Slashdot Mirror

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Terrorists are plotting new attacks against America "at this very moment," Bush said in renewing his call for the House to pass legislation needed to renew the intelligence law that expired last weekend.

The Bush administration said yesterday that the government "lost intelligence information" because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders.

But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program, according to an official familiar with the issue.

But even if telecoms were refusing to cooperate, the reason for their refusal was not because they don't have retroactive immunity, but rather, it's because there is alleged uncertainty over the legality of current surveillance requests, and uncertainty over the ongoing validity of the prospective immunity provided by the PAA, because the PAA expired. If the PAA had been extended, they would be completely protected with prospective immunity for future surveillance cooperation. And, of course, the PAA would not have expired had Congressional Democrats had their way -- they wanted to extend it until they could agree to a new bill. Thus, any alleged refusal on the part of telecoms to cooperate is exclusively the fault of Bush and House Republicans for forcing expiration of the PAA. That's just true as a matter of basic logic.

But leave all of that aside for a moment. Since Mike Mukasey himself just said in this letter that spying outside of FISA is "illegal," and since it's indisputable that the Bush administration did just that for years, doesn't that compel him as Attorney General to commence a criminal investigation into this "illegal" conduct?

And a large number of people in the US are on analogue.

And a large number of people in the US are on analogue.

It doesn't seem to me like a push towards world government is a concentration of power across the DIME, as you put it. Multiple levels of government can coexist independently, especially in the American-style federation. And, those levels can continue to function when they are in opposition (such as California's medical marijuana laws in defiance of Federal drug laws).

I agree that an absolutely powerful world government would be absolutely corrupt -- but I don't think anyone is suggesting that solution (Islamists aside). The UN, for example, has very little power. When governments don't agree with UN resolutions they don't have to follow them (Iraq until 2003, Iran now, North Korea, Sudan, etc). I would argue that the lack of power at a world level causes war.

The failure of the UN is in its structure. It is an oligarchy, not a federation, republic, or democracy. The 5 WWII Allies hold the rest of the world hostage for their own interests. Personal interests are a threat to liberty.

On the other hand, the American federation works extremely well and has withstood the test of time and scale better than any comparable system. I see no reason why, if a country wants to influence American policy, it shouldn't join the federation. They trade a measure (not all) of sovereignty for the right to affect the overall system. Change from within.

Really though, the Europeans see themselves as the center of history. They would no sooner join the US federation than ratify the EU's constitution. Submitting to any higher level of government would invalidate the arrogant attitude of global relevance. Belgium is no more relevant on the world scene than California. But, to admit that would be admitting the end of Charlemagne.

One final note, Mexico would probably be much better off today had they too become part of the union 150 years ago. California and Texas are doing pretty well, they have a massive say in American politics (Bush is from Texas, after all), and the Mexicans who live in the US, on average, enjoy a higher standard of living than those still in Mexico.

...he came to understand that what we now know as guerrilla warfare was the only way to fight in the American wild, and he mastered it

According the Washington Post's Citizen K Street series, it started in 1975 with Cassidy and Associates, It was the first "lobbying firm"; it's now known as the most lucrative lobbying firm in Washington. D.C. Highly recommended, if you're interested to see how lobbying morphed from pork barrel for universities into the almost complete pimping of the US Legislature into a tool for wielding corporate power as we know it today.

ObWarning: It's 25 chapters long plus an introduction, there's a fair amount of Flash intros, and some of it is downright disgusting.

"Today, the National Association of Home Builders' Political Action Committee, BUILD-PAC, and its 150-member Board of Trustees representing all 50 states, agreed to cease all approvals and disbursements of BUILD-PAC contributions to federal congressional candidates and their PACs until further notice.

"This extraordinary action was taken because the NAHB BUILD-PAC Board of Trustees felt that over the past six months Congress and the Administration have not adequately addressed the underlying economic issues that would help to stabilize the housing sector and keep the economy moving forward. Housing and related industries account for more than 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. More needs to be done to jump-start housing and ensure the economy does not fall into a recession. This action will remain in effect until further notice."

The crux of the matter is the homebuilders wanted Congress to pass a new tax law for them, and only them, which would allow them to offset their past profits with future losses. Congress didn't do this when they implemented their debt-increasing package (er, stimulus package) and so the PAC has stomped off like a mad three year old, taking its money with it.

What is Lessig's opinion of such legalized bribery and how does he intend to compensate for it?

Links to the NAHB PAC announcement may be found here and from The Washington Post.

You can not "limit influence of money" without trampling the First Amendment-provided right to free speech. McCain-Feingold did just this, but it does not make it right (it is the primary grudge against McCain, in fact)...

Funny, how the same people, who complain about First Amendment violations almost all the time — right to sell porn, right to distribute copyrighted (by someone else) material, right to create/publish law-breaking software are all deemed protected by the same Amendment by these people — not only fail to see this trampling, but actually demand more of it... Or, rather, it would've been funny, if it weren't sad.

I thought more of Lessig...

Yes, they have a very good reason to keep it secret--it's illegal, and they'd go to jail if it was openly admitted they were doing it. If people had to face what their govt was doing, they'd be guilted into asking for action. Why do you think Bush demanded amnesty/immunity for interrogators? You don't talk about amnesty or immunity for something you know to be legal. The national security argument doesn't make torture okay. Saddam no doubt thought it was vital to his national security to gas the Kurds.

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html

you know, economically speaking it is inevitable these things will be researched, like chemical weapons (some of which turn you gay in the foxhole), pentagon contingency plans for aliens showing up and cheating with electronic voting. too much upside to ignore the possibility, or too ominous to not aggressively understand.

it does sound like an interesting line of research, no?

Senator Clinton does not support delaying the Constellation program and intends to maintain American leadership in space exploration.

Agreed. That could *never* happen. It wouldn't be like a pissing match between say, China: http://www.space.com/news/070119_china_asat_response.html and the US: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021401704.html?nav=hcmodule

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Just because your TV tells you that you're the smartest, doesn't mean it's true.

yawp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

America is suffering from anti-rationalism

There has to be something really embarrassing for Bush that will come out unless "telecom immunity" passes.

Yes indeed, but it's not hidden. It's been well-documented that the Bush Administration engaged in warrantless surveillance outside of the law, and the court cases that would be affected by immunity relate directly to this.

Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...

The director of D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams's constituent services office resigned after being accused of using a racial slur, the mayor's office said yesterday.

David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate, said he used the word "niggardly" in a Jan. 15 conversation about funding with two employees.

"I used the word 'niggardly' in reference to my administration of a fund," Howard said in a written statement yesterday. "Although the word, which is defined as miserly, does not have any racial connotations, I realize that staff members present were offended by the word.

"I immediately apologized," Howard said. " . . . I would never think of making a racist remark. I regret that the word I did use offended anyone."

Which is not to say that civilians getting caught in the middle between two warring sides is anything new or novel, but the least we could do is not try to dismiss it by implying they deserve to get killed.

Someone is implying that Iraqis deserve to get killed? I doubt it is the US military. They seem to be working pretty hard to help Iraq rebuild and protect Iraqis from terrorism.

Focus On Projects That Put Iraqis Back to Work
Market Fair Helps Baghdad Residents Plan for Economic Future
Soldiers Provide Aid to Orphanage
Coalition, Iraqi Army Bring the Heat, Fuel Iraqi Fires
Work Resumes at Water Treatment Plant for Al-Zeirji Town
Police transition teams help Iraqi police take back streets
506th RCT Soldiers Distribute School Supplies to Iraqi Children
Streams of water bring progress, hope to village
More Electricity Projects Improving Lives in Dhi Qar Province
Marines Launch Rescue Effort to Save 3-year-old Hadithah Girl
Soldiers Work With Poultry Growers to Revitalize Chicken Industry

Maybe it is the extremists and insurgents that you are thinking of. After all, Al Qaeda considers the Shia heretics, and most of the Sunnis in Iraq as traitors, and wants to kill them both.

Tribal force in Iraq target of attacks
Bus bomb kills five in bustling market
Teenage Bomber Strikes In Anbar - Suicide Attack Targets Meeting Of Tribal Leaders
Female suicide bombers shatter Baghdad calm
Bin Laden's trained children of death
US Says Iraq Car Bomb Kills 23 Civilians

How about saving lives by not using air-strikes in densely populated civilian neighbourhoods?

If you want to reduce fatalities from explosions in Iraqi neighborhoods, why not take a stand against things that really happen instead of imaginary problems? The explosions that are killing significant numbers of Iraqi civilians are from bus, truck, and car bombs and suicide bomb attacks conducted by Al Qaeda and other extremists, not imaginary US air strikes. This isn't exactly an obscure fact. Politically unpalatable to some, but not obscure.

is worth exactly zero

So let me get this straight, you think warrantless wiretapping is a good thing?

FYI: This amendment was to _block_ telecom immunity. Obama voted to block immunity, Clinton didn't vote and McCain (as well as every other republican) voted for immunity. This link was posted up the thread a bit. It lists who voted how.

Vote description: Dodd Amdt. No. 3907; To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

As linked in another post. Obama voted to strike the immunity clause from the bill.

NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.

I admit that it's disappointing that there hasn't been more of a change.

Still, it may be worth noting that a majority of democrats voted against, while a majority of republicans voted for it. Interestingly, Obama was against, while Hillary simply avoided voting. I guess she's too busy campaigning or something.

Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up.

In case you're curious of how the respective candidates for president voted on the amendment to block retroactive immunity:

McCain: No
Obama: Yes
Clinton: Did not vote

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

"It is rational to consider future enemy capabilities and try to preempt them."

It wasn't preemption, it was murder. Operation Iraqi Freedom scanned a whole lot better than Largest Act of War Ever Even Counting What We Threw At Bin Laden. The decision to invade Iraq was made with the knowledge that the Iraqi standing army posed no serious threat to anyone. Period. Don't take my word for it, take Colin Powell's.

You bring up the weak Iraqi missile program, and then explain why it wouldn't have been needed to deliver `WMD'. Drop one letter grade right there. Perhaps you didn't know that the missle program existed mostly on the back of cocktail napkins after initial attempts to break the 150 km limit were discovered and destroyed, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/01/07/AR2005040204936_5.html. But you completely forgot to mention that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, nor any long range missiles, and officials in both the White House and the Pentagon knew it.

Waterboarding's effectiveness is not mitigated by experience with it. Your post contains lies and misrepresentations from start to finish.

Waterboarding

Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact.

Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's? A little fact like that just might piss some people off.

Here is my little paranoid fantasy of why the US invaded Iraq. First, there is oil. The US has enough, but the powers that be want more. Second, there is this little quote by President George W. Bush: "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Thus a personal vendetta that has killed thousands of American solders. Killed many, many more Iraqi civilians. Left a wake of casualties.

Wake the fuck up.

Umm, no. Environmentalists were always huge opponents to Biofuel. The main reason I was skeptical about biofeul was because if all the Environmentalists are opposed to something that politicians say "will help the environment", something seemed pretty wrong. When Bush last visited Brazil there were Environmentalists protesting his visit. Why? Because Bush was supporting biofeul and biofeul companies were cutting down their rainforests for sugarcane. Here's an article about environmentalists opposing biofuel because it would damage the bay that I found in about 2 seconds, you can find stuff like this everywhere: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601845.html Environmentalists have always been the staunchest opponents of biofuel that I've seen (though of course probably not for the same reasons you may have opposed it). I know they tend to also be nuts and are easy to make fun of, but it looks like they got it right for once. At first I thought your post was probably meant as a troll but when you got a (5 interesting) from an ignorant rant about something you apparently know nothing about, it seems that you aren't the only one to base their perception of environmentalists on what politicians say rather than what environmentalists actually say.

The Secret Service is in your color laserprinter. The Federal Reserve and a group of international bankers are in your commercial image manipulation programtelecom equipement. And there's plenty of other examples like backdoor passwords in consumer grade router/switches, Cisco IOS, What you jokingly dismiss is entirely plausible and probable.

I think I'd have to agree with you there. I can certainly understand why some people might be dissatisfied with the situation.

Seriously, the US used to have a moral high ground on these sort of issues, but those days are gone. It's all "pot, kettle, black." now.

Some famous guy once said "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "You see the mote in your brother's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you cast the beam out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to cast the mote from your brother's eye." and a few other often ignored things. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from this guy? Like clean our own house before we try to clean everyone elses? I don't hate the US. I just want it to be better than it is. Recognition is the first step to redemption (followed closely by positive action).

See National "security" letters for a start.

More here

W/r/t to those reformations that "Christianity has promoted" I will refer you to the Christopher Hitchens challenge. The flaw in your argument is that is asserts that religion was in someway responsible for these good things you list, when in fact in every case they could have been done absent a component of religion. In any good thing religion is never a prerequisite, while for many bad things it is.

From a Hitchen's op-ed:

"Here is my challenge... Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html

This is just a really, really bad idea for anyone to actually use.

I dated a girl once who had a jerk for an ex-boyfriend. He had gotten her hotmail password and started forwarding emails from her account to me and others in an attempt to make her life hell, and changed the password so she couldn't lock him out. It was annoying but she simply created a new Yahoo email account, told her parents that someone had hacked her account, and went on with her life, but if all of her online activities (banking, flickr account, etc) were tied into that account he could really have made her life pure hell.

Now imagine a brutal policeman with access to government systems tied in to the Open ID system and you can see a lot of real nasty potential problems -- if he dates any women and they break up with him or even threaten to, sucks to be them. And government systems are naturally going to be tied in to this thing. It doesn't have to be a policeman -- all you need is a bad roommate or a failed relationship or someone breaking into your house while you're still logged in.

If you don't think the government would be interested in this, here's a link to a clip of failed presidential candidate Rudi Giulani advocating the idea

The Department of Homeland Security also now thinks that online services like "Second Life" are terrorist threats

The Pentagon also seems to think that the Internet needs to be treated as an enemy weapons system

So once this idea gets going and you actually only had one password through "Open ID" for all your services, there would now be at least a hundred easy ways for anyone to make your life hell once they got that information. Government or not, you have now made your entire online life vulnerable to a single point of failure (or tracking).

Stay away. Stay far, far away.

Hmm well after googling then it appears that currently it is legal to use any strength of encryption in the US, thought it is illegal to export certain products if they have good levels of encryption, and law enforcement is against people using strong encryption (for obvious reasons) (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryption/encryption.htm ). I was sure I'd read before on /. that it was illegal to use encryption that was over a certain strength, but maybe that wasn't for the US, or it was only being proposed rather than being actual law..

"Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself."

Then explain why you were checking all the Iranian sites. "Oh, the cable, of course. Please step over here sir."

You realize that was a special 3 year deal. Up until that point they paid zilch.. their flying stock was supposed to be "profit" enough for shareholders.

here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A232-2004Jul20.html

or look here: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx

to see that they haven't been doing it very long... under 50 cents per year on a $60 investment isn't very good. My electric company pays better and they're far smaller and the stock cheaper.

Considering Microsoft makes upwards of 80 cents on the dollar PROFIT for some products (tune of tens of billions profit a year), they should be paying the owners a lot better than they do. Actually, looking around no companies pay good dividends... who cares about the price, I want interest for my money.. if I had some...

How about silly things like real working public transportation?

For some reason here in the USA public transportation is considered evil.

We're too busy using our tax dollars to subsidize the American road system. And then we use our tax dollars to defend the American overseas oil interests, so that we can drive cars on those expensive roads.

I live in the SF Bay Area, and I've been commuting to work on Bike, Bart or Buses for the last 10 years. Despite what many people think, this is possible and it is pretty easy-- *if* the infrastructure exists.

Iran is a net exporter of crude oil and a net importer of refined motor gasoline. The USA is a net importer of crude oil and a net exporter of refined motor gasoline. Iran has no refineries. They subsidize the cost of gasoline based of the exports of oil. Gasoline is really really cheap in Iran. Some of the data is a little old that I found.. so things could be slightly different now. sources: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_a.htm http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_imp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_a.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/03/AR2005070301042_2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

A bit late on the reply, but here goes. Nobel prizes aren't awarded for just being a stand-up guy or any nonsense like that. They're awarded for what are perceived as very real accomplishments. In Arafat's case (he was, you might note, one of three recipients of that Nobel award), it was for specific peace negotiations that, although ultimately unsuccessful, were arguably tremendously worthwhile endeavors. In Al Gore's case, the prize was awarded for furthering global knowledge about global warming.

Also, your claim that "real scientists have been scrambling to distance themselves from" his film is total bullshit as far as I'm aware. Maybe some are, but as far as I'm aware the vast majority of climate scientists back him. Nice attempts at ad hominem attacks in your post though...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34742-2004Jun11.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkcVXIhssCI

This is just as much about adults as it is about kids. Most humans have urges to have sex they can't hold indefinitely. Abstinence will prevent HIV, STDs and unwanted pregnancies in theory, but it is impossible actually to put into practice. Do you actually know anyone who will abstain from sex their whole life ? And if you are talking about abstinence before marriage, as is apparently taught in some places, that excludes a whole category of people who can't get married - gays, and who are most at risk for HIV. Also, some straight girls who pledged to remain "virgins" before marriage have substituted intercourse with other even higher-risk behavior like anal sex because they just don't know any better.

What we need a comprehensive sex education program that focuses on safe sex, contraception, and preventing STDs/HIV. I don't think abstinence should deserve more than a footnote in such a program because we already know teaching it alone doesn't work.

Note that 16 states have already rejected funds for abstinence-only education, the most recent of which being Arizona.

FYI :
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php
http://www.avert.org/abstinence.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/221980
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/reproductive_rights/2008/01/ariz-gov-napoli.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

Because trying to get people to abstain from sex just doesn't work.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9831189
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18136717/
http://thegodcomplex.blogspot.com/2007/12/abstinence-only-education-does-not-work.html

• The Obama campaign has renewed my sense of patriotism, long buried under the cynical misuse of patriotism as a cudgel to suppress honest debate and dissent. If you haven't seen it yet, this video captures in four minutes much of the feelings his campaign has rekindled for me.
  
• After the last seven years, I want to feel proud of America again, and help send a message that we as a nation reject torture, fear-based authoritarianism, an unaccountable executive, ideologically-driven anti-science policies, and indefinite war with a constantly changing mission.
  
• I believe Barack Obama is the strongest candidate, with the best chance of garnering enough support across parties, races, genders, religions (including us atheists!), and regions to actually credibly claim a mandate for change. He has a proven record of bringing diverse interests together to get meaningful legislation passed: when he authored a law that required the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases, prosecutors and police adamantly opposed the bill, as well as the governor and most legislators who wanted to look tough on crime. But Obama led a campaign to get it passed, and a key element of that was to quietly but effectively bring together prosecutors, public defenders, police organizations, and death penalty opponents work out an agreement that all groups could endorse. Eventually, the bill was passed unanimously and became law. (the American Bar Association later unanimously adopted a similar resolution)
  
• Despite being considered a visionary, Obama is very conservative (in the traditional Burkean sense), with a pragmatic, minimalist, and consensus-based approach to government.

Citing this, if Al-qaeda is attacking the internet in the middle-east then that would mean, they are conducting their cyberspace operations from non-middle-east countries. US/Europe maybe?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503261_pf.html

Well, obviously, the White House ordered these attacks. They've been trying to delay the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse for years and now that it is finally almost here, and their plans to invade Iran are dwindling, this is all they can do. And sadly, I'm sure it will work, too. That's how they prop up the US Dollar -- For the past 50 years, there have been only 2 places in the entire world where one can legally buy oil and both require US Dollars. Now, that will remain the case for another year. Of course, Russia is working on it, too as well as Venezuela, but they're a long way off and lots can go wrong between now and then. Maybe another military invasion? :o(