submitter: US House of Representatives votes 312-197

Interesting math, subby.
I thought there were 435 representatives.
Who voted twice?

runchkin: submitter: US House of Representatives votes 312-197

Interesting math, subby.
I thought there were 435 representatives.
Who voted twice?

OMG wallhaxorz in teh Congress!!!!1!!111!!eleventeen!

Insta-green, bad math and all!

Well this is pleasing.

runchkin: Interesting math, subby.
I thought there were 435 representatives.
Who voted twice?

Ron Paul

dyslexic is subby.

If Big Brother is watching you, poke him in the eye.

Lysdexic subby.
213-197.
Go accountability!
until it's vetoed.

That's DOCTOR Ron Paul.

Nice dyslexia subby.

Overall, a good thing, fark turning our nation into a surveillance state. For the first time in like 15 years, the House actually voted well on something worthwhile.

tortilla burger: runchkin: Interesting math, subby.
I thought there were 435 representatives.
Who voted twice?

Ron Paul

RON PAUL!

Geez. Here is the first part of TFA:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Friday to back the Democratic-sponsored revisions to federal surveillance laws.

The House voted Friday to back a revision to the Democratic-sponsored FISA bill.

The vote was 213 to 197 in favor of a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill that was backed by the Democratic leadership.


Not bad math - bad typing.

Heh, what I find amusing is that everyone is all happy about this...

It really means nothing until it passes through the Senate and ISN'T vetoed...which it will be...

Doubt that there will be an override to the veto...

it was 213-197 not 312-197.

bussy lysdexic?

Oh, and the vote was to deny automatic retroactive immunity to telcoms, not to "strip" immunity from them. They don't have immunity currently, so you can't strip it away.

Always with the scare tactics...

We HAVE to tap your phone. These phone companies haven't done anything wrong by invading your privacy without a warrant...


/...but, lets give them immunity...even though what we did is legal.

Mrstupid7: Well this is pleasing.

agreed.

It will get vetoed, and of all the shiat that Bush has done this pisses me off the most. farking corporate whore.

Bush puts Dems on double secret probation.

I'm going to have to come down on the side that says this is just a tactic by the lawyers lobby to open up a bunch of new, profitable, lawsuits to them.

If you have a problem go to the government, don't try to sue some stupid phone company out of business.

Yeah, Subby here. Caught that lysdexia just as I hit "submit", and the submission thingee wouldn't let me submit a correction to the mods. Meh.

Go Go Gadget Congress, though.

It's just for show. They know neither the senate nor the whitehouse will pass it. They'll say "look, we tried. See? We're trying to do what you the people want."

Even with the mistake, +1 for the Crayola reference. Bravo.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If you have a problem go to the government, don't try to sue some stupid phone company out of business.

What do you think suing IS? The court system IS the government.

Cheeze It: Heh, what I find amusing is that everyone is all happy about this...

It really means nothing until it passes through the Senate and ISN'T vetoed...which it will be...

Doubt that there will be an override to the veto...

They don't need to override the veto. "Do nothing" would also prevent telcom immunity. I'm fine with that. As long as they don't cave into the inevitable "ZOMG TERRIST COMMIN TO KILL YER BABIE MUST HAZ IMMUNITY FOR AT N T OMG NOW!!!11!!ONE!!" all is well.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Always with the scare tactics...

We HAVE to tap your phone. These phone companies haven't done anything wrong by invading your privacy without a warrant...


/...but, lets give them immunity...even though what we did is legal.

STOP MAKING SENSE.

The fact that it only passed by 16 votes is farking sad.

FTA
"They [Democrats] know, they know the risks they are taking on behalf of the American people and they don't care ... and that's what bothers me most," said Republican Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico on Friday.

Exactly what are the risks to the American People due to choosing one version over another? Care to itemize them explicitly?

a) The actual program continues.

b) It is still okay to start spying in an "emergency" situation and get a warrant later.

c) The revised bill doesn't introduce any additional risks, other than not granting immunity for companies who broke the law.

So, Heather, or anyone else who really wants to justify this criticism, answer that simple question: In real explicit terms, exactly how is anyone not employed by or responsible for the companies who broke the law more or less safe without that immunity clause?

Out teh sumbitter!

CNN says 213-197. NYTimes says 221-188.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/washington/14cnd-fisa.html

Not that it really matters, the motion passed and all, but how hard is it to count these days?

Alot of people got caught in the frenzy, I think it's great that we are coming out of that daze but what good would it do to go after these phone companies, I would rather them given immunity and then release to the public what these companies actually did, rather than sending them to trial and then all the info is restricted.

Yay Democrats! You swine.

Before you nay-sayers start, all this does is remove to possibility of government intervention in case of a suit. It does not mean that they will automatically be sued, or that said suit will go the way of the plantiff. All this means is that the legality and culpability of executive authorized wire-tapping through the telcom firms will be decided by judges and not the president... that's all.

Be nice if we could go straight to impeaching Bushco instead of all this. . .

.

Headso: Alot of people got caught in the frenzy, I think it's great that we are coming out of that daze but what good would it do to go after these phone companies, I would rather them given immunity and then release to the public what these companies actually did, rather than sending them to trial and then all the info is restricted.

Because then it sets the precedent that it's okay as long as you're transparent about it long after the fact. It is not okay.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Always with the scare tactics...

We HAVE to tap your phone. These phone companies haven't done anything wrong by invading your privacy without a warrant...


/...but, lets give them immunity...even though what we did is legal.

Not to mention dragging out the ole reliable bugaboo of the trial lawyers.

DeltaX:
tortilla burger: runchkin: Interesting math, subby.
I thought there were 435 representatives.
Who voted twice?

Ron Paul

RON PAUL!

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL



Ron paul.

But again Mr. Bush will choose Corporate immunity over National Security (by his very own logic).

I liked his reason #4 for providing immunity: "To thank them for their patriotic service after 9/11."


I'll say it before and I'll say it again. If FISA is half as important as he says it is, and Mr. Bush has a fraction of the integrity that Republicans think he does, then he would sign any form of the bill in order just to protect Americans rather than veto to hold out for Corporate immunity. Besides the telecoms have done anything BUT stop their cooperation.

According to this:

Link (new window)

Kucinich voted with the Republicans.

Turing_Machine: FTA
"They [Democrats] know, they know the risks they are taking on behalf of the American people and they don't care ... and that's what bothers me most," said Republican Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico on Friday.

So, Heather, or anyone else who really wants to justify this criticism, answer that simple question: In real explicit terms, exactly how is anyone not employed by or responsible for the companies who broke the law more or less safe without that immunity clause?

In Heather Wilson's defense, she's so stupid she couldn't find her own ass with both hands and a set of deer antlers.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: I'm going to have to come down on the side that says this is just a tactic by the lawyers lobby to open up a bunch of new, profitable, lawsuits to them.

If you have a problem go to the government, don't try to sue some stupid phone company out of business.

You don't sue people for committing crimes. You charde them with a crime and You ARREST them. Later you sue.

Headso: Alot of people got caught in the frenzy, I think it's great that we are coming out of that daze but what good would it do to go after these phone companies, I would rather them given immunity and then release to the public what these companies actually did, rather than sending them to trial and then all the info is restricted.

Do you honestly think that information is going to be released, regardless of immunity?

Oh yeah, and telecos, Bush, DoHS, and any one who supports illegal, immoral, and downright disgusting BS like this:

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

"The Democratic plan, however, will allow the companies to argue their cases and present classified evidence to a judge during a closed proceeding without the plaintiffs present."

That sounds a lot like Senator Feinstein's proposed compromise a few weeks back. Her last compromise would allow a telecom to ask a judge "Hey, can you throw this lawsuit out? We can prove we are doing this on order from the government, so we don't want to spend millions defending ourselves, and with a risk that a jury would make a mistake and wrongly find us guilty."

If so, that's a decent compromise I can get behind.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: I'm going to have to come down on the side that says this is just a tactic by the lawyers lobby to open up a bunch of new, profitable, lawsuits to them.

You're an idiot.

We had a tea party in Boston over this exact same kind of shiat before.

Not pertinent to the bill itself, but I did love the last line in the article, by a Rep who has been in the only 3 secret House sessions held since 1830:

FTA: "I think the great utility of having another one, given the mumbo-jumbo I heard in the last three, is to demonstrate the almost total uselessness of secret sessions"

Think about what we’ve been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President’s insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of his disrespect for honest dialogue and for the rule of law.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If you have a problem go to the government, don't try to sue some stupid phone company out of business.

Well, if the government was responsible for carrying my calls, and was the party whom I paid for the privilege of sending my voice or information to other people, than you would have a point.

If a company makes a decision, no matter how well intentioned, and in doing so breaks the law, why would it not then be responsible for that action in both criminal and civil courts? The relative responsibility would then be decided, as to which parties were more or less responsible, including the federal government.

If a court decided that the companies were in a position where they could not legally expose what the government was asking them to do, and also was in the position where they could find no way to NOT follow the instruction, then they might be able to mitigate their responsibility a bit.

However, since the action of sending that data to the government required a positive action on the part of the companies, it will be most difficult to claim they had no choice.

In the end, let the courts decide what is or isn't an infraction. Well meaning people trying to "help" by keeping courts clear in many ways are doing themselves and other a great disservice. The cost of mounting an unsuccessful lawsuit should be deterrent enough to keep the courts clear.

mediaho: Because then it sets the precedent that it's okay as long as you're transparent about it long after the fact. It is not okay.

But if from here on out we change the operating procedures or whatever that isn't the case, the attack on our nation and the spastic way that the nation reacted to it was unprecedented, so I think it's a weird situation where most of the population thought it was a good idea at the time.

Wake me up when:

The Fed is dissolved.
Bush and Cheney are in jail.
The middle class is booming.
We have a balanced budget and are paying down our debt.
Americans care more about world peace than teens looking at pornography.