Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Delays Telecom Immunity Vote Until After July Recess

Posted by timothy on from the after-all-why-ruin-the-4th dept.

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."

21 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? by paroneayea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
    1. Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? by Ngarrang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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=

    5. Re:Perhaps a chance to drump up opposition? by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  2. Shameful by slashqwerty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Shameful by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "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."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. Good news by sixintl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Maybe I'm just too cynical... by Henry+Pate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Maybe I'm just too cynical... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  5. Certain Conditions by Kintar1900 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

  6. Maybe a full-scale filibuster failed... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  7. Not really opposing? He supports it. by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not really opposing? He supports it. by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  8. Deal with it! by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Deal with it! by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  9. This delays the inevitable by shma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  10. Re:Smash imperialism with world socialist revoluti by I_Voter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

  11. Cowardly, stupid Democrats. by straponego · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  12. Huge Opportunity by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.