Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Bearded Dragon
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.
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?
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
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.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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?
My blog
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".
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
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.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
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.