dslreports logo
 story category
Dodd, Feingold To Fillibuster Telecom Immunity
As following the money shows supporting AT&T and Verizon pays well...

Techdirt notes that perhaps the fight over telecom immunity isn't quite finished after all. Senators Dodd and Feingold are promising they'll fillibuster the latest telco immunity "compromise," which isn't much of a compromise at all. This latest bill simply gives Sprint, Verizon and AT&T a "get out of jail free" card for their participation in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

As usual, you can follow the money to tie telco donations to the politicians who supported the telco push. New analysis shows that those who flip-flopped on supporting immunity for the telcos in this recent vote received twice the donations as those who did not.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS

3 recommendations

mlundin

Member

Filibusters - our last remaining hope

I wish the Senate would filibuster more so that fewer stupid ideas like this one get mindlessly pushed after a bunch of corporate donations.
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA

pabster

Member

Re: Filibusters - our last remaining hope

The problem is that the Senate has their hands in the cookie jar with everyone else. They're bought and paid for.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: Filibusters - our last remaining hope

Time to get rid of the cookie jar.
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA

lordofwhee to mlundin

Member

to mlundin
Agreed. It allows a bit of sanity to return to a government largely run by corporations with millions of dollars to give away in "campaign contributions".

"You too can own your own US senator for the low, low price of 1.7 million dollars a year!"

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - our last remaining hope

said by lordofwhee:

Agreed. It allows a bit of sanity to return to a government largely run by corporations with millions of dollars to give away in "campaign contributions".

"You too can own your own US senator for the low, low price of 1.7 million dollars a year!"
are you speaking of the telcos...or dodd himself who received sweetheart deals from countrywide.
»www.portfolio.com/news-m ··· -Scandal

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

You're ignoring that the Senate was meant to be a slower, more deliberative body than the populist House. They're different for a good reason.

highhatsize
Norm, The Basset For All Time
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08
Madison, WI

highhatsize

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

Dear vpoko,

Folks forget that until 1913, U.S. senators were elected by the legislatures of each state. The 17th Amendment changed that. The reason for the amendment was that most of the senators were millionaires. They had simply bought their office from the legislatures. That has changed in that now most senators owe their office to their campaign contributors. Since the richest folks in the United States are the corporations, (constructive persons), they owe them to corporate boards of directors.

However, the effect of corporate election of senators is obvious in corporations' current activity. They do as they please without fear of government sanction. The "class action" was born of government's failure to protect citizens from corporate avarice.

So, since corporations control the senate, if one is not a corporation, its a good thing that the filibuster still exists.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

I agree, but did you mean to direct that to me? I was stating my support for filibusters.
deadzoned
Premium Member
join:2005-04-13
Cypress, TX

1 recommendation

deadzoned to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Why is the Administration and the Telecos pushing so hard for this "Immunity"? If neither did anything wrong why worry?

Money? I don't seriously believe that it would be a problem ESPECIALLY if they have done nothing wrong.

The way they are acting though - it almost seems like they are trying to cover something up... almost as if, they did something wrong and don't want it to become public. Weird that.
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA

pabster

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

Immunity equals dollars.

Friends saving friends from huge losses.

jt45
@comcast.net

jt45 to deadzoned

Anon

to deadzoned
they did do something wrong. they were wire tapping without a warrent.
deadzoned
Premium Member
join:2005-04-13
Cypress, TX

deadzoned

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

Hey, I was trying to be ironic and sassy!

Plain and simple though, as you said - they (meaning the current administration and the telecoms) did something wrong by doing wiretaps without warrants. They BROKE THE LAW basically.

As it has already been mentioned - the way that Congress seems to vote depends mostly on who is paying them at the time.
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

ackman

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

and the point most often left out is that they may have been doing it prior to 9/11/01, which defeats the argument that it was done to keep us safe after the attack. If big corporations didn't wield so much power these days, then I would probably lean toward letting them off the hook. To hold them liable is like going after the drug user instead of the pusher. But with corporate power and abuse the way it is today, and the clear shift into fascism, I have less problem with leaving the complicit telecoms on the hook. Qwest said "no", the others could have also. But, then again, their CEOs would have also ended up in federal prison if they didn't cave, so what are you gonna do?

idjk
@embarqhsd.net

1 recommendation

idjk to jt45

Anon

to jt45
When the guys in black suits showed up and said tap that line -we did, I don't know what went on at exec lvl of company but in the trenches you don't ask questions with those guys.
NO worries if you did nothing wrong ?? that won't stop a John Edwards want-t-be from bring suit in the hope of a big settlement.

bent
and Inga
Premium Member
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO

bent

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

When the guys in black suits show up saying "tap that line" you're supposed to say "wheres your warrant?" You didn't, and now your bosses are in deep shit.
FAQFixer
Premium Member
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA

1 recommendation

FAQFixer

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

Warrants are never used to tap any communications. Warrantless Wiretaps" is a silly buzz phrase created by the press that works well on the uneducated masses. It obviously worked as intended.

bent
and Inga
Premium Member
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO

bent

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

Care to expound?

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to FAQFixer

Premium Member

to FAQFixer
You're either lying or just very wrong.

Wiretaps have required warrants since the Supreme Court's Olmstead v. United States decision in 1928.
Here is the decision: »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/s ··· nvol=438

Even the DOJ admits as much in their legal briefs:
»www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs ··· rep.html

JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA

JakCrow to idjk

Member

to idjk
What is a "John Edwards want-t-be"?
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

amigo_boy to jt45

Member

to jt45
said by jt45 :

they did do something wrong. they were wire tapping without a warrent.
You need to stop listening to the mind-numbing chants from EFF. The law provides for telcos to hand over data to the government with very minimal requirements. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) permits it merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) also allows it, and was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).

The only thing this "compromise" does is restate 2511. If you guys don't like the law, get it changed.

See: »www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html

Mark

KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium Member
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD

KoolMoe

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

Your claim has been refuted a few times on this site yet you constantly repeat it. Learning much from this administration!

However, I'm not as upset with this bill as I was with past ones. I agree, in principle, that any entity will have a tough time refuting the FedGov's request in such situations. If they have a signed statement for the administration saying they "won't get in trouble", maybe they get a pass.

BUT that means that this administration DAMN WELL better sit for their crimes. They do not have the authority, IMO, to give any entity such a waiver.
KM
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

said by KoolMoe:

They do not have the authority, IMO, to give any entity such a waiver.
Sure, if you keep ignoring 18 USC 2511.

Mark

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

18 USC 2511 shields the carriers from criminal prosecution for disclosing a private communication. It doesn't shield the phone companies in civil court from their contractual obligations with their customers to protect information unless disclosure is required by a court order.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

said by vpoko:

18 USC 2511 shields the carriers from criminal prosecution for disclosing a private communication.
Did you even bother reading it?
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order or certification under this chapter
Mark
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

said by amigo_boy:
said by vpoko:

18 USC 2511 shields the carriers from criminal prosecution for disclosing a private communication.
Did you even bother reading it?
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order or certification under this chapter
Mark
If it were that clear cut, the defendants could have asked for and gotten summary judgement in their favor. As a matter of law, there would be no way for the plaintiffs to prevail. Apparently either the telco attorneys suck (unlikely) or there is more to this than you are willing to see, as it does not fit your preconceived position.

I do have to give you some credit, though. Unlike TK Junk Mail, you at least engage in discussion, rather than hit and run. I respect that, even though I have no respect whatsoever for your position.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

amigo_boy

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

said by wierdo:

If it were that clear cut, the defendants could have asked for and gotten summary judgement in their favor.
Initially the government tried to quash the suits by claiming state secrets. The problem was they'd already discussed the program on Sunday Morning pundit shows.

Someone suggested earlier in this thread that the "compromise" may be an intentional plan to trap the President. That sounds plausible to me. The administration didn't want any of this coming to light. And, it seems "someone" doesn't want the telcos to do exactly what you suggest they could have done (ask for dismissal by showing their certification letters).

The compromise would force the issue. And, it would also force them to reveal whether they were operating under 2702 (belief of danger). What if the spooks disclosed to the telcos various details of attacks foiled, religious nuts captured, etc? To claim 2702, the telco would have to disclose all that. The compromise would force them to say they were operating without certification, but with "belief."
said by wierdo:

I do have to give you some credit, though. Unlike TK Junk Mail, you at least engage in discussion, rather than hit and run. I respect that, even though I have no respect whatsoever for your position.
Thanks. That means a lot to me -- coming from a self-styled freedom fighter.

EDIT: The above theory would also explain why 2702 was modified in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger."

Mark

JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA

JakCrow to wierdo

Member

to wierdo
said by wierdo:

If it were that clear cut, the defendants could have asked for and gotten summary judgement in their favor. As a matter of law, there would be no way for the plaintiffs to prevail. Apparently either the telco attorneys suck (unlikely) or there is more to this than you are willing to see, as it does not fit your preconceived position.

I do have to give you some credit, though. Unlike TK Junk Mail, you at least engage in discussion, rather than hit and run. I respect that, even though I have no respect whatsoever for your position.
Wait until he starts throwing around the hyperbole and empty rhetoric.
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

2 recommendations

wierdo to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
Given that it only takes 60 votes for cloture now, it's fair to say that if it's something important, a filibuster will be broken.

I think it was better back in the days when it took a supermajority to force cloture and there had to be continuous debate. It made for much better TV, and since it was impossible for the Senate to do any business at all with a filibuster ongoing, it was really and truly a weapon of last resort.

Either way, you're off the mark. If nothing else, the Senate rules are far superior in that they make it much harder to ram through bills with little to no discussion. It can obviously still happen, but it's not like the House where the leadership's word may as well be God.

In this particular case, I can be fairly certain that you hold the opinion you posted only because you're a shill for the immunity crowd.

hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium Member
join:2002-04-12

hpguru to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I wish astroturfing were a felony. I guess that's too much to wish for.

DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium Member
join:2001-07-23
Bristol, CT

DrStrange

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

The best way to deal with astroturf is to out the people responsible along with their employers. If you or I [or anyone else] discover this information, with sufficient supporting evidence, the information could probably be submitted to DSLR as a news item. Then the trolls could comment in our thread about longtime poster XYZISGREAT [not intended to resemble any posting handle, 'living' or 'dead'] being outed as a shill for XYZCo [not intended to resemble any corporate name, 'living' or 'dead'].

To return to the original topic, I think that any legislator who votes for telecom immunity is violating his or her oath of office and should be summarily removed.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

1 recommendation

Jim Kirk to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
Of course your opinion would be totally different if you weren't on the side of the telcos.

••••
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium Member
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO

Corydon to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
If you can't convince 218 house members and 60 senators (and 1 President) that your legislation is a good idea, maybe you ought to take it back to the drawing board.

Personally, I'd like to see the supermajority raised even higher. It would give legislators less opportunity to cause trouble like they are with this shameful trampling of the Constitution and corporate giveaway.
Corydon

1 recommendation

Corydon

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

And although it ought to be obvious to anyone who believes in freedom, here's a flagrant example of how your taxpayer dollars get spent when the government has unfettered access to spy on its citizens. You get petty functionaries like Hoover digging for dirt on Americans (and wasting taxpayer dollars and government resources—hear that conservatives?) just because they don't like what they say.

»www.cbsnews.com/stories/ ··· _4207013

One quote, from a satirical piece Buchwald wrote in the '60s really stands out:
Buchwald reappeared on the bureau’s radar in 1961 when, in a satirical column, he claimed to have uncovered the “Orlov Plan.” Buchwald often created fictitious characters, and in this column said Soviet agent Serge Orlov revealed a plan to cripple the United States by using right-wing anti-communist groups to sow seeds of distrust in the nation.

“When I proposed the plan in Moscow the Kremlin thought I was crazy. But they figured they had nothing to lose. Well, you can see the results for yourself. The seeds of doubt about America are being planted by their own people and we’ve been making more progress in wrecking the U.S. Constitution in the last few years than my predecessors have been able to do since the Revolution,” Buchwald quoted “Orlov” as saying.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 recommendation

DataRiker to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
Wow...just wow. You must have been sleeping through your courses on civics and/or political science.

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium Member
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ

HarleyYac to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
"Free and Open vote" Excuse me ... Is was Costly!!!, my freedom and your freedom PLUS alot of cold hard cash from the Telcos.. I for one applaud it!
Lee

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
"Will of the majority"? Which "majority" would that be? Would that be the majority of the lobbyists? The majority of the bought-and-paid-for legislators? Or the majority of the American citizenry?

JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA

1 edit

JakCrow

Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

And the American people do not want this legislation.

On a side note, in regards to the government wiretapping Americans


"When the Government tells you to do something, I think you all recognize, uh, that that is something that you need to do."

republican rep Kit Bonds. I think he's in the wrong country.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen

Premium Member

Re: Filibusters - a mechanism that has outlived its usefulness

said by JakCrow:

And the American people do not want this legislation.

On a side note, in regards to the government wiretapping Americans


"When the Government tells you to do something, I think you all recognize, uh, that that is something that you need to do."

republican rep Kit Bonds. I think he's in the wrong country.
Any time the government tells you to do something or that you NEED to do something, it's generally a good indication that you should be highly suspect of the need or the wisdom of doing that thing...

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

4 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2008 ··· eillance
An electronic surveillance bill has cleared an important hurdle in the Senate. A test vote on the measure Wednesday won the support of 80 senators who want to begin debate. Only 15 senators tried to kill the bill by blocking the debate.

The Senate is expected to vote on final passage by late Thursday. The House approved the bill last week.
Here is how they voted:
»senate.gov/legislative/L ··· position
A NO vote meant they tried to kill the bill.

These are the Senators that are weak on defending America from terrorists. They are also the most left wing losers in the Senate. And to my great disgust, 2 are from NJ:
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
The great hope for the Democrats(Obama) in Nov threw his support to passage of the FISA bill. »blog.washingtonpost.com/ ··· tio.html

••••••••
boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI

boober321 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Way to go Senator Feingold! He's the most reputable and honest person in the Senate. He voted no on the Iraq war, and he was the ONLY senator that didn't give Bush a free pass on his Wipe You Ass with the Constitution Act... er I mean Patriot Act...

Makes me glad I supported him for re-election, and will continue to do so.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

footballdude

Premium Member

Trap?

My take on this is that they're trying to lay a trap for the President. They say they'll give telcos immunity if they can provide a piece of paper with the President's signature on it telling them to wiretap. They don't care at all about the telcos, they just want a piece of paper with the President's signature on it that they can 'leak' to the press. Then all the usual suspects will hold press conferences and call the President a criminal.

Makes me wonder if Dodd and Feingold got the memo?

•••••••••••••
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX

mobbo

Member

Follow the money

Interesting... legislators who flip-flopped to be in favor of immunity had double the donations from the telcos.

I wonder how much it would cost to have the entire Senate perform the musical "Rent"?

•••
MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium Member
join:2003-01-02
Columbia, SC

1 recommendation

MrHappy316

Premium Member

Yes to Bailout, No to Immunity

Isn't Senator Dodd the moron who wanted to bail out the banks with his foreclosure bill. He's probably just doing this so he doesn't look so bad cause he's getting slammed with trying to pass a bailout bill for countrywide and then got preferential treatment for his house loan.

brickwallattack
@verizon.net

-1 recommendation

brickwallattack

Anon

doesn't matter either way

It doesn't matter either way yea/nay it always plays in favor of the greaser.
If you take the pardon then your guilty if you refuse the pardon then you must be not guilty.
no matter what it will be public record they took the pardon and that spells disgrace in the worlds eyes.
Every time they the telco go public they have to worry about someone in the crowd yelling up to them and saying are you guilty or not.
It turns heads and then people start to distrust them and their honesty is always in question in other word they could never look you in the eye and say you know I am honest,
Because you know different same as them now with tv commercial to promote the telco image they will not be able to sell the label of honesty or caring about peoples privacy because the real truth is not so.
They call this public DISGRACE and that's the price they have to pay for a pardon on both sides.It's called your a traitor to your own country during war and it's people and the worst of it that it was done for profit.
yes now when i see a tv ad for one of the telcos i just think of them as DISGRACED and not to be trusting of a traitor and not believe in them or there products.
They can lobby all they want but in my eyes they are DISGRACED traitors and during a time of war they became traitors for profit because i do not think they gave all that data to the gov.and the leftovers they kept and sold for a profit. But all said and done DISGRACE is what telcos stand for now DISGRACE.

One More time
@verizon.net

One More time

Anon

Get Over It

Wiretapping does not occur on a mass basis.
Data mining of call patterns does, and is used to establish the case for the wiretap.
The latter does not require a warrant.
While I think they should have to get warrants after-the-fact, from the FISA court, as originally outlined, I don't think we have a catastrophe here, or a conspiracy against the people. This is about the left attacking the current administration, ignoring the fact that all previous admins engaged in similar activity to protect us.

I don't like government abuses (we sure have enough of them in my blue home state), but I'm not particularly worried about them listening to my phone calls. They've done it before, they'll do it again, and I don't care.

Y'all might care, but I suggest, if you have something to hide, that maybe you shouldn't discuss it on a phone in the first place. Try Smart's cone-of-silence next time.
u475700
Premium Member
join:2004-02-16
·Callcentric

u475700

Premium Member

Merely a smoke screen for Dodd

After the recent revelations about his cozy relationship with Countrywide Financial, Dodd, who is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, desperately needs an opportunity to divert public attention to another issue. Not only did Dodd accept substantial campaign contributions from Countrywide but he also received sweetheart deals on two mortgages because of his VIP relationship with the company's chairman.