Slashdot Mirror
Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill
zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.
I'm sure you're all feeling a little bit better now right ?
Um, right ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
While they might not miss the relatively few votes of those of us who cared about the Republic, at least we'll be able to say we made the attempt.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.
I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does. They don't care. This nation needs a serious shakeup NOW.
I have no words for how cheated I feel right now.
"Obama (D-IL), Yea"
From CNN
In short: They aren't outright granted immunity, but instead a hearing will be held where they will undoubtedly be granted immunity. Bloody Democrats, they never have a spine when they need one.
PS: Hello to whatever TLA is currently monitoring this
McCain abstained.
Obama voted yea.
Biden voted nay
Kerry voted nay
Hillary voted nay
Now you know for real who stands for freedom and change and who doesn't.
My blog
"Change we can believe in" No change at all...
Oh, don't worry. They'll gladly show the judge the corpse.
This guy's the limit!
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.
Here I'd had hopes for Obama. Real hopes, too. But if he'd betray his country on a vote like this, then I just lost a great deal of respect for the man.
Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history happened, giving a clear mandate to our lawmakers to end the war? Somehow that didn't happen. Somehow the legislative groundwork got laid for another war in the meantime.
My congresscritters happened to be on the right side of this. If yours were not, I strongly suggest calling their offices and informing them that (if they're Democrats) your donations next election cycle will be going to their challenger in the primary. And then, of course, following through on that.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And why are they not marching on Washington to protect the constitution? If they bring the M16s, I'll be right there with the bullhorn, stretchers, and snacks. Unless they want to teach me how to use an M16.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
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."
Christ wake up, Obama has a history of crap like this.
I am appalled to see such an idiotic piece of legislation pass. Does the rule of law mean NOTHING in our country any more? I may as well tell CmdrTaco that it's ok to shoot his neighbor, and then get him immunity just because I said so. Shame on you, senators. Shame on each and every one of you who voted for this godforsaken bill.
Seriously, fuck it. I don't know what the point is any more. Our government not only has a complete lack of respect for the rights of the American citizen, but also a lack of respect for OUR OWN GODDAMNED LAWS. Why should you and I act any differently than them? What, other than the point of a gun, is supposed to keep us from ignoring laws just because we feel like it?
Senators who voted against the bill, I applaud you, but your valiant efforts were for naught. There are 69 traitors in our Senate, rendering you impotent.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
It's time for encryption of electronic communications to be the standard rather than the exception.
Make it too expensive to eavesdrop.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Can somebody explain the constitutional argument here? I can understand the illegal nature of warrentless wiretapping, but not the retroactively granting amnesty part. That seems like something that'd be within congress' power to grant, should it so choose.
Not a typewriter
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.
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.
To fulfill it's balance power. Oh...what? um..They support it? Who would appoint judges that would?.....Oh....Dang. Guess it'll be up to the next wave of judges to do the right thing.....if that even it exists by the time they get there.
import system.cool.Sig;
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
I feel reasonable minds can disagree on matters of public policy. But to you I am a traitor?
What is the standard for flamebait here anyway? I am confused.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
In between reading the legislation (which none of you will do) and reading only the summary, you might consider reading some analysis of this by someone who Is A Lawyer:
Article here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html
I have supported Obama since last August. I have the bumper sticker and T-shirt to prove it. Mr. Obama just lost my support. His telecom position was one of the key reasons I supported him. The bumper sticker has already been removed.
What signature defines me as a person?
I wasn't expecting that either. Obama voted for it and McCain didn't. Weird.
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.
Of the 49 Democrats in the Senate, the vote was 20-27-1 for FISA -- the Dems as a group voted against the bill, with Kennedy not present.
Of the 2 Independents in the Senate, the vote was 1-1-0 for FISA -- Sanders voted against, Lieberman for.
Of the 49 Republicans in the Senate, the vote was 47-0-2 for FISA -- the Republicans as a group voted unanimously for the bill, with McCain and Sessions not present.
So it seems to me the beef ought not to be with the "Bloody Democrats" -- but rather with 100% of the Republican Senators, 50% of the Independent Senators, and roughly 40% of the Democratic Senators.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
I'm quite annoyed that one of my two senators voted in favor of this amendment, and I've already written her an email, not that she'll ever read it.
...So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companiesâ(TM) legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and is immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the governmentâ(TM)s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.
Anywho, Feingold had a really nice position-point short written up on this subject, and I found myself to be largely in agreement with his views.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/07/20080708.htm
When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that, in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear that some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power â" the power to listen in on peopleâ(TM)s personal conversations...
She cosigned the induce act, remember that lovely piece of legislation? The one that would have made the general purpose pc, the smart phone, the blackberry, and the ipod illegal?
yeah, she's such a great, "stand-up for the little guy" kind of politican.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"Just Following Orders" is not an excuse to break the law.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. -- Obama
Hang on - typo in there...
Given the choice between sacrificing the 4th amendment and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. -- Obama
There, fixed that for ya.
Thanks for the run Obama, it was nice to have six months to believe there could be a principled President.
Now, let's all drop the depression, disappointment, and bargaining. And for damned sure let's not slip into acceptance. Let's focus on the right phase of grief for this ongoing usurpation of our nation; anger.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I'm proud to say that the senator that represents me (and that I actually voted for) voted Nay!
All three of my representatives voted nay as well. At least that's something.
I'm extremely dismayed to see Obama's reversal on this issue. I'd really like to hear what his reasoning was. I'm angry enough right now that I'm questioning why I've been supporting him all this time and wondering why I should be using my vacation time to go campaign for him (as I have been planning) when he just reversed himself on a major promise to his supporters? Why the hell should I keep giving him money when I could give it to my own representatives that actually had the backbone to oppose this?
I'll probably take a few days to cool off and then evaluate this situation further. Right now I'm mad as hell about it and if the election was held tomorrow I'd probably be voting for Nader. Hell, a write-in for Hillary even -- she had the balls to vote against it.
This just sucks no matter how you slice it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
We are only going to use it to snoop on phone calls to and from Sweden. The Russians asked us to do it.
Here's a part of the money trail
Telecom Contributions - 2006
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House
Time Warner $13,200
AT&T Inc $13,000
Comcast Corp $10,000
Communications Workers of America $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000
Total Pelosi $56,200
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chmn. Sen. Intell. Cmte.
AT&T Inc $16,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $16,000
BellSouth Corp $14,900
Total Rockefeller $46,900
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-CA), House Majority Leader
AT&T Inc $12,000
Comcast Corp $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000
Time Warner $10,000
Total Hoyer $42,000
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader
BellSouth Corp $31,050
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader
AT&T Inc $22,000
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader
NelNet Inc $19,600
All points of time and space are connected.
It's an illusion.
It's not that they don't have the backbone to stand up to Bush. They have no wish to. Rare moments like these let you know who the real master is. Money. Money and the people/corporations who have large piles of it. Like gigantic telcos in this particular instance.
The whole two party noise machine is just there to dull the wits of the masses and make them think they can change things.
They can't.
Remember how happy the Democrats were when the Congress became 51% Democratic? How's that working out so far? Fat lot of good it did, wouldn't you say?
Face it - we're bought and paid for. You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all fucking the good it does.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
I wish I could vote "None of the above." in elections. Today is really one of them, which sadly seems more like every day.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
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.
'nuff said.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
----------------
Mr. Obama,
I am writing to you in regards to your vote on the telecom immunity/FISA bill today. I have never voted in my life, mostly because I've always felt that all politicians, especially presidential candidates, are all corrupted to the core. Bribes, AKA "campaign contributions", are what get laws passed in this country. I feel that we have become the United Corporations of America, in such that the country is completely run by corporate-bought politicians.
Then you came along. Your message of change and hope, your rejection of lobbyists, and your sincerity caused me to believe in a candidate for the first time in my life. I was a big evangelizer of yours. I thought that maybe, just maybe this country had a chance to return to the ideals that our founding fathers believed in. You seemed to be our country's last hope.
But then you voted in favor of the FISA/telecom immunity bill. For months you've been saying that you did not support it, but then after you won the primaries, you seemed to have changed your tune. I cannot fathom how the Barack Obama I supported in the primaries could vote for such a bill. The bill is beyond unconstitutional. Increasing the president's abilities to illegally spy on Americans is bad enough, but now the telecoms who illegally participated in the past get immunity. How is this change? How is this hope? How is this anything different than the past decades of corporate bought and paid for government? Removing even more of our civil liberties, and giving a "get out of jail free" card to those telecoms is not change. It's more of the same.
I'm sure your position was switched because your top analysts told you that a vote against it would make you seem soft on terrorism. I had assumed you would do what you do best though - stand up and explain the situation from your perspective, and straighten everyone out. You did the same thing with the whole Jeremiah Wright ordeal. The media was having a frenzy, and you did something unprecedented - you talked to the media and the American people like a real person, not a politician. I had assumed you would stand your ground with the FISA bill, and address the American people as to why you voted that way. But instead, you fell into the trap that the current administration's fearmongering has laid.
I'm very sorry that you voted for this bill. With one single vote of yours, you have now lost me as a voter. I will no longer endorse you to those I know, and will work to make sure people I know understand the implications of this illegal bill you voted for. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. The internet is swarming with angry, upset supporters of yours, who feel the same as I do. They too will be abstaining from voting this November.
I haven't given up on you yet, and I'm hoping that you will do something publicly in the next few days to address this, and win my support back. I want to believe in hope and change, but frankly all I see now is another politician who managed to trick me. I hope you can prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
A Former Obama Supporter
Its kind of funny (not really) how a lot of countries ended up with a similar scheme of no wiretap warrants needed - the "terrists" are out to get us - kind of laws.
If I didn't know better I would think that a couple of "old boys" from each country got together and decided what to force into local legislation. The recommended way: to use some "great external threat" to get the parliament moving in the right direction.
In my [european] country, the threat from terrorists was cited. When an MP asked when our country had ever even experienced terrorism, it was mentioned that an old primeminister was shot to death, a minister of foreign affairs was stabbed to death and a man had been arrested who had planned to kidnap an old minister of justice.
These are all very serious crimes, but the first was commited by a single run down alcoholic, the second was commited by a single psycologically unstable man, which was also the case in the third crime. How many believe that these three violent crimes would have been stopped by using warrantless wiretapping?
More importantly, how did these crimes constitute terrorism? Needless to say, we now have warrantless wiretapping.
She made the willows dance
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.
It's only been 19 years since Ceausescu died. And Berlusconi is apparently still not dead. Neither is Joerg Haider, though it's been 6 years since his party was in power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
He voted for all three amendments that would have stripped or at least delayed consideration of immunity. Granted, he should have voted against the final bill as unacceptable when those amendments did not pass, but he did at least vote for the amendments, the closest of which failed only 42-56. Had any Republicans except Arlen Specter bothered to stand up for the Constitution and rule of law, immunity might well have been removed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10