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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Pollardito]

does that mean we'd all get free cars?

Re:Remember in November.

[shipbrick]

Yep. Obama just gave Bob Barr my vote.

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...

[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.

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.

Damnit

[martinw89]

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

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

[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

[akzeac]

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

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

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.

"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:habeas corpus

[gEvil (beta)]

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

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.

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

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.

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

Re:McCain didn't vote?

[BinBoy]

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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.