Senators provide immunity to telecoms for illegal wiretapping.

[Dan.Linehan]

Analysis here.

Basically, Bush administration and several major telecoms are exposed by the New York Times for doing massive numbers of illegal, warrant-less wiretaps on the American public. Caught red handed.

Instead of being held accountable for breaking the law, the Senate is passing a bill that gives total amnesty and retroactive immunity to everyone involved, instead of prosecuting them.

You won't hear about this on the news of course, since our major media companies are owned by the telecoms, who were the ones handing over massive amounts of private data without warrants.

Telecoms are off the hook even if they acted in bad faith.

The bill would immediately dismiss all lawsuits and end all investigations. There isn't even a way to determine which telecoms are involved or what exactly they did, let alone whether in was in good faith.

The breakdown on the vote was similar to what it always is:

Democrats -- 31-18

Republicans -- 0-49

As always, when it comes to the most radical Bush policies, the GOP lines up lock-step behind them, and the Democrats split, always with more than enough to join the Republicans to ensure passage. That's the process that is called "bipartisanship" in the Beltway.

Grouped By Vote Position (Nays = IMMUNITY)

YEAs ---31

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Tester (D-MT) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---67

Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) 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) Feinstein (D-CA) 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) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2

Clinton (D-NY) Graham (R-SC)

[tekomino]

Well, as they say:

Left hand is washing the Right...

Pun intended...

[damagr]

Well, I'm not an american citizen, so pardon me for asking.
We have a similar discussion on this far reaching issue in germany.

Granted the outcome politically was pretty much the same here - pending approval by the highest judiciary organ, but at least, we could expect anybody among the political elite to have an opinion on the issue and to express and exert it.

I realize our system is different from yours, but I'd like to understand why Sen. Clinton, as a contender for the highest office would (as one of only two senators at all) negate to express her views on such a high profile issue that concerns just about everybody?

[Jennihul]

Undermining privacy in the name of 'national security' has been Bush's MO for both his terms. The examples are endless.

Jennifer

[Tasaio]

Obama voted against immunity. Good call.

[Trezker]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Obama voted against immunity. Good call.

I just love that guy more and more.

This is exactly what the pirate parties around the world are talking about. Noone has the right to snoop around in my private business unless they have a damn good reason, and only the police should ever have right at all. Around here you have to be reasonably suspected of an offence worth at least 4 years before the police can even ask a judge for the right to invade someones privacy.

Still, we're dangerously close to letting our politicians give the media industry the right to invade our privacy just because they have a big lobby.

[Brutha]

I realize our system is different from yours, but I'd like to understand why Sen. Clinton, as a contender for the highest office would (as one of only two senators at all) negate to express her views on such a high profile issue that concerns just about everybody?

She might rather want to campain somewhere and give speeches.
It not unusual for American senators to be somewhere else when there is a vote.
Even then it would have been better if she attended the vote.

Well, I'm not an american citizen, so pardon me for asking.
We have a similar discussion on this far reaching issue in germany.

Granted the outcome politically was pretty much the same here

No we haven't. In Germany we discuss at the moment whether it should be possible that the police asks a court to get a warrant to search your computer (the "Bundestrojaner").
Some time ago we discussed whether it should be possible to wiretap and lay bugs (the "Großer Laufangriff"). But that has always to be allowed in every instance via a court (or palamentary commision in which all parties are present for political cases).

In America the problem is that no court is asked for those actions. The FBI can (after this law is passed) simply decide to wiretap any American citizen without asking a judge.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Brutha

SIn Germany we discuss at the moment whether it should be possible that the police asks a court to get a warrant to search your computer (the "Bundestrojaner").
Some time ago we discussed whether it should be possible to wiretap and lay bugs (the "Großer Laufangriff"). But that has always to be allowed in every instance via a court (or palamentary commision in which all parties are present for political cases).

Well, having lived in Germany as auslaender for number of years, I can tell you that what you are saying might be a "public policy", but it is not what is actually done. Well, maybe if you are native German and your name is Hans you are treated differently...

I would not live there again no way... America is still land of free with all its shortcomings...

[Barcs]

Man!!! I was hoping this wouldn't happen. People need to be held accountable for their actions, not given immunity!!! This is not right and how a bill like this could even pass is beyond me.

[Brutha]

Well, having lived in Germany as auslaender for number of years, I can tell you that what you are saying might be a "public policy", but it is not what is actually done.

No, I have a good idea of what happens in practice in Berlin where I live.
Even when you have some wiretapping that is questionable it is authorised by a judge (for every case).

Do you know of a specific case where there was wiretapping which wasn't authorised by a judge (if so how do you know that it wasn't authorised?)

In Germany you would also have no problem to get a law like that which is passed in the US taken apart by our supreme court (Verfassungsgericht)

In the US it gets more and more difficult to know whether your rights got broken (you don't even know whether your telecon has violated your privacy).

I would not live there again no way... America is still land of free with all its shortcomings...

It's really unfortunate that you have had a bad experience in Germany.

In Germany there would have to happen a lot in the political landscape before you could make a law like that.

It's the same for the issue of legalising torture or imprisoning people without a trial.

[Tasaio]

It's really unfortunate that you have had a bad experience in Germany.

In Germany there would have to happen a lot in the political landscape before you could make a law like that.

It's the same for the issue of legalising torture or imprisoning people without a trial.

Slavery is still legal though--in the sense that conscription is mandatory. This is the case with lots of European countries: Germany, Sweden, Switzerland...

It's the one thing that would prevent me from moving there.

[frajilthunder]

The house failed to extend the debate on this bill yesterday. Hopefully the house will allow the bill to expire, but the republican house leadership has refused to take any action on any other legislation until this bill comes to a vote. Everyone please say a prayer or send vibes to Speaker Pelosi, who has not yet given up the fight for our right to privacy.
The Consortium Report » FISA Hardball

[Dan.Linehan]

Yep, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to permit lawsuits that allege the illicit cooperation of telephone and Internet companies with government spy programs.

Whew..

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Not sure if this is "old" news (from yesterday):

The Swamp: FISA faceoff: Republicans walk out

[frajilthunder]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Yep, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to permit lawsuits that allege the illicit cooperation of telephone and Internet companies with government spy programs.

Whew..

Well, it's not time to say whew just yet. What the house did was to let the Protect America Act (can anyone say 1984) expire. Of course, W is now claiming that Democrats have made America less safe by failing to up or down vote on the bill. So the issue is very much still in play. It's very hard for polititians to call BS on fear mongering becausing fear mongering works on a lot of Americans.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by frajilthunder

It's very hard for polititians to call BS on fear mongering becausing fear mongering works on a lot of Americans.

Fear mongering sucks! I am more afraid of losing all my personal freedom in the interest of "protecting America" than I am of any terrorist.

[frajilthunder]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Fear mongering sucks! I am more afraid of losing all my personal freedom in the interest of "protecting America" than I am of any terrorist.

Yeah, it's scary to see what the American public will allow to happen to our civil liberties. Without the PAA, we can still listen in on conversations between the US and foriegn countries, but the agencie(s) requesting the wiretap have to obtain a warrant. The court can give emergency warrants if the presenting agencies ask for it. The system works now without having to trample our right to privacy. If the PAA becomes permanant, it is possible for the gov't to hear almost any phone conversation, with no legal recourse to the infringed.

The whole deal sucks. I used to say I'm proud to be an American, but I disagree with the direction our country is headed, but nowadays I'm not sure I can say even that. If the American public would refuse to be frightened into giving up their rights, polititians wouldn't even try to take them away from us.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by frajilthunder

If the American public would refuse to be frightened into giving up their rights, polititians wouldn't even try to take them away from us.

Probably so. However, I would imagine many people don't have any idea what is really happening to our rights (of course it's the individual's responsibility to keep up with it, but it's overwhelming for many).

[frajilthunder]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Probably so. However, I would imagine many people don't have any idea what is really happening to our rights (of course it's the individual's responsibility to keep up with it, but it's overwhelming for many).

Good point. I'd like to hear from the non-Americans on this subject. Do you feel that your countrymen pay enough attention to affairs of state?

Also as far as Americans go, I really don't know where I stand on this. Is it too tinfoil hat to think that the mainstream media (owned by some of the same people that own the telecom companies) keeps us distracted with celebrity gossip, trailer trash tragedy, etc., so that we won't care about the erosion of our civil liberties? Or is it the responsibility of each individual to wade through the fluff to get to what's happening in our counrty?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by frajilthunder

Is it too tinfoil hat to think that the mainstream media (owned by some of the same people that own the telecom companies) keeps us distracted with celebrity gossip, trailer trash tragedy, etc., so that we won't care about the erosion of our civil liberties? Or is it the responsibility of each individual to wade through the fluff to get to what's happening in our counrty?

I'm getting to the point where I find almost no "consipiracy" too far-fetched considering what is being done out in the open.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by frajilthunder

Good point. I'd like to hear from the non-Americans on this subject. Do you feel that your countrymen pay enough attention to affairs of state?

Also as far as Americans go, I really don't know where I stand on this. Is it too tinfoil hat to think that the mainstream media (owned by some of the same people that own the telecom companies) keeps us distracted with celebrity gossip, trailer trash tragedy, etc., so that we won't care about the erosion of our civil liberties? Or is it the responsibility of each individual to wade through the fluff to get to what's happening in our counrty?

I thought that was the whole POINT of the mainstream media in the first place Smoke and Mirrors and all.


Edit: All it takes is a little studying of history to realize that the majority of people who strive for political, or any other power over others, generally don't care a bit about the people they're supposed to represent/lead- the whole cry of "But, but that can't happen here, this is the USA! We have the Constitution!" should really be outdated by now to anyone with any sense, but sadly this doesn't seem to be the case (random comment, not directed at anyone in the forum here )