House passes FISA Bill - Gives immunity to telecoms

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #1
    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.


    If you want to see how your State's delegation voted, click this link.
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    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:
     
  3. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Gray-Wolf macrumors 68030

    Gray-Wolf

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Location:
    Pandora, Home Tree
    #4
    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
     
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    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.
     
  6. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #10
    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.

    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.
     
  11. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #11
    LAWLERPANTS

    With all due apology to anyone who actually thought the Telecoms weren't going to get off scott-free.
     
  12. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #12
    .
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    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, but he's claiming to want to fight it later.
     
  14. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    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......
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    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

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

    The New FISA Bill: A Bad Deal
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    Reid Won't Support FISA Compromise, At Odds With Obama
    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.
     
  17. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    So it looks to pass with full immunity. Disappointed (especially with some of their explanations, not enough IMO), but sadly, not really surprised. At least some fought against it.

    Senators In Heated Clash Over Bush's Privacy Record
    Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Opposing H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008
    Sen. Feingold Blasts Telecom Spy Bill
    Senator Feingold On TYT
    Chris Dodd's speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill
    Schumer: Against telcom immunity
    Reid to co-sponsor effort to strip retroactive immunity from FISA bill. (Updated)
    About Reid’s Potential Delay
    The 15 Dems Who Tried To Block Telecom Immunity

    But not everyone:

    Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"

    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

    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.
     

Share This Page