Shocker. Worst Congress Ever.

I just watched this on C-Span... We need to force Pelosi and gang out of congress.

Hopefully Obama will say something before it goes through senate. But signs seem to point to no.

We're curious what Senator Obama and Senator McCain have to say about this-particularly, whether Obama will vote against it. Oh wait, he's too busy campaigning to vote on important issues, right? Because that's how career politicians work. (End of rant on politicos not doing their jobs.)

Ya, neither one of them will say anything. He didn't vote on issues even before when he wasn't campaigning.

This is further proof that the congress is the root of the problem. And their approval rating seems right on w/ their quality of work and ethics.

I can only imagine that there was some serious blackmailing going on behind the scenes. It all seems very Nixonian.

I'm a Republican and all for this War on Terror that we are fighting these days, though I am always second-guessing my opinions on everything my party is doing. That being said, I don't care what the government asks me (or tells me to do), if its against the law, I'm not doing it.

Therefore, I think the Telco's that violated the law for the NSA should be punished completely for their actions. If the federal government thought information could be obtained through wiretaps, there is a system in place to grant warrants. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

@pal003: Agreed! I don't think this thing had much support from We the People on either side of the aisle.

Sorry for double posting, but im very upset about this.

Jane Harmen (D-CA) had to say this about the bill, and I paraphrase:

My phone was ringing off the hook with constituents complaining about how they did not want to lose their civil rights. But I have to consider my views and their views, so I am going to vote yes because this bill is better than the senate bill.

This is not as cut-and-dry as most people believe. The majority of the wiretaps were on suspected terror suspects. I'm not sure what that means, but it wasn't like they just picked random people and wiretapped them.

Why would they want to waste the time and the money to spy on someone who isn't going to further their investigation?

I'm of the opinion that the telecoms didn't do anything wrong in a grayish-legal sense. I think the only reason they wanted protection is because of the posibility of having lawsuits. These cost money on both sides and they didn't want to spend money on an issue that probably would have sided with the telecoms.

It's kind of like getting immunity without having committed a crime.

From where I stand and where this bill got started, I think it was a good compromise all around.

@Bladefist, Congress' approval rating always suck, people tend to only like their congress rep but hate every one else in congress. Low approval ratings on congress as a whole mean nothing nor are stunning.

The founding fathers were rolling in their graves as it is, but they must be rolling so much now that we can use their remains as a source of energy now.

When will more Americans start to stand up and organize to defend their civil liberties and the Constitution as the Government clearly using the Constitution as toilet paper.

@Linus,
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No warrants were issued, no probable cause supported by oath or affirmation were giving. It was clearly illegal. Bush told other countries not to suspend Civil Liberties to fight terrorism, Bush said that the Terrorist hate us for our Liberties, yet him and congress are killing our Civil Liberties, according to his own logic he is a terrorist.
(sorry for double post)

@Stormyaaron: Oh don't get me started. lol. I am definitely the Constitutions biggest fan. And it's not even considered anymore when these hacks make laws

Err, Chris, you realize this is a House measure and McCain and Obama are Senators, right?
Obama has spoken previously against telecom retroactive immunity, even if not this particular bill. So he'll do the right thing.
McCain? Ha ha ha. He'll order anyone complaining to be waterboarded, stress-positioned then sodomized (but not tortured because he strongly (strongly!) feels America shouldn't torture).
Call your House Reps, people. Especially if your Rep is Republican! (Tragically, the GOP is nearly 100% in favor of the telecoms getting a pass, while the Dems are nearly 100% against illegal spying on millions of innocent US citizens. But your Dem Rep needs to hear from you too.)

You guys can make wahtever lame political points you want to. Here's the deal:

The REPUBLICANS with help from AT & T and Verizon BROKE THE LAW

The DEMOCRATS just helped cover for the REPUBLICAN LAWBREAKING

It's why I'm not voting for ANY candidate in EITHER of those parties this November, they have not EARNED my vote.

The Constitution is in dire straits now as it's under attack from BOTH parties.

@linus: "The majority of the wiretaps were on suspected terror suspects."
Ah, were if that were so. Tens of millions of people were wiretapped. Does the US harbor tens of millions of terrorists?
And, if there WAS a need to wiretap, there's FISA. Authorities can even wiretap THEN get FISA approval retroactively. It's clear-cut Federal Law that the Executive must get FISA approval. Period. No exceptions (and many allowances to allow for public safety)
There's no excuse for bypassing FISA. None.

And, Jane Harmon is a DINO on many issues, regrettably. She's also out of step with how the vast majority of Dems are voting. It's a Republican give-away, so if your Rep is Republican, CALL them. This morning. Please?

@CaptainConsumer: Though I'll have to keep myself from vomiting all over my own ballot, I will still be casting a vote this Fall only because I already know how additional Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices will vote when Constitutional issues like these make it to them.

@Rey: Maybe you don't. Traditionally Republican Justices are strict Constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.

Most Democrats don't even know what the purpose of the Constitution really is. They think it's for telling people what their rights are. It's actually made for limiting Government.

The founding fathers knew the Government would never stop without it. It's the democrats who think the Constitution is living and think it should be interpreted differently each decade.

But thanks for your input.

I am a Democrat, and I will be the first to say it, the Dem leadership in Congress sucks.

Never mind. Vote just happened half an hour ago. It passed on a 293-129 vote.
It's absurd that this passed under an absurdly unpopular, lame-duck President when a simple extension would have given everyone more time to consider this rationally.
Arrgh. To the Senate!

Pretty freaking awesome....Our elected officials broke the law, SO THEY CHANGE IT!!!! This is an outrage, if I murder someone, I can't just change the law to exclude me from going to jail.

who cares if your rep, or dem, can't we all agree this is bullshit? And it's not Obama's or McCains fault that the media is full of so much spin that a presidential candidate has no choice but to try not to make a move or even breath, out of fear of what the recourse might be.

@Bladefist: Actually it appears that many of the Republican appointed Supremes do not care about Constitutional protections - if they interfere with Corporate profits. Just read those recent opinions that throw out the rights of citizens to sue corporations, whether for grave injury of worker rights. And nevermind the Justices own personal conflicts-of-interest with some of these corporations.

Apparently they ignore the Constitution when so inconvenient to corporate interests.

@Bladefist: Bush v Gore? Strict Constructionalists? What?!

@savvy999: Pelosi was STRONGLY against it. As were the Progressive ones. It was the conservative Dems that voted for it.
And the vast majority of Republicans, of course. But don't blame them. They wore many flag lapel pins and spoke on the floor a lot about Liberty, Accountability & A Limited Government.

@pal003: That's demonstrably false! Republicans also ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient to their OWN interests. :)

@Trai_Dep: Then there would be no Consumerist and the need to complain!

@linus: Who exactly determines who is a terrorist? If there is no checks and balances on this then it is going to get abused. Heck, there are stories of this being abused anyway, with cops searching out old girlfriends, or others doing GPS tracks, etc but those people were convicted. My biggest problem with this is that it isn't JUST the telcos that should have been sent to trial but the ones who asked for it as well.

So USA became new-USSR, only ''capitalist''.

Chris, I love it when people rant about politicos not doing their job, especially because we elected them there. they didn't grant themselves that position, we did. Makes you wonder what we saw in them to put them in office in the first place. I think it takes a greedy snake to run for any office. It has way more to do with power and underlying motives than income, which is what draws the rest of us to our jobs. anyway, you can't please everybody, and they know that so they just please themselves. If you, Chris Walters, think you could do a better job, why don't you run for senate? Why do you think we would elect a greedy douchebag over you? If you really have some answers to some problems, than running for office would be better than bitching.

there I said it.

@Bladefist: Stop trying to rewrite history. Take time to read in what context ''founding fathers'' wrote your Constitution. I'm sure they are turning in their graves right now.

@Bladefist: This logic is seductive, but erroneous. Congressional approval ratings are always low, and most of the time always lower than the President's approval ratings. This is because giving an aggregate approval to a body (people approve of the body based on their perception of the member(s) that represent them) [Fenno 1978] and thus people generally shift their perception of the President onto Congress. [Lebo 2008 [ms.cc.sunysb.edu]] Second to last entry. Congressional approval ratings don't mean anything. People are always (probably correctly) pissed off at Congress.

@Rey: Bladefist is right to point out that the party of the appointing President does not necessarily give an indicator of the judicial ideology of the Supreme Court justice. When asked if Eisenhower had any regrets as President, he said "Yes, two, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court" [Edwards and Wayne 2006] and there are various reasons for Presidents to try to ignore ideology when nominating justices. Bladefist, however, is incorrect in his almost comical generalizations of "Democrats think like THIS and Republicans think like THIS!" Judges are more likely to be guided by their policy preferences, not their ideologies, as has been borne out in numerous social science journals.

@snoop-blog: The problem is in USA, is that law and elected officials are interdependent.

In a REAL democracy, those two have to be completely independent, since they balance each other. (That's politics 101).

Just splitting these two would help a lot, since none of governing parties would be able to influence directly law ''enforcement'' and ''interpretation''.

Anybody up for an armed revolution? It's been a while.

@Victo: I just get mad when people blame the people, not the system. It is the system that is fuct. If you want to be a part of it, you HAVE to be fuct or you'll never make it. Politicians are just puppets %99.9 percent of the time. They "whore" out there power to people who help keep them in power. Any human would probably cave to that pressure. Even in you offices where you work, If your not willing to bend or break the law a little bit, you'll never move up to management. They want people who will help keep their secrets.

end sensless rant.

@rmz: Count me totatly in. This is just insane the goverment is just in the pockets of big business and does not care about the people

@rmz: best to keep it coded since Big Brother is watching. And yes it has been awhile, as Jefferson said "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.[Shade's Rebellion]
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

@Trai_Dep: Yeah, I conflated the two houses for the purpose of my rant, but it was poor writing, I'll admit.
@snoop-blog: Point taken. Like I said, I was ranting too. But I likely have far less faith in human rationality than you do, so I'll probably always blame the generic "people" as much as the institutions they/we allow to remain in power. (For example, politicians--even good, idealistic ones--wouldn't have to act so duplicitous if we voted more rationally.)

@Stormyaaron: Hear Hear!! well wrote.

@Trai_Dep:
This ticks me off! I've been calling and emailing stupid Steney and many Dem's to do the right thing! Jerks....I'm working hard to make sure Steny loses his ranking....

UUUGHHHHHH!

@stopNgoBeau: @linus: @Stormyaaron: @Trai_Dep:

Maybe you can get it through your thick skulls that the wire taps are on INTERNATIONAL calls and not domestic ones, therefore no warrants needed in the first place. All this CYA is because the courts are now conferring constitutional rights to forigners.

@Bladefist:
Big fan of The Federalist Society?? Maybe?

@Booksy: but if they're talking to US citizens, wouldn't those rights apply to listening to what the Citizen said? I think that the argument stems from the fact that one end of the phone is being picked up here, and I don't think both people have to be citizens for the rights of one to apply (IE, can't go shooting illegal immigrants and then not get due process)?

@rmz:

I will bring the torches, you bring the pitch forks. This is so infuriating. Starting Saturday nobody gets to fly without a picture ID, it used to be you could refuse and still fly.
Ve need to zee ur paperz! Total bullocks.

@booksy: It is being done to US citizens making international calls. Based on how corrupt and dishonest this administration has proven to be they are probably doing domestic spying too but we just have not had someone expose it yet.

Nixonian indeed.

@booksy:
1) Since when does government NOT abuse it's powers?
2) "he NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S The taps took place on AMERICAN SOIL with AMERICAN COMPANIES also.

It also raises many issues with the President's roles defined in Article 1 and 2 in the Constitution along with the 4th Amendment. It also broke Federal Law by not seeking even getting approval from a FISA court.

@Stormyaaron:

No warrants were issued, no probable cause supported by oath or affirmation were giving. It was clearly illegal.

First of all, you quoting the fourth amendment is pointless because it wasn't the government that did the spying; it was the telecoms, which is why they are asking for immunity. Second of all, the fact that you mention the fourth amendment shows how misinformed people can be on this topic.

Government asked for the information; Telco complied with the REQUEST.

I'm not saying that rights were not violated; they clearly were. But what the bill is protecting is the argument that the telecoms were at fault. They weren't in a very legal sense.

booksy, you are correct that it was on international calls; but the calls still were on American soil. The constitution affords those same rights to anyone here in the States.

drkkgt, I'm not sure what they look at. But what's for darn sure is that they're not going to be waisting time by checking out some teenage girl texting her boyfriend about what she's wearing.

@booksy: Actually, we don't know the full scope of their wiretapping activities because they haven't come clean about what they've done.

Also even with the international calls, they orginated in the US with US citizens. So, saying it was international only is false. The truth is, we don't know who or what they've done and they won't tell us.

As others have mentioned (and Faux News and Rush Limbaugh somehow fail to mention):

1) They could have started wiretapping first and got a warrant later. There is no "ticking bomb" scenario that they keep talking about.

2) The law is clear that its the "EXCLUSIVE" way to conduct wiretapping. There are no exceptions, none. And the "inherent authority" argument loses because it would violate the 4th Amendment. That is, unless you think the Executive can do anything they want in the name of national security (e.g. take away all your property without paying for it, lock you up forever with no charges, etc.). If that's the case, then I don't think the terrorists hate us for our freedom anymore, because we don't have them.

3) This judicial review is BS. The judge is not reviewing if the program was legal or not. It is only reviewing if the the White House TOLD them it was legal. That's absurd. So I can kill a bunch of people as long as a cop says its legal. My understanding is that the Executive branch is not the judicial branch.

Anyone who sits here and says republicans are corrupt or sell out to organizations immediately goes on my list of biggest idiots.

ALL politicians are corrupt. Haven't we seen this on Consumerist?

The Republicans and the Democrats are you and me. I am not corrupt. I do not sell out to the big corporations. They are parties. They are sets of beliefs. They are political religions.

Why cant you get it? If you judge right/wrong by how the politicians of parties act, then they're all corrupt and terrible for America.

If you think your parties politicians are doing what is best for you, you should be committed.

@snoop-blog:

I think it takes a greedy snake to run for any office. It has way more to do with power and underlying motives than income, which is what draws the rest of us to our jobs. anyway, you can't please everybody, and they know that so they just please themselves.

I think reps get a bad break sometimes. They need to compromise in order to get a bill passed for "the greater good". Sure, the dems could continue to fight and bicker but ultimately, the people suffer.

I know some damn good reps and senators who take their jobs seriously. They fight an honest game and they're proud they are a part of the system. I've even thought about running because, like all of you, I'm sick and tired of old-school politics. What is clear is that if you don't like the way that things are running, every one here has the priviliage and the duty to do something about it.

they're not spying on americans

@Bladefist:

Anyone who sits here and says republicans are corrupt or sell out to organizations immediately goes on my list of biggest idiots.

HERE HERE!

I'm convinced that it's the DEMS that have the oil industry in their pockets. By preventing offshore drilling and talking about global warming, it increases gas prices in the middle east. I'm also convinced that they want to restrict guns so that the government will have more power over the people.

/semi-kidding

@linus:

It's kind of like getting immunity without having committed a crime.

Except they DID break the law, you schmuck. It's called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Look it up.

To quote the George Washington Law School's Jonathan Turley, it's like robbing a bank, then going to the legislature and getting them to pass a law legalizing bank robbery.

And you're making excuses for them. Shame on them, and shame on you.