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.
While they might not miss the relatively few votes of those of us who cared about the Republic, at least we'll be able to say we made the attempt.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.
I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does. They don't care. This nation needs a serious shakeup NOW.
I have no words for how cheated I feel right now.
From CNN
In short: They aren't outright granted immunity, but instead a hearing will be held where they will undoubtedly be granted immunity. Bloody Democrats, they never have a spine when they need one.
PS: Hello to whatever TLA is currently monitoring this
"Change we can believe in" No change at all...
I feel so naive for thinking there was a candidate from one of the two major parties who actually stood for what's right.
Here I'd had hopes for Obama. Real hopes, too. But if he'd betray his country on a vote like this, then I just lost a great deal of respect for the man.
Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history happened, giving a clear mandate to our lawmakers to end the war? Somehow that didn't happen. Somehow the legislative groundwork got laid for another war in the meantime.
My congresscritters happened to be on the right side of this. If yours were not, I strongly suggest calling their offices and informing them that (if they're Democrats) your donations next election cycle will be going to their challenger in the primary. And then, of course, following through on that.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
For a moment there it looked like expensive lobbying might not be a good investment. What kind of country would this be if the corporations couldn't hire expensive lobbyists to bribe Members of Congress to give those corporations immunity to the crimes they committed in the past?
It would be a very alien place indeed.
The Supreme Court needs to step in and strike this down. Someone needs to bring a lawsuit and get it sent up to the Supreme Court.
When FISA courts can grant RETROACTIVE warrants, why does the Bush administration insist on not getting a warrant?
Because they were doing far more than just looking for terrorists.
A true sad day in the US.
Glad I voted for Ron Paul. I'll be using him as a write in come November.
To fulfill it's balance power. Oh...what? um..They support it? Who would appoint judges that would?.....Oh....Dang. Guess it'll be up to the next wave of judges to do the right thing.....if that even it exists by the time they get there.
import system.cool.Sig;
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
I feel reasonable minds can disagree on matters of public policy. But to you I am a traitor?
What is the standard for flamebait here anyway? I am confused.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Now the government has the tools it needs to protect itself. Don't you feel more protected? I feel more protected!
Fixed. ;-)
I have supported Obama since last August. I have the bumper sticker and T-shirt to prove it. Mr. Obama just lost my support. His telecom position was one of the key reasons I supported him. The bumper sticker has already been removed.
What signature defines me as a person?
Clinton (the original, not frickin' Hillary) signed the DMCA into law. Democrats aren't everything the people are led to believe they are. They're just as bad as their republican equivalents when it comes to corporate lobbyists.
The entire system has gotten completely out of hand. We need to change it so that there is no way for a company to financially reward a politician for listening to them. We also need to make it so that companies aren't even allowed to lobby politicians in the first place.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
After reading Obama's explanation it looks like he wants to show he can compromise with the rightwing, and probably appear more moderate to the on-the-fence voters.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Not that I doubt you (though I don't believe you, either), but the least you could do is provide citations. An admonishment to "wake up!" isn't terribly compelling if you don't provide proof that people are deluded in the first place.
Yeh, he's been disappointing me recently, also.
According to the AP article, Obama did vote for an ammendment that would have stripped the telecom immunity provision. But I guess it's the end result that really matters. And Obama too has failed us.
I was donating fairly regularly to Mr. Obama for his quest for Presidency. I urge those that were doing the same to move their future donations from Mr. Obama and the DNC to the ACLU, which is vowing to fight FISA and the immunity in court.
"Just Following Orders" is not an excuse to break the law.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. -- Obama
Hang on - typo in there...
Given the choice between sacrificing the 4th amendment and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. -- Obama
There, fixed that for ya.
Thanks for the run Obama, it was nice to have six months to believe there could be a principled President.
Now, let's all drop the depression, disappointment, and bargaining. And for damned sure let's not slip into acceptance. Let's focus on the right phase of grief for this ongoing usurpation of our nation; anger.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Considering the democrat definition of compromise is "caving in", I'd say it was a huge success.
Sure, Bush is a madman. I'm used to that by now, I no longer feel the rage so strongly.
What really gets to me is that the damn Congress keeps rolling over and letting him get away with this shit. Sure, they huff and puff but they have no effing backbone to stand up to him when it comes time to vote. It's unacceptable, but still amazes me every. freaking. time.
I know more than you drink.
I have sent off my registration form and am now officially "unenrolled". I'll not donate to the Democrats any longer. And I certainly won't vote for Obama, who may have voted for Dodd's amendment but clearly supported this constitutional obscenity.
No more political parties. Its time to boot both Democrats and Republicans from governance. Both party leaderships have proven themselves utterly corrupt.
You'll be in the same boat soon. Remember You've always been at war with eurasia and due to unexpected attacks the chocolate ration has been lowered.
Definitely Obama voting yea.
Anybody paying attention for the last four years knows that McCain has become a puppet to the exact same people that Bush works for, but some of us actually had some hope that Obama had some political backbone.
Yes, everybody who was telling me Obama was no different from any other politician may now gloat.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Indeed. The Republicans argue that FISA is critical to national security -- but the President says he'll veto it without telecom immunity attached. So what do the Democrats do? Pass it without immunity and dare him to veto it? No! They cave and give him most of what he wanted.
This party is fucking worthless. Here's a novel idea: Pass it without immunity and when GWB vetoes it start running ads pointing out how the Republicans are placing us all in danger by refusing to compromise on a critical national security issue. If FISA is truly that important (I have my doubts but let's assume it is for the sake of the argument) then let's have an honest debate about it.
No, instead they caved. On some level I can understand why Obama did it -- he doesn't want the Republicans beating him over the head with a national-security issue -- but WTF was Pelosi's reasoning? If you believe in party politics it's her job to take the heat off the nominee. Why the hell did she even let this come up?
They are fucking worthless spineless jackasses. What is the goddamn point? Really, what's the fucking point anymore?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Maybe this is why Congress has a below 10% approval rating? The lowest of any US government institution, EVER?
Hell, that must mean that FEMA had a higher approval rating during Katrina than Congress has now.
It's an illusion.
It's not that they don't have the backbone to stand up to Bush. They have no wish to. Rare moments like these let you know who the real master is. Money. Money and the people/corporations who have large piles of it. Like gigantic telcos in this particular instance.
The whole two party noise machine is just there to dull the wits of the masses and make them think they can change things.
They can't.
Remember how happy the Democrats were when the Congress became 51% Democratic? How's that working out so far? Fat lot of good it did, wouldn't you say?
Face it - we're bought and paid for. You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all fucking the good it does.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
And people wonder where the stereotype of Democrats being spineless cunts comes from.
They're getting what they want though (some $90b in domestic spending). They didn't roll over, they very enthusiastically sold us out.
McCain skipping. At least Obama stood up and was counted, even if his view is completely fucking retarded.
Either way, it doesn't matter because we know exactly where McCain stands on this, and how he would have voted. He'd have voted yea.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
A few years ago, when the whole warrantless wiretapping issue broke, Slashdot posted an article speculating on what was going on. The author looked at the public statements, developed a technical conjecture of what was probably happening, showed that the public statements correlated with the technical conjecture, and talked about the implications.
IIRC, the article suggested that a system called Echelon, that had been deployed outside the US, had been deployed inside the US. Echelon was rumored to contain technology that sampled all voice conversations in a telephone system for certain words/phrases and decided to listen more closely to ones that triggered certain criteria.
IIRC, the article then pointed out that if done within the US and thus requiring a warrant for each instance of listening, there were not enough personnel in the entire US judicial system to process all the warrants that would be needed.
That is likely to be the context for what this is all about. It may well be a very difficult call. Also, the entire debate has taken place without this information publicly on the table, even on a basis of taking the speculation as an assumption by those debating the issue.
If you think about the issue in these terms, the telecom immunity becomes somewhat of a sideshow and the imposition of judicial oversight on the criteria for further listening becomes the most critical aspect. An important purpose of the telecom immunity lawsuits was to find out what was happening. I think the article provides us an educated guess, and that the debate can become an informed one and not just an argument in the dark about principles without an understanding of the underlying technology.
Wanna know who didn't?
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Which is worse, McCain skipping, or Obama present and voting yea?
You have to remember that thanks to the wonderful world of politics, both candidates are now going to work to gather people who hold views who are sometimes quite far from their own, while at the same time trying not to alienate their own base.
So you'll get candidate X hugging Ecocide Inc. while vouching for cleaner water and candidate Y making strong declarations on the Iraqi mess while brown nosing generals (do you brown nose generals ? I'm not familiar with US military etiquette).
Anyway now that they're both (we all know that the US, unlike other democracies only gets to candidates) decided upon, they can start to act up. Which is what they all do because they need *some* votes from the (so called) other side.
And then your "journalists" (although worldwide journalism is busy aligning on your quality requirements, which seem to be that a goat wouldn't die of boredom in front of a TV news shore) finally get to the candidates and to the *real* issues : religion, sex (as in what sex the partner should be, and whether it would be a good idea to stone him - in a masculine neutral way) and whether it's ok to kill people who speak funny, have a tan and lots of oil. Provided that they're poor but look cruel (those white eyes in a tanned face with a towel on top, looks great on TV, frown a bit, now turn your head to catch the light) and there's an excuse that flies ("um, Mr President, it's been done before, but 'Think of the children' always works"... except we need a new twist, what about "Don't let them eat our children ?" "What ? They want to eat children ?" "Well, not as such, but we have those rendered images from the NSA based from old ILM software, it'll be an instant hit").
When you have that large a juggernaut as the US, how do you stop it or even steer it ? Do you think that standing in front of it waving in front of it waving your arms will amount to anything ? Beyond a smear that is ?
Most of the world sees the US as a machine that has run astray. However the machine is so large, and there are so many cogs, and so many... gremlins...
It is said that there are few places in the US armed forces where you can be promoted if you aren't the right kind of christian. If this is true, then no part of the US armed forces are trustworthy. And this is so serious it's mind boggling. If you have to be part of a specific religious group to be part of the management of a very major chunk of the planet's military hardware... Be afraid.
As a European who has travelled a bit in the US, who has *numerous* US friends, including a lot of "euro-refugees", I ran into a *lot* of people that were on the *far* side of weird every time I went there.
I mean I like the US, I like the people, they're great, they're nice they're friendly. But what's wrong with you ? Someone says "fuck" on TV and it's a revolution ? I've seen boards where teens looked for *hours* at the rendered tits in Beowulf because your country is completely obsessed with sex ?
Any beach in Europe will have 1/4th of the women going topless. And *nobody* *cares*
Please US, Grow up. The planet asks it of you. Not just a drunken me.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Isn't there rampant closed-circuit video surveillance of pretty much everywhere? Total and complete monitoring of it's citizens? I guess across the pond they don't pussyfoot around and admit it for what it is; whereas here no one at all admits there's a problem.
Neither did Mr. Kerry. So if both Clinton and Kerry who supposedly represent the big money establishment had the guts to vote against this and Barack Obama voted for this and is suppose to represent change we can believe in, what does that tell you?
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
I've seen this sentiment several times in this thread and so I had to comment. It doesn't take guts to cast a vote against this *if you aren't the nominee*. We all know that Hillary would have voted 'Yea' if she was her party's nominee, since the strategy is to appeal to the center for the general election. And there is plenty of evidence in this thread that that is the correct strategy. How many people have said they would still vote for Obama? The fact is, Obama will not lose votes from the left of center no matter what he does. Oh sure, maybe a stray vote will go to Nader, but no significant number of lefties will jump over to McCain based on anything Obama says or does between now and the election. No, it's all about the 33% in the middle, and who they vote for. The committed lefties and righties are already decided.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Can someone please remind me why we have elected a Democrat-led congress? My goal for this November election will be to vote out every single incumbent congressman regardless of party affiliation.
The Democrats in Congress just lost my approval, that's for sure! Remember, they voted for this travesty too!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That /.'s consensus analysis of this bill is completely incorrect. The immunity portion of the bill doesn't change anything other than preventing a bunch of lawyers from getting rich, since the telecoms would have won any lawsuits anyway. I know that this is going to be wildly unpopular, but the truth is, if the government tells a business to do something, and tells the business that they have legal authorization to do it, and in fact threaten the company if they don't comply, the business is going to be off the hook in court. Who should be held responsible? The government agencies that did the bullying and misleading in the first place.
So what does change? Going forward, there will be stiffer penalties for groups that violate FISA requirements, either knowingly or through a lack of due diligence.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
No... the truth is that we now we will NEVER know now whether they were guilty or not, because this bill has prevented the courts from making an actual legal decision.
But let's just examine this for a second:
What transpired today was indefensible and no amount of trolling is going to change that, Valar.
-Grym
What's the point of an opposition party if they don't--you know--OPPOSE utter bullshit like this?
The Democratic party has a majority in both the house and the senate. Now, the Republicans might be able to stop them from passing something of their own, but it's numerically impossible for them to force legislation over the Democratic party without their consent.
It's FAR past time for liberals to stop making excuses for the Democratic party and recognize that, rather than being the lesser of two evils, the Democratic party is completely dysfunctional and is, in actuality, opposing progress.
-Grym