US Senate gives immunity to telecoms

[ViolaLee]

They voted for the FISA bill that will give immunity to the telecoms that have violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.2248 as Amended )
Vote Number: 20 Vote Date: February 12, 2008, 07:30 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007 )
Measure Title: An original bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 68
NAYs 29
Not Voting 3

YEAs ---68
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
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)
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)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---29
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
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)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Obama (D-IL)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

The House previously voted against it. Now they have to reconcile. Bush says he won't accept an extention....

Bad news for a free country.

[apdst]

They voted for the FISA bill that will give immunity to the telecoms that have violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.

Wait, the telecoms violated The Constitution?

[Truth Detector]

They voted for the FISA bill that will give immunity to the telecoms that have violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.

Wait, the telecoms violated The Constitution?


You have to forgive people like Viola. They think that just by making the claim of constitutional violations, it makes it so. No proof, no evidence, no credible sources to support their claims.

One thing is certain however, they do want to extend those Constitutional protections to terrorists and groups who would like to murder more of our citizens. I know this is profound logic, but that is where the Left and the Democrats find themselves these days.

We call this denial.

[TheStripey1]

Those that would trade their rights for security deserve neither.[hr]Good to see that both of my senators voted no... [hr]
They voted for the FISA bill that will give immunity to the telecoms that have violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.

Wait, the telecoms violated The Constitution?


yeah, the same one you once took an oath to defend from all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't consider my oath to do the same to have expired. Why do you?

[hr]

They voted for the FISA bill that will give immunity to the telecoms that have violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.

Wait, the telecoms violated The Constitution?


You have to forgive people like Viola. They think that just by making the claim of constitutional violations, it makes it so. No proof, no evidence, no credible sources to support their claims.

One thing is certain however, they do want to extend those Constitutional protections to terrorists and groups who would like to murder more of our citizens. I know this is profound logic, but that is where the Left and the Democrats find themselves these days.

We call this denial.


So when will you be enlisting? Or is protecting the constitution and the republic below your lofty standards?

[Truth Detector]

You have to forgive people like Viola. They think that just by making the claim of constitutional violations, it makes it so. No proof, no evidence, no credible sources to support their claims.

One thing is certain however, they do want to extend those Constitutional protections to terrorists and groups who would like to murder more of our citizens. I know this is profound logic, but that is where the Left and the Democrats find themselves these days.

We call this denial.


So when will you be enlisting? Or is protecting the constitution and the republic below your lofty standards?
[/quote]

So when will you be growing up? Or is debating on an intellectual level with facts beyond your capabilities?

So far all I am seeing from you is a pile of emotional leftist bile.

Let me ask you an honest question, of which I doubt I can get an honest answer; Is it your opinion that one cannot debate US policy or politics if one has never served? Or is that reserved for people whom do not agree with your absurd political views and expose you for the hypocritical, uninformed genius you are?

You seem to think that by claiming you served, for all we know you haven’t, this somehow gives your weak and uninformed arguments more weight. How profound are you to have such a ludicrous belief.

[apdst]

yeah, the same one you once took an oath to defend from all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't consider my oath to do the same to have expired. Why do you?

Stripe,

If the FBI asks a telecom for information, the telecom is perfectly within it's rights to hand over that info. Or, they can tell the FBI to come back with a warrant. Either way, the telecoms haven't broken any laws.

The Constitution protects us from the government. It doesn't protect us from each other.

[Truth_and_Power]

They voted for the FISA bill that will give immunity to the telecoms that have violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.

Wait, the telecoms violated The Constitution?


You have to forgive people like Viola. They think that just by making the claim of constitutional violations, it makes it so. No proof, no evidence, no credible sources to support their claims.

One thing is certain however, they do want to extend those Constitutional protections to terrorists and groups who would like to murder more of our citizens. I know this is profound logic, but that is where the Left and the Democrats find themselves these days.

We call this denial.


I say denial is when you refuse to believe a crime has been committed even after congress grants immunity from prosecution for it.

[apdst]

I say denial is when you refuse to believe a crime has been committed even after congress grants immunity from prosecution for it.

I thought Congress was granting immunity from a law suit. I wasn't aware that the telecoms were looking at being prosecuted.

[ViolaLee]

yeah, the same one you once took an oath to defend from all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't consider my oath to do the same to have expired. Why do you?

Stripe,

If the FBI asks a telecom for information, the telecom is perfectly within it's rights to hand over that info. Or, they can tell the FBI to come back with a warrant. Either way, the telecoms haven't broken any laws.

The Constitution protects us from the government. It doesn't protect us from each other.
It is against the law for me to record your phone call. It is against the law for the phone company to record your phone call without a warrant. Why do you think Bush wants to give them immunity? They are being sued for breaking the law![hr]
I say denial is when you refuse to believe a crime has been committed even after congress grants immunity from prosecution for it.

I thought Congress was granting immunity from a law suit. I wasn't aware that the telecoms were looking at being prosecuted.
Usually the way it works is a law suit is brought against a party and then the party is prosecuted.

:ecstatic::thumbsup::madlaugh:

[just a grunt]

A lawsuit is a civil action. It seeks compensation for an alleged loss or damage. It takes place under totally different legal guidelines than criminal actions.

There is no guarantee that there will be a prosecution as a result of a lawsuit. In fact, very few lawsuits (regardless of results) result in a criminal action.

Guaranteeing telecoms will not be sued for assisting US gov't. is most comparable to the Good Samaritan laws that most states have.

[December]

ViolaLee is BANNED? WHY???? :( :( :(


ViolaLee
Peace Salam Shalom Paz
Posts: 3,441
Group: Banned
Affiliation: Democrat
Joined: Apr 2007

:question: :question:

[Truth Detector]

ViolaLee is BANNED? WHY???? :( :( :(


ViolaLee
Peace Salam Shalom Paz
Posts: 3,441
Group: Banned
Affiliation: Democrat
Joined: Apr 2007

:question: :question:


Can't be from anything I have seen her post. Must have been a different forum.

[Wndrtch]

yeah, the same one you once took an oath to defend from all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't consider my oath to do the same to have expired. Why do you?

Stripe,

If the FBI asks a telecom for information, the telecom is perfectly within it's rights to hand over that info. Or, they can tell the FBI to come back with a warrant. Either way, the telecoms haven't broken any laws.

The Constitution protects us from the government. It doesn't protect us from each other.


If the Dems had their way, this is what our country would have loked like:

The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002, the United States disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of Sept. 11.

The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003, the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast using hijacked commercial airplanes.

The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002, the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up domestic apartment buildings. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, also allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the United States.

The 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004, the United States and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the spring of 2003, the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003, the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major Sept. 11 operational figure.

The 2004 U.K. Plot: In the spring of 2004, the United States and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the United Kingdom.

The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003, the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

The 2002 Strait of Hormuz Plot: In 2002, the United States and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships travelling the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean.

The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003, the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

The U.S. Government and Tourist Sites Tasking: In 2003 and 2004, an individual was tasked by al Qaeda to case important U.S. government and tourist targets within the United States.

The Gas Station Tasking: In approximately 2003, an individual was tasked to collect targeting information on U.S. gas stations and their support mechanisms on behalf of a senior al Qaeda planner.

Iyman Faris and New York's Brooklyn Bridge: In 2003, and in conjunction with a partner nation, the U.S. government arrested and prosecuted Iyman Faris, who was accused of exploring the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. Faris ultimately pleaded guilty to providing material support to al Qaeda and is now in a federal correctional institution.

2001 Tasking: In 2001, al Qaeda sent an individual to facilitate post-Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. U.S. law enforcement authorities arrested the individual.

2003 Tasking: In 2003, an individual was tasked by an al Qaeda leader to conduct reconnaissance on populated areas in the United States.


Liberals employ "Prey" mentality. So long as it ain't them being killed, they just don't care. They just try and make sure they aren't the last ones in the stampede

[apdst]

If the Dems had their way, this is what our country would have loked like

When Obama gets elected, he'll swing a wide open door for our enemies. He'll be too worried about what people think of us and not worried enough about kicking some ass to protect the country.

[Buck Laser]

Fortunately, the House is refusing to give the telecoms immunity, so the republicans walked out and had a media event on the steps of the capitol. It always amazes me that republicans are all too willing to give up other people's freedom for a little temporary feeling of security. Way to go, guys!

[apdst]

It will prove that the Democrats have ZERO regard for The Constitution, if they don't stop the law suits against the telecoms.

[Wndrtch]

If the Dems had their way, this is what our country would have loked like

When Obama gets elected, he'll swing a wide open door for our enemies. He'll be too worried about what people think of us and not worried enough about kicking some ass to protect the country.


I can just see it now...

The Sears Tower collapses from the next terrorist attack, and Barak will send flowers and chocolates to OBL as a reach-out attempt. He did after all, say he would reach-out to our enemies.

Boy, the Iranians are going to have fun with him, aren't they.

[potter]

Fortunately, the House is refusing to give the telecoms immunity, so the republicans walked out and had a media event on the steps of the capitol. It always amazes me that republicans are all too willing to give up other people's freedom for a little temporary feeling of security. Way to go, guys!


Fear wrapped in a flag is the only thing they have.

They aren't conservative by any means

They can bring down an economy better than most, they can't handle money responsibly at all.

They have an odd penchant for enjoying death and destruction...kinda like al queda.

[Grizz]

If the FBI asks a telecom for information, the telecom is perfectly within it's rights to hand over that info. Or, they can tell the FBI to come back with a warrant. Either way, the telecoms haven't broken any laws.

The Constitution protects us from the government. It doesn't protect us from each other.


The FBI can ask nicely, but if the telecom complies absent a court order, then they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit which is what the Senate bill does - it grants retroactive immunity from legal actions that result from the telecoms just handing the keys to the FBI. Let's also be very clear here - despite great gnashing of teeth by Republicans about how this will open the door for terrorists, or some other nonsense, the FBI or any other appropriate agency can still obtain a FISA warrant to eavesdrop and telecoms served with such a warrant are bound to comply - legally.