House passes FISA Bill - Gives immunity to telecoms

[SMM]

I am surprised this has not been posted yet. I believe those who keep current on political news, will have read it.

On Friday, the House passed the new FISA bill, by a nauseating 293-129 margin. Obviously, a large group of spineless democrats (105) voted with the republicans. My district representative (Reichert) is a republican, and a total loser, even by their standards. So, it is no mystery how he voted. But, I am disappointed that ~1/3 of our State's delegation crossed over. And yes, retroactivity for the telecoms was left in the bill. By this careless act, the odds are slim, we shall ever learn the scope and level of law breaking by the Bush administration and the telecoms. This would have surely come out, if the telecoms had to defend themselves in court.



This just one source (http://kalimao.blogspot.com/2007/11/fisa-whistleblower-alleges-government.html) of what we do know about the program.

Appearing on MSNBC's Countdown program, whistleblower Mark Klein told Keith Olbermann that a copy of all internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office -- to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access -- via a cable splitting device.

"My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room," said Klein. "And effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those internet cables into the secret room -- and we're talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the internet."
Everything. Every email you sent or received, every Internet phone call you made or received, every Web site or blog you visited or read, every comment you ever left on anyone else's site, every comment anyone left on yours ...

It's staggering. Stupendous. How much money did they spend doing this? Who reviewed these records? Did they look at people's business discussions? Do they have records of trade secrets? Did they spy on lovers' conversations? What does the Constitution have to say about this?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
We have, apparently, a right to be secure in our persons, et cetera, against "unreasonable searches and seizures ... ." A search as broad as "every communication over the Internet" must surely violate this provision of the Constitution.

Oh, wait, I forgot - King George thinks it's just "a goddamned piece of paper." Well, there go our constitutional rights. Raw Story has the video.





If you want to see how your State's delegation voted, click this link (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml).

[Thomas Veil]

Yeah, I read about it.

Spineless Democrats... :mad: I expect this crap of Republicans, but....

At least my Congresswoman, Betty Sutton (D-OH), voted against it. That guarantees she gets my vote the next time she runs, but I'm still angry at the others who voted for it.

I'm told when this goes to the Senate it's likely to be passed as well. :mad:

[Daveman Deluxe]

I was pleased to see that my representative (Darlene Hooley, Oregon's 5th District) and all of the other Western Oregon representatives (I <3 Peter de Fazio) voted against this bill. I hope that it fails in the Senate but I'm not too optimistic.

[Gray-Wolf]

I really wouldn't see this as an issue at all. Some one will eventually create a virus that gets sucked into that room, and there's no one to run a program to remove it, and it will eat their hard drives in that room Simple :D

[Rodimus Prime]

it is a catch 22 so to speak. Punish them now and not give them that protection they telocom will make life a living hell for them the next time they need them. Instead of being willing to help they will make it as difficult as possible for them to help the government in order to protect themselves. and of course people will complain then


Saddly you call then 105 spinless but I see the number as a pretty big land slide for the bill so it could be said the ones that voted against it do not see the catch in there in the short term punishment hurting long term goals.

[SMM]

it is a catch 22 so to speak. Punish them now and not give them that protection they telocom will make life a living hell for them the next time they need them. Instead of being willing to help they will make it as difficult as possible for them to help the government in order to protect themselves. and of course people will complain then


Saddly you call then 105 spinless but I see the number as a pretty big land slide for the bill so it could be said the ones that voted against it do not see the catch in there in the short term punishment hurting long term goals.

That is about what I would have anticipated you to post. Please get informed. All the administration, and the telecoms had to do is follow the law. It would not have curtailed their ability to provide security to America. They had the right to not get any approval for collecting intelligence. If they did not have sufficient grounds for continued surveillance, they would discontinue. If they did, they simply had to go to the FISA court and make their case. The court never once denied them.

Instead of obeying the law, they simply ignored it. Why would they do that? Well, they were actually collecting information on EVERY American citizen, regardless of having a reason to do so. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution was put there to prevent this blatant move toward fascism.

Do you believe in a Country based on the rule of law? Do you believe in the Constitution? If so, why are you not supporting it? Yes, I know. If BillO, or Rush disagrees with it, so must you.

[Rodimus Prime]

That is about what I would have anticipated you to post. Please get informed. All the administration, and the telecoms had to do is follow the law. It would not have curtailed their ability to provide security to America. They had the right to not get any approval for collecting intelligence. If they did not have sufficient grounds for continued surveillance, they would discontinue. If they did, they simply had to go to the FISA court and make their case. The court never once denied them.

Instead of obeying the law, they simply ignored it. Why would they do that? Well, they were actually collecting information on EVERY American citizen, regardless of having a reason to do so. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution was put there to prevent this blatant move toward fascism.

Do you believe in a Country based on the rule of law? Do you believe in the Constitution? If so, why are you not supporting it? Yes, I know. If BillO, or Rush disagrees with it, so must you.

I see you completely missed the point. Even if in the future they follow the law the telecoms will make very difficult to get anything done....

But you missed the point completely and are to blinded by your anger and of course went to personal insults which to me screams you lost....

I was more pointing out to the retroactive immunity. As for the data collection it needs to be cleaned up in how it is done. But I was more interested in the retroactive immunity than any other part of the bill.

[Gelfin]

it is a catch 22 so to speak. Punish them now and not give them that protection they telocom will make life a living hell for them the next time they need them. Instead of being willing to help they will make it as difficult as possible for them to help the government in order to protect themselves. and of course people will complain then

By "as difficult as possible" I presume you mean, "requiring them to produce a warrant," since that's as difficult as they can legally make it. I cannot say I would complain about that at all. Historically this is exactly the stance telephone companies have taken, and it's worked out just fine.

If prosecuting a few telecoms serves as a reminder to them of how things are done in this country, then I am all for it. It isn't as if anyone will see jail time. They will be pardoned, but they might think a little more carefully next time a man working for a three-letter acronym tells them the President has authorized them to commit a crime.

Incidentally, I am increasingly dissatisfied with Pelosi's weak hand in the House, and honestly her "yea" vote here might well be the last straw for me. I have voted for her in the past. I don't think I can do so again.

[Rodimus Prime]

By "as difficult as possible" I presume you mean, "requiring them to produce a warrant," since that's as difficult as they can legally make it. I cannot say I would complain about that at all. Historically this is exactly the stance telephone companies have taken, and it's worked out just fine.

If prosecuting a few telecoms serves as a reminder to them of how things are done in this country, then I am all for it. It isn't as if anyone will see jail time. They will be pardoned, but they might think a little more carefully next time a man working for a three-letter acronym tells them the President has authorized them to commit a crime.

Incidentally, I am increasingly dissatisfied with Pelosi's weak hand in the House, and honestly her "yea" vote here might well be the last straw for me. I have voted for her in the past. I don't think I can do so again.

even at that point you can make it hard for them by refusing to help them find the infomation they are looking for. Instead overwhelm them with turning over infomation making it next to worthless.

lets also not forget if they are sued and have to defind in court it is not like they will lose any money. instead the telocom will just raise there rates to make up for the loss. So instead we all pay a lot more money. You are welcome to have to pay the rather nice increase in my phone and internet bills if they are sued. Because some how I expect it would cost me 10-20% more just because of the law suits.

[Gelfin]

even at that point you can make it hard for them by refusing to help them find the infomation they are looking for. Instead overwhelm them with turning over infomation making it next to worthless.

Refusing to honor a warrant would be illegal, and I would oppose that just as strongly as I would serving up information without a warrant. There would be no need for such obstinate behavior anyway. A warrant means their legal exposure is nil, so they would have no reason not to cooperate in that case.

lets also not forget if they are sued and have to defind in court it is not like they will lose any money. instead the telocom will just raise there rates to make up for the loss. So instead we all pay a lot more money. You are welcome to have to pay the rather nice increase in my phone and internet bills if they are sued. Because some how I expect it would cost me 10-20% more just because of the law suits.

Legal battles are expensive, but they aren't that expensive. AT&T's revenue is over $100b/y. Do you really think ten to twenty billion dollars in fines and legal costs is realistic? It's really not.

[Iscariot]

LAWLERPANTS

With all due apology to anyone who actually thought the Telecoms weren't going to get off scott-free.

[SMM]

I see you completely missed the point. Even if in the future they follow the law the telecoms will make very difficult to get anything done....

I did not miss any point. I was debunking yours. Your second sentence is based on pure speculation, and is not supported by any facts. With a court order, the telecoms do not have the option to refuse cooperation.

But you missed the point completely and are to blinded by your anger and of course went to personal insults which to me screams you lost....

You do not know me and are not in a position to accuse me of being angry. And, this is not a contest about who is right and wrong. There is only one set of facts. The arguments you are repeating, come directly from WH talking points, used to promote fear (which is their standard MO).

I was more pointing out to the retroactive immunity. As for the data collection it needs to be cleaned up in how it is done. But I was more interested in the retroactive immunity than any other part of the bill.

If you cannot see the absurdity in this, there is probably little point in continuing this discussion. The WH and most of the telecoms, were breaking the law. They both knew it. It begs the question, Why wouldn't they just follow the law? There is a large piece of this puzzle missing. By giving them blanket immunity, they are basically closing down the main hope we have of ever learning the truth. That is what the issue is here. Ask yourself, Why break the law, when it is so easy to follow? The FISA court moves quickly and has never turned down a request for issuing surveillance. In an emergency, they do not have to obtain a court order.



.

[solvs]

I get why they did this, though I have to wonder if part of it isn't to save their own butts, but I'm also somewhat disappointed. They caved. They didn't have to, but they did. Has nothing to do with the Telcoms, as pointed out, with a warrant they'd have to help the gov. A warrant that could have been taken out secretly under FISA, even several days after the fact. But the administration could be culpable if we could see what they're doing, and so could most of Congress for going along with it, or at best, looking the other way. Dems included. The lawsuits wouldn't have been about money, and wouldn't have cost much to the companies or to us, as it isn't about punitive damage, but about finding out what they were doing. The lawsuits are about releasing info on what exactly the administration was asking for without a warrant, and what the Telcoms gave them. But the talking points are working nicely. Wave terrorism and higher costs, as well as the perception that they wouldn't want to help us in the future, even if ordered to with a valid warrant, in front of our faces, and as we can see, people willing give up their rights, and the rights of others, without even blinking. But we're the blind ones. :rolleyes: Yes, just blind hatred. Not based on anything. Ok. :confused:

Very disappointed Obama is on board with this (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/why_obamas_support_for_fisa_ca.php), but he's claiming to want to fight it later (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml).

[Pittsax]

I could be mistaken, but I heard somewhere (I think it might have been John Dean on Countdown) that this bill doesn't offer any protection for the telecoms against criminal charges, just against civil lawsuits. So this may be a way for the Dems to get rid of this issue as far as being painted as weak on security but retain a way to punish those involved with criminal charges.

I know, I'm being an optimist here, but it's all I have right now......

[solvs]

I don't understand why they didn't offer them immunity to give up those gov officials who asked them to do something illegal. Then they'd get off scottfree, without expensive lawsuits or criminal charges, but we'd still be able to find out what the gov was doing behind the courts' backs. That's the important part. Only thing I can think is that the Congress, both sides, is somehow complicit as well. It's not like there's anything to threaten. If this bill was so important, they all would have signed it already and worried about the Telcom immunity later. Again, they would have to comply with a future court mandated warrant, so it's not like they could just take their ball and go home instead next time, especially if we gave them conditional immunity, like we do with witness protection. The Dems had almost nothing to lose otherwise, so it's once again incredibly disappointing that so many so easily caved, and would dare call it a compromise to boot.

A rundown here:

FISA: Turning Up The Pressure (http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/23/fisa-turning-up-the-pressure/)

And for those who don't understand why this is a big deal, read this:

The New FISA Bill: A Bad Deal (http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_fisafacts.html)

[solvs]

Reid Won't Support FISA Compromise, At Odds With Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/reid-wont-support-fisa-co_n_109036.html)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this evening that he will vote against the compromise FISA legislation and work with likeminded colleagues to strip immunity for telecom firms from that bill.

It is a position that puts the Democratic Senate leader at odds with his own party's presumptive presidential nominee, Barack Obama, who also has pledged to fight for the removal of immunity but will vote yes on the final package.

"I am not going to vote for the FISA bill," said the Nevada Democrat. "There are people, Mr. President, who have worked on this FISA matter for three months or more and again the administration worked with them. Did they, on the FISA bill, move enough to make me vote for the bill? The answer is no."
Good. I hope there are more like him who will fight this. Also hoping Obama changes positions, but I'm sure he'll get hit with more of the flip flopping label, while the other side's flip flops continue to be ignored.

[solvs]

So it looks to pass with full immunity (http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/25/the-real-fisa-vote-passes-80-to-15-with-the-presidential-nominees-passing/). Disappointed (especially with some of their (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/obama-on-fisa-security-tr_n_109257.html) explanations (Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security), not enough IMO), but sadly, not really surprised. At least some fought against it.

Senators In Heated Clash Over Bush's Privacy Record (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/senators-clash-over-bush_n_109150.html)
Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Opposing H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080625f.htm)
Sen. Feingold Blasts Telecom Spy Bill (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/24/feingold)
Senator Feingold On TYT (http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/6/24/16173/7681/tytvideoclips/Senator-Feingold-On-TYT)
Chris Dodd's speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/25/dodd/index.html)
Schumer: Against telcom immunity (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/06/schumer_against_telcom_immunit.html)
Reid to co-sponsor effort to strip retroactive immunity from FISA bill. (Updated) (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/24/reid-to-co-sponsor-effort-to-strip-retroactive-immunity-from-fisa-bill/)
About Reid’s Potential Delay (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/25/about-reids-potential-delay/)
The 15 Dems Who Tried To Block Telecom Immunity (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/the-15-dems-who-tried-to_n_109304.html)

But not everyone:

Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party" (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/24/hoyer/index.html)

In other words, Democrats achieved a "significant victory" because -- by giving Republicans everything they demanded -- Republicans are no longer able to criticize Democrats on this issue. What a shrewd strategy: "if we comply with all their demands, then they can't criticize us for anything." That's the Democratic Party's plan for winning, according to Hoyer.

If the Dems wonder why their numbers are so down, even with liberals, this is part of it. It's kinda sad, but not really surprising. Also sadly, neither is this:

Dems who flipped on FISA immunity see more telecom cash (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Dems_who_flipped_on_FISA_immunity_see_more_telecom_cash.html)

Still wondering what giving the Telcoms (and the Bush administration) immunity for spying without warrants has to do with protecting America and Americans. Bad enough the terrorists have won if we are afraid and letting our freedoms lapse thanks to that fear (ironic since we ask our soldiers to die for freedom, yet we give freedom up because we're afraid to die). We shouldn't have to fear our gov as well (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/442).