AG (if Obama is elected) would prosecute. I don't find Keith's rationale for supporting John Dean convincing, basically because it boils down to "John Dean is brilliant and I'll trust his expertise." Besides, it's a big risk to take. And no mention is made of the fact that Obama had earlier said 1) he would vote against retroactive immunity, and 2) would support a filibuster. Guess not so much. Glenn Greenwald differs with Obama's position and with Olbermann's giving Obama a pass, and has explained why.

Re:Deal with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't argue their relative strengths as lawyers but Greenwald has been and remains the definitive source in the press/blogs on all things FISA and immunity. The guy is simply superb on this issue and impressively prolific. After reading his material and then reading or listening to the MSM you just want to pull your hair out over what a collection of witless posers most of the talking heads really are.

Re:Deal with it!

[sumdumass]

Obama's ammunition is that his AG (if Obama is elected) would prosecute

That actually won't happen. I suggest that you read the extent of the texts in the bill and existing laws. It provide a legal remedy to authenticate whether or not the telecoms where acting in accordance with the law at the time. When the AG takes a case out of a civil court the AG has to certify that it was at their direction and that they presented it as a lawful order. There are no real criminal punishment avenues available if it was. At best, they can go after the people who authorized the taps but not the telecoms who aided once it is demonstrated that they were working under the seemingly lawful orders of the government.

Re:Deal with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

"At best, they can go after the people who authorized the taps but not the telecoms who aided..."

And that is exactly who is trying to push this bill into law. The telco's are shills for a couple douche bags in the good ol' boys network who don't want to be found out.

Merely a delay...

[coreconcern]

I'm sorry, but telecoms gaining immunity fits far too perfectly in America's paradigm. Thomas Paine has been rolling over in his grave since the mid 70's. I'm surprised the right to bear arms was upheld in Washington, but that is less of an issue where industry is concerned IMO.

Re:Merely a delay...

[sumdumass]

I'm sorry, but telecoms gaining immunity fits far too perfectly in America's paradigm. Thomas Paine has been rolling over in his grave since the mid 70's. I'm surprised the right to bear arms was upheld in Washington, but that is less of an issue where industry is concerned IMO.

I'm shocked that you think you are surprised. The telecoms already had immunity. Title 18 section 2520 already gave them immunity if the government presented the authority to them (it doesn't require it to have authority, just if the government said it did).

I really don't see the problem. The only reason people are going after the telecoms is to get dirt on the administration. It isn't like anyone was harmed by the program that wasn't already participating in criminal activity connected to the program (suspected terrorists).

Re:Merely a delay...

[coreconcern]

The only reason people are going after the telecoms is to get dirt on the administration.

This isn't the case with myself, and I'm almost certain not the case with a lot of people. This is about every American's right to privacy, and the right to fight back when that privacy has been violated.

It isn't like anyone was harmed by the program that wasn't already participating in criminal activity connected to the program (suspected terrorists).

This reads like the standard "if you haven't got anything to hide then why worry about your right to privacy?" argument. If I'm not suspect in any crimes, then my communications should be kept confidential to the utmost degree. Otherwise, expect to hear from me.

Re:Merely a delay...

[sumdumass]

This isn't the case with myself, and I'm almost certain not the case with a lot of people. This is about every American's right to privacy, and the right to fight back when that privacy has been violated.

So you have a lawsuit against the telecoms because you think your privacy was violated in the NSA wiretaps program? If not, then you aren't going after the telecoms. You are championing the people who are.

I watched an interview with an ACLU spokesperson talking about the lawsuits that they were backing. He said (not in so many words) that "they were more interested in finding out about the administration's illegal activities then they were about punishing the telecoms". It was just that the secrecy of the administration left the telecoms as the only avenue to gain information.

Now, I'm sure he doesn't represent everyone suing the telecoms. But when I look for information about them and their actions, I see inflammatory remarks admonishing the administration which leads me to believe that aren't that far off.

This reads like the standard "if you haven't got anything to hide then why worry about your right to privacy?" argument. If I'm not suspect in any crimes, then my communications should be kept confidential to the utmost degree. Otherwise, expect to hear fro

Lol.. No. It is that none of the current lawsuits allege harm as been done. Just that they have statutory damages coming. It is in support of my conclusion that they are only suing the telecoms to get dirt on the administration.

It is in no way a if you don't have anything to hide, scenario. It is an observation that supports what I claim is happening. You have every right to be concerned about your privacy (especially if your talking to some suspected terrorist) but you have to understand that I was talking about the legal sense of harm; as in did anyone effected, claim damages to anything resulting from the wire taps in their lawsuits. as far as I have been able to discern, no. Just statutory damages.

This delays the inevitable

[shma]

The only reason we have this delay is because the cloture vote occurred on the eve of a week long holiday. When cloture is invoked, there is a limited amount of time you can delay in the senate before a full vote must be held. When the senate returns it will be forced to vote on this wiretap bill, and unless 51 senators vote against the bill, it will pass. I'd like to believe this is possible, but it really isn't. Telecom immunity is all but guaranteed.

One additional piece of information: the results of the cloture vote. Look very carefully at the names under "not voting".

Re:This delays the inevitable

[Hoplite3]

Well, Kennedy gets off with a doctor's note. He's got brain tumors. The others have all tacitly supported immunity by not voting.

It shows a distinct lack of character, but more importantly a total lack of patriotism and also oathbreaking.

They swore an oath to enter the senate to the constitution. This bill tears apart a critical piece of the bill of rights because someone somewhere is afraid of crazy men with beards halfway around the world.

The republicans keep their fascism out front, which embarrasses the hell out the the anti-fascist Paul camp. Hence all the money and whatnot raised by that group. The Democrats court the civil libertarian wing of the party, but always dodge the hard fights. When will the two anti-fascist wings come together for their own party? The EFF already shows that "left" and "right" wing libertarians can work together on some issues.

Re:This delays the inevitable

[shma]

Actually, I was trying to draw attention only to Clinton, McCain and Obama. Byrd has also been hospitalized recently (June 2nd), and may have missed the vote for medical reasons. Although I will note that Byrd was in the senate for a vote on June 12th. The others, though, have no excuse. They are out raising cash for their campaigns (or to pay off debts in Clinton's case) instead of doing their jobs.

Re:This delays the inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I figured Clinton, McCain, and Obama wouldn't participate. But Byrd & Kennedy? What's their excuse!?

Re:This delays the inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

One additional piece of information: the results of the cloture vote. Look very carefully at the names under "not voting".

No doubt they are counting on the public not thinking about the Senate's rules on the requisite majority for a cloture motion: 3/5 of the total membership, not a set fraction of those present and voting. Abstaining has the same effect as voting against it.

Re:Smash imperialism with world socialist revoluti

[I_Voter]

AC wrote:
Forge a revolutionary workers party

--------

Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. - at least as they are traditionally understood.

We now lack enforceable party platforms. This weakened the ability of the citizens to make deals between different interest groups in society. IMO: A classic case of "divide and conquer." (the electorate)

Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8

Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
As found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002

Cowardly, stupid Democrats.

[straponego]

Almost every Republican supports this crap, and enough Dems do that their majority is useless. For example, in the House, the R's voted for this bill 188-1. The Dems 100-128. Yet you will notice almost all the comments from people against this bill blame the Dems (because, hey, they have the majority!). And the people who support the bill hate the Dems anyway. So they lose across the board politically... it helps their enemies and it's the wrong thing to do... so why are they doing it? Bribes from telcos? Blackmail from warrantless wiretaps (hey, why do you think so many GOP Congressmen are closeted homosexuals?).

Anyway, there is a non-partisan way to hit back at these bedwetters. A contribution here http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa will support campaigns against anybody who voted to approve this bill.

Re:Cowardly, stupid Democrats.

[MobyDisk]

I'm old enough to remember when the republican party was the conservative party. Maybe about 8 years ago or so.

Re:Cowardly, stupid Democrats.

[TubeSteak]

Yet you will notice almost all the comments from people against this bill blame the Dems (because, hey, they have the majority!). And the people who support the bill hate the Dems anyway. So they lose across the board politically... it helps their enemies and it's the wrong thing to do... so why are they doing it?Bribes from telcos?

I explain why in this post:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=597039&cid=23966415

To make a long story short - bribes from the Republicans is the correct answer.

Re:Cowardly, stupid Democrats.

[NiceGeek]

It's been longer ago than that, trust me. Reagan was the beginning of this neo-con crap.

Re:Cowardly, stupid Democrats.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Not Nixon?

You'd have to go back to a President from an era before most Slashdotters were born to get anything close to one that supposedly represents the Republican party that "only recently" went astray. The fact is Bush is modern conservatism, he's the conservatism almost every self-identified conservative grew up with. They're just having problems realizing that everything they've ever believed in is bullshit.

Re:Cowardly, stupid Democrats.

[NiceGeek]

Well, I can't argue the point. If I had mod points you'd get +1 insightful from me.

Why the Dems Don't Object to Republican Abuses

[WmLGann]

The Dems don't actively oppose some of these abuses (e.g. politicizing the intelligence apparatus, politicizing the Justice Dept., rendition, warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc.) because they're looking forward to this coming January, when (odds are) they will have both houses of Congress and the White House in their control. They don't want to legislate away any powers that they might make use of in the coming four (or eight) years. I think our only hope of a restoration of some of our recently abrogated civil rights is if lots of test cases make it to the Supreme Court. SCotUS is now sufficiently conservative, and will be for some time, that maybe they'll start striking down some bad laws just to spite the other two (soon to be Democratic-controlled) branches of government.

We need more serious political parties, less winner-take-all elections, and more niche representation.

Newsflash

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about Senators opposing FISA. It's about having the laziest fucking Congress in the history of the republic. Sometimes they just convene for a couple of hours to perform mindless tasks like congratulating the latest NCAA football/basketball/baseball champion. What exactly have these bums been up to? Weren't they trumpeting from every rooftop the (bogus) claim that they had a mandate from the American people just 2 years ago? What the fuck do we have to show for it? A congress with a worse approval rating than President Bush. How is that even possible? And now they basically take the next week and a half off. Gee, don't let the country's business keep you from your fucking vacation. God knows you don't get enough of those. Fucking lazy cocksuckers - every last one of them. They wouldn't last a week at a real job.

"Recess" Is Their "Constituent Conference" Time

[Doc Ruby]

People like to point at all the Congressional "recesses" as vacation time for lazy congressmembers. Some probably do fly on corporate jets to Scotland to play golf with strippers, but most of them spend the time flying back to their home district (or state, for senators) and meet with local people to work on their constituents' issues. Sure, those people are primarily local corporate types and other rich/powerful people who live, work or happen to pass through their home office neighborhood. But they're working, and that's the time they're listening to people outside Washington DC.

This bill, with its evil FISA telco amnesty in it, is not a sure thing. It was supposed to sail through last year, and this delay marks the third time it's failed to get installed as law. There are many ways it can die in the Senate, which has many rules letting individual senators kill a bill. So this is an excellent time to call, fax, snail mail, and just physically visit a senator, especially if they're yours, to explain how the Fourth of July is a good time for them to decide to defend the Constitution. Almost all of them will be marching in a parade during the holiday as if they're some kind of patriot or something. You can stand along the route with a big sign saying "NO FISA TELCO AMNESTY!", or print out the bill, mingle in the parade and try to hand it to them saying "read it first, then vote against it when you see that FISA telco amnesty ruins the Constitution". Look at their website for their appearance schedule, and make it hard for them to pretend they love our country while they're busy screwing it over.

Do it while you can, as secretly wiretapping you is only the first step in stealing the rest of your rights.

You can use Obama's contact form to send a comment asking him to vote against FISA telco amnesty.

Here's a list of some senators worth calling, because they're not totally in bed with Bush in every way, and so might not go along with this travesty. See if you can talk them, or their staffers, into doing the right thing, or at least not helping do the wrong thing. Remeber, the telcos will also get to hear you, and they should know they're not really getting away with it.

Bayh (202) 224-5623
Carper (202) 224-2441
Obama (202) 224-2854
Inouye (202) 224-3934
Johnson (202) 224-5842
Landrieu (202)224-5824
McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
Clinton (202) 224-4451
Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
Pryor (202) 224-2353
Salazar (202) 224-5852
Specter (202) 224-4254
Feinstein (202) 224-3841
Webb (202) 224-4024
Warner (202) 224-2023
Snowe (202) 224-5344
Collins (202) 224-2523
Sununu (202) 224-2841
Stevens (202) 224-3004
Byrd (202) 224-3954
Lincoln (202)224-4843
Reid (202) 224-3542
Coleman (202) 224-5641
Durbin (202) 224-2152
Smith (202) 224-
Stabenow (202) 224-4822
Kohl (202) 224-5653
Leahy (202) 224-4242
Schumer (202) 224-6542

Re:"Recess" Is Their "Constituent Conference" Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Scottish strippers? *shudder*

While it's hard to overestimate cowardice...

[wonkavader]

I'm betting on "Bribes from telcos".

Re:While it's hard to overestimate cowardice...

[Frigga's Ring]

According to a couple sources, that's exactly what's happening. See http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

I called my Senators!

[Rakeris]

Not sure about all of you, but I called both my senators. Obama being one of them. To voice my opposition to the bill. Will it do any good? Don't know, but I can honestly say I tried. I hope you all will do the same.

Virginia's Senators' Response

[Suicide Drink]

Webb:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me. As you know, the FISA Amendments Act would amend current law by expanding the intelligence community's authority to collect foreign intelligence through electronic means. Having served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy and as Assistant Secretary of Defense, I relied on decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence when I voted in favor of final passage of this bill on February 12, 2008. I also met with a wide variety of people who were both supportive of, and opposed to, these changes. During the Senate debate, I supported a number of amendments that were designed to improve the constitutional protections of our citizens. Further, Senators Russell Feingold, Jon Tester, and I introduced an amendment that would have added additional checks and balances with respect to assessing the appropriate use of surveillance. Unfortunately, this amendment was not passed by the full Senate. After passage of the Senate bill, I sent a letter urging Members who sit on the Senate-House Conference Committee to strike a more appropriate balance between protecting constitutional rights and providing the intelligence community with the tools needed to monitor terrorists. Regarding retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program, I do not support full immunity for companies who aided Government surveillance. I prefer a middle-ground solution that would allow court cases to proceed under appropriate circumstances. For example, I supported an amendment offered by Senators Arlen Specter and Sheldon Whitehouse, which would have allowed the U.S. government to be substituted for telecommunication companies in certain civil actions. I also supported an amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which would have allowed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to determine whether telecommunication companies acted in good faith when complying with government surveillance request. If the FISC determined a telecommunication company did not act in good faith, the company would not be immune from consumers' legal actions. As the U.S. Senate continues to debate matters pertaining to electronic surveillance, please be assured I will keep your views in mind.

Warner:

Thank you for writing to share your views on surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance CourtAct (FISA) court. I appreciate your thoughtful inquiry. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a statutory framework for the federal government to engage in electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence. Under current law, the FISA court, an eleven-member court created by Congress in 1978, reviews government requests to conduct certain domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. If the court finds probable cause to believe that the target of the proposed surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, the court may issue an order authorizing surveillance. As you know, citing his authority under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President authorized the NSA to collect signals intelligence from communications involving foreign persons who were reasonably believed to be al-Qaida members and who called into the United States or someone in the United States. The President's program was intended to fill a gap in intelligence collection for those calls that were not purely domestic and not purely foreign. On August 17, 2006, a federal district judge ruled court ruling in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union determined that the NSA surveillance program was unconstitutional and ordered that t

Contact your Senator!

[Anonymous Coward]

Email, call and write your senators! This is a method that does actually work, and will take only a few minutes of your time. Senators like to get re-elected, and hence listen to masses of upset voters. Sadly, I might be fighting a losing battle on one front, VA's John Warner is retiring.

Tell your friends.

July 4th

[scorp1us]

So let me get this straight, after celebrating July 4th - the day we declared independence from a tyrannical leader, we're going to have the senate vote that the president has the power to command the courts to avoid the issue of illegal wiretapping?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.â" Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

And a select few of the reasons for independence

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Petition...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to create a petition like this:

If FISA bill passes I agree that nationally both the Democrats and Republicans are not in the nations best interest and true change is needed for the Presidential Race. I will vote for a third party candidate for President if this petition reaches 5 million.

Use this extra time to...

[joocemann]

Write your damn representatives and senators. Let them know their job is on the line. People are pretty pissed about this one, we need to stand up and be heard. Write them, protest, march! Lets do this!

Huge Opportunity

[erroneus]

I guess I don't have to say this, but I will anyway.

The point that I find most alarming is that with this thing Bush did, he has made all of our consumer goods and services into something we need to be suspicious or untrusting of. And a point I attempted to make before, this also makes moves in the direction of enlisting all US (and other) providers of goods and services into government espionage programs which makes spies of these people. It is a dangerous and slippery slope short-sighted-Bush has taken us down and it's time to stop the slide before it starts. And YES let the telecoms be sued! They NEED to be sued. The can afford to be sued. And they deserve to be sued! Qwest didn't take the blue pill and the others shouldn't have either. So the issue of right or wrong, or legal or illegal was probably pretty well known by the decision makers when they decided to comply.

I would go so far as to say not only should they be sued as a company, but the actual decision makers should also be sued personally for the abuse of their company resources for illegal purposes and actually removed from their jobs.

All of this, of course, hinges on whether or not this immunity bill passes. It should not be allowed to pass. It's among the most dangerous bits of legislation yet.

Re:Huge Opportunity

[kadehje]

And a point I attempted to make before, this also makes moves in the direction of enlisting all US (and other) providers of goods and services into government espionage programs which makes spies of these people. It is a dangerous and slippery slope short-sighted-Bush has taken us down and it's time to stop the slide before it starts.

(empahsis added)

You're giving the White House way too much benefit of the doubt. Given the measures Bush's administration took to get Congress to sign on to the Iraq war, his insistence of getting the PATRIOT Act re-upped with little changes other than removal of most of the sunset clauses, and everything else that he's done in the past seven years, I'm not convinced I'd call this short-sighted. He's laying the groundwork to allow McCain to continue the U.S. along the path that Bush started to follow, or to set Obama up for a massive defeat in 2012 for being considered "soft on terrorism" for any measures taken to dismantle Bush's initiatives.

And most Democrats are just as fervent to roll out the surveillance society; they just have different targets for the surveillance. The GOP claims to be after "terrorists" and "drug dealers"; the Democrats seem to want to eliminate "child predators" and "copyright infringers". Over the next 20 years, expect all four quoted terms in the previous sentence to be interpreted increasingly broadly. Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have had ample time to either block such measures or at least make sure their opposition is widely covered by the press, and have chosen not to do so.

It's time to say F them all. I'm voting against all incumbents this November and voting Libertarian wherever given the option.

Re:Huge Opportunity

[Doctor_Jest]

Indeed. The facade of the "Two party system" is cracking, and we're seeing that the system is _one_ party. Vote them ALL out. Until we get that through our heads, there _IS_ no change. Not from Obama, McCain, Clinton... NO ONE in the current system will change.

EVER. Dems and Repubs can throw barbs at each other until the cows come home... it's all a smokescreen for the 1 party system.

Re:Huge Opportunity

[DarkDigger]

Just FYI, T-Mobile didn't play patsy to the Bush administration either. So if you have Cingular/AT&T or Verizon, you should switch to T-Mobile to show your support of their decision with your dollars. Sadly, dollars are the only thing corporations care about.

Re:Huge Opportunity

[erroneus]

I'm already a T-Mobile user... tell me more about how T-Mobile didn't roll-over? Any articles in the news about it?

Re:Huge Opportunity

[DarkDigger]

Here are a couple links: http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/438542.html http://www.americablog.com/2006/05/t-mobile-says-they-did-not-participate.html

False

[u8i9o0]

Your position may be true for local operations that very directly affect you, but applied to D.C. it is absolutely false.

If your work is a shameful disgrace that you don't want people talking about, you do it right before the weekend (ideally after 5PM on a Friday). The reason is two-fold: the reporters that would usually notice these things already left for happy hour and the average citizen pays less attention to politics over the weekend. By the time Monday rolls around, a bunch of other events occurred and the attention is shifted away from that shameful disgrace.

This is especially true for holiday weekends. Think of it - your attention is focused on the details of that gathering/vacation/whatever and not on some interesting legalese document recorded in the Federal Register that the reporters haven't looked at yet either (since they too are on holiday).

This technique has worked countless times for the last 7.5 years. And in most cases, almost nobody notices. It's the most practical method of recording a major shift in policy as a minor footnote.

Call the Obama campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just called the obama campaign and told them that in all good conscience, I cannot support any candidate who supports FISA. I told them that his support of FISA looses my vote. I told them to follow the money, look at how much money the flip floppers got from AT&T for changing their votes, and I told them if bush will veto the bill without the immunity provision, It cannot possibly be vital to pass the bill, unless it is to provide unconstitutional retroactive immunity.

Why the hell are you people commenting here? Contact Obama. Contact your congress-traitors.

Tell them you will not only not give the money, Tell them you wont give them your vote either.

Tell them you're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.

Now call your Senators

[dave562]

If you don't take the five minutes required to find your Senator's office number and give it a call, you don't deserve to complain about the bill.

Why /. is opposed to unregulated wiretapping

[Anonymous Coward]

We make our living with this technology. If we have to start worrying that what we or anyone on a system we administer say or do might be misinterpreted and held against us without nuetral judicial oversight this will have a negative affect on our livelihoods.

Gun ownership is a completely unrelated matter, as are blowjobs. But for the record I am in favor of both ;-)

Re:Why /. is opposed to unregulated wiretapping

[wclacy]

Judicial oversight will happen when and if they decide to prosecute. If you have done nothing wrong you will not be prosecuted. If you have done something wrong and the evidence was not obtained in the correct manner it will be thrown out.

Standing Up

[Anonymous Coward]

so when is the armed revolt going to begin?

wrong

[drinkypoo]

You spelled out that he made it through the turn. That means he did not take it too fast for him to take it. In order to make it through the turn, he would have had to stay in his lane, not lose control of the car,

Uh, in what parallel universe does someone have to stay in their lane to make it around a turn? That's only what they have to do to make it safely. Also, there is an immediate assumption of unsafeness any time you drift the vehicle, so pretty much any tire noise is justification to ticket you. If it's on braking, they assert that you are not in control of the vehicle (skid) whereas if it's on acceleration it's excessive use of the throttle (exhibition of acceleration) and if it's sideways then you're really in trouble (reckless driving) especially if there is any oncoming traffic (reckless endangerment).

Trust me, people successfully but unsafely navigate turns in THIS county (Lake, California) constantly. I can't go far without having to swerve to avoid someone in my lane, seriously. I am obsessive about not leaving my lane, and I always assume that there could be some jackass halfway into mine around any corner, because there usually is around here.

Now, could you please try to come back to reality and reauthor your comment?

National news gets it wrong again (or incomplete)

[kookjr]

Disappointingly, on NPR this morning they reported the bill was delayed because of an amendment that needed some research or consideration :-( I wonder who spun that one.

try "running to the extreme right"

[plasmacutter]

There is no more fucking center in the US. Rupert murdoch assured us of that with his "fair and balanced" news network. (no need to balance anything when there's only one side)

try "running to the extreme right".

there is nothing "centerist" or "swing vote" about fucking over our constitution and the rule of law by giving corrupt telecoms immunity. It makes the nixon pardon look outright heroic!

His lack of a spine means I will be voting republican this year across the board. If he doesn't give a crap about what bush is doing now, I think americans need to live under the oppression for another 4-8 years to drive the point home to democrats.

He in no way has the "liberal vote". Im liberal and im going to spank him and his party hard for this, even if its to my own detriment.

I fucking hate cowards, liars, and I especially hate betrayal. He will pay for his betrayal.

Re:Perhaps a chance to drum up opposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama may be having second thoughts because he stands to inherit the NSAs wiretap archives if he gets elected president. It could be handy and certainly interesting to have recordings of all your friends' and rivals' calls and emails. I don't think he's any more power-hungry than most politicians but in his position I'd be tempted too.

If retroactive immunity passes then there is a chance that the extent of wiretapping and data mining activity will stay below the radar. But if it leaks out into mainstream awareness Obama's hands are relatively clean; he didn't create the program, he inherited it from Bush.

How to take action

[krinklyfig]

If you're an Obama supporter, here's a group that is trying to pressure him to stand on principle: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA No matter whom you support, contact Obama's campaign, Senate office and other Senators: http://get-fisa-right.wetpaint.com/page/What+else+you+can+do