429228
story
Comments: 483 +- Politics: Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill on Monday December 17 2007, @09:56PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday December 17 2007, @09:56PM
from the talk-until-blue-in-the-face dept.
from the talk-until-blue-in-the-face dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicus.gif); width:80px; height:61px;
usa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
otakuj462 sends in an important followup to this morning's story on telecom immunity legislation. "Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance... [T]he threat of Dodd's filibuster... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period."
Related Stories
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet
Exploder.
-- George Bonser
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Chris Dodd's voting record. (Score:4, Informative)
not exactly a good record (Score:4, Insightful)
He seems to like the Thought Crime concept. Rather than merely punishing people for bad actions, he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him.
He's OK with the government taking people's legally owned firearms during an emergency or major disaster. (as in Katrina... where the cops were followed by thugs preying on the now-unarmed residents) Got a disaster? Time to steal from the people!
He somehow thinks that firearm suppliers should be held liable for the actions of firearm users. If this seems sane to you, consider applying it to computers or vehicles. (on the plus side, that kind of liability would put Microsoft out of business and solve all our traffic problems)
He likes the PATRIOT act. Oh dear...
He's a CAN SPAM kind of guy.
He's OK with shovelling money to sugarcane growers.
Parent
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for your post; it's just what I'd hoped for in a reply.
Parent
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate crime legislation is thought crime legislation. What matters is you denying someone their rights, not your reasoning for doing it.
Parent
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. It's the recognition that the harm caused by burning a cross on a black family's lawn (for instance) is a whole lot more harmful to the victims than, say, burning some garbage out back behind your neighbor's house.
Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims. Clearly that's an indisputable goal of the justice system. Things that fall under the level of "hate crime" represent acts that harm their victims far, far more than the basic act (just burning something on somebody else's property) might suggest.
Hate crime legislation doesn't have anything to do with thought. It has everything to do with action. It's the actions that are being punished commensurate with the harm they caused. Completely consistent with the aims of the justice system.
Parent
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
Mens rea is a "guilty mind". Yes, this means every crime committed consists both of a thought crime and a criminal act. The concept of thought crime in this context makes very good sense. The context in which it is not tolerable is when thought crime is punishable on its own, without a criminal act.
Parent
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
The racist who assaults an individual black person isn't just indulging in his personal depravity; he's sending a message to every black that while the law may say they can live, work or go to school wherever you like, he is going to make sure you stay where he thinks you belong.
The bigot who kills a gay person isn't just acting on his hatred of that individual. He's telling all gay people that they'd better keep their relationships secret.
A hate crime is an ordinary crime that is committed in a way calculated to undermine society's liberty and democracy. It is everything the basic crime is, plus an attempt by the criminal to impose his personal political, racial, or religious views on others through intimidation. What we call a "hate crime" would more accurately be called terrorism: terrorism for impulsive and poorly organized people. If you and your buddy are having a couple beers and decide to go out and torch the local synagogue, that's what we call a "hate crime". If you're more organized, if you write down a list of synagogues, visit the locations and make notes of when people are using the building and what kinds of security measures they have, then we call that "terrorism".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now only (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You should investigate the voting record of Ron Paul... and he's running for President.
Oh fer crying out loud. Look, I'm a RP supporter, but this is a Senate battle, and Dodd is doing the Right Thing(tm). Let's let him have his moment in the sun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now only (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is this: is health care a business or a public service? Neither is fundamentally more right than the other, but they do lead to very different outcomes. I know what world I want to live in.
Parent
Show Apprectiation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Show Appreciation (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The telcos dont deserve immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
DoS against Democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DoS against Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
Now that said, a filibuster is a kind of interruption to the flow of legislative activity. But it's sometimes necessary since there are times when majorities take advantage of minorities in the process. The filibuster helps to ensure that the minority is heard even when the majority would rather not listen to them. I have watched some pretty atrocious stuff happening on C-SPAN where the majority was simply ignoring proper procedure during legislative activities giving no voice at all to the minority side or their interests. When the gang or the mob is in control, the filibuster ensures that a minority can be heard.
Parent
Re:DoS against Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Representative Republic is _a_ _form_ _of_ _democracy_.
Parent
Re:DoS against Democracy (Score:4, Funny)
I'm pretty sure it's also not an elm.
Parent
Re:DoS against Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a noun, which means: We are a democratic republic. We *are* a democracy, even though we use representation. We are a republic, even though the supreme power is vested in the people.
Parent
Democracy Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats want immunity for big business. Republicans want big government.
Are the parties flip-flopping again or are they finally coming into parity with the fact that they're just one big party with two masks so the people get a sense they they're getting a change every 4 or 8 years?
The threat of a filibuster shouldn't have even been necessary if the government was really for the people by the people.
Re:Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Small government" was only ever a marketing slogan for the GOP. It didn't mean cutting the size of government at all, it meant cutting regulation and social spending - but baby, bring on those military and pork barrel projects.
Sell out Dems like Reid, Hoyer, Feinstein, and Rockefeller need to be kicked to the curb just as soon as they can be primaried. As for the Republicans - well, their party needs a complete enema as Nixon would almost be a communist in today's GOP.
Parent
it'd take quite some primarying (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, Dodd's first attempt to stall the legislation failed, 76-10. Only 9 other Democrats supported him.
Parent
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:4, Funny)
Try this instead of money: Punishing companies for assisting the President acting within the scope of his Article II powers [powerlineblog.com] to protect the lives of Americans from terrorist attacks is bad policy and stupid politics.
Parent
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Informative)
For the Democrats (e.g. Dianne Feinstein who can be reached at 202-224-3841), one motive is the obvious one: telecoms contribute to campaigns.
Much more is at stake for the Republicans, since the president broke at least several federal statutes relating to wiretapping. While this is all something that "everybody knows", that has no legal significance and no one bears any meaningful responsibility to do anything about it. But if the EFF lawsuit (among others) doesn't have its legal basis legislated right out from under it, then it will be revealed in a court of law that the president committed federal crimes. The telecom immunity legislation was designed by the executive branch to extend immunity not just to telecoms who broke these laws, but to anyone in the government who asked them to do it (PDF): [fas.org] Obviously the EFF lawsuit presents a pickle for the Republicans if it is legally shown that Bush was complicit in lawbreaking, and they don't want the lawsuit to proceed further. But this is a problem for the Democrats too. Once it becomes legally evident that Bush broke the law, it becomes incumbent upon them to do something about it, or they are breaking the law with their inaction. Everyone knows Bush is a criminal, but nobody wants to be responsible for knowing. Politics as currently practiced is a fragile thing, home to a glassy web of unspoken agreements and hard-won compromises. A development like this would come stampeding in on all that like a bull in a china shop. This telecom immunity law will make a lot of headaches go away for a lot of people- the telecoms themselves are actually minor players here.
Parent
Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:5, Informative)
While I don't favor this, you would be hard pressed to argue that the UN has had a very productive impact in most of the activities they have undertaken. And even when their stuff has worked, it has usually been with the US doing most of the legwork. The UN is mainly an organization that allows its members to say they support international partnerships, while performing relatively few useful functions of its own.
remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose
Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that.
remove public education
Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted.
Parent
Re:to be fair, not exactly watertight (Score:5, Informative)
The idea that "inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution" is somehow beyond the pale is directly contradicted by the plain meaning of the 9th Amendment.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:4, Interesting)
He wants Roe v Wade overturned so that individual states can make their own decisions.
Have you ever even read any of his papers on abortion (by the way, he was an OB/GYN for years delivering over 4000 babies)
Either you are misinformed or intellectually dishonest. In case it is the later,
See this:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21 [ronpaullibrary.org]
Parent
Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:4, Interesting)
Something many Americans actually want as well, and many more couldn't be bothered with one way or the other.
>remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose,
Wow, inflammatory much?
He wants to remove the Federal influence on this because the constitutionality is highly debated.
The tricker the question, the more local it should be.
That's part of the founding principles
>remove public education
No, he doesn't mind public education, in fact I suspect he supports it.
He just sees no place for the Fed in it under our constitution.
It's a State deal, and there is should lie.
>but there more important issues out there which Paul loses most voters including this one on.
Just make sure you're arguing the same thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many definitions of personhood that a fetus fails, as well as many which it will pass.
It isn't as clear a topic as many folks represent it to be, which is a good reason to keep regulations regarding it down at the state level... Part of the functions of a state is to be "experiments" in law for the rest... each can try their own ideas out, and every one can see how things work out.
Watching it on CSPAN... (Score:5, Insightful)
The installation of systems poorly suited to specific taps but ideally suited to dragnet surveillance. In major fiber exchanges that aren't where the main foreign fiber trunks or satellite dishes are (i.e. the San Fransisco case that started it). And now we learn that Qwest balked because they wanted to put a dragnet on a switch center that handled almost entirely local traffic.
Then Orrin "destroy their computers" Hatch started speaking. About how the American government didn't do {the bombings in Beruit, the Bali nightclub bombing, the bombings in Kenya, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and (of course) 9/11}, the Turrists did. And I'm sitting here trying hard not to scream "And how would dragnet surveillance of domestic calls have stopped a single damn one of those things!?!?"
Glenn Greenwald reports on Harry Reid's duplicity (Score:5, Informative)
Immunity is illegal anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Constitution, See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:
Which means no retroactive anything is legal. I'm amazed that the media continues to overlook this critical bit.
On second thought, no I'm not. There can be no compromise on this. The telcos colluded with Bushco to perform illegal acts, and granting them immunity after the fact is not allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The telecoms and their advocates in Congress like Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and apparently Harry Reid (D-NV) argue that they're not changing anything from illegal to legal, rather they're filling a legal vacuum and the telecoms benefit as a result. How convenient and timely. Also as I understand the term, ex post facto usually refers to laws that make something newly illegal, subjecting people who had committed no crime to criminal penalties.
The most egregious senatorial hijinks of this affair has been Reid
Re:Immunity is illegal anyway (Score:5, Informative)
"1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender."
Ex post facto laws are only those which punish people who were formerly innocent - not the other way around.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Parent
I wrote my Congressman, and he replied (Score:3, Informative)
(Reply follows)
----
Dear Mr. InvisiblePinkUnicorn:
Thank you for expressing your views on legislation that would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance program.
In December of 2005 it was first reported that President Bush had authorized the NSA to monitor communication between U.S. citizens and terrorist suspects outside the United States without first obtaining a warrant. Some telecommunications companies participated in this program and provided the government with access to phone records. Serious questions arose about the legality of this program and its compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
In August 2007, Congress passed revisions to FISA, which I opposed, expanding the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of foreign targets. Under this legislation telecommunications companies that assist the government in the future implementation of this program were granted immunity from criminal and civil action.
This legislation expires in early February, and Congress is currently considering further revisions to FISA. President Bush has requested that any further modifications to FISA contain retroactive immunity for any telecommunications company that participated in the program since its inception. While developments in technology may require modest modifications to our intelligence laws, I will oppose efforts to provide retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping as it is inconsistent with our democratic principles. All citizens must have legal recourse when their rights are infringed upon, and companies must bear the responsibility for breaking the law.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
The Dodd Gambit (Score:5, Funny)
And as he reluctantly tabled the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was heard muttering "Dodd Gambit" under his breath.
nice Youtube clip (Score:5, Interesting)
BOR is So Yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, my highest priority is seeing to it that the people who squander the public trust and thumb their noses at the American people lose their jobs as a consequence. If the next people afterward aren't any better, dump them too. Don't keep incompeten
Re: (Score:2)