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.

Comments

Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Fred_A]

I'm sure you're all feeling a little bit better now right ?
Um, right ?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[hav0x]

Stupidly, the sad thing is everyone is less safe after this legislation goes into law.
The Telcos are just off the hook, for this particular clusterfuck.
That and your administration has close to card blanche to fuck around.
Sure glad i'm european
... gah

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Shakrai]

Sure glad i'm european

Yes, because regimes that violate civil liberties have never come to power in Europe.....

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[cicatrix1]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Zymergy]

So does this now mean that my phone bill rates/fees be be lowered?
You know..., because of all the lawsuit and legal counsel *savings* the telecoms have now that they cannot be sued ala immunity ex post facto...?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Xanius]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[sunburntkamel]

Which is worse, McCain skipping, or Obama present and voting yea?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[pluther]

Which is worse, McCain skipping, or Obama present and voting yea?

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[bockelboy]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[chimpo13]

Yeah, let's see... it's been 63 years since Hitler died ending the Nazi party. 63 years since Mussolini died ending the National Fascist Party. 38 years since Salazar died which ended the New State party 4 years later. 33 years since Franco died putting the lid on the Falangists party.

Maybe the regimes that violate civil liberties have been absorbed by multinational corporations.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Gilmoure]

Weird thing is Clinton voted against it. And Jim Webb voted for it. I wonder what they know that we don't?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Wapiti-eater]

"Bush is a madman"....

but did you notice who voted FOR this thing?

FTFA - "Obama (D-IL), Yea"

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[The Master Control P]

And people wonder where the stereotype of Democrats being spineless cunts comes from.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[atraintocry]

They're getting what they want though (some $90b in domestic spending). They didn't roll over, they very enthusiastically sold us out.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Shakrai]

Is it still a change you can believe in?

Nope, I'm pretty fucking bitter right now.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[superbus1929]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[fishbowl]

Why do you want President Obama's administration to have less authority than President Bush?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Askjeffro]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[kat_skan]

Wanna know who didn't?

Clinton (D-NY), Nay

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Fred_A]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[edmicman]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[je ne sais quoi]

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?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[FleaPlus]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[TheoMurpse]

How the hell is this informative? Ron Paul isn't even in the Senate! It's the exact opposite of informative! It's false.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Copid]

God, Did I just says that the republicans were the more honest party?

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[DinDaddy]

I ran into a *lot* of people that were on the *far* side of weird every time I went there.

Any beach in Europe will have 1/4th of the women going topless. And *nobody* *cares*

Europeans don't like boobs, and you're calling us weird??

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[scooter.higher]

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

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

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[mrchaotica]

The Democrats in Congress just lost my approval, that's for sure! Remember, they voted for this travesty too!

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[TheoMurpse]

I think only half of them did. As opposed to 100% of Republicans.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[magus_melchior]

Let's put it this way: If you're in a developed country where the media cartels or the US have influence on the politics, there is no way you will escape the trend of free nations becoming police states. The US has a responsibility to protect and uphold its Constitution by protecting the rights of its citizens, and it has blown it spectacularly because its cash cows need to be protected. Should this persist, in a few decades the traditional "democratic" nations will make today's North Korea and Iran look libertarian, if they haven't annihilated them first.

The next amendment to the Constitution will no doubt amend the Preamble: We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish profits, ensure domestic dominance, provide for defense of our wealth, promote our own welfare, and secure the blessings of property control, to ourselves and our posterity...

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[iminplaya]

Maybe this is why Congress has a below 10% approval rating?

That number is so completely meaningless. I don't know why people keep bringing it up. What a bunch of tripe. In the ONLY poll that really matters, congress has over a 90% approval rating. Every single time. Congress didn't give out immunity to these people. The voters did. And they will do so again in November. So let's quit trying to pass the buck, ok?

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Valar]

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.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Idiomatick]

It wouldn't be about the money. It would be to condemn it. Saying it is ok is the wrong thing to do even if it might not go anywhere in court. That as they say is for the courts to decide.

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Grym]

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.

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:

• If the Telecommunications companies were really so threatened, why was Quest able to say no? And why did they charge a fee? Bullies don't usually pay their victims for services rendered...
• If the Telecommunications companies were being patriotic and truly serving the American people, why did they keep their surveillance so secret? Didn't they at least owe their subscribers an update to the contract/terms of service that reflected the actual change in service?
• If the Telecommunications companies were innocent, why do they need Congress to give them retro-active immunity?

What transpired today was indefensible and no amount of trolling is going to change that, Valar.

-Grym

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Grym]

The Democratic House and Senate leadership is spineless, no doubt about it, but please don't confuse that with the entire party.

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

Re:Whew, your telcos are safe.

[Dekortage]

Well, Obama did offer an explanation:

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. 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. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

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. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

...

When citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue.... Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

Maybe it's not what you want to hear, but it sounds like he felt the compromise was acceptable.

Remember in November.

[base3]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[Selfbain]

But you better not say it too loudly because they'll be listening.

Re:Remember in November.

[Anonymous Coward]

For a while I thought Obama may have been worth voting for, but now its clear that he is just a Pol and not enough better than McCain to be worth voting for. I'm going to be limiting my choice to the Libertarian or Green candidates for President this fall.

Re:Remember in November.

[Free the Cowards]

It's axiomatic that any person who does what is necessary to become a viable Presidential candidate will not be worth voting for.

Re:Remember in November.

[Hatta]

Yet again, Ralph Nader is the *only* candidate you can trust to be tough on corporate crime. Obama couldn't even wait until he was elected to sell out his values.

Re:Remember in November.

[snl2587]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[poetmatt]

Looks like its time to form a new political party.

Guess I'll start my campaigning this year; as its going to take more than 8 years for this stuff to start to fix itself up.

Republicans, democrats, both are horrible and pitiful excuses for the most part as politicians. Both have sold out.

Re:Remember in November.

[truthsearch]

It's only a two-party system because so few vote for other parties. Let him vote for whoever he actually wants to be president. If everyone did that we might no longer have a two-party system.

Re:Remember in November.

[Firehed]

If everyone did that, we'd probably elect Oprah.

Which, all things considered, I'm sure would be a big improvement.

Re:Remember in November.

[samkass]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[nurb432]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[EvanED]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[Free the Cowards]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[EvanED]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[emagery]

Well that was odd... I typed more than this, but all that came out was 'well...' Anyhow, G. Washington himself warned us in the very beginning that political parties were a terrible idea and may ultimately undo the country... so far, he seems to be right.

Re:Remember in November.

[lawn.ninja]

Fuck a new political party. Nothing personal and I don't mean it as a shot at you. But this system is done. It is broken beyond repair. At least the type of repair that doesn't require an overthrow.

Re:Remember in November.

[Applekid]

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.

Re:Remember in November.

[ya really]

Though it's popular to say, "You're only throwing your vote away by voting for a 3rd party." I tend to believe you're only throwing your vote away if you don't vote for a 3rd party. If more people thought like this, we'd finally be able to ditch the critters currently running the government.

Re:Remember in November.

[Pollardito]

does that mean we'd all get free cars?

Re:Remember in November.

[shipbrick]

Yep. Obama just gave Bob Barr my vote.

Re:Remember in November.

[Sonnekki]

You must remember that it is also the way that you count the votes that matters too. You would be surprised how a slightly different method of counting the votes can give you DIFFERENT RESULTS!

Unfortunately, a method which is "the best" does not seem to lend itself immediately.

Re:Remember in November.

[modmans2ndcoming]

WTF have you been smoking? McCain was not present.

Re:Remember in November.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Remember in November.

[MSZ]

Well, some time ago a second rate actor was elected... and it turns out he wasn't that bad, compared to career politicians. Far from ideal, but not bad at all.

Re:Remember in November.

[Palshife]

Yeah. Zero progress in over 200 years. Political parties are going to destroy America. Any day now.

Some days...

[scubamage]

"He who trades essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.

Re:Some days...

[qbzzt]

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.

Re:Some days...

[scubamage]

But it also had some excellent usage of guillotines on people who had betrayed their countrymen.

Re:Some days...

[NeutronCowboy]

... 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".

Re:Some days...

[Firehed]

Unfortunately I don't think I can carry a guillotine on to a plane anymore, especially not one headed to Washington.

Re:Some days...

[0100010001010011]

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...

Re:Some days...

[bulled]

Revolutions are only successful when the people fighting for them have little to nothing to lose. We know this in America, it is why the majority of people can survive even if in uncomfortable situations. As long as a majority are fed, housed, and clothed reasonably well you will not see revolution.

Re:Some days...

[Deadstick]

...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

Re:Some days...

[jfern]

You can in Nevada, but it doesn't make any difference. Even if None of the above actually came in first, the first actual candidate would win.

MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[cromar]

I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does. They don't care. This nation needs a serious shakeup NOW.

Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[NeutronCowboy]

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.

Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[Kenshin]

I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does.

You probably forgot to put a few $100 bills in the envelopes.

Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[martinw89]

You probably forgot to put a few $100 bills in the envelopes.

..., 'cause the lobbyists certainly didn't.

Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[sm62704]

Of the two Corporate Party candidates, one voted "yes" and the other didn't vote at all. I urge everyone to vote Green, Libertarian, or Constitution Party this November.

Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[v1]

You just voted for them? You're going about it all wrong. You need to give them large campaign contributions. (bribes)

Get with the times, and always keep in mind, you're in America.

Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS

[kawdyr]

Why is everyone acting so shocked? This was only partially about corporate America... the main dynamite in the bill was the expiring wiretapping clause, not the immunity. It would be political suicide to let all the post 9-11 wiretapping powers go away, because even if slashdot doesn't like them, I'm sure a majority of Americans wants at least some of them.

The primary attack Obama faces from the right is that he won't be "tough on terrorism." He needed to vote "tough" to beef up his security credentials.

I'm not apologizing for Obama here, but yes, if he wants to get elected this is political reality. Hilary knew it was going to pass anyway, no doubt, and can afford to vote against it because she isn't campaigning.

Damnit

[martinw89]

I have no words for how cheated I feel right now.

Encrypted Email & Phones

[McFly69]

I see that not only there will be an increased usage of encrypted emails but there will be a new market for encrypted phones (hand set to hand set). Where do I get one?

Re:Encrypted Email & Phones

[base3]

You'll never see a mass market consumer level plug and go solution for this that isn't backdoored to hell and back.

habeas corpus

[bughunter]

Well, at least if we're nabbed for sedition because we Godwined George Dubya on the phone with our grandma, we'll have a right to address the charges in front of a Judge.

Right?

Right?

Hello?

Re:habeas corpus

[gEvil (beta)]

Oh, don't worry. They'll gladly show the judge the corpse.

I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[Aggrajag]

"Obama (D-IL), Yea"

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[martinw89]

I feel so naive for thinking there was a candidate from one of the two major parties who actually stood for what's right.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[akzeac]

Wow, you said something against Obama. The moderation rollercoaster will be fun to see.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[ozziegt]

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

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[lgw]

McCain abstained, which I guess makes him a "moderate" on the issue of screwing us over at every opportunity.

Tired of choosing the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu in '08! No more years!

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[akzeac]

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

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[JCSoRocks]

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.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[Joe the Lesser]

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.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[1 a bee]

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.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[mrmaster]

"Obama (D-IL), Yea"

I sent a comment to Obama's website and also asked to be taken off his email listing. Change we can believe in. Yeah, change in his views that is.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[akzeac]

Considering the democrat definition of compromise is "caving in", I'd say it was a huge success.

Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this

[rossz]

As a moderate, I'm not fooled for one second by Obama's waffling.

More On Immunity

[rsmith-mac]

From CNN

Question: Will telecommunications firms be prosecuted for helping the intelligence community conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans?

Benson: Although the Bush administration had wanted the telephone providers who cooperated with the surveillance program to receive outright retroactive immunity, this bill sets up a process for judicial review.

A U.S. District Court judge hearing a pending case will determine whether the telecommunications provider received from the government letters which indicated the president had authorized the warrantless surveillance and that the program was considered lawful. If so, the lawsuit will be thrown out.

Opponents argue this is a sham and say that the telecommunications are essentially being granted retroactive immunity because Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence (DNI), testified at a congressional hearing that all of the telephone carriers did receive government certifications.

Some Republican supporters have called this process a "formality" and even Democratic proponents indicate it is likely that most, if not all, of the cases against the telephone companies will be dismissed.

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

Re:More On Immunity

[sesshomaru]

Is it a fact that the Democrats lack spine? Or is it that Democrats believe that the President should be above the law and those who aid him should be above the law. I'd say it is the latter.

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.).

Note:

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:Note:

[wetdogjp]

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.

Re:Note:

[internic]

Further notes:

• McCain didn't vote because he wasn't there. He has publicly supported telecom immunity is recent days, however, so it's safe to say he would have voted for it.
• While Clinton voted against it this time, she didn't bother to show up to vote when this came up earlier this year (to vote on the bill or to help with the filibuster). It still potentially speaks well of her that she was against this, but apparently she wouldn't stand up for it when it was really politically dangerous.
• As for Obama, last time around he spoke out against it and voted to against cloture (i.e., to filibuster). He didn't show up to vote on the bill itself, but it's fair to say that that vote was probably seen to be a foregone conclusion (I'd still have rather he did vote, but it was a primary election day). This time he voted for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster). He did vote for various amendments to limit or strip the immunity provisions, but they all failed, and he voted for the final bill with immunity. It was well known he was going to do this but I, for one, am still quite disappointed.

"Obama (D-IL), Yea"

[Lost Found]

"Change we can believe in" No change at all...

Re:"Obama (D-IL), Yea"

[corsec67]

Or, "Change, for the worse"

That is still change.

Re:"Obama (D-IL), Yea"

[pembo13]

I don't see why people expect another ivy league lawyer+politician to bring change. Are people really so race sensitive that they think that because he is dark skinned his actions will be significantly different from other politicians?

Re:"Obama (D-IL), Yea"

[DreamingReal]

"Change we can believe in" No change at all...

Obama: Change we can believe in!

Me*: Guess who just changed his vote in November bitch!

*I am one of his Illinois constituents and helped him attain his Senate seat and Illinois Democratic Primary victory. The only two votes I will ever cast for this fraud.

Deplorable

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Deplorable

[Wister285]

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!

Such a pity.

[Millennium]

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.

We had one.

[Grendel Drago]

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.

Re:We had one.

[Penguinisto]

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

Re:We had one.

[Firehed]

And if all else fails (and it will, as the elections are probably rigged and everyone running for office is just a different brand of polish on the same extremely rank turd anyways), bombing the state capital. Hardly the ideal solution, but we need a REAL revolution and letter-writing and phone calls quite frankly don't do shit (at least if my canned "here's why I didn't bother reading your letter nor address your concerns and will continue to fuck you over" response is anything to go by).

Of course, attempt this at your own risk, VMMV, IANAL, etc.

Re:We had one.

[megaditto]

Let me get this right. Are you saying that the Democrats had to pass the Telecom immunity bill because the Republicans threatened to filibuster it?

Where are the marines?

[crhylove]

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.

Holy Christ!

[ckaminski]

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts voted NAY/Abstain on this. I nearly had a heart attack.

I feel so much safer

[StefanJ]

Now the government has the tools it needs to protect us. Don't you feel more protected? I feel more protected!

My freedoms are so protected too. Freedom to write things like:

"I wish each member of the Bush administration was dipped in a vat full of Poison Oak sap, and that each senator and representative was made to take turns scratching the oozing blisters on their private parts."

Re:I feel so much safer

[dfm3]

Now the government has the tools it needs to protect itself. Don't you feel more protected? I feel more protected!

Fixed. ;-)

Obama for America owes me $100

[bughunter]

On June 16, I wrote a check for $100 to Obama for America.

On June 23, I learned that Obama would not oppose this bill, and regretted my donation.

On June 24, I called Obama for America and asked for my donation to be returned, and that I would reinstate the donation once I saw Sen. Obama "take effective steps to protect our 4th amendment rights." Needless to say, I was forwarded to a voice mailbox.

On July 9, I still have not received my refund, nor even the courtesy of a return phone call. But I went ahead and donated the $100 to Courage Campaign instead.

Re:Obama for America owes me $100

[ivan256]

So what you're saying is that you tried to buy a senator's vote on legislation (for a meager $100, no less), and you're now surprised that it didn't work?

Maybe you should have considered posting that anonymously.

Living under a rock?

[MushMouth]

Christ wake up, Obama has a history of crap like this.

Re:Living under a rock?

[Abcd1234]

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.

Bloody traitors.

[bigstrat2003]

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.

Time for UNIVERSAL ENCRYPTION

[maillemaker]

It's time for encryption of electronic communications to be the standard rather than the exception.

Make it too expensive to eavesdrop.

Re:Time for UNIVERSAL ENCRYPTION

[oahazmatt]

It's time for encryption of electronic communications to be the standard rather than the exception.

Make it too expensive to eavesdrop.

That would be a short term solution to the problem. If you want a long term solution, we might want to take a look at some other countries and actually stand up and be heard, loud, in person, in a large clump, outside a government building.

Unconstitutional?

[hardburn]

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.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[scorp1us]

It is not really retroactive immunity. This is how they work around it - by allowing dismissals by presidential order from here on out.

There is some question if it can apply to ongoing cases. If it does, then it is definitely unconstitutional and "void ab inito".

But even if held that it cannot apply to cases already in progress, the cases of the past are just a drop in the bucket of what is to come.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[Sabz5150]

Article 1, section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Re:Unconstitutional?

[Chineseyes]

It amazes me how many people think this bill provides some sort of amnesty from criminal prosecution. This bill gives telecoms civil amnesty, given the proper government is voted in the executives at the telecoms may very well be brought up on criminal charges and be put in prison.

Time for the Supreme Court to step in

[plazman30]

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.

Re:Time for the Supreme Court to step in

[Xtravar]

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.

Ex Post Facto

[chinakow]

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.

Re:Ex Post Facto

[the4thdimension]

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.

Re:Ex Post Facto

[hacksoncode]

The only question is whether the legal interpretation of the phrase "ex post facto law" matches the common sense one.

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.

Ok....time for the Supreme Court

[Seakip18]

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.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[unassimilatible]

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.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[rtilghman]

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

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[CFTM]

I disagree, though I see the point you're getting at. Rule of law must be preserved in all instances, it's much too fine a line to walk and at that time this was rule of law. Retroactive immunity should not be tolerated, and it sends a message that corporations should not blindly bend to the will of our government, as no one should.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[cromar]

We have both a natural and legal right to not be searched without a warrant. So yes, by sullying one of the most important legal rights in the US, I would call them treasonous. You're entitled to your opinion (however wrong), but as you are not (personally) giving a free pass to actions that attack the very core of the few good things left about the US legal system, you are not being treasonous. Very close, but, y'know, the First Amendment? Might not matter to you. If the tables were turned you might think I should be thrown into a prison somewhere and left to starve. Maybe not you personally, but there are certainly some (many?) that would.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[EndingPop]

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.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[Alyred]

I'm more concerned with the illegal, warrantless wiretapping they were asked to do (and complied with) BEFORE 9/11. Without immunity, most of these companies could be compelled to testify at hearings designed to bring to light what DID happen, and WHO was wiretapped, and be granted immunity when they were cooperative.

Now, there's no reason for them to comply with anything. Bush wins again.

The thing is, if they did nothing wrong, what have they got to hide? Right? Isn't that what they always tell us about the wiretapping? We don't even KNOW what they did that we are granting them immunity of -- but wow, are they spending billions to "convince" our legislators that there's "Nothing to see here, move along..."

They seem pretty desperate to make sure that nothing they did will even come to light.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[Mitreya]

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?

That's why companies have lawyers on payroll, to advise them of legality of their actions. Assurances of immunity against legal sanction should be no good against doing something illegal. Presumably, if the government agent comes to you and asks you to kill someone promising legal immunity, that does not and should not make you immune in court of law. I hear QWest refused the demands until a warrant is shown.

You might not be a traitor for thinking that, but anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution and serve their district are pretty much traitors - yes. I would think upholding the Constitution would involve not sanctioning and immunizing (allegedly) illegal behavior without even knowing what it involved. Not to mention Obama who explicitly promised to oppose the immunity before his Democratic candidacy was ensured.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor?

[pluther]

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.

If they were "given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction", that only proves that they knew up front that what they were doing was illegal.

If my brother assured that he would make sure I faced no legal sanction if I broke into my neighbor's house, do you think I should therefore be immune to prosecution? What if my brother claims to have a good reason? Would the answer be the same if my brother is a policeman? What if he's the President?

If you can answer those questions, you might understand what the problem is here.

I feel reasonable minds can disagree on matters of public policy. But to you I am a traitor?

Were you paid large sums of money to deliberately violate the Constitution of the United States, and then try to block Senate investigations into the matter? If so, then, yes, you're a traitor.

If not, then I'd just say you really don't understand the entire point of America's existence, and the difference between a top-down government where the rulers are the law and a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" where laws are applicable to all people, regardless of their station.

The actual impact

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

Dean explains why current legislation regarding FISA would not hamper the next president's ability to push forward with criminal charges; cites the position regarding possible criminal charges that Obama had previously voiced; and describes the pardon dilemma with which President Bush may be faced if Obama continues to adhere to that position.

Article here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

Long time supporter

[wwwgregcom]

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.

Re:Long time supporter

[MyNymWasTaken]

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.

Re:McCain didn't vote?

[BinBoy]

I wasn't expecting that either. Obama voted for it and McCain didn't. Weird.

On the other hand

[Joe the Lesser]

Every single damn republican voted yea. Well, those who bothered to show up.

So a WTF to Obama, but at least half of the democrats stood by their people.

Donations from Obama to ACLU

[daeg]

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.

Bloody Democrats?

[stomv]

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.

Re:Mother

[truthsearch]

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.

Feingold's comments == win

[Fireye]

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.
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...
...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.

About the other votes

[vrmlguy]

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)

Clinton D-NY YEA (to the Induce act)

[plasmacutter]

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.

Just Following Orders

[SideshowBob]

"Just Following Orders" is not an excuse to break the law.

Get Angry

[Bob9113]

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.

Re:How about the chick.. Clinton D-NY NAY

[Free the Cowards]

Still wouldn't have voted for her. But now I'm not going to vote for Obama either.

Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[stinerman]

Greenwald makes the point that this bill couldn't get passed when Republicans held the House and Senate.

Apparently Bush needed a Democrat-controlled Congress to get his get-out-of-jail free card.

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[Shakrai]

"All three of my representatives voted nay" -- that's not quite how the House works. One of those Representatives is "yours." The other two represent different districts, and are not subject to your vote.

Actually I was referring to my Federal representatives, not merely my representative in the House. That would include my Congressman (Hinchey, NY-22) and both of my Senators (Clinton and Schumer).

It was probably still a poor choice of words on my part though.

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[credford]

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.

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[NormalVisual]

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?

We're not the ones to ask. You should call his office and ask them instead.

I'm not an Obama supporter, and I've felt all along that he was talking a good game, but couldn't back it up when push came to shove. However, I had the hope that I might be wrong about him. I'm truly disappointed to see that he seems more and more to be just a politician that's not able/willing to stand up for anything of import.

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[Shakrai]

It actually put *more* restrictions on the executive branch.

While taking away our ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that might have broken the law accountable.

Just because part of it smells like roses doesn't mean the legislation as a whole doesn't stink.

Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand

[TheoMurpse]

Why the hell did she even let this come up?

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.

The Democratic Party is dead to me

[maynard]

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.

How They Voted: The Quick Reference

[shma]

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.

Land of the Oppressed, and Home of the Afraid.

[dlmarti]

This just pisses me off. I think we should repeal every law that was passed since 9/11.

July 9th, 2008

[Tikkun]

This day will live in infamy.

You want to cite the court cases?

[NReitzel]

Illegal wiretapping program? Unconstitutionally granting immunity?

Have you ever taken a civics class? Something that a president does may or may not be "illegal" -- the fact that Congress has decided it to be unlawful notwithstanding. In this country, there is this thing called "separation of powers" and in point of fact, the illegality or constitutionality of a presidential action or congressional mandate is decided by the judicial branch, and not by preferred political spin.

Do you really believe that what an elected president may choose to do in defiance of congress is as simple as quotng a city charter for a parking ticket?

It's not simple. It's not straightforward. If it were either, then presidents wouldn't do things that Congress doesn't like (wiretaps), and Congress wouldn't do things that otherwise sound very unconstitutional, like granting immunity to some (but not all) telecom companies.

This, my friend, is why the ACLU exists, and why the Supreme Court of the United States listens to arguments about constitutional issues.

As bothersome as these issues are, it beats tanks in the streets hands down.

don't worry about this

[commodoresloat]

We are only going to use it to snoop on phone calls to and from Sweden. The Russians asked us to do it.

Money!

[sleigher]

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

Enjoy the two party system

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Enjoy the two party system

[Bowling Moses]

51% isn't enough. 100% isn't enough either (heh--Lieberman?). It has to be at least 51% freedom-loving Constitution-supporting senators, regardless of political party. Unfortunately you seldom get a senator who supports all of the Bill of Rights. Democrats have a bizarre hatred of the second amendment, Republicans aren't particularly fond of the 1st and 4th amendments. This FISA bill shits all over the 4th amendment, so every single Republican senator reliably goose-stepped up to vote for it (McCain and Sessions didn't vote, but were expected to vote for it. 22 Dems likewise betrayed their country including Obama). Every patriotic Nay vote came from Democrats plus Bernie Sanders who caucuses with them. So a point to Dems for being slightly less treasonous. Huzzah.

Re:Enjoy the two party system

[ChaoticLimbs]

If voting ever changed things, you would be forcibly prevented from doing it.

Re:Enjoy the two party system

[Weaselmancer]

Well, it's rare when it's this freaking blatant. But you do make a good point. For every time we get to actually see it, I'm sure ten more go zinging by in the night.

So speaking of blatant, have the Democrats given any sort of explanation at all why they've decided to give this administration a pass on this? What's their cover story on this one?

I already know the answer - "Because we're paid for." Of course they won't say that. It'd be the truth, which is like freaking Kryptonite to politicians. But I'd love to hear the excuse to cover.

Re:Enjoy the two party system

[WingedHorse]

nahhh look at the money trail. When you look at exactly HOW MUCH money goes into lobbying. Then how much goes into donations, how much goes into favours its worrisome. A few years back I used to hang out in some shady corners of the internet so I got a lot more of this sort of information. Even if not all of congress is corrupt I can assure you at least 80 have been bribed whether they returned the favour or not.

So it must be true!

Not quite

[dj245]

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.

Unless you feel that there is no practical difference between candidates and would rather vote for neither than be forced to choose.

Obama voted yes after saying he wouldn't

[EMG at MU]

Obama said he would oppose any bill that granted immunity to the telecoms.

For all who think Obama stands for change, YOUR WRONG.He voted yes. Yes to the immunity that he said he would oppose. He is just as useless as Bush.

Revolution

[BloodyIron]

What I don't understand is why the fuck you americans are standing idly by. What ever happened to the government working for you? If they don't, replace them.

Get your guns
Get your presidents, dead.

Stop fucking around and do something about it, clearly your government isn't representing you, otherwise you wouldn't be fucking sitting here bitching about it. I'm a Canadian citizen and I'm outraged at the apathy you fucking "citizens" have. If you don't fucking do something soon you're going to be slaves. Don't give up your freedom that you "fought so hard to protect".

Don't change your plans

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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.

No worries.

Re:Don't change your plans

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Don't change your plans

[Man On Pink Corner]

He wanted to end the war on science.

Yeah, by defunding NASA. Pull the other finger, it's got bells on it.

Re:Don't change your plans

[LaughingCoder]

The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person [hillaryclinton.com] who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.

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.

What about Ron Paul?

[laktech]

Yeah, pretty weak that Obama voted Yes for this. This got me thinking about Ron Paul's stance on this bill and I found this article. Very uplifting.

Some days...

[CFBMoo1]

I wish I could vote "None of the above." in elections. Today is really one of them, which sadly seems more like every day.

It helps to understand what this is all about

[grandpa-geek]

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.

Obama (D-IL), Yea

[elrous0]

'nuff said.

I don't see you running...

[corychristison]

... to make a difference.

It's frustrating to see people get this worked up about shit like this but are just as lazy as the next guy.... like me!

Obama lost me as a supporter - here's my letter

[teshuvah]

I'm sure he won't read this, won't care, but nonetheless I wrote this:

----------------

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

Re:Obama lost me as a supporter - here's my letter

[TheGratefulNet]

When you don't vote, you have given up that voice.

and yet, here is the late george carlin's view:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:UKAsJypmKkUJ:thinkexist.com/quotation/i-don-t-vote-two-reasons-first-of-all-it-s/761194.html+george+carlin+I+don't+vote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around - they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

before you reject it right away, give it a bit of thought. carlin was insightful, way ahead of his time.

Re:Obama lost me as a supporter - here's my letter

[noidentity]

I have never voted in my life [...] 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.

Same here. I was going to register and vote for Obama in the election coming up, but now I'm thinking it'll just be a waste of time.

Re:Obama lost me as a supporter - here's my letter

[p-cubed]

Obama's yes vote on FISA is completely unnecessary from an electoral calculus. My sense is that the story line that the Democrats "cave in" because of fearing voters will see them as soft on terror is a smoke screen. Democrats are winning seats in Mississippi! None of these jerks needed to vote for this to be more than competitive in their next election. They all know this,but they feel somehow compelled to "compromise". Curious, isn't it? Compromise, when you don't need to and don't have to. I don't buy it. I think the Democratic leadership, and Bush Democrats ("Blue Dogs") were party to, or had prior knowledge of, the illegal surveillance programs. So this vote is to cover their own asses. Nothing else makes sense.

can we stop calling it illegal now?

[MrGHemp]

So there was a heated debate weather the wiretapping was legal or not... it was regularly claimed to be illegal... now congress passed a bill clairfying that it's legal... when they pass a law saying you can do it, it's legal, no matter how much you may dislike it. So my real question is can we stop calling it the "illegal domestic wiretapping program"?

Re:can we stop calling it illegal now?

[space_hippy]

Sure. But I'll still call it "warrant-less" and "unconstitutional" if you don't mind.

Just exercising my 1st Amendment rights.

get them while you can...

[space_hippy]

The collectors value of this stuff is going to go though the roof.

The terrist are comming, the terrist are comming!

[I cant believe its n]

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.

Anyone else notice this lately?

[cyberjock1980]

I swear in the last 2 years I've heard more and more laws being passed, with OUR voted in representatives, that quite a few people claim are illegal before they are even signed into law. Has anyone stopped to think about this? In this case, all these lawsuits involving the telecoms will be dismissed. A big fight will ensue over the legality of this new law... 5+ years from now it might(or might not) get struck down as unconstitional. What happens then? Oops, your right to sue has expired since the statue of limitations has long expired. Congress accomplished what they wanted, to protect the telecoms. And they will do JUST that, even if this law is completely unconstitional. What I want to see is a law that requires that all laws be found constitional by a court before they can be passed. This system of being able to pass unconstitional laws KNOWING that they are unconstitional is just out of control.

I've watched our government(the USA) worry about the "zomg right now we need gas for cheap" instead of stopping to think that we'll still need it for cheap next year, 10 years from now, maybe 50 years from now. The government deal with the RIGHT here, RIGHT now. They don't think about tomorrow. That's part of the problem with the USA. We don't think ahead at all. Our attempts to think ahead are only because some other company 'thought ahead', and they know just how to make ALOT of money off of the government, our government.

My dad told me of a song by the Grass Roots called "Let's live for today". Apparently quite a few radio stations refused to play it because the words to the song basically ignore what could happen tomrrow, and just worry about right now. This is the world we live in. We're living for today.

Look at how people are handling the war in Iraq. We went in there, now the Democrats are saying that they only gave permission to invade, not stay for years to clean up the government that WE removed. Are they serious!?

Look at our government spending. We're spending money faster than we ever have, and there's no attempt to control it. The dollar is weakening daily as a result and Bush and Co. want to spend more money? Are they serious!?

Stop and look at all of your gripes about the government mishandling things, and then ask yourself how much of them could have been handled better had we simply thought ahead.

Quite often the gripes people have that they want the government to fix are because they didn't think ahead themselves. Variable home loans and you signed up for more house than you could afford? Gas prices out of control? Hurricane destroyed your house and although you could have had insurance you didn't spend the money? You gotta own up to your own mistakes.

We need to start thinking ahead folks. Plain and simple.

Do I plan ahead in my life? I didn't choose 'the perfect spot on the beach that's 45 mins away in my Hummer'. I chose a location that is close to work. I am 10 minutes from work, and I drive a minivan(vice an SUV) because it is more fuel efficient than an SUV. I also have my beater car around for when I drive alone. It gets slightly better gas mileage than my minivan.

I try to think of what COULD go wrong in the future, instead of dealing with the future when it fsck me in the a$$. Why can't my government do the same?

I just wonder what our founding fathers would think of the USA if they were here now.

Are we sure McCain wasn't simply absent?

[Overzeetop]

I didn't check the register, but we seem to be assuming that McCain was present for the vote and actually abstained. Kennedy was also listed as "Not Voting," though I presume it was because he is recovering. Voting yea is a definite ding. Missing the vote entirely isn't exactly winning top honors in my book either, though.

got money? - insert here

[catpsi]

If you donated to the Obama campaign, may I suggest a toll fee phone call asking for a refund? (866) 675-2008. You might also consider a better place for your donation: http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/

Re:You linked to it

[Shakrai]

I supported the telecom immunity

I'd like to hear an explanation for that, because from where I sit it's the Government using "National Security" as an excuse to give a get-out-of-jail-free card to companies that willingly violated the law just because the Government asked them to do so.

The Government that still won't come clean about it's actions. Now it's the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government coming together to deny the people access to the third branch and any remaining ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that broke the law accountable.

Someone please remind me why..

[guacamole]

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.

some others are more recent

[Trepidity]

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.

I think it's more than that

[Trepidity]

The main reason to pass this immunity legislation is not to protect the phone companies, but to protect the government. If these cases went forward, there would be discovery and subpoenas, and whoever authorized and knew about the illegal wiretapping would stand a decent chance of being discovered.

I'd wager that there are high-ranking Democratic Senators and Congressmen who at least knew that this was taking place, and so it's in their interests, as well as the Bush administration's, that no subpoenas get issued.

Obama did vote to strip immunity

[Trepidity]

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.

United Corporations of America? No, Comrade!!

[Un pobre guey]

Welcome, Comrade!

Welcome to the glorious Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics!

Re:The terrist are comming, the terrist are commin

[Un pobre guey]

You're on the right track. Read Shock Doctrine . You'll be disappointed to learn that it is a tried and true formula.

Re:Glad my vote counted.

[cryptodan]

Why did you want it to pass (assuming your post is not a troll)? Do you actually believe the "Global War on Terror" is a legitimate, well-founded, and sincerely pursued enterprise? Do you think people are lining up to come and attack us out of sheer irrational hatred? Do you think it is credible that "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," and it doesn't occur to the bad guys to just come over here and attack us anyway instead of waiting in line patiently to fight one-on-one with our hero like in an old Batman episode?

Surely you can't be so gullible, so willing to take everything at face value and without analysis, so ready to assume that "they must know something we don't, so I'll trust them." Have you never ever wondered whether the vast sums of money changing hands have a significant bearing on the situation?

Well after working at the NSA while in the US Navy you tend to see things in a whole different light in regards to how much effort and money is spent on intelligence collection and analysis of such information. You also see more of the "real" news in raw unedited format of what exactly is going on. Some of the crap i have seen and read would make your jaw drop, and make you think why do we allow this to happen or propagate well within our borders, and why do we allow them to constantly put our civilians in danger. It is absurd the amount of trouble the intelligence communities do to make sure our borders are safe, and the amount of money and research and development goes into the programs that people want to see stopped because they think it infringes on our rights when in all actuality they do not.

Re:Glad my vote counted.

[Un pobre guey]

You were in the NSA? Fair enough. Perhaps you could give us more details rather than just veiled implications. I lived in the Third World for almost 20 years. I know the world is a rough place, and there are all sorts of criminals and sociopaths out there (and, lamentably, in our own nation) at every level of society. Nevertheless, you have not made any kind of case in favor of the FISA bill that was passed.

Violence?

[RecycledElectrons]

Just a reminder: The legal system is a replacement for violence to settle disputes as long as both parties agree to it. Once one sides refuses to use the legal system, the result is that both parties begin to use violence.

In this case, Congress and the Telcos have refused to use any option other than brute force & violence. Our options are clear.

Andy

Re:Russia, China, Anyone..

[Bob Gelumph]

Shouldn't they click "Launch"? Just pointing the thing isn't going to help them.

Remember, Obama isn't the confirmed nominee yet

[WalkingWounded]

... and he doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates. If Democrats (and the public) can kick up enough of a stink that enough superdelegates take notice, it's still possible to have a nominee who voted against this.