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'm sure you're all feeling a little bit better now right ?
Um, right ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
McCain abstained.
Obama voted yea.
Biden voted nay
Kerry voted nay
Hillary voted nay
Now you know for real who stands for freedom and change and who doesn't.
My blog
Deplorable
Why didn't Obama try to stop this? He could have spoken out and got the rest of the dems behind him. Instead he voted in favor of it. This is what his campaign said in October:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
And on Dec 17:
Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.
Oh sure, he voted for the amendments which attempted to remove or limit the immunity, but everyone already knew those would fail.
This is from his most recent statement last week:
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.
Another nail in the coffin for our constitution. This is a sad day. And to think that most of the senate voted on this WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE GIVING THE TELCOMS IMMUNITY FOR!!!.
This stinks of a grand-scale coverup. There is still the possibility of suing the government, and perhaps striking this bill as unconsitutional. Let's hope we get to the bottom of this and put some people in jail.
And why are they not marching on Washington to protect the constitution? If they bring the M16s, I'll be right there with the bullhorn, stretchers, and snacks. Unless they want to teach me how to use an M16.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
It's time for encryption of electronic communications to be the standard rather than the exception.
Make it too expensive to eavesdrop.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Can somebody explain the constitutional argument here? I can understand the illegal nature of warrentless wiretapping, but not the retroactively granting amnesty part. That seems like something that'd be within congress' power to grant, should it so choose.
Not a typewriter
I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.
Just remember, it ended with a Napoleon that was every bit as authoritarian as the old kings.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
It's axiomatic that any person who does what is necessary to become a viable Presidential candidate will not be worth voting for.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Doesn't this fly in the face of article 1 section 9 of the constitution? In paragraph 3 is states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That seems rather straightforward to me and since this decriminalizes something after the fact it sounds like an Ex Post Facto law to me.
Ultimately, I've always felt that watching the Democrats and Republicans is along the lines of watching a rivalry between say, Harvard and Yale (almost literally). In other words, while they might have the odd tiff, they still see each other as Ivy Leaguer's and the rest of us as schmucks.
.
Here's a test, what did Nancy Pelosi say was "Off the table" when she became Speaker:
A. Nuking Iran
B. Drilling in ANWAR
C. Impeaching the President or Vice President
If you answered C, you've been paying attention, are very cynical or both (likely because paying attention will inevitably lead to becoming cynical.).
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
In between reading the legislation (which none of you will do) and reading only the summary, you might consider reading some analysis of this by someone who Is A Lawyer:
Article here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html
I wasn't expecting that either. Obama voted for it and McCain didn't. Weird.
Good faith?
Companies capitulated in the face of jingoist rhetoric and executive branch shenanigans, essentially offering up constitutional protections with barely a peep.
Whether they "thought they were doing the right thing" or not isn't the point... THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. It's illegal, it's a violation of the constitution, and they're lawyers KNEW THIS.
Undoubtedly the Bush administration promised to cover their ass, and that's exactly what they've done.
People scream about how unfair and overused civil suits are, but the truth is that in a capitalist society civil suits and monetary settlements are how you keep irresponsible corporations honest. Companies DO NOT CARE about you in any way shape or form, but they care about money, and the prospect of loosing large amounts of it can help to keep them honest.
I can't believe Obama was stupid enough to vote for this tripe. At least McCain had the brains to avoid voting entirely. I favored Obama if only on the tax issue, but this has immediately made me question that decision.
Lieberman I always knew you were a weasly little maggot coward, climb back into GWB's pants.
Nice to see NY's senators did the right thing. Schumer and HC, I tip my cap to the correct call... you may have voted for your own reasons, but you voted right.
Goddamn I hate my government. This and the Patriot Act... it might as well be 1938.
-rt
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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Every day I wish more that this is going to be during my lifetime.
Sadly I don't see such a revolution happening again. In the past you got a quite a few guys with weapons and you were about equal. I look around at non violent drug offenders being locked up. Abuse of power by all 3 branches. A minority of public that actually knows what is going on and a majority that wants to know when the next American Idol starts.
If I were to get a few hundred people together and try to split off I'm sure the Police, National Guard, US Army would have something to say. I'd be locked away for life for "Terrorism". If I blew up a few buildings (killing no one), I'd be a terrorist. If I organized a protest I'd be locked in the corner and labeled a nut.
There have been revolutions against insurmountable odds, but I don't think there has been any army in history that is as one sided as what the US currently has.
Just a minute, someone's knocking at the door...
I'm going to be limiting my choice to the Libertarian or Green candidates for President this fall.
And that won't do a bit of good in a two-party system, unfortunately, and in fact it may just get McCain elected. I don't like the way it is, but it is what it is.
Perhaps its time to change 'the way it is'. We did it once before.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If everyone did that we might no longer have a two-party system.
Even if this is true, I'm not convinced what we'd have is better though. We really need to fix the one-person-one-vote thing to have viable third parties.
There's an interesting bit of economic theory which I think I remember from my game theory class. Imagine you have a beach, represented simply by a stretch of land. (i.e. it doesn't go all the way around a lake or something like that.) There are two competing snack stands that stake out the beach. Suppose they start 25% and 75% of the way across the beach, respectively. Assume a uniform (or at least symmetric about the midpoint) distribution of visitors on the beach, and that everyone goes to the nearest snack stand for food.
What will happen is that each snack stand owner will keep nudging closer to the center of the beach in an effort to get more of the visitors. Eventually they will reach a stable position with both in the exact center.
What's interesting about this is that if a third snack stand enters the picture, there is no stable solution. It will always be in someone's best interest to move.
The parallels to elections I think is pretty clear, even if the model is extremely simple even for the beach world, let alone an election where you have rich political views that don't just fall on a single axis. (Even the thing you'll see with some online tests that rate you on, say, economic and social axes are really simple.)
But I really think that if magically we were to arrive at the situation where there were three parties and a third of the country identified with each, after a few election cycles we'd be back where we are, at least for presidental and probably Senate elections. You need something more, like proportional representation (which doesn't work for the president and not really for the Senate) or a different vote counting system.
It's possible that I'm wrong of course.
I doubt it has much to do with Islam, aside from Muslims also knowing this very obvious fact. Anyone who wants power shouldn't have it, as should be clear to anyone who understands how these things work. I'm sure that the idea predates Islam, and Christianity for that matter.
The trouble is that this sentiment doesn't point to a solution. Just how do you choose a good leader without having a huge bias toward those people who want the position? I personally have no idea.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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.
Um... you do realize that the Electorates of each state are bound by the rules of THAT state, right? It's not the Federal government's job to change the current winner-take-all environment: it's each state.
Maine and Nebraska know the score, anyway. Contact your state legislature.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I'm proud to say that the senator that represents me (and that I actually voted for) voted Nay!
All three of my representatives voted nay as well. At least that's something.
I'm extremely dismayed to see Obama's reversal on this issue. I'd really like to hear what his reasoning was. I'm angry enough right now that I'm questioning why I've been supporting him all this time and wondering why I should be using my vacation time to go campaign for him (as I have been planning) when he just reversed himself on a major promise to his supporters? Why the hell should I keep giving him money when I could give it to my own representatives that actually had the backbone to oppose this?
I'll probably take a few days to cool off and then evaluate this situation further. Right now I'm mad as hell about it and if the election was held tomorrow I'd probably be voting for Nader. Hell, a write-in for Hillary even -- she had the balls to vote against it.
This just sucks no matter how you slice it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
We are only going to use it to snoop on phone calls to and from Sweden. The Russians asked us to do it.
Obama will say "green" a lot in the next few weeks, babble about "corporations", promise "free" healthcare and you'll be right back in line.
Nice attempt at a troll, but none of those things are the reason why I started supporting him in the first place.
I started supporting him because he seemed to "get it". He wanted to end the war on science. He spoke of following the Constitution. He seemed geninuely informed about tech issues (including network neutrality). He talked about a new kind of politics where we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Now he has sold out a fundamental principle because it would probably have been too hard to defend it. He has exposed himself as the standard issue politician, willing to say anything to get elected and willing to retreat from past promises when they become inconvenient.
I may still vote for him but he has lost my support beyond that. Come to think of it, I live in a fairly blue state -- so I don't even feel an obligation to vote for him as the "lessor of two evils".
Guess I'll start reading up about Nader and Barr. I don't particularly like Nader and Barr scares the hell out of me but at this point in time I'm almost beyond caring. The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.
Whatever happens now I feel like I owe HRC supporters a big fat apology.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
----------------
Mr. Obama,
I am writing to you in regards to your vote on the telecom immunity/FISA bill today. I have never voted in my life, mostly because I've always felt that all politicians, especially presidential candidates, are all corrupted to the core. Bribes, AKA "campaign contributions", are what get laws passed in this country. I feel that we have become the United Corporations of America, in such that the country is completely run by corporate-bought politicians.
Then you came along. Your message of change and hope, your rejection of lobbyists, and your sincerity caused me to believe in a candidate for the first time in my life. I was a big evangelizer of yours. I thought that maybe, just maybe this country had a chance to return to the ideals that our founding fathers believed in. You seemed to be our country's last hope.
But then you voted in favor of the FISA/telecom immunity bill. For months you've been saying that you did not support it, but then after you won the primaries, you seemed to have changed your tune. I cannot fathom how the Barack Obama I supported in the primaries could vote for such a bill. The bill is beyond unconstitutional. Increasing the president's abilities to illegally spy on Americans is bad enough, but now the telecoms who illegally participated in the past get immunity. How is this change? How is this hope? How is this anything different than the past decades of corporate bought and paid for government? Removing even more of our civil liberties, and giving a "get out of jail free" card to those telecoms is not change. It's more of the same.
I'm sure your position was switched because your top analysts told you that a vote against it would make you seem soft on terrorism. I had assumed you would do what you do best though - stand up and explain the situation from your perspective, and straighten everyone out. You did the same thing with the whole Jeremiah Wright ordeal. The media was having a frenzy, and you did something unprecedented - you talked to the media and the American people like a real person, not a politician. I had assumed you would stand your ground with the FISA bill, and address the American people as to why you voted that way. But instead, you fell into the trap that the current administration's fearmongering has laid.
I'm very sorry that you voted for this bill. With one single vote of yours, you have now lost me as a voter. I will no longer endorse you to those I know, and will work to make sure people I know understand the implications of this illegal bill you voted for. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. The internet is swarming with angry, upset supporters of yours, who feel the same as I do. They too will be abstaining from voting this November.
I haven't given up on you yet, and I'm hoping that you will do something publicly in the next few days to address this, and win my support back. I want to believe in hope and change, but frankly all I see now is another politician who managed to trick me. I hope you can prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
A Former Obama Supporter
Its kind of funny (not really) how a lot of countries ended up with a similar scheme of no wiretap warrants needed - the "terrists" are out to get us - kind of laws.
If I didn't know better I would think that a couple of "old boys" from each country got together and decided what to force into local legislation. The recommended way: to use some "great external threat" to get the parliament moving in the right direction.
In my [european] country, the threat from terrorists was cited. When an MP asked when our country had ever even experienced terrorism, it was mentioned that an old primeminister was shot to death, a minister of foreign affairs was stabbed to death and a man had been arrested who had planned to kidnap an old minister of justice.
These are all very serious crimes, but the first was commited by a single run down alcoholic, the second was commited by a single psycologically unstable man, which was also the case in the third crime. How many believe that these three violent crimes would have been stopped by using warrantless wiretapping?
More importantly, how did these crimes constitute terrorism? Needless to say, we now have warrantless wiretapping.
She made the willows dance
He voted for all three amendments that would have stripped or at least delayed consideration of immunity. Granted, he should have voted against the final bill as unacceptable when those amendments did not pass, but he did at least vote for the amendments, the closest of which failed only 42-56. Had any Republicans except Arlen Specter bothered to stand up for the Constitution and rule of law, immunity might well have been removed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10