That was awe inspiring. When is that vote? Is it too late to write my senators?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The vote was already lost this year. Luckily, Dodd's filibuster was successful and the Senate's let the bill expire 'til next session. So yay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought that was just the cloture vote...I must say, I don't really understand Senate rules.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:And in place of the forthright argument and judicial deliberation that ought to be this country’s pride, two simple words from our president’s mouth: “Trust me.”
I cannot speak for my colleagues—but I would never take that offer, not even in the best of times, not even from a perfect president. I would never take that offer because our Constitution tells us that the president’s word is subject to the oversight of the Congress and the deliberation of the courts; and because I took an oath to defend the Constitution; and because I stand by my oath.
“Trust me.” It is the offer to hide ourselves in the waiting arms of the rule of men. And in these threatened times, that offer has never seemed more seductive. The rule of law has rarely been so fragile.
The most basic of reminders, but so powerful.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Is there a video of him actually giving the speech?
Utterly amazing speech. That was one in a million, and it's the kind of speech I hope is referenced in history books in years to come. It's the sort of thing I've been waiting to hear for years from a Congressperson.
I'm stunned.
The text is fantastic, and I'd add that Dodd is a clear, compelling public speaker.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is a pretty damn good speech.
I do not believe that the government should be able to expect telecommunication companies to hand over past records and promise to send current and future surveillance just because the government asks, without fear of any sort of reprisals.
I do, however, believe that the ability to ask for such a thing with some sort of procedure that goes at least a little farther than saying, "We need this," should be a tool at the government's disposal, and exercising that tool should be a matter of some secrecy.
One funny thing here: "the corporations" (that evil, dastardly group) seem to be in a position to get really screwed. Had the government not come to them and asked-and I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some 'insisting' going on-for those records, it never would've happened...but it does not appear it will be the government who suffers for doing it.
Not that I'm real torn up about it, heh.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Qwest requested a warrant from the NationalSecurityAgency, then got screwed over on a federal contract for obeying the Constitution.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That was awesome.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:but it does not appear it will be the government who suffers for doing it.
Not my fault. I voted for the other guy. If you want to start advocating that we punish the government for it, too, I'm right alongside that one.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Indeed, I think that the hope is that in bringing the corporations to trial they'll end up pointing fingers at the current, Republican government, which will then face serious reprecussions (at election time).
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Utterly amazing speech. That was one in a million, and it's the kind of speech I hope is referenced in history books in years to come. It's the sort of thing I've been waiting to hear for years from a Congressperson.
I'm stunned.
The text is fantastic, and I'd add that Dodd is a clear, compelling public speaker.
Ditto.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Wow. Yes, that was amazing. And informed, and, oh rarest of qualities in the political arena, True.
Thanks for the link.
ADD: Oh, and thanks for reminding me to send another check to the EFF. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
That was a great speech. This administration scares me so much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't want to start a new thread for this, and I'll probably post it in the Congressional thread too, but this seemed the best place to continue the discussion.
quote:The House version provides stronger court oversight of government surveillance than the Senate bill. It also adds a bipartisan commission modeled on the 9/11 commission to investigate the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The commission would have subpoena power and would report back to Congress in one year.
This version will likely never make it into law, or at least, not until Bush is out of office. He's pledged to veto the bill unless it has immunity for the telecomms, and it looks like at some point in the last couple months, House Democrats grew a backbone and said they'll never pass a version with the immunity in it. I didn't think that'd happen. It'll go back to the Senate now, where it's not likely to pass, and that'll bring us back to square one. It's very possible this impasse won't be solved until Bush is out of office if both sides stick to their guns, and very likely both sides will blame each other and use it for campaign fodder come November.
But at least the debate isn't dead, and neither side has thrown in the towel. Sadly there's some mudslinging and melodramatic demonizing going on, but that doesn't surprise me. Somewhere in the middle there's a real debate going on.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Great speach. I'm a fan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now it'll go back to the Senate, where they, like the House, will go into a private, secure, closed session.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I was going to write my Congressman to support the override but I'm not sure I'm allowed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't currently have a representative, I am from Tom Lantos' district...
I'll write my senator though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It seems so strange to me that Bush has been calling a defeat of this bill a blow on the war against terrorism, and now he is vetoing it unless immunity is granted to telecom agencies.
I understand that if he does not protect these agencies for working with the government it will severely hamper anyone's willingness to work for the government in the future, but it's a strange twist in my mind.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I disagree that failure to give the companies immunity will hamper anyones willingness to work with the government in the future. What it will do is send them running to their legal departments to check whether the request is legal and above board before they comply. And that, in turn, will force the government to abide by its own laws and get a warrant.
Seems like a win-win situation.
If the government needs to move quickly, the FISA court is there 24/7 and grants warrants almost every time the government asks (Dodd cites data: 5 rejections in almost 19,000 requests). So, in reality, the fast way to do this is:
1) Make a call to the FISA court, then, 2) Call the telecomm companies once you have the warrant in hand.
Seems like it'd work pretty well if everyone just played by the rules we already have.
YEAH for Senator Dodd!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I'm remembering the rules correctly, in a real emergency, the government can also get the warrant retroactively up to three days later.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree that failure to give the companies immunity will hamper anyones willingness to work with the government in the future. What it will do is send them running to their legal departments to check whether the request is legal and above board before they comply. And that, in turn, will force the government to abide by its own laws and get a warrant.
Immunity isn't about not being liable. It's about not facing a suit in the first place.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But if a telecom is presented with a warrant, is their cooperation really a choice? And I would expect their liability to be minimal as well. Very few other industries are granted any form of immunity. A case has not been made for why the telecoms deserve immunity.
Telecom immunity is about their past record (hopefully), when they violated the law by granting wiretaps without warrants. It's also an easy way for the Bush administration and it's allies to quash current lawsuits by the EFF and ACLU and others. Without discovery in those suits, the full scope of the illegal wiretapping may never be fully known, or not for many years.
This is the main reason the GOP has been so adamant about immunity-- to facilitate the cover-up.
I think the Democrats could offer immunity for past and future activities pursued under valid warrants, but none for the warrantless wiretaps. That would smoke out the true motives behind the cover-up.
edit: My last paragraph wasn't researched: I think FISA gives immunity for wiretaps with warrants, and so does the Democratic amendment to it.
quote:16 H.L.C. 1 ‘‘(3) RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).
[ March 16, 2008, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Immunity isn't about not being liable. It's about not facing a suit in the first place.
True enough, but the point is that this question wouldn't arise at all if they all complied with the law and request warrants.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:True enough, but the point is that this question wouldn't arise at all if they all complied with the law and request warrants.
That's not true. The telco companies currently contend that they did comply with the law, and the question has arisen.
I don't know if they're right or not. But the question has arisen regardless of whether or not they complied with the law.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dagonee, are you saying that this question would still have arisen (and still be a topic for Congress to have to consider immunity) if there'd been warrants?
That's basically my point above -- that there's an obvious established legal way to do this, and then there's "other ways." whether those are also legal is, I gather, a question in your mind. But to me, there's FISA and then there's something else that didn't need to happen because FISA is there for just such a situation as arose.
I can see that the telecomm companies may assert whatever the heck they want, but it seems pretty clear that there's a way to do this kind of thing already built into US laws and that way wasn't followed.
Anything short of that is suspect, whether it's strictly "legal" or not. It seems like a company that does this for a business might be expected to know what the FISA court is all about, and what's required of them, and, by the same token, what is NOT required of them under the law. If that's not true, then I suspect they need better lawyers.
Or, maybe what you're saying is we need better laws, and all this fuss is over a technical loophole in FISA.
In which case, I lack data. I'm basically going by what Dodd (and others) have said. When I read a synopsis of what FISA is all about, it horrified me as being too much in the pocket of the Justice Department. When I hear that even that's not loose enough for the Administration, then I agree with those who say they should be reeled in.
I want the telecomm companies to have their day in court. If what they did wasn't illegal, fine. It still seems like the Justice Department violated the law, and that's who I really want to see come in an explain their actions.
The telecomm companies gambled that their customers won't care, or will play along. So far it seems to be paying off for them. A public trial might change that, and that's a powerful reason for them to make whatever arguments they can NOW, rather than in a trial setting. (In addition to the cost of going to trial). But, ultimately, they are small potatoes to me. I'd be willing to chalk their behavior up to post-9/11 hysteria/patriotism. It's the people who swore to uphold the law of the land who I want skewered over this.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I understand that if he does not protect these agencies for working with the government it will severely hamper anyone's willingness to work for the government in the future, but it's a strange twist in my mind.
If you read the speech, you will find a very convincing argument for why that is not true. The Bush administration simply ignored the judicial system set in place to assist in obtaining secret warrants. It's not like he ever even tried to operate in good faith, he simply bypassed the legal process.
He is protecting himself. The telecoms may have broken the law by allowing unwarranted taps, but Dodd argues, and I agree, that they were put in an impossible situation by the Bush administration, one that could easily have been avoided if Bush had used the legal proess available to him. We are talking about a secret court that historically has allowed 99.99 percent of all wiretap requests. Bush is not "protecting" anyone more than himself and the people under him who committed crimes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I believe that to be true as well. Dagonee has me wondering if I've missed something, though. Or if maybe Dodd has spun this a little himself.
I hope Dag can clear that up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's basically my point above -- that there's an obvious established legal way to do this, and then there's "other ways." whether those are also legal is, I gather, a question in your mind.
As I understand it, the issue is this:
There is an obvious, established legal way to do this; telecoms are granted immunity when complying in this way, and are not exposed to lawsuit. The other way in which this was done is arguably legal; without explicit immunity, those telecoms that complied might be exposed to costly lawsuits even if that way is later found to be legal.
I'm personally okay with that situation, but I can understand why other people might sympathize with the telecoms. For my part, I think the telecoms might have given that more consideration before selling the American public down the river.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah...okay, if that's Dag's point, then I agree with you, Tom. I do see the point now, though. I was missing that this will cost them money whether it turns out it was legal or not.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OK. So lets get this straight.
Justice tells AT&T, "Give us what we want/need."
AT&T does so.
A couple folks at AT&T think, "Wait a minute, this isn't legal."
They tell the ACLU.
The ACLU sues to stop this illegality, and in order to curb this from happening again, sue for $ so that the next time the Justice Dept comes knocking, AT&T will turn to their large legal staff and makes sure that what they are doing is legal.
The Justice Dept says, "You can't do that. People won't give us what we need anymore, especially if they have lawyers discovering that what we are asking for is not legal."
They go to President Bush. He says, "Congress, give AT&T immunity so that the ACLU will stop harassing them."
Congress says, "No."
President Bush says, "If you don't, then the terrorists will win."
Congressman Bird says, "No." using a very good speech.
Justice can go through Fisa courts to get what they want, but they don't.
Why not?
Every reason I've heard that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory, is wrong.
Still, they didn't. And like most conspiracy, the real conspiracy is that fact that some beaurocrat goofed, and all his buddies are trying to cover it up.
Some Justice Lawyer should have gone to FISA, but didn't.
Some AT&T Lawyer should have caught on that this was questionable at best, but didn't.
So now what?
If what the administration is really trying to do is save the Telecom companies the cost of defending themselves from such lawsuits, and that by not having this law passed puts us truly in danger from the terrorists, then why don't we, the people, volunteer to pay the legal fees of the telecom companies--if they truly are innocent. If what they did was illegal, then they need to suffer some punishment. This is not being vindictive on my part. It is the only way we can convince them to cost-justify legal behavior.
If an FBI agent came into my office and told me, "We need you to rob that bank over there. Here is a stocking mask and a gun. Call me when you have the money." I don't think I would rob that bank without talking to my lawyer. If I tried to rob that bank, and was caught, I don't think that claiming "that FBI agent told me it was OK" would stop me from being convicted.
There is some oddity in the fact that the same people who have turned the phrase "Amnesty" into a dirty word when it comes to hard working illegal aliens, consider it the secret to our continued freedom when it comes to major telecom companies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Congressman Bird says, "No." using a very good speech.
You mean Senator Dodd? Or did Senator Byrd give a speech as well?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that this quote is the real crux of the argument against granting immunity to the telecoms
quote:But “trust me,” says President Bush. He means it literally. When he first asked Congress to make the telecoms’ actions legally disappear, Congress had a reasonable question for him: Can we at least know exactly what we’d be immunizing? Can you at least tell us what we’d be cleaning up?
And the president refused to answer. Only he, his close advisors, and a handful of telecom executives know all of the facts.
Even though Bush claims that defeat of this bill is a major blow against the war on terror, he won't tell congress what the telecoms did in order to get it passed, in fact he has threatened to veto the bill in order to keep their alleged crimes secret.
If that doesn't stink of cover-up, I can't imagine what would. If the failure to get warrants for this program was simply a matter of expediency, arrogance or just a slip up -- it seems highly unlikely that the Bush administration would fight so hard against revealing what was done. There is one simple answer to why the administration didn't seek the approval of the FISA court for this program -- they knew the FISA court would not approve. That might seem unlikely, given the FISA courts record of approving virtually every request made unless this program was fundamentally different from the 19,000 other requests made of the FISA court.
Ever since the warrantless wire-tapping scandal broke, people have suspected that this program was a major data mining operation. Such programs had been proposed by the CIA prior to 9/11 but had been rejected. If this is the case, then what the telecoms turned over wasn't information about specific "suspects" but something more like records of all calls made to or from certain regions. That was a request that FISA wasn't likely to approve and probably did't have the authority to approved.
While the Bush administration has denied this allegation, this remains the most logical explanation for their initial dismissal of the legally established process and their recalcitrance towards revealing the details of the program. I suppose the program could have been something even more offensive.
If, however, what they did was less egregious than this, would it not be in their best interest to reveal what was done (at least to congress) in order to quell suspicion and gain the support they claim they need to protect our national security?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There was an interview on "NOW" on PBS yesterday about this. They interviewed a technician who was involved with installing the physical wires and stuff to mine this data. The technology is way beyond me, (he was talking about "splitters" and things called "Narus") but the gist seemed to be that the government was doing something very much like The Rabbit suggests.
He seemed perhaps a bit overdramatic in the interview - which may or may not be justified. There are a lot of invoices for equipment and work orders and technical diagrams. Maybe those of you that know about this stuff can sort it out for us?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:You mean Senator Dodd? Or did Senator Byrd give a speech as well?
Ooops. When I start ranting I sometimes don't remember names to well. Senator Dodd is correct.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am wondering myself about the difference between Immunity and Pardon. If the President is so determined to grant these companies a free pass, can he not give them a Presidential Pardon for anything they might have done wrong? Or wouldn't that hold in Civil court?
What President Bush and his administration never understood is that Trust is a two way street. If you don't trust us enough to tell us the truth, then don't expect us to trust you. Kennedy did not blockade Cuba by saying, "Trust Me--theres missiles there." He showed the public the face of the enemy, even though it may have compromised our technology.
We can not trust him if he will not trust us.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't believe the president has the power to pardon in a civil case. That would be very strange.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)