digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at rawstory.com

Feingold, Dodd planning filibuster of wiretap bill

rawstory.com — In a last-ditch attempt to fix a surveillance bill critics say would essentially legalize President Bush ’s warrantless wiretapping program, Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) have promised to filibuster the bill as long as it offers telecommunications companies retroactive immunity.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DreKor, on 06/24/2008, -7/+147Russ Feingold is a credit to Wisconsin and it's voters.
    • HalleBurton, on 06/24/2008, -4/+33...and a credit to the Senate and the country, too!
      • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -2/+14Yes he is, and I am a Libertarian Wisconsinite
    • aliengoods, on 06/25/2008, -1/+26People from Wisconsin want beer, cheese, another Packer Superbowl, and the damn government to leave us alone.
    • dalittle, on 06/25/2008, -1/+12People should send the guy money for his re-election campaign down the road to make sure he stays in the Senate.
      • deathsquadx, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure Feingold will be in the senate until the day he decides to retire from public office.
    • kuatto, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2Why doesn't Dodd filibuster the Countrywide bailout bill?
    • gta3uzi, on 06/25/2008, -2/+17Freaking win. I'm a Republican turned Libertarian but I'm with this guy. He even has sane views on gun control (i.e. there shouldn't be a lot of it)
      • wtfpwned98, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2If you're very ideological in your libertarianism, you won't like his ideas on campaign finance. Just sayin'.
    • humperdinck, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3its
      • SzaszMan, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2.... Monty Python's Flying Circussss....
    • rz8472, on 06/25/2008, -0/+11Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act one month after 9/11, when it took the rest of the country 2 years to even realize the legislation had problems (even the great late Sen. Wellstone failed that test). He was the first to propose that we pull out of Iraq in 2004. He is the only senator to propose that we censor the President, one of the few who openly supports gay marriage, and has led the fight for publicly financed elections.

      He is also one of the very few non-millionaire senators and seems very down to earth - http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=236730
    • Downwritemad, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I voted for that guy.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/24/2008, -5/+45Marylanders, get in touch with Barbara Mikulski on this. She's an important swing vote on this.
    http://mikulski.senate.gov
  • principle, on 06/24/2008, -7/+1041. There is nothing in this bill that would make us safer.
    2. There is nothing wrong with FISA.
    3. We the people should not be penalized for Bush’s unlawful actions.
    4. We don’t need a bill that further infringes on our rights.
    5. If this bill is passes then all emails sent to or from all major email providers will be intercepted because their email servers are located offshore.

    etc....
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -1/+15Oh... also it's unconstitutional.
      Ex Post Facto.
      Bulk spying on all Americans without probable cause, warrant or subpeona.
      • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure about that specific one.

        AFAIK the ex-post-facto limitation has to do with criminalizing something after the fact. It doesn't apply to immunity/indemnity/amnesty. (Note, I also believe it's constitutional to even later on *take away* such after-the-fact immunity.)
        • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

          An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

          Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.

          In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws.
        • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Uhm... That just supports my point, An0nymous, and disproves yours. (At least, assuming Calder v. Bull is authoritative.)

          None of those four categories cover my examples: (A) granting immunity for an offense, nor (B) later revoking that immunity.

          To quote from the case decision:
          _______________________________________________________________
          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.

          2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.

          3d. 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.

          All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive. In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws.
          _______________________________________________________________
      • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2P.S.: Spying on Americans without 4th and 5th amendment guarantees is definitely unconstitutional, but it is not an "ex post facto" law because it has nothing whatsoever to do with charging Americans with crimes.
        • mikelieman, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Wrong. It is MOST ASSUREDLY unlawful with both Criminal and Civil sanctions. I, for one, could really use the $150,000 AT&T owes me. Couldn't *YOU* use the $150,000 AT&T owes you?

          TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I
          § 1809. Criminal sanctions
          (c) Penalties
          An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

          The fact of the matter is that the § 1810. Civil liability provisions would force the TOTAL
          LIQUIDATION OF AT&T'S ASSETS to settle.

          § 1810:
          An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—
          (a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
          (b) punitive damages; and
          (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.


    • Ryanbry, on 06/25/2008, -1/+0While this Bill needs to be shot down, its a huge stretch to say there is nothing wrong with FISA. As it stands now, it is too slow and needs to be reworked. We run into problems when suspects switch phones/residencies/etc.. quickly. The warrants need to be expanded for FISA to work with technology becoming more prevalent for terrorists.
      • mikelieman, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1What's 'too slow' about the current law, where they're able to BEGIN SURVEILLANCE and then take up to THREE DAYS to get to the court for permission?
  • Shellius, on 06/24/2008, -18/+70I wish Obama was more like Russ Feingold -- a real leader.
    Or, I wish Russ Feingold would run for president. This FISA compromise is ridiculous.... Bush does not need this, no president does. If it passes, it will not go back to what it was, we will have no protection from spying at all, and it will be permanent. I can't understand how anyone could support this thing. Call your senators!
    • geodebug, on 06/25/2008, -1/+27Yes, Obama has already failed his first litmus test in my eyes. Democrats were voted back into leadership because of the Bush administration's numerous craps on the the constitution and basic decency. I can't think of one thing they've done in congress to really change the system or make anyone accountable pay.

      I'm glad I lived in Wisconsin for awhile and was able to vote for Russ. Obama, you've already failed me.
      • mrgreenjeans9, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4you're both right on. why are folks like you the minority? people people people...we HAVE to get together on this!
      • cheesehead, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Obama, just another phony prick?
      • Kikinou, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3OH MY GOD!! You said something negative about Obama!!! Prepare to be inundated with rationalizations and insults from his die-hard fans.

        You see, now that he's secured the nomination using the far left, he's saying ***** you to them and trying to appeal to the center. That's not change we can believe in.
      • bloosteak, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1never heard of electability?
    • plhofmei, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5I called both my senators' offices urging them to support Senators Dodd and Fiengold in their efforts to defeat these FISA changes. I also called the office of Senator Dodd to thank him for being a real American hero and supporting our liberties! I plan to do the same thing with Senator Fiengold later.

      Bud Commercial:

      REAL AMERICAN HEROS! FISA TALK-TO-DEATH-FILIBUSTER MAN!!!
      We salute you, Russ Fiendgold, FISA Talk-to-death-Filibuster man.....
      Your boring, yet endless talks about the FISA Bill on the senate floor has enabled many of your colleagues to catch up on their much needed sleep....
    • JFallon126, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Dodd is my senator. :) Go Connecticut!
    • nedzeve, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3I wish he was more like Ron Paul. Ron Paul will fight to defend the constitution and fight this illegal FISA bill to the bitter end.
      • byrdgang, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, when it showed up in the house, he didn't vote on it at all. Not that his vote could have made a difference (way too many people voted for it), but it would have been nice if he showed up to vote against it. Still, his vote wouldn't have made a difference.
    • Paragrinn, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2I have to say I agree with you; but you have to understand that ALL these people are politicians. We hope for the best, but in the end ..... THEY ARE POLITICIANS. It would be political suicide for Obama to do anything of the sort, simply because: he has democrats (most reasonable ones). He has to clinch republicans to make this a blowout, and the first thing you do to alienate republicans (some, not all) is to attack the current powers that be, because republicans are on the recoil. Maybe I am wrong. But I imagine Obama is where he is because he is a good man, a good speaker, a good leader, but above all: A GOOD POLITICIAN.
  • katrinaw, on 06/25/2008, -6/+23This has the live-streaming video of the filibuster going on now in the Senate, Dodd rocks! :)
  • jmkiii, on 06/25/2008, -7/+5that's hope
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -11/+13"In a last-ditch attempt to fix a surveillance bill critics say would essentially legalize President Bush ’s warrantless wiretapping program..." What? Warrantless wiretapping has been legal since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law in 2001. We should stop with this petty *****. If you want to stop warrantless wiretapping and restore 4th amendment rights to the pre-9/11 era, you have to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act in its entirety.

    Whether or not a particular revision to FISA, the Patriot Act, or the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) has a provision that calls for telecom immunity is irrelevant. The reality is that the Patriot Act made warrantless wiretaps quasi-legal, and the PAA made them explicitly legal. It expired this past February, and now they are trying to draft up some new ***** with a telecom immunity clause.

    I'll repeat this again: the only way to actually fix the problem is to restore the legal system back to a pre-9/11 era, and the only way to do that is by repealing the Patriot Act. Until that happens, everything else is inconsequential. The act is so broad that it allows the government to legally do whatever the hell it wants. Even if the government doesn't get a new PAA, they'll just keep doing it anyway... because they can still cling to the Patriot Act as justification for the legality of their activities.
    • ordig, on 06/25/2008, -0/+11I don't think you understand the issue. this is about legal immunity for the telecoms that cooperated with wire taps that were illegal, and took place even before the patriot act.
    • swrostmore, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4There is nothing whatsoever in the "Patriot" Act that legalizes warrantless wiretapping. The language in FISA is unambiguous that it is the exclusive avenue for that kind of surveillance.
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1FISA was amended by the Patriot Act, and makes it quite ambiguous. The PAA made it explicit.
        • swrostmore, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Your statement is false. What specific statute in the PAA makes it "explicit" that warrantless wiretapping is legal?
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1The whole thing? Have you even read it? The bill amended FISA such that the warrant requirement was to be replaced with an internal NSA system for determining the legality of searches. Go read it before you spew out garbage.
    • Pronoiac, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2We have to stop the bleeding NOW before we go back and fix damage that has already been done.
    • psion01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Ralph, I've explained this to you before. NOTHING in Title II of the Patriot Act permits WARRANTLESS wiretapping of U.S. citizens. It merely expands the circumstances under which FISA can provide a warrant. Please show the exact text you think provides the government the power you think it does.
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1The Patriot Act doesn't make it explicit. The PAA does (did).
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1The Patriot Act doesn't "technically" make warrantless wiretaps legal. But the reality is that, technically, warrantless wiretaps haven't been happening since before the PAA. What was happening was Title II allowed for any judge to issue a warrant, beyond simply the traditional FISA court.

        Furthermore, Title II establishes both delayed warrants, and roving wiretaps, for which a new warrant is not needed even if the tap now applies to a different person than the one for which the original warrant was first issued. Delayed warrants, at least in the original act, had no timetable at all. A warrant could be issued, and the only stipulation of Title II was that a person would be notified within a "reasonable" time frame. That is, of course, ambiguous. "Reasonable" could damn near mean indefinitely. Moreover, if the wiretap was canceled within that "reasonable" time frame, the person did not have to be notified at all. The 2006 reauthorization set this to 30 days, but the rest of the bill was still in tact.

        So, technically, this isn't warrantless wiretapping. But most reasonable people would consider it such. When the government can go to any district court judge and get a warrant, and doesn't have to tell you about it, it is effectively warrantless. The PAA simply made it explicit, instead of having to jump through these little hoops. My point is, that even without the PAA, the government can continue to do the same exact thing, and you don't know the difference. The difference is only in the paperwork.
        • psion01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Ralph, haven't you been arguing for days that, "Warrantless wiretapping has been legal since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law in 2001"? That's you I'm quoting there, from just fourteen hours ago. Now you say, "The Patriot Act doesn't 'technically' make warrantless wiretaps legal." You're making this stuff up as you go, aren't you?

          The delay for delayed warrants isn't indefinite, or even 30 days, it's *three* days. And, again, the problem is that Bush's people aren't even getting *those* legally required FISA warrants. They're operating without oversight and against the law. It isn't that it's too hard to get the warrants they need, only that they don't want a record of the scope of their operations. They're hiding something. GET IT? And the telecomms are aiding this circumvention of the law. They need to be held accountable, and -- MORE IMPORTANTLY -- we need their records of what's been going on so we can understand the true magnitude of the operation.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0There's not much I can do for you if you don't want to take the time out to read and understand the actual issues at hand. When you can place a wiretap on someone WITHOUT A WARRANT, that's warrantless. Perhaps only warrantless for 30 days, but warrantless nonetheless. You really just don't get it, and I can't really do anything but tell you go to back and read the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA, and the PAA. I know it's written in "legalese," so you might not understand it, but I'm sure there are Wiki articles that will break it down for you.

          In the original bill (of the Patriot Act), it was indefinite. In the reauthorization, it's 30 days. I'm not sure where you get 3 days from. Perhaps you are confused by the roving wiretap provision, which requires 10 days notice if the target is not initially known. The only thing that is 3 days is the provision in the PAA which allows for completely warrantless wiretaps, indefinitely, so long as the FISA Court is notifed that they exist within 72hrs.
    • ELWOOD_BLUES, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4"Warrantless wiretapping has been legal since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law in 2001."

      Sorry, no law override the Constitution. The only thing keeping such provisions alive are a lack of people who can prove that they are victims of such a search. If you could prove your communications were illegally monitored you could sue the federal government. It would go tot he Supreme Court would would have to bow to the clear language in the Constitution requiring a warrant.
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -4/+1Of course laws can override the Constitution. In fact, it's written into the Constitution that the Congress has the ability to change said Constitution.

        The determination of what is and isn't constitutional is left up to the Supreme Court. And while they may decide at some point that a law isn't constitutional, and thus illegal, it's inappropriate to call them illegal at this time... since it is the law, and thus legal.
        • thedarkwolf, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2A law cannot override the constitution. That requires an amendment. Thats a very different process all together
        • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2"Of course laws can override the Constitution"

          Bull.

          You're (deliberately?) confusing "laws" with "constitutional amendments".

          Only constitutional amendments can "override" the Constitution, and there is a very specific mechanism for those in place, which is very different from the mechanism for federal statute.

          State or Federal statute is ENTIRELY different and in no way shape or form can "override" the US Constitution. (Supreme law of the land. Ring a bell?)

          This is basic civics class stuff.
        • swrostmore, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2This is all besides the point, there is nothing at all in either PAA or USA-PA that legalizes warrantless wiretapping as enacted by the telecoms on behalf of the NSA.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1@thedarkwolf
          @Terr01
          I never said it was the same as a state or federal statute. I simply pointed out that the Constitution can be changed. It is the "law of the land," and that law can be changed by the Congress.

          @swrostmore
          Have you read either? Read my post above.


          The Patriot Act doesn't "technically" make warrantless wiretaps legal. But the reality is that, technically, warrantless wiretaps haven't been happening since before the PAA. What was happening was Title II allowed for any judge to issue a warrant, beyond simply the traditional FISA court.

          Furthermore, Title II establishes both delayed warrants, and roving wiretaps, for which a new warrant is not needed even if the tap now applies to a different person than the one for which the original warrant was first issued. Delayed warrants, at least in the original act, had no timetable at all. A warrant could be issued, and the only stipulation of Title II was that a person would be notified within a "reasonable" time frame. That is, of course, ambiguous. "Reasonable" could damn near mean indefinitely. Moreover, if the wiretap was canceled within that "reasonable" time frame, the person did not have to be notified at all. The 2006 reauthorization set this to 30 days, but the rest of the bill was still in tact.

          So, technically, this isn't warrantless wiretapping. But most reasonable people would consider it such. When the government can go to any district court judge and get a warrant, and doesn't have to tell you about it, it is effectively warrantless. The PAA simply made it explicit, instead of having to jump through these little hoops. My point is, that even without the PAA, the government can continue to do the same exact thing, and you don't know the difference. The difference is only in the paperwork.

          And with regard to the PAA, well the entire purpose of the PAA was to remove the warrant requirement for wiretaps and replace it with a different legal structure, left up the NSA. The PAA only requires that the NSA *notify* a FISA court that a warrantless wiretap has been put in place.
        • psion01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1There he goes again.

          Ralph, the Protect America Act, as passed grants extended privileges for surveillance and intelligence gathering for subjects OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. In other words, it does nothing to change the rules for spying on U.S. citizens.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0It's unfortunate that you don't actually know what you are talking about. It is not only for subjects outside of the US. It is for people suspected to be communicating with suspects out the US.

          I understand you aren't going to take the time to read and understand, but don't go around parading with incorrect information.
    • KnutTheBear, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Fact: Russ Feingold voted against the Patriot act.

      Fact: Bears can climb faster than they can run.
  • kpmoore, on 06/25/2008, -4/+7This is already on the front page as we speak...
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5It should fill the front page. This is all we should talk about.
      Yes, it's that goddamned important.
    • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3It's certainly a hell of a lot more worthy than "The latest viral advertisement JC Penney doesn't want you to see".
  • alvarezg, on 06/25/2008, -4/+36Thank you, Sen. Dodd & Feingold.
  • mentallyinhell, on 06/25/2008, -8/+6Gotta love the filibuster technique. Just keep bore them into a stupor and hope they change their mind. It is a valliant efort, but it seems childish.
    • dalittle, on 06/25/2008, -3/+13Not if it works and we keep out rights.
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7There has been no public debate of this bill. Constituencies have deliberately not been given time to object. Filibusters can stop the railroading.
  • mobebop, on 06/25/2008, -4/+17This is leadership!
  • Paktu, on 06/25/2008, -3/+50I wish Obama had the courage to stand by his original position (opposing retroactive immunity) and support Senators Feingold and Dodd.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9Oh don't worry, he'll try* to get the immunity removed.

      (* meaning give a statement about it, then vote for it anyway when the immunity isn't removed)
      • Paktu, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8Introducing the new AT&T.

        Your world. Wiretapped.
        • thedarkwolf, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Your world. Delivered. To the NSA.
      • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8If Obama really does a sincere turnaround, it'd go a long long way towards getting my support back. Big IF.
    • humptyz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah, sad to say I donated to his campaign too. :( Primarily to keep Hillary at bay though.

      I really hope he does take tangible steps towards attempting to get retroactive immunity stripped. Whether that means joining in the filibuster or voting for an amendment to strip that clause from the bill. He and other Democrats only seem to care about how they look, like being a senator is some sort of high school popularity contest or something. Show some leadership Obama, vote against retroactive immunity!
  • mbraynard, on 06/25/2008, -3/+9Perhaps if the phone companies offered Dodd a special plan for free long distance, he might change his mind. After all, it worked for Countrywide.
    • DrHoliday, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That whole thing is *****. I got a better rate than Dodd did - his rate is nothing incredible.

      Dodd's pretty wealthy and probably has excellent credit. Just because he qualified for a rate better than the average in-debt American doesn't mean he's corrupt.
  • Merendino, on 06/25/2008, -1/+31Yeah, wasn't Obama the one saying he'd do this?
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -3/+5Dammit, Obama, do the right thing. I know you have it in you.
  • ferrell, on 06/25/2008, -1/+41Obama...?

    /crickets

    :(
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/25/2008, -0/+10He'll fight it. He'll scream at it in his office and then he'll spill some coffee on it.

      Then he'll sign it and vote for it.

      "Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. 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. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."

      "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."

      - Obama, one month before saying he'll fight it.

      I like how he tried to spin this to make it look like it was the government being scrutinized.
  • GreatSunJester, on 06/25/2008, -11/+4Whatever the bill and whatever party the Senator is from, Filibustering is the same as "I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue if youdontgivemewhatIwant".
    Do you know what you would get if filibustering was banned? DEBATE! Right now, filibustering is mainly a tool for delaying something, even if the topic being filibustered is not what you want to delay. Say for example fuel prices were skyrocketing and the economy was weak....if you would rather put off dealing with it, just filibuster something else. In this use it is the equivalent of "Oh look! SHINY!" with a quick point in the direction you want the attention.
    Even if divided along strict party lines, I would much rather hear about enlightened debate about a subject than hear about a Senator taking a piss behind sheets held up by other Senators......
    Guess which one gets the headline?
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8Delay gives time for resistance to mount. This bill is being rushed through, in an effort to suppress the debate you claim to value.
      This bill was written behind closed doors by Telecom industry representatives. The bill was introduced and passed the House in a 24 hour session. It was added to the Senate agenda without Hold or Objection effectively fast tracking it and bill supporters have made statements that they wish to have it passed before the 4th of July recess.
      Several components of the bill are outright unconstitutional.
      If it passes it signals the end of the rule of law and order.
      I do not regard this bill as an incidental matter delaying discussion of fuel prices and what Congress can do about them (answer: nothing) but rather the other way around.
      • GreatSunJester, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Very possibly, but again, enlightened debate (I am using that term to differentiate from mudslinging!) in the House should have provided all the delay needed. Even if the bill was written in secret, it still went through the house first -- at that point THEY had the responsibility to discuss and debate it. If they only took 24 hours (probably a LOT less), it was still passed onto the Senate where Senators are supposed to Debate it's merits before killing it or passing it on to the President.
        Hold the house accountable for not doing their job and representing the people, but don't allow Senators to block discussion on serious issues.
        • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1 Filibustering is a legitimate tool for just these situations. This is why it exists.
        • jgzman, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I agree with your point, but you fail to see that the act of filibustering will slow the process down, allowing the posibility for debate.

          When everyone is rushing for the vote, you can't simply say, 'they should discuss this' you need to push a stick into the spokes.
        • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I'd say this is a damn serious issue, both individually and the whole bill itself. What uber-important discussion is being "blocked"?
        • GreatSunJester, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I just do not like the concept behind the filibuster. There is no reason the Senate should rush into a vote, any vote. Since they are not required to rush into it, why have a method in place to allow one Senator (or a small group working in concert) to control the whole Senate. In a more prefect (oh I so wish) world, a measure would come before the Senate, be presented, researched as needed then brought up to a vote at a slightly later time. I am too much of an idealist at times for my own good. There is no way the Senate will ban the use of the filibuster any more than any President will willingly yield any power given to the office. There is a better chance of a government repealing a tax.
    • Professr, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1They won't debate.
    • americajones, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Feingold and a few others excluded, there's no reasoning with these people... except if you're a CEO or a lobbyist. Feingold does his job well.
    • al3efroman, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Or, maybe you're wrong and it spurs debate to resolve very serious issues and isn't childish at all, but based firmly in principal. Maybe.
  • chaoticz, on 06/25/2008, -3/+33So some democrats do have balls after all...
  • Hetman, on 06/25/2008, -3/+15Out of all our elected officials. How come only 2 care about the constituion. It will be a sad day in America if this is passed.
  • peaceninja, on 06/25/2008, -10/+4I'm repeating a previous post I made, I hope that this concern of mine can be addressed and that these senators can strongly make their case:

    It would have been ok for the president to order one of the hijacked planes to be shot down (even though I'm sure it's illegal to do this in the same manner that it's against FISA to wiretap without a warrant)...innocent people would have been killed but hey, it would have prevented a national catastrophe. Ultimately that's what the administration would argue with warrantless wiretapping, it's ok as long as there is a preventable danger. I think the administration has even demonstrated that there have been some terrorist attacks prevented with the warrantless wiretapping. So really what's the difference between the american people agreeing to the president shooting down a hijacked plane versus wireless wiretapping? I think this is double standards, and even though personally I am against warrantless wiretapping I think that this conflict needs to be addressed in order for the senators to make their case against warrantless wiretapping.
    • Haapi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7What's the difference? The difference is that wiretapping can be secretly abused. Shooting down airplanes is hardly a secret operation.
      • Tebixan, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Odds are if the government wants to secretly wiretap you, they aren't going to worry about whether or not it's legal.
    • jgzman, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Because the constitution says that you can't wiretap without a warrant. The current laws make it easy, EASY to get permission to wiretap. The fact that they didn't get those warrants suggests that what they were doing was so out-of-wack that the judge who approved wiretaps by cell-phone from a traffic jam would slap them down.

      Because giving 'permission' to shoot down one plane is an isolated event. It hurts these people to prevent this damage. Warrantless wiretapping has no such bounds. Do you think the president might like to know what his enemies are discussing? The Senate committee to do whatever the hell it is they do? Have you ever discussed semi-legal activities over the phone, or said anything that might lead someone to believe that you might have done something illegal?

      If we allow warrantless wiretaps, why not warrantless searches? Warrantless seizure of your goods? Why not? We've already broken the fourth amendment. Night as well continue.

      Also, I'm curious about your statement that it would have been OK, yet illegal. I assume you mean that afterward, most people would decide that he had made an acceptable decision, even though it was illegal? I'm not sure that equates to OK.
  • Yimyack, on 06/25/2008, -2/+8At least some Democrats still have balls
    • ProjectGSX, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Yeah. What, two of them? Im extremely disappointed with the Democratic majority these days.
  • Samurai77, on 06/25/2008, -11/+6When did the Democrats become the defenders of liberty?

    Damn upside down world.
  • crowbar77, on 06/25/2008, -9/+5Already been posted yesterday...

    http://digg.com/politics/Dodd_And_Feingold_Will_Fi ...
    • chrisOrbit, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3If I haven't seen it it's new to me.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1I don't mind multiple postings for something like this.
    • Spuy767, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1And once again today from thinkprogress if I'm not mistaken.
  • bleutuna, on 06/25/2008, -2/+19Obama needs to put his clout behind this, rather than stand around with his thumb up his rump, lying out the side of his mouth.

    Ugh. Can we get ONE LEADER who explains why they change their minds on issues like this? Someone I can actually believe in? Obama keeps making decisions that makes me feel like a moron for being such an ardent supporter of him the last 7 months.

    He's not getting another cent from me until all this integrity he promised actually rears its head. Right now, he's way too busy with politics as usual. The very thing he campaigns against.
    • Spuy767, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Perhaps he feels that the government litigating companies for actions which they themselves ordered would be a bit hypocritical and wouldn't address the root problem.
      • bleutuna, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Maybe. And maybe he should come out and let his supporters know that?

        Of course, if that is his stance, he's wrong. Individuals and corporations (particularly within a government which continually works to make the corporation the same as an individual) have the duty to stand up to the government and refuse demands like this.

        In general, I'm not for the compromise at all, and wish Obama would fight the entire thing. However, I hold him to the fire on the specific issue he stated he would fight against.
    • wojtyk, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0>> Obama keeps making decisions that makes me feel like a moron for being such an ardent supporter of him the last 7 months.
      The question you should be asking is WHY you blindly gave your support to someone who has no proven history of "coming through on his promises"...promising unfounded change and "solutions to all life's problems" without a lick of actual substantiated proof is the oldest trick in the politician's handbook. And for the record, I don't like _either_ candidate for this upcoming election.
  • mochaman, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9Turns out that the democrats who caved in on this bill had major conflict of interest with the telecom companies. I'm glad that there are at least a couple decent senators who care about protecting the constitution. Shame on the house of representatives for capitulating on illegal warrant-less wiretapping.
  • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -2/+9I am calling Obama at (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu] right now to demand he support Dodd.
    • Dimbleby, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8Just hit 6, there's no option for 0.

      I spoke to a dude and in polite terms stated that Obama better do as he said or he'll lose my financial and other support. He took down my information and said he'd pass the information along.
    • elduder, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Thanks for posting the number!
  • Idiggapony, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7Quick poll: how many of the diggers who feel so passionately about this bill actually know what's in it?

    My guess is close to zero. And I'm in a similar position, I haven't read it either. So far I've been learning about it indirectly, from a variety of sources that have their own agendas to push.

    If someone knows of a link to the complete text of the bill, could you please post it?
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+12Here you go:
      http://cryptome.sabotage.org/hr6304.htm
      I am also familiar with much of the analysis. Post your questions here and they'll be answered.
      Possible lines of enquiry:
      Who wrote it? Telecom Reps.
      Does it give amnesty to telecom spies? Yes, but in a roundabout way.
      The Reps who supported it? Paid off.
      Constitutional? No
      Backroom deals? Yep, they're trying to rush it through.
      WHo has spoken out? Feinstein and Dodd
      Obama? Claims to be against amnesty but supports the rest. Very disappointing from a professor of constitutional law.
      Any Republicans against? ugh. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
      • Idiggapony, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Excellent! Thank you! A complete text from a biased source with its own agenda, but a complete text nevertheless, and that will do quite well. I'll read it today.

    • jesusmurphy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3I wish I could give your comment hundreds of diggs.
    • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Title VIII. "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government."
      Section 802(a)
      __________________________________________________________________
      equirement for Certification.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

      (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and


      (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
      _______________________________________________________________

      In summary, overriding all other laws, all the Attorney General has to do is say: "The president asked for this and he thinks it is legal", and POW, the Court is required by law (regardless of judge) to dismiss the lawsuit. No records. No proof. No evidence. No leeway whatsoever.
  • scm21st, on 06/25/2008, -2/+8Thank you Dodd and Feingold! Keep up the good work, uuummmm well ok then, I guess that's it... - Barack Obama
  • zebco, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Good luck and Godspeed, gents. The truth is on your side.
  • HunterTJ, on 06/25/2008, -6/+4Warrentless Wiretapping has no place in a free and just society, but if the crux of this filibuster is based on the desire to prosecute phone companies for complying with a government order, then you are bringing in a very serious precedent.
    Companies are generally used to doing what the government tells them. If you're now saying that they can be prosecuted for doing just that, you send mixed signals as to which executive orders to comply with and which not to.
    The role of government is to establish a fair playing field where people can do business, if you don't make that playing field transparent, you get a lot of deadweight loss.
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8The telecoms are being sued by organizations like the EFF and the ACLU. The suits are not for huge cash prices but to force discovery from the telecoms about what exactly their activities entailed. It is our only avenue of discovery as the Governemnt will not disclose anything for reasons of National Security.
      Secondly. ***** the telecoms. They were well aware that they were being asked to break the law. Qwest refused to do it because it was illegal and was punished for it. They got a lot of money and promises that "no one would ever know". I will not obey an illegal order and they are under the same obligations. It's a matter of a). Public trust and b) OBEYING THE LAW.
      They knew. They just didn't care. *****'EM.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5"you send mixed signals as to which executive orders to comply with and which not to. "
      Actually, that's fairly straightforward: you comply with the ones that are LEGAL; you don't comply with the ones that are illegal.
    • darkcooger, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8The idea isn't to prosecute the phone companies, but rather not to shield them from prosecution. The government doesn't have the authority to order them to do anything, and anyway, I understand it was more of a request that they all just happily went along with. They're responsible for their actions. They made their beds, now let them lie in them.

      FYI, "executive orders" are not law and have no legal standing whatsoever. They are orders issued by the President to the people who work under him in the executive branch. AT&T is not subject to executive orders.
    • jgzman, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3"Companies are generally used to doing what the government tells them. If you're now saying that they can be prosecuted for doing just that, you send mixed signals as to which executive orders to comply with and which not to."

      That is the source of the problem, I feel. Companies should not be in the habit of doing what the government tells them, and should not feel bound by executive order at any time. Executive order is not law. As far as I know, I am not directly bound by executive order at all, nor are companies.

      And it's easy to tell which instructions you follow. Follow the legal ones. Don't tap phones without warrants. You wouldn't shoot your customers in the head because of 'executive order' or because some suit said to, would you? Then you shouldn't break any other laws, either.
    • Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Hogwash. Because I'm lazy, I'll quote.
      http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/11/ ...
      ____________________________________________
      The telecom amnesty debate is controversial but it is not complicated. The Government asked telecoms to break numerous federal laws in exchange for profit. Some telecoms refused to do so and others -- such as AT&T and Verizon -- agreed to break the law for years. Which behavior do we want to encourage and reward -- (a) telecoms which turned down the substantial government contracts to enable warrantless spying on Americans because doing so was illegal, or (b) the telecoms which purposely broke our laws by allowing illegal government spying on Americans? How can that even be a debatable question?

      The shamelessly fear-mongering claim that telecoms won't "cooperate" in the future without amnesty -- a central prong of the WSJ's Editorial, needless to say -- is nothing more than the standard authoritarian tactic of warning that unless we succumb to Bush's demands and give the Government and its allies everything they want, we're all going to die at the hands of the Terrorists.

      Telecoms were already granted prospective immunity by the Protect America Act -- meaning they cannot be held liable in the future if they act pursuant to government certification that the requests are legal. That already ensures all the "cooperation" that we could possibly want.

      Moreover, we want telecoms and all other private actors to be incentivized to abide by the law, not to break the law. That's why we enact laws in the first place, along with penalties for breaking them -- because we want an incentive scheme that causes companies to refuse illegal requests from the government. The full-scale immunity that Congress is about to bestow rewards lawbreaking and incentivizes rational telecoms to ignore our laws in the future, knowing that they are free to act illegally without consequence. What rational person would want to endorse that framework?

  • alricsca, on 06/25/2008, -4/+8LOL, how sheep like people have become. These two have agreed to do this filibuster with the caveat, "As long as it includes telecoms immunity." This makes everyone ignore the rest of the bill and makes it looks like the democrats are fighting to stop it. What they are really doing is positioning to pass it in a way that makes the party look good when really they capitulated. The rest of this bill is essentially the right to secretly monitor US citizens with a secret court making the decisions as to who and where. They use this method because most people are too stupid to see through it.

    It works like this you add something very very bad to a already bad bill that would damage your party to pass. Then you get the bill close to passing, which get the public's notice and anger. You then get one or two members of your party to agree to filibuster the bill on the very very bad item. Eventually that provision is removed and the rest of the bad bill is passed with everyone cheering.

    It is a mark of how gullible people have become that they can keep doing this over and over. Why are people so prone to fall for the same stupid trick over and over again. Even birds can figure out where a damn cat is hiding after a few of them go missing. I guess the American people are not quite as intelligent. If the Democrats really did not want this bill passed, they are the majority, it should not even be close.

    Do not fall for this tatic people. You are being used. You are being treated like fools.
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4And what do you suggest?
    • byrdgang, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1STFU. Feingold is not just against the immunity part. Let me quote him from his website:

      "...this bill is also a serious mistake. Mr. President, the immunity provision is a KEY reason for that." In other words, it is one of the reasons, but not the only reason for it being outrageous.

      "But I’m concerned that the focus on immunity has diverted attention away from the other very important issues at stake in this legislation. In the long run, I don’t believe this will be remembered as the ‘immunity’ bill. This legislation is going to be remembered as the legislation in which Congress granted the executive branch the power to sweep up all of our international communications with very few controls or oversight."

      Here's more:

      "...this bill goes much further, authorizing widespread surveillance involving innocent Americans – at home and abroad."

      Even more:

      "All it [the government] needs to have is a general “foreign intelligence” purpose, which is a standard so broad that it covers all international communications. That’s not just my opinion -- the DNI has testified that, under the PAA, and presumably this bill, the government could legally collect all communications between the United States and overseas. Let me repeat that: under this bill, the government can legally collect all communications – every last one – between Americans here at home and the rest of the world."

      "...this bill fails to effectively prohibit the practice of reverse targeting."

      Do yourself a favor and read up on Feingold. He is against almost the entire bill (there are very small, decent portions that are "okay" or "good" in the bill, the bulk is ridiculous). He is desperate enough right now to focus primarily on the immunity part, but it is not just the immunity.
  • dizilbdog, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Your Precious Dodd has also put in a bill so that all ebay transactions will go straight to the government. NO privacy but hey what's privacy.
    • DrHoliday, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I'll take what I can get these days. It's sad that I feel that, isn't it? Wiretapping is a greater issue than internet taxes anyways...
  • crapmatic, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Crap, every time I hear about a filibuster I get hungry for Dairy Queen.
  • Bognar, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=T ...
  • timbtwisted, on 06/25/2008, -2/+10Feingold is also the only senator to vote against the Patriot act citing that it needed to be discussed further. That's why he gets my vote. I urge those in other states to contact their senators in support of this effort.
  • Lancelot9201, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2About time someone in Washington stood up for those that elected them & not just special interest..!!!
  • bffoley, on 06/25/2008, -2/+9You know, I voted for Obama back in January and supported him all these months, but he really needs to reach down between his legs, find his balls, and help block this bill.

    I'll still vote for him over McCain in the fall, but this isnt making me feel very comfortable.
  • JoeParanoid, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6Go Russ! About the only Democrat worthy of the name.
  • shojihin, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Kansas voters, contact our senators and ask them to support the filibuster! Now that the links are in front of you, you have no excuse. :)
    Sam Brownback:
    http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm
    Pat Roberts:
    http://roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAct ...
  • ImperialRome, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3First of all, warrantless wiretapping was legal, and Constitutional. FISA only applies if the target of the wiretaps is a US citizen. Foreign communications passing over US telecom equipment is what the warrantless wiretapping program covered.
    Frankly, I wonder whether you people understand how easily you are hoodwinked by your political leaders. This is about TV time in a campaign year, and these guys are media whores. They love the face time and they love the donations, so anything that will get you to send checks or get the ACLU to send money to them is good.
    • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Assuming that everything you say is correct (it's not. not at all), then why would the Telecoms need amnesty?
      Why would they have to buy representatives? Why wouldn't they be eager to testify? To meet theior accusers in the court of law and proclaim to the world of their innocence?

      You do know the full details of the wiretapping program have never been disclosed by any official?
      And why are there domestically located splitter rooms in our telecoms?
      http://littlecountrylost.blogspot.com/2007/12/at-s ...
    • thedarkwolf, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4If warrantless wiretaps on foreign communications were the only wiretaps going on, you would be right as the constitution only protects American citizens. However, the administration has admited that it was possible that a conversation between Americans oversees, or from one American to a foreigner would fall under the warentless surveillance program (making it a violation of the 4th amendment).

      But there is no disclosure on what is actually being spied upon. The companies only claim to have turned over all the records the government requested. If these records did not contain information pertaining to American Citizens, why are the telecoms fighting so hard to avoid lawsuits? We need court approved warrants for accountability, and to be sure that no one abuses power.
      • ImperialRome, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1US v Trong, 1980:
        For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

        US v Duggan (1984)
        Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

        FISA also allows for the interception of communications with US citizens where the NSA already has existing wiretaps of foreign sources. They then have 3 days to seek a warrant to continue the surveillance.
        First they get the foreign sources, then they track who their collaborators were here in the USA, then they seek warrants after they tap the comms.
        Its all been legal and aboveboard the whole time, and the people who were screaming loudest that it was "illegal" were the ones scamming the progressive fools for campaign donations.

        Its always been a game, political theater, and selling tickets to a show. The Media laps this up because it gets pageviews and letters to the editor and is totally wide open field with few experts who can counter their veiwpoint.
        • an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Ok. You do realize that the bush Administration has, at the least, NOT BEEN seeking warrants from the FISA court. That much is verifiable and illegal.
          What you described is how the rules are supposed to work, not whats happening.
          You have no idea what's happening, because you have never been told. Neither has America. No briefing to the extent of the wiretapping has ever been given and the information is jealously protected as a "National Security Risk".
          The potential harm:
          "due to subtle changes in the definitions of terms such as "electronic surveillance," it could empower the government to conduct warrantless physical searches and even seizures of communications and computer devices and their data which belong to U.S. citizens while they are in the United States, if the government contended that those searches and potential seizures were related to its surveillance of parties outside the United States"

          Have you ever asked yourself why you are the only person who thinks that everything has been perfectly aboveboard? Did you ever come up with a response why the Administrations and the Telecoms feel they need amnesty?
        • ImperialRome, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Yes I have asked that. I also know a bit about the subject of Telecom law back from my days running an ISP in Seattle, WA.
          FISA only covers domestic targets. When the targets of surveillance are overseas, FISA does not apply. No need to seek a warrant when Ahmed calls Osama, because they are not US citizens. However, because Ahmed used a cell phone who was connected to a US service provider, that call got routed through a US telecom company.
          That call and its data stream went through MAE West, in San Jose, CA, after being routed through a cell provider in SE Asia, Pakistan, or India. It then gets routed back there because the US phone companies are the major crossover carriers of data and voice traffic, we have bandwidth to burn.

          As to why the Telecomms feel they need amnesty protection, its simple: protecting their shareholders from frivolous lawsuits. Every time the ACLU opens another case against Qwest or Verizon or Cingular, they have to spend time and money answering that suit in court. Its much like a denial of service attack on a network center, you spam the target with so many requests for data that the servers get overloaded and regular traffic gets blocked out. These "civil suits" by multiple organizations use the same tactic, already used by the Plaintiff's bar associations against Big Tobacco and Drug companies to scare them into settlements. On the plus side, if they manage to get an actual trial, they can then use the discovery process to force the government to reveal sources and methods, as a way to try and shut the program down.
          Since the government would not like to reveal those sources and methods, they can force some kind of settlement, and get bought off. The Telecomms don't want to have to face the thousands of frivolous lawsuits and answer each one, hoping that the legal lottery doesn't give someone a big payout. They could just as easily get legal immunity and shut down the lawsuits without burning up billable hours.
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3I this this goes through, expect a real ***** rebellion like we haven't seen in our lifetimes.
    • Hetman, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Thats funny. Historically rebellions only happen as a last resort. If people are feed and entertained the government can pretty much do what ever they please.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Completely agreed. And I think that for enough people, not all, but enough would not be able to deal with this, and so I would expect a rebellion would develop. I hear a lot of mainstream people voicing dissent like I have never heard before.
    • netant, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2blah blah blah. All talk, no action.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That wasn't a threat by me, it was a prediction based upon how people tend to act.
    • Betrayer, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1HEHEH what ya gonna do .. crank call your friends and say BOMB every other word?
  • GreyHobbyHorse, on 06/25/2008, -6/+3These two are the epitome of dodos. They put the deranged in BDS.

    Hey at least your library card will be safe ... Right.
    • frankingeneral, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Regardless of what you think of these 2 Senators, and their other endeavors, they are certainly correct in this case. If you think otherwise please explain to my why telecom immunity is a good thing, and I will gladly have an intelligent debate with you.
  • Hercules, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7The link for those who voted to strip immunity:

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...

    The "YEAS" are the ones who voted to STRIP IMMUNITY, the Nays are the ones you need to go after. Find your senators and get after them! Fortunately for me in NJ, my senators voted as I had hoped, so I won't be writing anybody.
    • Hetman, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I am from illinios I wrote both of my senators but they do not seem to be listening.
    • thedarkwolf, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Thank you Sen. Sharrod Brown. I knew I made the right choice voting for you.
      Also, thank you for voting against these warrantless wiretapping bills every time they come up for the past few years.

      I would put all of my lovely sentiments into an email or phone call, but I have already written to express my opinion and satisfaction. the real question is WHY ARE THERE 67 SENATORS WHO WANT TELECOMS TO HAVE IMMUNITY!!! I will remember your names!

      Edit: 69 senators. no votes are as bad as voting for immunity
  • WebWizard, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2This means so much to me, thank you, Russ, you are a credit to the Senate. Now would be a good time for Obama to stand up and show us what leadership looks like, too. I realize it's dangerous ground, but there's much to be gained by taking a stand and telling it like it is. Losing credibility with your base is worse than sniping by the neocons.
  • Seraph, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Did anyone else noticed that Feingold is only talking about stripping retroactve immunity? Maybe I read that wrong, but it doesn't sound like he is completely against the bill.
  • SolarUpNote, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Keep this topic going:

    http://digg.com/politics/Dodd_Fillibusters_FISA
  • Paragrinn, on 06/25/2008, -3/+0I have to say I agree with most of you; but you have to understand that ALL these people are politicians. We hope for the best, but in the end ..... THEY ARE POLITICIANS. It would be political suicide for Obama to do anything of the sort, simply because: he has democrats (most reasonable ones). He has to clinch republicans to make this a blowout, and the first thing you do to alienate republicans (some, not all) is to attack the current powers that be, because republicans are on the recoil. Maybe I am wrong. But I imagine Obama is where he is because he is a good man, a good speaker, a good leader, but above all: A GOOD POLITICIAN.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Paging Barack Obama, Barack Obama to the Senate floor please, we're in need of actual leadership here, all you have to do is stand up there and talk, you're good at that. Why won't you be an example of the change you're always speaking of?
  • psyjoniz, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2i know this comment is going to get lost below everything else here - but i just had to say that his speech moved me. it also scared me. i know i've been following whats going on since sept 11th and feeling deep inside that there are horribly wrong things happening in our (the US) government but i can honestly say that today is the first time i am actually fearful about what is going on. i, today, shed the skin i was wearing that kept me sleeping peacefully at night. our government needs to be replaced. it is that simple. the people in charge are not thinking about what is good for everyone - they are only looking out for people who are lining their pockets the thickest. it is absolutely disgusting. Dodd's speech, imho, has beautifully summarized a major portion of what this administration has done wrong. i hope i am not the only one who has been this deeply affected by it. and i hope that "enough" finally gets written.
    • ImperialRome, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I don't understand what is so scary. This has been going on long before Bush became President. Project Echelon has been monitoring foreign calls for 30 years.
      Back at the end of the Cold War, after the Berlin Wall fell and the Iron Curtain collapsed, American political pundits idly wondered what the US was going to do with all its intelligence services and analysts and equipment without the Soviet Union to spy on. Well, they came up with something to do with all that computer processing time. The growth of the Internet as a commercial asset started in 1994, and the explosion of cell phone use combined with the advances in personal computing has made it actually easier to spy on personal activities. What once required warrants and physical searches now can be done with Google and the phone company logs.
      Warrantless searches have always been legal, with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Its a common misconception , reinforced by bad TV shows, that all searches require warrants. Ask a real cop about some of those movies and TV shows and they laugh about the inaccuracies.
      If I were a cop, I could conduct a warrantless search of your auto any time you are on the public highways, with or without your consent. Once I say "I had reasonable suspicion" that you were under the influence, I could impound your car and interrogate your passengers. Between the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Organized Crime" the government has been given powers to conduct "sneak and peek" searches without warrants, conduct roving wiretaps, and even obtain your credit card records. Money laundering, structured payments, etc are all ways that once were used to disguise illegal proceeds, but are dead giveaways today of illegal activities.
      Elliot Spitzer, former Governor of NY, got caught because of his structured payments on his credit cards, payments designed to be small enough to escape scrutiny and legal reporting requirements.
      These things have been going on long before Bush, and will go on long after he leaves office. This doesn't scare me at all.
      What does scare me is the prospect of the confiscation of firearms, because that is always the prelude to tyranny. When the Heller decision comes down from the SC, then you can be scared. Until then, fear not.
  • Betrayer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1is this a PLOY from the USPS to get me to buy stamps and use Snail Mail again for all of my terrorist activities?
  • Nintendesert, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Why do the Democrats need to filibuster? They control the House and the Senate...
    • infinitydl, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Parlimentory procedure, most democrates support the bill as well.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.