[perihelion]

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

And, you Obama supporters out there, Obama voted yea.  "Change we can believe in."  Yeah, right.  ****ing corporate whores, the lot of them.  I sure hope the Supreme Court steps in a puts a stop to this.  The entire bill completely flies in the face of the Constitution.

I am predicting an awful lot of protest votes this election thrown away on 3rd party candidates that don't have an icecube's chance in hell of getting elected.  If I can swallow my bile long enough to bother voting at all, mine will probably be one of them.

[karajorma]

For those of us who aren't Americans, what does it mean?

[perihelion]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008:

* The provisions of the bill granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to
  expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11th attacks.

* The bill expands the power of the federal government in conducting warrantless surveillance and strips the requirements for judicial
  oversight, effectively enabling unlimited government surveillance of any citizen of the United States for any reason.

* Allows the government to conduct unapproved warrantless surveillance of any person for up to one week (168 hours) without any
  judicial oversight.

That leaves out a lot, but that is the gist of it.  Dost thou comprehend mine outrage?  The thing that really sticks in my craw is that Obama had almost convinced me that he really might be a change from the status quo.  One of his campaign promises was to oppose retroactive immunity for telecoms that broke the law.  He broke that promise, and he WILL NOT get my vote.

McCain is little better, opting for the coward's way out and not voting on the bill at all.

[Mongoose]

McCain is little better, opting for the coward's way out and not voting on the bill at all.

Depending on the day the bill came to a vote, McCain may not have voted simply because he was off campaigning somewhere and not in attendance.  Last time I checked, the Senate doesn't allow for text-message voting.

As for the bill itself...meh.  Such is life.  I don't agree with most of its provisions, but it's not like they haven't been pulling this stuff anyway.  We'll see how the inevitable legal challenge goes.

[Turambar]

McCain is little better, opting for the coward's way out and not voting on the bill at all.

Depending on the day the bill came to a vote, McCain may not have voted simply because he was off campaigning somewhere and not in attendance.  Last time I checked, the Senate doesn't allow for text-message voting.

As for the bill itself...meh.  Such is life.  I don't agree with most of its provisions, but it's not like they haven't been pulling this stuff anyway.  We'll see how the inevitable legal challenge goes.

Better ****ing go well.  *****es spied on me and need to get punished once the crooks leave office, no matter how many tens or hundreds (or thousands) of years down the line that turns out to be.

[General Battuta]

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

And, you Obama supporters out there, Obama voted yea.  "Change we can believe in."  Yeah, right.  ****ing corporate whores, the lot of them.  I sure hope the Supreme Court steps in a puts a stop to this.  The entire bill completely flies in the face of the Constitution.

I am predicting an awful lot of protest votes this election thrown away on 3rd party candidates that don't have an icecube's chance in hell of getting elected.  If I can swallow my bile long enough to bother voting at all, mine will probably be one of them.

Dude, you're misinformed. Obama flew back from his campaign trail to vote for the bill because it ADDS checks and balances to Bush's surveillance power. Those haven't been quoted here, but they're pretty significant. For one thing, I believe the bill mandates warrants.

Obama wanted those checks and balances in place. He made it pretty clear that he was for change -- and if they hadn't passed this bill, no new restrictions would have been added, and Bush could have gone on wiretapping for the rest of his term.

The reason the telecom immunity had to be added was because Bush would have vetoed it otherwise, and the Congressional Republicans might not have supported it either.

Does that make some sense? I understand you're angry, but it's misplaced.

As for Obama being a corporate whore -- he's the only delegate in recent history who's ever attempted to run a campaign without contributions from PACs. Go figure.

[Polpolion]

Has the House voted on this yet?

[karajorma]

So Obama voted for a bill to let Bush throat**** the American public to stop them being ass****ed?

Wonderful.

[Mars]

I don't believe principles really stand up in politics... in anyones case. It will always be about compromise.

[TrashMan]

McCain is little better, opting for the coward's way out and not voting on the bill at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama vote "present" (a.k.a. not really voting) on HALF the bills?

[General Battuta]

So Obama voted for a bill to let Bush throat**** the American public to stop them being ass****ed?

Wonderful.

Yeah, basically. I won't pretend it's not an ugly compromise.

McCain is little better, opting for the coward's way out and not voting on the bill at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama vote "present" (a.k.a. not really voting) on HALF the bills?

Half of what bills? This is a genuine question, I'm not instantly dismissing you -- I'm just not sure which bills are under discussion.

[Tyrian]

I'm somewhat hoping that someone will challenge this to the point of the US Supreme Court.  According to the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9,

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Ex post facto law is a piece of legislation that is meant to effect the punishment of crimes that have already occurred.  Since this bill is granting retroactive immunity, it can qualify as ex post facto.  Here's hoping that the court stands by it's original ruling in Calder v. Bull. 

Of course, this only holds true if the telecomm companies were taken to criminal court.  Ex post facto doesn't apply to civil cases.

[General Battuta]

Actually, Tyrian, you're in luck. From what I know, the bill provides immunity from CIVIL liability, but not criminal liability.

So the 'immune' telecom companies could still be taken to criminal court.

[karajorma]

Yeah, but who has the balls for that?

I sincerely doubt that this bill is going to change anything for those who were wiretapped. In fact if anything it will make things worse. Why would a government that decided to perform illegal wiretaps perform less of them now that they are legal for a week?

The only thing that the bill will change is preventing the telecom companies being sued for their part in this.

[General Battuta]

That's a possibility, and probably a significant one. I don't think I know enough about the bill to feel comfortable guessing at its effects, but I'll try to stay informed.