Slashdot Mirror
Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill
zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.
I was somewhat surprised to see my normally idiotic senators vote the correct way for once.
However, I'm disappointed that Obama voted yes. He'll be getting some angry email from me.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"Obama (D-IL), Yea"
Christ wake up, Obama has a history of crap like this.
I am appalled to see such an idiotic piece of legislation pass. Does the rule of law mean NOTHING in our country any more? I may as well tell CmdrTaco that it's ok to shoot his neighbor, and then get him immunity just because I said so. Shame on you, senators. Shame on each and every one of you who voted for this godforsaken bill.
Seriously, fuck it. I don't know what the point is any more. Our government not only has a complete lack of respect for the rights of the American citizen, but also a lack of respect for OUR OWN GODDAMNED LAWS. Why should you and I act any differently than them? What, other than the point of a gun, is supposed to keep us from ignoring laws just because we feel like it?
Senators who voted against the bill, I applaud you, but your valiant efforts were for naught. There are 69 traitors in our Senate, rendering you impotent.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Ex Post Facto deals mainly in people being tried for things that are made crimes AFTER you commit them. For instance, in this case, if there was no bill on wiretapping and then we made one that said you can't and tried to retroactively find telco's guilty after making the law. I don't know if it works the other way in granting immunity.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
A true sad day in the US.
Glad I voted for Ron Paul. I'll be using him as a write in come November.
May I humbly suggest voting for a third party, any third party, with which your protest vote will count?
Ron Paul has said not to write in his name. He isn't even registered as a write-in candidate.
So while it's quite romantic to write in his name, it might be a little more effective to demonstrate our discontent with third party votes which will actually show up on official tallies. I'd recommend Libertarian or Green.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Why didn't Obama try to stop this?
It's because Obama isn't the political messiah that he and his rapid horde of supports claim him to be.
NEWS FLASH: Obama is just another politician! Just because he says he represents change and claims to be changing things, the truth is that he really isn't! He criticizes Clinton and McCain for playing the same old Washington politics for the gas tax holiday even though he did the same thing in his own state. When confronted about it, he spun it such that he knew that it doesn't work through experience. Guess what. He still tried to play those very games that he denounced!
Politics make me sick. They should make you sick too. Don't view third parties as "throwing your vote away". Almost everyone has been throwing their votes away and the people we have representing us are just the proof of that!
... as well as some somewhat less excellent usage of guillotines on people who were disliked by those in power. There's a reason that the times immediately following the revolution in 1789 were simply called "The Terror".
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, it's a two-party system because of winner-takes-all state counting and the electoral college system. In such a system, any third party takes votes away from whichever of the primary parties most closely matches their goals. Thus, any libertarian or green party candidate running for President is only hurting their cause by making it less likely the representative that best supports their view wins. And since the only way to change it is in Congress and not the Executive branch, and they know this, you know they're doing it intentionally for publicity.
So sure, fall for the publicity stunts if you want, but don't think they have your interests at heart.
The way it's SUPPOSED to work is that the candidates are supposed to campaign hard, build supporters, negotiate concessions from the primary parties, then pledge their supporters to the candidate that agrees to support their interests. Thus even minorities are represented and the will of the people isn't subverted by a split vote.
E pluribus unum
McCain abstained.
I don't thing he abstained. I think he was absent. Same result, but I believe the difference is important, especially considering how many votes he's been absent for.
Of the 49 Democrats in the Senate, the vote was 20-27-1 for FISA -- the Dems as a group voted against the bill, with Kennedy not present.
Of the 2 Independents in the Senate, the vote was 1-1-0 for FISA -- Sanders voted against, Lieberman for.
Of the 49 Republicans in the Senate, the vote was 47-0-2 for FISA -- the Republicans as a group voted unanimously for the bill, with McCain and Sessions not present.
So it seems to me the beef ought not to be with the "Bloody Democrats" -- but rather with 100% of the Republican Senators, 50% of the Independent Senators, and roughly 40% of the Democratic Senators.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Someone will have to sue a phone company for a warrantless wiretap, of which they probably would not be aware, and appeal all the way to the supreme court, who might then overturn the unconstitutional immunity law.
As for the change to FISA you'll have to vote in representatives and senators who would pass a law to reverse it.
Both extremely unlikely.
Developers: We can use your help.
That's all well and good, except this started in Feb 2001. For those without a calendar handy, that's BEFORE 9/11, and very shortly after Bush took office.
That, and Quest didn't do it because they had competent lawyers who told them it was obviously illegal. AT&T and Verizon must have a decent legal department too, they just chose not to listen.
My Company - Red Cedar Technology
I'm quite annoyed that one of my two senators voted in favor of this amendment, and I've already written her an email, not that she'll ever read it.
...So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companiesâ(TM) legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and is immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the governmentâ(TM)s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.
Anywho, Feingold had a really nice position-point short written up on this subject, and I found myself to be largely in agreement with his views.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/07/20080708.htm
When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that, in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear that some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power â" the power to listen in on peopleâ(TM)s personal conversations...
Actually, 1994 was the biggest upheaval in Congress. The Democrats held majority power for 30+ years to that point, and looked to continue that hold... then suddenly this guy named Gingrich and a whole horde of opposition party candidates won a cascade of elections, blasting out a huge majority for themselves. The Senate fell to GOP rule just as quickly as the House did.
2006 really was no upheaval because the GOP majority in Congress had slowly begun to wane ever since 1998 or so... it was a slow shift if nothing else.
Incidentally, Barack Obama voted "Yea" on this bill. Not "Present", not "Npot voting", not "No"... he voted for it.
I wonder what the DNC and its fan base is going to do when they find out en masse? I wonder how they'll spin it if McCain's campaign ever gets its head out of its collective ass and spreads word about it?
Interesting, to say the least...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Dodd Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
To strike title II.
YEAs 32
NAYs 66
Not Voting 2
Specter Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00165
To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
YEAs 37
NAYs 61
Not Voting 2
Bingaman Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00166
To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.
YEAs 42
NAYs 56
Not Voting 2
It's that last one that really hurts. We were just eight votes from getting it passed. These are the Democrats who voted against it: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
She cosigned the induce act, remember that lovely piece of legislation? The one that would have made the general purpose pc, the smart phone, the blackberry, and the ipod illegal?
yeah, she's such a great, "stand-up for the little guy" kind of politican.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Article 1, section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
Notice how Mccain actually voted against this thing, even though his party voted for it. Does it represent his views regardless of his vote? No, as he said he supports telecom immunity.
According to the roll call, McCain didn't vote at all.
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith
You happen to believe wrong. The companies involved acted for money, nothing more. See also: Qwest's refusal to go along and the contracts that were pulled due to that choice. Or if you don't buy that, see also the story that got linked here about how the telcos have no qualms turning off the taps when the government doesn't pay.
Furthermore, as another user pointed out, this began before 9/11.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
...and our hands aren't exactly clean in that department. We won our Revolution largely thanks to French support, which bankrupted the court of Louis XVI and triggered the French Revolution within a few years. The moderate factions there, led by Lafayette, asked George Washington to return the favor, but he sucked up to Britain instead. The revolution was hijacked by the radical Jacobins, France disintegrated into bloody chaos, and in rode the little guy on the white horse.
rj
There were only a few states where both senators voted against the bill: MI, NJ, NY, VT, WA and MA if you count the fact that Ted Kennedy opposed the last incarnation of this bill but could not vote this time for health reasons. If you come from any of the other 44 states, then get busy: at least one of your sitting senators needs to be taught a lesson.
And a note about McCain's abstention: he's a strong supporter of Bush on this matter. The only reason his vote is registered as 'abstain' is because he's in Ohio raising money and support for his bid for President instead of actually performing his job as a senator.
I came here for a good argument
Here's a part of the money trail
Telecom Contributions - 2006
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House
Time Warner $13,200
AT&T Inc $13,000
Comcast Corp $10,000
Communications Workers of America $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000
Total Pelosi $56,200
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chmn. Sen. Intell. Cmte.
AT&T Inc $16,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $16,000
BellSouth Corp $14,900
Total Rockefeller $46,900
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-CA), House Majority Leader
AT&T Inc $12,000
Comcast Corp $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000
Time Warner $10,000
Total Hoyer $42,000
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader
BellSouth Corp $31,050
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader
AT&T Inc $22,000
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader
NelNet Inc $19,600
All points of time and space are connected.
WTF have you been smoking? McCain was not present.
Further notes:
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
"Bush is a madman"....
but did you notice who voted FOR this thing?
FTFA - "Obama (D-IL), Yea"
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
Read more than the press articles & the roll call.
Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments
The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.
The reason that this is in the Constitution is that the founders saw great injustice being perpetrated by laws passed to make prior behavior *illegal*, not the other way around. Original intent is a pretty strong precedent in Constitutional law. There's a significant change the SCOTUS would interpret it that way as well. And I'm not entirely sure this would be wrong.
In this case, retroactive immunity allows an injustice to stand. But in other cases, it might easily be in the interests of justice to retroactively make something legal that (technically, mistakenly, or by court ruling) was previously deemed illegal.
Perhaps its time to change 'the way it is'. We did it once before.
"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 [...]"
Thomas Jefferson
'nuff said.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone. This is very unfair to Obama. This was a tough call for him. You talk about him like he's a spineless ninny. The reality is that he actually THINKS and is willing to change his mind when he thinks it is best for the country. Take a look at his statement on the issue: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary He was unhappy with the way it was drafted ("I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power."). Senate bills are not this cut-and-dry, guys. The quote from the OP article above is very biased. There were good things about the amendment and bad things about the amendment. The quote makes it sounds like the bill only supported further violations of privacy and, frankly, that is a complete load of sh*t. Just look at the Wikipedia article that summarizes the amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008 Obama didn't want to lose the good things in this amendment by voting against it for the bad things. If this amendment had not passed and the Democratic core had actually won their protest against it, we all would have been open to even greater violations of our privacy because, without the amendment being passed today, we would have lost important surveillance orders this summer.
The fact that Obama went back on his word to those of us who supported him for this reason is inexcusable. I am firmly voting for Barr instead of Obama now. Sure McCain would have voted yes, but that thats the point, he isn't a lier and backstabber to his supporters, at least on this issue.
And people wonder where the stereotype of Democrats being spineless cunts comes from.
Some points to consider:
* Every Senator who voted against the bill was either a Democrat or an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats (Sanders.)
* A majority of Democratic Senators voted against the bill.
* All the Republicans present voted for the bill.
The Democratic House and Senate leadership is spineless, no doubt about it, but please don't confuse that with the entire party.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
oh really? lol. Ever hear of the Inquisition? Absolutely no civil liberties abused there eh?
Bet you feel good voting for Obama...being that he's the same as Bush. Surprise! Democrats aren't actually different.
Sure glad i'm european
I'm guessing you don't live in Sweden? They just passed a law which is an even worse incursion on privacy than the the activity the US telecom immunity bill deals with.
I doubt it will be ruled unconstitutional.
There was already an existing law that said the telecoms had a complete defense if they were presented with legal requests according to statutes. The administration could have been violating the law and still presenting the telecoms with a legal document authorizing the taps. The telecoms claimed they couldn't use the documents because they were classified and state secretes which would open them up to jail time. The immunity bill plays on this and simply provides for the AG to send the classified requests to a court that reviews them in secrete. If they appear to be legal requests (from the telecoms perspective) then the case gets dismissed like with the existing law.
It really isn't an immunity but rather a vehicle to enforce existing provisions of the law. I doubt it would be held unconstitutional at the supreme court levels.
I think that the word you're looking for is "consistent" in this case. Democrats are all over the ball field when it comes to how they'll behave. The Republicans are pretty solidly predictable and on-message. The fact that McCain is seen as a total anomaly for being a "maverick" illustrates that pretty well. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of Democrats who vote against their party majority more frequently than McCain has historically voted against his.
I don't know that I can make any value judgments on that one way or another. I do think that the phenomenon exists, though.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Pelosi is the Speaker of the House; she has absolutely no control over anything in the Senate. I think you mean Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.
It's only been 19 years since Ceausescu died. And Berlusconi is apparently still not dead. Neither is Joerg Haider, though it's been 6 years since his party was in power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Ron Paul did not vote "Yea" or "Nay," he just didn't vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
Ramen
I think only half of them did. As opposed to 100% of Republicans.
You're on the right track. Read Shock Doctrine . You'll be disappointed to learn that it is a tried and true formula.
I wonder how John McDork and Barack O'DumbDumb voted. Oh, this shows that O'DumbDumb voted for this and McDork was too scared to actually vote. And one of these loosers are going to be the next president? I feel sooooo good about the next 4 years.
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
Well, Obama did offer an explanation:
Maybe it's not what you want to hear, but it sounds like he felt the compromise was acceptable.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
It's slightly more complicated than that. There's a group of Democrats called the Blue Dog Coalition who keep selling out the rest of the Democratic party on security issues. There's 47 of them currently in office.
Presumably they represent the will of the people who elected them, which on this issue is fear of the terrorists.
But otherwise, yes this congress is crippled by a slim majority, an adversarial president and a faction in the party that consistently sides with the administration on security issues.
Fanatically anti-fanatical