Politics

Senate Passes FISA & Immunity: On to President's Desk

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:11:46 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

In a 69-28 vote, members of the United States Senate voted to amend FISA and grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies involved in the warrantless wiretapping scheme.

The legislation passed the House of Representatives last month, and privacy advocates had hoped that the retroactive immunity provisions would be removed and the bill curtailed in the Senate.

The President had threatened to veto any legislation that did not include retroactive immunity for those companies that participated in any illegal wiretapping program. With over 3 dozen civil suits pending in court it was possible that the telecommunication companies were facing a major financial loss for going along with the government program. It is unclear if the Senators even knew what they were voting on, as the details of the program remain so secret the majority of the legislators did not even know the full extent of what they were granting immunity for.

In other news, a little known court case could have major repercussions in the telecommunications privacy debate. A Federal Judge recently ruled that the FISA Act and its process for issuing surveillance orders trumped any of the President's reasoning or justification for his warrantless monitoring program. Some went as far to state that the ruling effectively called out the President for breaking the law and committing felonies.

Either way with privacy rights groups threatening to continue to challenge these laws in the courts and in the public arena it is unlikely that the debate will end with the President's upcoming signature. It may become an issue for the campaign trail as Senator Obama cast a vote for the bill and Senator McCain ducked the roll call.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, politics, FISA (all tags)

This story: 25 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
10

This one really pisses ME off

WMK.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Hey Mayor - I think I found something worthy to inspire heartfelt outrage and disgust.

Our ruling elite just icepicked us all in the face - how are we digging that?  Does it feel good?  Does it make us all proud to be Americans?

Retroactive immunity is wrong.

If the FISA needs amending or whatever so 'America can fight its enemies' that is a SEPARATE issue from lets grant retroactive immunity to telecoms who broke the law - and by extension a government that broke the law.

These fuckers are traitors - I don't think it can be any clearer than when they join together to assist criminals who broke the law in getting away with it, they are accessories to the crime.  

List of 68 TRAITORS who voted for FISA with retroactive immunity:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

11

^ 10

You must have missed the first comment.

MayorBob.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:57:16 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

While I wouldn't call it treason, granting cover to the telcoms was a singularly gutless and conscienceless act. I do what I can and I don't have a magic wand to make all 68 (I thought it was 69) go away. What I can do is express my outrage to my Senator (Tom Carper) and insure that I work on behalf of whomever runs against him in future elections.

Short of that, it would be nice to have a federal prosecutor eager enough to look into what Bush, Cheney, et al were about.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

13

^ 11

It was 69.

MayorBob.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 07:41:11 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

You forgot about Obama who voted for the bill.  This is some change to believe in, huh?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

14

^ 13

Re: It was 69.

thefadd.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST

none

how appropriate

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

16

^ 10

fuck

JimmyHavok.

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:29:44 PM EST

4.50 (astute, interesting)

I knew fucking Inouye would vote for it.  I've hated his ass ever since he let Reagan off the hook for Iran-Contra because "it would cause a Constituitonal crisis."  Fuck yeah having a President who blatantly breaks the law is a Constitutional crisis!  Maybe if he'd been a Democrat instead of a DINO a few decades ago we wouldn't be in this mess.

21

Reading

profwhat.

Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM EST

5.00

So, how many of those of you who criticize this bill have read it, or read a reliable summary of it?  At least a few who have are concluding that it increases civil liberties protections over what we had before:

The new FISA amendments compare to last year's Protect America Act by expanding judicial review dramatically, clarifying that the law cannot be used to monitor individuals inside the United States without a warrant, and imposing, for the first time, a warrant requirement on the surveillance of Americans overseas (in addition to the preexisting warrant requirement on the surveillance of Americans inside the United States). It is a major improvement over last year's law from a civil libertarian perspective.
Also notable: the law says that "the exclusive means" for foreign intelligence collections is FISA, not some bullshit "program" dreamed up by John Yoo and David Addington.  

22

^ 21

Re: Reading

thefadd.

Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST

none

While, on second reading, I do find your criticisms of my comment above astute, didn't the judge in the last two links already find that "the law says that "the exclusive means" for foreign intelligence collections is FISA, not some bullshit 'program' dreamed up by John Yoo and David Addington" to be the case?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

23

^ 22

Re: Reading

profwhat.

Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM EST

none

Yes, although having Congress say that carries more weight than one judge.

24

^ 23

Re: Reading

thefadd.

Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST

none

Yes but the judge found Congress had already said that and another judge is just going to have to find it all over again when next the President decides he wants to ignore what Congress has said.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

8

Re: [...]

DEMachina.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:27:17 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

I like how Congress gets to give themselves pay raises even when they don't do their job, or in this case try to do some research on What it All Means.

Then again, why bother when large corporations (in this case telecos) will pay you for your vote?

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

1

McCain Ducked The Vote Because He Could.

MayorBob.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:33:11 AM EST

none

As for the rest of the Senate, so much for that "things will change around here when we're in charge." Even though the telcoms are off the hook, I'm wondering if there's a federal prosecutor with some balls who might see their way to try to indict Bush, Cheney and anyone else in the executive departments for authorizing illegal wiretappings.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

5

^ 1

Re: McCain Ducked The Vote Because He Could.

thefadd.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST

5.00 (informative, informative)

Read the last two links. There is a federal judge prepared to find President George W. Bush criminally liable should the attorneys for the plaintiff in the case be able to show within 30 days (without using any evidence that has been declared a state secret--and there's the catch) that their clients where spied upon and the attorneys think they can meet that standard. Where it goes from there...

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

6

^ 5

I am a cynic.

pO157.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:06:11 PM EST

5.00 (astute, funny)

Where it goes from there...

To page B16. Hey, look! Various B list celebrities are doing something fatuous!

12

^ 5

Re: McCain Ducked The Vote Because He Could.

profwhat.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 06:59:49 PM EST

5.00 (astute, informative)

I'm sorry, that isn't even close to resembling something that's correct.  A federal judge is not prepared to "find" Bush criminally liable.  Under the constitution, only a jury can do that (unless waived), and before it can do that you need things like an indictment, trial, and other due process niceties.  Bush isn't even a party to the civil suit that has you so interested.

Law is tough, and you need decent journalists to figure it out.  Shockingly, Ars Technica and Salon are not up to the task.  (To be fair to Salon, they're just running a self-serving piece by one of the lawyers in the case).

"5.00 (informative, informative)"?  Really?

15

^ 1

the likely scenario

JimmyHavok.

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Jan. 19, 2009:

  1. Bush gives blanket pardons to all cronies
  2. Bush resigns
3)Cheney gives blanket pardon to Bush

There's no way to prevent the first two steps, the only way to prevent the third is to refuse to swear in Cheney.

It's time for a constitutional amendment.  The power of the pardon needs to be restricted so that the President cannot give pardons for acts done on his behalf.

17

^ 15

Re: the likely scenario

delete me.

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:54:15 PM EST

none

Is there any entity with the power to unpardon someone in the US?

Also, Bush couldn't give a pardon to Cheney that will prevent Cheney from being impeached as a sitting President or Vice President.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

18

^ 17

Re: the likely scenario

pO157.

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Also, Bush couldn't give a pardon to Cheney that will prevent Cheney from being impeached as a sitting President or Vice President.

Let's assume for a moment that Nancy "It amuses me that the little people who voted me in now demand action" Pelosi actually gives a shit enough to hold impeachment hearings. Let's assume the trial in the Senate would actually convict either Bush or Cheney. It would take a week or two at the minimum.

Resigning, finding a judge willing to swear in The Chainsaw, and signing a pardon would take all of 10 minutes. Maybe less if they break for martinis. They will never be held criminally liable for anything, even if they were impeached.

Also, what prevents a President from pardoning him/herself? Resigning and swearing in Cheney might not even be required.

19

^ 18

Re: the likely scenario

delete me.

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:05:21 PM EST

none

I suppose if a President could pardon herself, then a President could unpardon someone. (I mean, while we're imagining scenarios where corrupt politicians get their due and Democrats in office have a spine... Why not?)

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

20

^ 17

Re: the likely scenario

JimmyHavok.

Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:52:36 AM EST

none

Bush couldn't give a pardon to Cheney that will prevent Cheney from being impeached as a sitting President or Vice President.

12 hours is short notice to file papers of impeachment...not that they would stop a pardon.

2

Hypothetically.

pO157.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:01:01 AM EST

none

If this had taken place a month or two ago, or if HillDog had not conceded the nomination how much do you want to bet that Obama would have voted "No" and then spent 10 hours complaining about the legislation? Perhaps the most unsafe place to be after a primary season is between Obama and the middle of the road.

Obama an agent of change? Ok. Sure.

3

^ 2

Re: Hypothetically.

port1080.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST

5.00 (interesting, interesting)

Perhaps the most unsafe place to be after a primary season is between Obama and the middle of the road.

Obama an agent of change? Ok. Sure.

The problem isn't so much Obama as it is the system itself, or perhaps democracy in general.  Plato was one of the first, if certainly not the last, to argue that sometimes what the people want isn't always the best policy.  As much as I dislike this legislation, it's not surprising to me that it passed.  It was crafted in such a way that it could be sold as a middle-of-the-road compromise (although you and I might argue that it's not) and I think it's fair to say that most voters, if they think much about this at all, will think "well if it protects us from the terr'rists it must be good!"  Civil liberties issues (other than religion and gun rights!), particularly abstracts ones like this, rarely win anyone an election - but being seen as soft on terror may well LOSE you an election (which, I'm sure, is the calculation Obama made on this).  

If the American public truly cared about this as an issue the vote would have gone the other way.  The sad, annoying fact is that they don't, so you get what you get.  Congress or Bush didn't "fool" the public over this one - it got press coverage enough, and if people really were up in arms about it and wrote their Senators and what have you it would have played out differently (if there's one thing Congressmen pay attention to, it's spontaneous writing campaigns by their constituents - they know that if an issue gets people pissed off enough to actually take the time to write a letter, that it's something that might haunt them the next time elections roll around...).  Frankly, I'm starting to think that we're fortunate that our government is as good as it is.  Considering the level of political awareness of your average American, and the things that it's pretty clear people generally base their vote on (simple name recognition, "magic hair", ephemeral impressions, simple party affiliation), it's a wonder we've made it as far as we have.

4

^ 3

He meant non-violent grassroots political action

pO157.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST

3.00 (astute)

If the American public truly cared about this as an issue the vote would have gone the other way.  The sad, annoying fact is that they don't, so you get what you get. Congress or Bush didn't "fool" the public over this one - it got press coverage enough, and if people really were up in arms about it and wrote their Senators and what have you it would have played out differently (if there's one thing Congressmen pay attention to, it's spontaneous writing campaigns by their constituents - they know that if an issue gets people pissed off enough to actually take the time to write a letter, that it's something that might haunt them the next time elections roll around...).  Frankly, I'm starting to think that we're fortunate that our government is as good as it is.

You know what pisses me off most about this? When I go on local political discussion forums they are always full of psychotic whackjobs who sit around and bitch (in all lowercase, poorly spelled hyperbolic drivel) about the government. Usually tangents lead to racist commentary and demands for armed revolution for some reason.

I come in and try to have an intelligent discussion. I ask if there is anything that could be done besides sitting around being Internet Tough Guys and spouting off threatening, poorly worded crap. Did they write letters to the editor to air their grievances? Write their representatives? Learn which candidates or parties most closely match their own? Start a petition? Hell, even vote? No. That's too much effort. It's better to sit around, drink 7 light beers, and then fire up the 14.4 modem to advocate armed revolution to fellow Internet Tough Guys because 'teh speculators are stealing our gases! ZOMG!' Invariably I end up being the one that gets flamed.

Heaven forbid anybody actually does anything constructive by working within the system for the change they desire. I blame the schools.

Then again, maybe its just the fact I live in a dystopian shithole.

7

^ 4

fuck off subject-line parser script

DEMachina.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:25:12 PM EST

none

See also: Internet Tough Guy; Internet Tough Guy.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

9

^ 2

Re: Hypothetically.

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 07:01:18 AM EST

4.00 (funny, funny)

Perhaps the most unsafe place to be after a primary season is between Obama and the middle of the road
Doesn't it just make you want to cut his nuts off?

25

Bob Barr

thefadd.

Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST

none

The only Presidential candidate of a major party to take a firm stand against FISA!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 25 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment