CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › House deciding today if icorporations can break the law if Bush says it's OK
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

House deciding today if icorporations can break the law if Bush says it's OK

post #1 of 65
6/20/08 at 12:34pm
Thread Starter 
The FISA bill is under discussion today in the House. There is no logical justification for telecom immunity, and the compromise basically comes down to telecom immunity.

If you believe the telecoms should take responsibility for bending over backwards to spy on Americans for Bush (all except Qwest, which was subject to a politicized witch hunt for its efforts), you need to contact your congresspeople today. There's a very easy form at Congress.org.
Reply
post #2 of 65
6/20/08 at 12:53pm
Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't the principle that no one is above the law one of the most fundamental values of western democracy? That even if the president himself orders you to break the law it's your duty to tell him to go fuck himself and immediately report it to the proper authorities?

Or do I sound like an idiot saying that?
Reply
post #3 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:03pm
Fuck it. I give up. I can't compete against multi-million-dollar lobbyists.

The country is all yours. I just hope you don't destroy it 'til after I croak.
Reply
post #4 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:05pm
Maybe we should rethink that whole democracy deal? At least feudal societies were pretty upfront about their double standards.
Reply
post #5 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:07pm
Yeah, nothing's going to happen to these people. I'm throwing in my cynical, hateful towel in with Singer on this one.
Reply
post #6 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't the principle that no one is above the law one of the most fundamental values of western democracy? That even if the president himself orders you to break the law it's your duty to tell him to go fuck himself and immediately report it to the proper authorities?
Sure, it's your duty to say that...if you're a dirty terrorist-loving, America-hating Iraqi Al Qaeda terrorist! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
Reply
post #7 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't the principle that no one is above the law one of the most fundamental values of western democracy? That even if the president himself orders you to break the law it's your duty to tell him to go fuck himself and immediately report it to the proper authorities?

Or do I sound like an idiot saying that?
That's such a 9/10 mentality
Reply
post #8 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:40pm
Quote:
House deciding today if corporations can break the law if Bush says it's OK
I'm sorry, but I had no idea that there was still some sort of doubt about this. Or am I misreading a rhetorical question? I figured prices at my corner gas station told the whole sad story.
Reply
post #9 of 65
6/20/08 at 1:44pm
Perhaps one bright side to this fiasco is that when Obama is elected then the Dems'll be listening to all of Cheney's, Halliburton's and Blackwater's overseas phone calls...
Reply
post #10 of 65
6/20/08 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Perhaps one bright side to this fiasco is that when Obama is elected then the Dems'll be listening to all of Cheney's, Halliburton's and Blackwater's overseas phone calls...
That's certainly going to happen.
Reply
post #11 of 65
6/20/08 at 2:29pm
Thread Starter 
The corrupt FISA bill passed...

The roll call vote is here.

My "democratic" representative voted "yea." What a dick. I'm going to email him to complain and recommend you see how your representative voted and let him/her know how you feel about it.
Reply
post #12 of 65
6/20/08 at 2:38pm
Meanwhile, some random black guy who got caught carrying a couple of dimebags is facing jail time. So much for the 'being equal in the eyes of the law' bullshit.
Reply
post #13 of 65
6/20/08 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I'm going to email him to complain and recommend you see how your representative voted and let him/her know how you feel about it.
Thanks for not douching up the works, Waxman. I should e-mail him to say exactly that.
Reply
post #14 of 65
6/20/08 at 2:48pm
You know what makes this even better? The conservative/Republican media pundits will still paint the Dems as spineless cowards because of this capitulation, even though the corporate wingnuts got what they wanted. The Limbaughs and Coulters and Hannitys will laugh and point and say "See how weak the Dems are? See how easily they're bullied? Do you want THEM running the country??".

And they'd be right.
Reply
post #15 of 65
6/20/08 at 3:39pm
I guess if I want to have a private conversation from now on I'll have to use my carrier pigeons.
Reply
post #16 of 65
6/20/08 at 3:50pm
Thread Starter 
Jake, you should email Waxman and thank him for showing some fraking backbone, unlike his colleagues. I emailed a rep. at the district where I work and thanked her for voting against.

It's interesting, I was listening to Senator Bernie Sanders on Thom Hartmann this morning and someone called in and asked wtf is with the congressional dems. Sanders, who is an independent, described the senate as made up of 49 republicans in the sway of the radical right Bush admin. and 51 dems (including Lieberman), some of which are progressive, but the majority of which are centrist/conservative. They can do nothing without 60 votes and have not had the cojones to force the republicans to filibuster. This congress has filibustered more than any other congress in the history of our government, but the public doesn't know it because the dems don't force them to actually filibuster, holding the senate hostage for days on end. Therefore the constituents have no concrete, visible representation of what's happening in congress right now.
Reply
post #17 of 65
6/20/08 at 3:56pm
Ah, fuck me. I was wrong, and Harman's my district rep, but only by like two blocks. Sadness ensues.
Reply
post #18 of 65
6/20/08 at 4:06pm
The guy I voted for voted Nay...
Reply
post #19 of 65
6/20/08 at 4:09pm
Thread Starter 
I was actually heartened to learn that ONE republican voted nay.

Meanwhile, while you're writing to reps, the Senate votes on this next week.
Reply
post #20 of 65
6/20/08 at 5:08pm
Looks like Obama has come out in support of the House bill: http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008...upporting.html
I guess I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed after eight years of this shit but I still am.
Reply
post #21 of 65
6/20/08 at 5:26pm
This just goes to show how fucking weak Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of their ilk are, including Obama. The GOP is still getting away with framing the debate in Jack Bauer/24 fantasies, and playing the ultimate 'next 9/11' trump card. Every president should have the counter-terrorism 'gloves off' toolkit in their back pocket, but it isn't something you write into law.
Reply
post #22 of 65
6/20/08 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas View Post
Looks like Obama has come out in support of the House bill: http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008...upporting.html
I guess I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed after eight years of this shit but I still am.

This is exactly the sort of "bipartisanship" that people like Dr. Vivisector expect from the Democrats. "Compromise" means capitulation. Sure, we delayed the bill a couple of times and paid lip service to securing Americans' rights to privacy, but eventually the Republicans get what they want and the Democratic base becomes more and more disenfranchised.

Yay bipartisanship! Yay for heroic, patriotic corporations! Constitution shmonstitution!
Reply
post #23 of 65
6/20/08 at 5:47pm
Should point out that Obama and Reid have stated that they'll seek to remove the retroactive immunity portion in the Senate deliberations.
Reply
post #24 of 65
6/20/08 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Page View Post
Should point out that Obama and Reid have stated that they'll seek to remove the retroactive immunity portion in the Senate deliberations.
True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama Campaign Spokesman Bill Burton
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

Fingers crossed.
Reply
post #25 of 65
6/20/08 at 6:41pm
The "equal justice" angle is the way to attack this issue. I hope Glenn Greenwald and Co. really hammer on that over the coming days. An ordinary citizen can literally have their lives ruined for the most trivial of offenses, but corporations that already get massive legal protections just get to rewrite the laws. As long as Our Dear Leader throws out the buzzwords, we have to nod along in submission.
Reply
post #26 of 65
6/20/08 at 10:47pm
My mindless Republican rep voted in lockstep with the party. This FISA bill has me feeling much like I did back in November 2004.

As futile as it seems now, I wrote to my two Senators (Nelson and Martinez) to express my disgust. No amount of party/presidential pressure can overcome the wrath of voting against the wishes of your constituents on issues they consider salient.

I'm doing what I can.
Reply
post #27 of 65
6/21/08 at 12:29am
This really sounds so "V for Vendetta" all over again :/ One starts to think there is some competition going on about how much crap the GOP can get done before its game over in january 2009.
Reply
post #28 of 65
6/21/08 at 2:09am
Obama's support of the bill has been his most disgraceful moment. I hope that Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold show the same fortitude in filibustering this bill as they did in December. This bill must not pass.

But frankly, even if it doesn't, this is just another example of why I don't call myself a Democrat. I'm liberal, I'm progressive, but I would never identify myself with such a band of craven, cowardly, scumbags. Every time I think of the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I'm reminded of a quote from The Big Lebowski:

"Say what you will about National Socialism, dude. At least it's an ethos."
Reply
post #29 of 65
6/21/08 at 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
This is exactly the sort of "bipartisanship" that people like Dr. Vivisector expect from the Democrats. "Compromise" means capitulation. Sure, we delayed the bill a couple of times and paid lip service to securing Americans' rights to privacy, but eventually the Republicans get what they want and the Democratic base becomes more and more disenfranchised.

Yay bipartisanship! Yay for heroic, patriotic corporations! Constitution shmonstitution!
Hey, don't assume I'm in favor of this, Jacob.

There's no one above the law....or at least that's the way it should be.

Period.

This kind of bill is the worst kind of CYA.
Reply
post #30 of 65
6/21/08 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
Hey, don't assume I'm in favor of this, Jacob.

Fair enough, Dr. V. Mea Culpa.
Reply
post #31 of 65
6/24/08 at 3:39pm
Thread Starter 
The Senate votes on this today.

Contact your senators now at Congress.org!

Russ Feingold:

Quote:
Feingold was the featured guest at a New America Foundation event where he discussed systemic gaps in the country’s collection of foreign intelligence. But during a question and answer session, he fielded several questions about the controversial wiretapping law.

The Wisconsin Democrat voiced considerable frustration with members of his own party, who, he says, have enabled the sweeping new legislation. “Sen. Dodd and I and Sen. Leahy are going to do everything we can to stop this mistake,” Feingold noted, referring to fellow opponents of the bill. “But I’m extremely concerned that not only virtually every Republican… but far too many Democrats will vote the wrong way.”

“We met with Sen. Reid on friday morning,” said Feingold, speaking of himself and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and we indicated our desire that this thing not just be jammed through, we’ll be requiring key procedural votes and we’ll also be taking some time on the floor this week to indicate the problems with this legislation.”

This won’t be the first time the duo have tried to stall the enactment of broad surveillance powers by using procedural tactics. Last February, amid the uproar over the possibility that the government would retroactively immunize telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, Dodd spearheaded a filibuster of a similar set of FISA Amendments–a move which ultimately prompted Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pull the bill from the floor.

Progressive activists and civil libertarians hailed the filibuster, and the Democratic party’s greater decision not to cave in to White House demands on a national security issue. Nonetheless, several senior Democrats spent the intervening months trying to accommodate the Republicans. And despite containing less than a handful of narrow improvements over the February amendments, the new legislation has much wider support among Democratic leaders. Many of them claim the bill represents a worthy compromise.

“That’s a farce and it’s political cover,” Feingold said, “Anybody who claims this is an okay bill, I really question if they’ve even read it. ”

“Democrats enabled [this],” Feingold went on. “Some of the rank and file Democrats in the Senate who were elected on this reform platform unfortunately voted with Kit Bond who’s just giggling he’s so happy with what he got. We caved in.”

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., is the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and has been the Bush administration’s chief congressional point man in its attempt to secure both retroactive immunity for telephone companies and much wider authority to conduct surveillance on both foreign and domestic targets.

Feingold also described critics’ chief concern with the provision of immunity–specifically that it will mean the eventual dismissal of a number of lawsuits that might otherwise have shed some light on the president’s legally dubious Terrorist Surveillance Program. “It doesn’t simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law,” Feingold said. “It may well prevent us from getting to the core issue, that I’ve challenged since December 2005, which is the president ran an illegal program I think that was essentially an impeachable offense.”

Immunity, though, may ultimately constitute a distraction from an even larger spectacle. “Frankly the tremendous and legitimate focus on the immunity has covered up and sat on top of this issue,” Feingold said. “I think the big story is ultimately not going to be that the telephone companies got immunity… it’s that our personal conversations are now in a giant database somewhere over which we have no control.”

Holding up his BlackBerry, Feingold warned, “Every time you email my daughter or text message her in England, anybody contacts their son or daughter in Iraq, anybody has kids [spending] junior year abroad, anybody that has a business associate anywhere around the world, all of that is now sucked up into a database over which there is essentially no control for the first time in American history.” All of this has happened to you, and your communications, in a way that you never would have thought was possible in this country…. we’re going to fall over on this.”
Source
Reply
post #32 of 65
6/24/08 at 3:44pm
Do the Democrats suffer from beaten-wife syndrome? How do they let a President with approval ratings this low pass a bill that's so extreme? Why is Nancy Pelosi repeating a bald-face lie that a bill like this is better than nothing when not passing this bill doesn't result in nothing but the maintaining of the FISA court. How are these leading Democrats so cowardly that they're not standing up and just saying, "President Bush and the GOP are putting law-breaking telecoms ahead of the safety of American citizens," We're not talking nuance here. We're talking about a battle Democrats could win.
Reply
post #33 of 65
6/24/08 at 3:47pm
Thread Starter 
It's mystifying. I think that there's a lot of money being thrown around by the telecoms right now and the dems in the House didn't believe that Americans are paying attention. That's the only explanation that makes any sense.

ps. the legislation is up for discussion in the Senate today but the vote doesn't actually happen till Thursday, I believe. I will be emailing Feinstein, Boxer and Reid every day till then.
Reply
post #34 of 65
6/24/08 at 3:54pm
If we can catch just one terrorist, then it will be worth it.
Reply
post #35 of 65
6/24/08 at 4:09pm
Thread Starter 
Not true. What are we creating with legislation like this, and will it even be worth protecting? Also: how can you not catch a terrorist with judicial oversight? Also: guess who will be most spied on -- political opponents, dissenters, whistleblowers, etc.

This isn't about catching "terrorists." There is no shortage of people who use terror to influence politics and power, but none of those individuals will ever be prosecuted, evidently.
Reply
post #36 of 65
6/24/08 at 4:31pm
yt, you may need to check the calibration on your Sarcasm Meter.
Reply
post #37 of 65
6/24/08 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
The Senate votes on this today.

Contact your senators now at Congress.org!
Yeah, I'm gonna call McCain and Kyl right up and ask if they'd please reconsider their positions on this subject. Maybe I'll donate some money to Dodd and give Obama's camp a call.
Not sure if this is true but I've heard that faxes are taken more seriously than emails.
Reply
post #38 of 65
6/24/08 at 5:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
yt, you may need to check the calibration on your Sarcasm Meter.
d'oh!

Nicholas, I've been emailing because it's easier but I'll send faxes too if that's what it takes. The calls I've made in the past have just been so awkward - it's hard for a socially awkward person like myself to make calls like that.
Reply
post #39 of 65
6/24/08 at 6:51pm
Well, since this was on Digg.com all day yesterday I'll throw it up over here...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_108514.html

Quote:
Dear MoveOn member,

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation." Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008
So, you can call him and shit... I guess?
Reply
post #40 of 65
6/24/08 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Nicholas, I've been emailing because it's easier but I'll send faxes too if that's what it takes. The calls I've made in the past have just been so awkward - it's hard for a socially awkward person like myself to make calls like that.
Oh my gosh, I know exactly what you're talking about. It sounds silly but I have to write out what I want to say before I call so I don't sound like some stuttering idiot. But I still believe that making calls, emailing and faxing can make a difference, however small it might be.
Reply
post #41 of 65
6/24/08 at 7:34pm
Thread Starter 
Congresspeople need to know their constituents are watching and care about how they vote. I think a lot of the timidity of the Dems in congress stems from their fear that their constituents won't support them through political attacks based on their voting records.
Reply
post #42 of 65
6/25/08 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
The corrupt FISA bill passed...

The roll call vote is here.

My "democratic" representative voted "yea." What a dick. I'm going to email him to complain and recommend you see how your representative voted and let him/her know how you feel about it.
I emailed my rep (Boehner, admittedly a Republican) about a month ago and told him I'd like him to vote against this. I got a nice, paper letter telling me that he "appreciates hearing from me, but the safety for all Americans should be our top concern. And when we punish companies for helping to ensure that safety, we're sending the wrong message."

Between this and his stance on net neutrality (which I also emailed him about and got a typical, "free-market is the answer to all" response), I'm almost garanteed to vote against him in the next election (provided the democrat isn't worse). I hate using my vote like that, as I believe you should vote for someone instead of against another, but man, no other option.

Singer, Jake, any more room in that club? Or is the more appropriate response "Remember, remember, the 5th of November"?
Reply
post #43 of 65
6/25/08 at 12:08pm
I don't have as much of a problem with the telecom companies as I do with the branches of government here. I don't want them in jail as much as I want a lot of these politicians in there.
Reply
post #44 of 65
6/25/08 at 12:21pm
Thread Starter 
It's a very dangerous precedent to give a company retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the President's behest. Don't forget that Qwest refused and was rewarded with selective investigation/prosecution by the corruptly politicized DOJ. In any other era in American history these crimes would be considered extremely serious and anti-American.
Reply
post #45 of 65
6/25/08 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren View Post
I emailed my rep (Boehner, admittedly a Republican)
Ouch. John "Waterworks" Boehner is your rep?
Reply
post #46 of 65
6/25/08 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
It's a very dangerous precedent to give a company retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the President's behest. Don't forget that Qwest refused and was rewarded with selective investigation/prosecution by the corruptly politicized DOJ. In any other era in American history these crimes would be considered extremely serious and anti-American.

That's it exactly... the President's behest. I want him tried and hung.
Reply
post #47 of 65
6/25/08 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Ouch. John "Waterworks" Boehner is your rep?
Yep. One of the perks of living 20 miles north of Cincinnati, deep in Republican country. Even though everyone I know voted for Obama in the primary, suprise, suprise, Hillary still got our county. It's so bad, in one of the last local elections, the candidates were labeling themselves the "real" republican and the "true" republican.
Reply
post #48 of 65
7/8/08 at 5:38pm
Thread Starter 
GO FEINGOLD!!!!!!!!

Quote:
This result is extremely disappointing. It is entirely unnecessary and unjustified, and it will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. I cannot comprehend why Congress would take this action in the waning months of an administration that has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law – perhaps most notably in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program it set up in secret.

Mr. President, we hear people argue that telecom companies should not be penalized for allegedly taking part in this illegal program. What you don’t hear is that current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government’s request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the government’s request, and subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

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 – the power to listen in on people’s personal conversations.

At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the government’s request for assistance was legitimate or not.

So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companies’ 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 government’s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans’ communications from illegitimate snooping.

Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the new form of retroactive immunity that is in this bill undermines the law that has been on the books for decades – a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that allegedly occurred here.
The full story (and complete text of Feingold's remarks) is here.
Reply
post #49 of 65
7/9/08 at 9:55pm
Thread Starter 
The Senate voted down the Feingold Dodd Amendment striking telecom immunity. If Bush committed a felony crime and Congress isn't willing to face it in any substantive way but instead elects to sweep it under the carpet, we're f&*%ed.
Reply
post #50 of 65
7/9/08 at 11:36pm
We're fucked.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › House deciding today if icorporations can break the law if Bush says it's OK