Should the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) include immunity for telecom companies?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Let's turn this one loose.  Great finishing touch.

Nice work.

For some pf evidence on the other side:

See here for law enforcement take, or here for Arlen Specter's substitution act.

This certainly looks timely and controversial, so I think it's a go. I have only two minor suggestions. 

Should we spell out Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? I know it's a mouthful, but some users coming across this in a list of stands won't necessarily immediately recognize FISA, and it should be spelled out. 

And whether or not you spell it out, "Act" and "bill" are redundant. 

"Should the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act include immunity for telecom companies?"

In addition, from Reuters:

A major clash point is the House Democrats' refusal to grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity from invasion-of-privacy suits over any participation in a secret warrantless surveillance program launched by Bush after the September 11 attacks.

The White House said the immunity is critical to winning future cooperation from phone companies. For instance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group, sued telephone giant AT&T Inc last year and accused it of illegally allowing the government to monitor phone calls and e-mails.

According to a New York Times editorial, Bush's stance was solidified:

Mr. Bush says the law should give immunity to communications companies that gave data to the government over the last five years without a court order. He says they should not be punished for helping to protect America, but what Mr. Bush really wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.

We need clear evidence of someone saying it should be.  I know Mike McConnell and the Bush Admin. lobbied for it but they didn't publicly take a stand on it.

This looks fine.

Updated wording looks good...

....as long as the evidence about the filibuster does in fact deal with telecommunciations

cool, I like the shortened wording

TP

Russ Feingold: Former Attorney General John Ashcroft leaves out a crucial point when he argues that telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program should be shielded from lawsuits.

What about, "Should the FISA bill include immunity for telecom companies?"

Remember, on the new site we're going to have a "commentary" or "about" feature to provide background on the issue.  Those following the issue will know what we're talking about because this is how it's stated throughout the blogosphere at least.  Those who are unsure can do a little research.

I think we need to include FISA though. 

I'm not sure about he "illegally" part either, but I think Jenna's revision works OK.

Maybe:  "Should telecom companies that gave away personal information on their customers without authorization receive immunity?"

Good issue.  Let's see if we can de-mouthful-ize it...

"Should telecom companies that illegally gave away personal information on their customers receive immunity?"

As far as I can tell, it WAS illegal, but I'm not quite sure of that.

TPM

MoveOn is teaming up with some of the netroots blogs to pressure Clinton and Obama to oppose telecom immunity.

Late Update: Obama camp issues statement supportive of Sen. Chris Dodd's threatened filibuster of telecom immunity.

Late Late Update: Hillary issues statement saying she'd support filibuster of current bill. --gs

issue prior to revisions:

Okay, can you say mouthful?  This is a big deal at least on the Democratic side in the race for President. Help?

ABC News' Eloise Harper: Speaking to reporters in Denver, CO Senator Clinton (D-NY) said that she would back a filibuster for the controversial FISA bill. "As matters stand now I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."

Senator Dodd (D-CT) has said he would block a Senate vote on the bill. Dodd said he would use his senatorial hold power to prevent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation for being considered by the full Senate.

issue prior to revisions: