[RP TownTalk] Md senator helps pass Telecom immunity

Thu Feb 14 23:41:47 UTC 2008

I see that my email "Md senator helps pass Telecom immunity" was 
scrubbed out
of the plain text version of  the digest. So here is a repeat in plain 
text (with a few
minor corrections) as well as a repeat of the follow up email I sent...

On 2/13/2008 10:10 pm, Rob Oppenheim wrote...

Are you outraged about the recent Intelligence Authorization Act
passed by the Senate? It gives retroactive immunity to the telecom
industry for participating in past illegal warrantless wiretaps.

The Washington Post called this senate vote a key victory for the
White House.

How Maryland Senators voted on this...

Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) voted with the Republicans
and voted FOR the telecom immunity provision. You can let her
know your concern here: http://mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html

Conversely, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) opposed the telecom
immunity provision and voted against it and against final passage of
the bill. You can thank him here http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/

The corresponding house bill does NOT contain immunity for the
telecom industry. So it still may not become law!

You can contact our Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) at
http://www.hoyer.house.gov/contact/email.asp and thank him for his
stand and ask that he continue to stand firm on no telecom immunity.

Rep Hoyer's Statement

Rep Hoyer said: "...Finally, this legislation is silent on the issue
of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that
possibly violated privacy laws in turning over consumer information
because Congress does not have full access to information about what
the companies did. Simply stated, it would be grossly irresponsible
for Congress to grant blanket immunity for companies without even
knowing whether their conduct was legal or not. And, importantly,
this view is shared by the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the
Senate Judiciary Committee." [Extract from a speech given by Rep
Hoyer to the Georgetown law school in Oct. 2007.]

The full text of his speech is available here:
http://www.washingtoncontinent.com/TWCstories/TWCnewspages2007/hoyer_visits_georgetown_07_091000144.htm

How the presidential candidates voted on this...

Both the democratic presidential candidates have said they oppose
telecom immunity. Sen. Obama was present and voted against the
immunity provision. Sen. Hillary Clinton was out campaigning and did
not vote on the immunity provision. Both candidates were not present
for the final vote on the bill.

The Republican candidate, John McCain, voted for the immunity
provision and for the final bill.

[end 1st email]

Here is a follow up email from 2/14/08 at 5:56pm ...

Lou King wrote:
 > there is relative little information generally
 > available (for me) to get /outraged/ about.

So Why the Outrage?

Perhaps the spying the government undertook on US citizens was
minimal and no big deal and perhaps it was a huge invasion of our
privacy. The point is, we don't know. The telecom law suits
threaten to make public the exact nature of this illegal government
spying on US citizens.

As I see it, the telecom immunity is not about protecting the
telecoms. That could be done by other means (e.g. limiting damages,
etc.). Instead, the immunity provision is about protecting the
government - so we cannot learn about the government's illegal
spying on us. And that is why I am outraged. I want to know if
and by how much our rights were violated.

63% of Democrats voted to remove the telecom immunity.
0% of Republicans voted to remove the telecom immunity.
100% of Republicans voted to leave it in.
(The percents are of votes cast by each party).

And yes, 37% of Democrats voted to include the immunity.
Ms Mikulski was among them.

Lou wrote:
 > I also see that not only did Mikulski vote for this bill, but
 > so did 60% of the Senate Democrats

The bill as a whole has merits and is likely in the best interest of
the nation's security - although some may feel differently. You are
correct in that the whole bill was supported by a very large
majority of Democrats. The problem here is not the whole bill but
rather the provision that gives the retroactive immunity - which a
huge majority of Democrats (63%) voted against.

The whole bill would likely have gotten near 100% of Democrats
supporting it had the immunity provision been stripped.

What We Know About the Spying

News reports state that the domestic wiretapping was NOT court
ordered. Not even the secret FISA court approved it. We know that at
least one telecom company (Qwest) refused to go along unless they
were shown a court order, and that other telecoms did go along with
the request even without a court order. Wiretaps without a court
order are illegal - although there are some emergency provisions
that allow them in limited cases and there is the secret FISA court
that can grant them secretly when security issues are involved. So
it is possible the wiretaps were legal. Of course, then there is no
need for immunity. There is a lot we do not know about this spying.
Some news reports state it included calls that were strictly
domestic - calls that both originated and terminated in the US and
that the spying was a huge sweep on millions of phone calls and
emails.

So yes I am outraged - I do not give up my freedoms lightly.

-Rob

Sources:

Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201202.html?wpisrc=newsletter

The official US Senate site:
The immunity provision was in senate bill S.2248 passed on 2/12/08.

Votes to remove the immunity provision:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Vote on the final bill (the Intelligence Authorization Act renewal):
http://www.senate.gov/legisl

[end]