Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill

Posted by timothy on from the always-been-at-war-with-oceania dept.

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.

10 of 1,088 comments (clear)

  1. I didn't know Obama was supporting this by Aggrajag · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Obama (D-IL), Yea"

    1. Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this by ozziegt · · Score: 5, Informative

      His explanation is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html b Still BS though.

    2. Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this by akzeac · · Score: 5, Informative

      And here's Greenwald's trashing of that explanation.

  2. Re:Remember in November. by samkass · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Bloody Democrats? by stomv · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor? by EndingPop · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  5. Re:We had one. by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  6. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by Wapiti-eater · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.....
  7. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by Askjeffro · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by scooter.higher · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ron Paul did not vote "Yea" or "Nay," he just didn't vote:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

    --
    Ramen