Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate OKs immunity for telecoms (Hillary missed the vote)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:50 PM
Original message
Senate OKs immunity for telecoms (Hillary missed the vote)
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 01:05 PM by ProSense

Senate OKs immunity for telecoms

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 an amendment that would have stripped a grant of retroactive immunity to the companies. President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.

Telecom immunity must still be approved by the House; its version of the surveillance bill does not provide immunity.

The government's post-9/11 Terrorist Surveillance Program circumvented a secret court created 30 years ago to oversee such activities. The court was part of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law written in response to government abuse of its surveillance authority against Americans.

The surveillance law has been updated repeatedly since then, most recently last summer. Congress hastily adopted a FISA modification in August in the face of dire warnings from the White House that changes in telecommunications technology and FISA court rulings were dangerously constraining the government's ability to intercept terrorist communications.

Shortly after its passage, privacy and civil liberties groups said the new law gave the government unprecedented authority to spy on Americans, particularly those who communicate with foreigners.

more




Roll Call (on edit: to strip immunity from the bill)

YEAs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Tester (D-MT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---67
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)


edited for clarity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. To soften the blow - her vote would not have changed the outcome
but still....x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. The outcome would have been one more vote against it.
Hillary hid under a rock on this one. That's fine, because it's not surprising, but it needs to be pointed out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
43. True n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. It would have helped HER in making a case for voting for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
64. You are correct. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. The outcome is that she just made a clear statement as to where her
priorities are on protecting corporations vs civil liberties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. yeet more proof that this is now "one nation under surveillance"
our dems are selling us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Webb?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Dems, Dodd, Webb have sold out the constitution
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 01:00 PM by Leopolds Ghost
What happened to Dodd's promised filibuster -- a LIE.

That does it -- and don't say "Supreme Court Judges" because this is the number one JUDICIAL issue in the country -- the end of the 4th Amendment --

I'm sitting out the election in Nov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
32. No, Dodd voted to remove immunity.
Oh, he didn't filibuster, that's true. But he did vote correctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Dodd's hold/filibuster promise was a LIE. He did NOT "vote correctly"
His filibuster was the only thing stopping this bill. The only thing. Red state Dems (Reid, Webb) support wiretapping American citizens to look for terrorists.

They voted to say "Bush did no wrong on this issue." He is now unprosecutable and the universal warrantless surveillance is now constitutionally unchallenge-able.

Note the resignation in the ACLU's remarks. This bill isa watershed in US history, it will mean endless, universal filtering of all electronic communications from now until the end of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #32
79. More than 60 votes NAY... no filibuster! - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
37. Dodd Filibustered last night on the floor.
He more than did his part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. Dodd, Feingold agreed to Reid-backed Gang of 14 rules to limit Dodd's filibuster to one day
Ensuring the bill would pass. In return, Dodd/Feingold were permitted to offer amendments and threatened Dems will lose if they do not pass ANY FISA bill to legalize the Fort Meade dragnet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
65. You can't filibuster without 41 votes - the rules changed since the time of
"Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Dodd did everything he could to lobby fellow Senators to oppose it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. 41 votes in your OWN PARTY. A PARTY NEVER sells out its own on a filibuster.
Even if they personally support the bill.

The Republicans sure don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
76. Dodd argues for two and half hours on the Senate floor last night -
He began a filibuster when he said he would. He's not the only one responsible - his fellow Dem Senators should have supported him WHOLLY if he tried to filibuster again. I don't know what the deal was this time, but he certainly gave it his all last night.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think were going to see sometime in the near future alot of followers of Thomas Jefferson come out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hillary missed the vote?
The irony is thick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. She should have been there regardless of margin. Kudos to Obama for actually showing up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Whats her excuse?
Cant wait to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. She's campaigning in far off Virginia
Who finally caved in to cloture? I thought Dodd was at it again (yesterday?).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. No kidding.
What was it she said this morning - She'll be the one to take a stand?! Guess this wasnt one of those fights worth fighting. What a joke. Even John "no votes cast this entire year" McCrazy managed to make it in to work. :eyes:

I have no clue who caved. Dammit. This vote really pisses me off. What the hell is wrong with this Congress?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
55. Maybe she got caught in traffic or high winds or ran out of gas
or got lost trying to find the Capitol building.

Either way -- I trust that John Edwards is paying CLOSE attention to this.

She just showed where her true loyalties lie and it isn't with the people of this country,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
62. She is too lazy to be bothered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
78. I just heard on Rachel Maddow that she's was in Texas - not DC as had been
stated.

Still, I understand the disappointment of Clinton supporters. I was furious with Biden (and Clinton and Obama) when they didn't return to help Dodd filibuster in December. Granted then, like now, it wouldn't have mattered in the final vote, but just the same... you want your candidate to do what's RIGHT.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
81. She was planning what to do on "Day One".
I am so sick of this phony mantra from her and her shills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madam Mossfern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh boy...not good
Clinton's vote would not have made much of a difference. Has she commented on it? I'm quite disappointed in the Dems who are ready to grant immunity to the telecoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. There goes Hillary's "present" argument.
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 12:58 PM by cottonseed
Obama was there AND he voted yea for Dodd/Feingold. I think Obama made a principled stand today. His vote is on record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. ARGHHHHH!
fuck all I swear if this woman gets the Dem nod I am done with this party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitizenRob Donating Member (834 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. Seriously.
If Hillary can't even BOTHER to show up to vote on an important bill like this one, I can't even BOTHER to show up to vote for her in the election.

IF Hillary can't even BOTHER to do due diligence regarding a vote to go to war against Iraq, I can't even bother to show up to vote for her in November.


I voted for that turkey of a candidate John Kerry, but I won't vote for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Fuck you Webb, you backstabbing traitor
Progressive, my ass. He turned his back on his constituents today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. Why would Webb have voted Yes? Anybody?... duh n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:59 PM
Original message
Why in the hell did Reid keep bringing up a vote he was against?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. Not good that she missed the vote
even though it would not have had
any effect on the outcome.

What is telling here is that the yeas
were entirely Dem while the Nays were
the majority repubs with some dems...
this is the ONLY type of bipartisanship
the repukes participate in, when a dem
votes like a repub wants them to. How
can trying to be bipartisan like Obama
wants work with this disparity on the
Hill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. what is with the red state democrats?
are they all afraid of voting as a dem??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluethruandthru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Not just red staters...
My "blue state" senator Mikulski seems afraid to vote as a Dem as well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
42. That's why we need Obama
someone who generates excitement in those red states, who will take the fight to those red states, so we can start changing minds in order to change these votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. Wow, Even McCain showed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
18. This is disgusting. Dodd, Webb, Feinstein, Rockefeller....WTF????
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 01:02 PM by BrklynLiberal
Where was Hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Feinstein's no surprise.
Hillary better come up with something real good for missing this vote. I don't see the difference between this and smearing Obama on his "present" votes in state senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. DINO...thy name is Feinstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Dodd made the right vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. Rockefeller was the architect of this bill.
DU was distracted by the primaries. This bill, as Rockefeller admitted on the Senate floor,
was about legalizing the NSA's existing activities of surveillance on YOU. Every time you
pick up a phone or send an e-mail, your speech is harvested electronically by the NSA.

Now it is legal (albeit a 4th amendment violation).

The courts can't overturn it because the program details are a state secret.

This bill is designed to legalize activities whose existence cannot be confirmed or denied
and thus the unconstitutionality of this bill is un-prosecutable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
70. Dodd voted correctly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. oops. Sorry. Don't know why I put Dodd in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Wow
This is a very important bill that addresses key concerns with the current administration. I can't believe Hillary wasn't present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
41. "addresses" understatement. "legalizes, endorses and indemnifies Bush's actions" is more accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4themind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. So obama votes "present" and hillary wasn't even "present", lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
24. A stand on tough votes have a crystalizing effect.
It's clear to me not being "present" for this votes says a lot about Hillary and who she'll be looking out for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
48. Except this was not a tough vote. It should be an easy vote
For anyone not wishing to overturn the 4th amendment.

This bill says the 4th amendment does not apply to long-distance electronic communications of US citizens
in an infinite chain of degrees of separation from a non-US-residing "target".

Filtering is done based on content (like Google, but with voice recognition software)
not whether the person is a suspect of an existing or even suspected crime.

For ease of filtering, the NSA dragnets ALL US citizens and filters their communications for key words and closer surveillance. This is done at Fort Meade.

One of the reasons Mikulski (D-MD) supports this is because this is a JOBS issue for her.

NSA employs THOUSANDS of techies and consumes megawatts of electricity in the service of
this formerly illegal, black ops surveillance dragnet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oviedodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. To all fellow DU'ers ENCRYPT YOUR EMAIL!! I am not pushing
the immediate panic button, but as a tech industry rep here; this opens up a lot of openings.

I would suggest that encrypting email should be a regular thing in any event, but the indemnity of the telecoms makes them very powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #50
84. Thanks - no doubt excellent advice! nt
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 07:02 PM by gateley
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #50
86. Tell us how to do it and we will! .... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. This is not just telecom immunity, this is legalizing Bush (and Clinton) UNIVERSAL surveillance plan
Which is ALREADY IN OPERATION.

The "impeachable offense" DUers USED to care about (but are now too distracted by the primaries)
was Bush ADMITTING to the EXISTENCE of the NSA data-harvesting program whch targets ALL AMERICAN
communications on ALL LONG-DISTANCE networks.

DU fools behaved exactly as Reid planned, IGNORING this issue over the last two weeks
and not even holding Dodd to his promise of a filibuster. Hypocrites!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
51. But stripping out the immunity would effectively gut the program.
With the immunity intact, they have no reason to worry about oversight. Without immunity, knowing they'd be called to account for violations of the power, they'd be much more circumspect about using that power. Dodd's vote was correct - Webb's was not. His failure to sustain a filibuster was not unexpected. Filibuste ain't easy when half the party is opposed to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. The power they've been given cannot be "policed for violations." That not the way the program works
There is no way to be "circumspect" about using a power that inherently, under the terms of this bill,
redefines the 4th Amendment and says that it does not apply to "potential radicals" or "US citizens
communicating (in an infinite chain of separation using instantaneous virtual roving wiretaps) with
potential foreign terrorist surveillance targets."

To expedite things, the existing NSA "Terrorist Surveillance program" monitors ALL US communications
for SUSPECT COMMUNICATION/SPEECH,

INCLUDING YOURS.

It does NOT monitor or target known "suspected terrorists".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Therefore exposure to liability shuts down the whole Terrorist Survellance Program
Or more precisely drives it underground to being an illegal black op in Maryland, monitoring the communications of all US citizens as they have been doing for years under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

Bush got in trouble for ADMITTING and attempting to LEGALIZE the program.

This bill gets him what he wants and says "your intentions were correct, you have nothing to be ashamed of, this program should not only be legalized -- NO one should be held liable for participating in it illegally under Clinton or Bush!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thank you Obama and Durbin for your votes. Screw you Salazar, Webb, Stabenow, Nelsons, Rockefeller,
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 01:10 PM by Occam Bandage
Clinton, Landrieu, DiFi, Conrad, Carper, and Bayh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. I can't believe those cowards!
Jim Webb is off my list for VP now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
83. Yeah - I'm VERY disappointed in Webb.
When Biden was still in the race, he was one of my picks for BP, too -- I just don't get it. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
29. I admit to being shocked, and not in a "Casablanca" way, by the big-name "NO" Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaniqua6392 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. I think the more important thing is
the Dems that voted NO on this. What the heck? Her vote would not have made any difference anyway. She may as well have kept campaigning . It was voted down by a heavy margin. Why did so many Dems vote NO? Does anyone know why? I see Stabenow from my state voted no also. WTF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
38. Dear Senator Mikulski,

i'm writing to express my disappointment in your vote against Sen. Dodd's amendment "To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government."

Please explain your reasons for voting against Dodd Amdt. No. 3907/FISA Amendments Act of 2007. You are protecting big corporations who knowingly broke the law, and I am very disturbed by it.

Best wishes,
shireen

-----------
My other senator, Ben Cardin, voted "yea" -- I dropped him a note to thank him for supporting Senator Dodd.

ProSense, thank you for posting this result.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oviedodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. Do the moron dems who allowed this realize that you have just
put the telecoms in the back pocket of the president!

Do you also not realize that this is the first cog in the wheel so the telecoms (through the feds) can look over EVERYTHING we do from phone to internet?

Bunch of morons!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. They already do. This is a "JOBS" issue for Mikulski, NSA employs 1,000s of people to filter your
Daily phone calls and emails to flag them for suspicious phrases like "NSA" and "terrorism".

The telecoms are ONLY liable because they were asked to install the routers
and thus knew about the program.

Now that the program is LEGAL and ENDORSED by Sens. Reid, Rockefeller, Webb, Mikulski etc.,
the telecoms will NOT be liable going forward,

EVEN if telecom immunity were NOT in the bill.

Why should they? The warrantless wiretap program is now legal --
and Americans being wiretapped are NOT ALLOWED TO SUE.

Telecom immunity is a smokescreen for an even worse crime and that is a FISA bill which
EXPANDS warrantless surveillance of all Americans under the Patriot act.

Of course most Dems are sheep who "don't believe" the NSA exists, or think they only
wiretap "terrorist suspects", individually by hand like in the old days

(back when even individual wiretapping could not be done without a warrant or it was
an impeachable offense. Now, it's legal. Dems are here endorsing what Nixon did.)

The NSA is a DRAGNET, people. And now it's a legal one.

Expect them to declassify the existence of the program now that it's legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
40. Ken Nighthorse Salazar's in his usual form.
Voted nay to strip telco immunity.

BAD SENATOR! BAD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
58. Ain't That The Truth
When I was a delegate in 04, he had to get up and promise the Denver convention he wouldn't flip to GOP, like Nightmare Campbell did. When it comes to anything but the environment, count on Kenny to vote GOP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. Sickening nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
46. Hillary's headed to TX, where even Carville said on CNN last night she "has to win TX, OH, and PA."
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 01:32 PM by flpoljunkie
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Obviously I think it means something administratively. I don't know if it means very much strategically. The truth is that Senator Clinton has to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If she wins those three, she's probably the nominee. If she loses one of those three, then Senator Obama is probably going to be the nominee. That's a fact.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/11/sitroom.03.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
47. To the Usual DLC coward suspects: GET THE FUCK OUT!!
No, not just out of the Democratic party. Out of my country. Since you obviously couldn't give a FLYING FUCK about the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernleftylady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
52. What good have they done lately? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
56. Still smarting over Kyl-Lieberman, huh?
--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
57. further proof that we have 1.5 business owned parties
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
60. We have no party.
History will record that our party failed America when it counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
63. Know how much the Blue Dog Dems want the Terrorist Surveillance Program? They will stop Obama
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 01:58 PM by Leopolds Ghost
from criticizing this bill or even bringing up Hillary's non-vote. The entire SENATE will now rally behind Rockefeller and Reid on legalizing the NSA-telecom dragnet surveilling all US citizens' communications.

More precisely Obama (like Kerry) will silence HIMSELF on the topic for fear of losing all his Blue Dog support.

Not to mention the chilling effect of universal electronic communications monitoring itself (which is happening
in Maryland, not just the Cayman Islands under Poindexter and his gang)

How can you sue telecoms for activity that is now legal, anyway?

A CRIMINAL 4th Amendment case needs to be made against the NSA and telecoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
66. Ahhh, Dianne F, my little flower,
Not surprised to see you in THAT company.

I rationalize my vote for her when I lived in CA by remembering I got to vote in Barbara B as well, the only vote I ever felt pride in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
68. What about McCaskill? Darling of the Obama supporters?
She voted against the amendment. AGAINST! Why so freakin' many DEMOCRATS voting against the amendment?

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. All they had to do was let Dodd filibuster. Reid refused to recognize Dodd's one-man "hold"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
71. Someone remind me why Bayh has a "D" by his name?
Does he EVER vote with the majority of the Dems? EVER?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mme. Defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
72. Maybe Hillary & Lindsay
were in a prayer meeting together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
74. Kicked and Recommended for more to see!
This was an important vote, folks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. "Error: you havealready kicked and recommended this thread." We need a DU Activist Stickie Thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
77. not ONE fucking republican voted yea....yet look at all the dems on the nay side
it's not because we don't have enough votes...we don't have the 'democrats' vote fucking pathetic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
80. Feinstein is a DINO and should be voted out of office asap!
The names of the senators who allowed this bill to go through should be scrolled on the air for people to see.
I am so disgusted at this point that I can barely be coherent.

Chris Dodd is a hero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yeswecan08 Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
82. This is more proof that Obama is the superior candidate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
85. Last night on the Senate floor, DODD said
something along the lines of -- they're trying to protect these PATRIOTIC companies, who pull the plug when the bills aren't paid.

Excellent point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC