Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping
inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"
For those who saw my post yesterday about the Senate torture/habeas corpus bill... An amendment toning the bill down was rejected early in the day, and then the bill in its full-strength, scary form was passed and will be signed into law by the President shortly:
i -0609290178sep29,1,1387725.story?coll=chi-newsnati onworld-hed0 60928.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ch
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs20
So, a bill legalizing wiretapping would just be par for the course for this government.
Oh, and welcome to the police state . You may not notice any difference at first... but sooner or later it's probably safe to say that you will.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
The key word is shown in bold. I think if you are calling a disposable phone located in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan from a disposable phone, listening in is not that unreasonable to me.
Besides, I don't have a problem with them listening in, it's what they do with the information that matters to me. Do they stop a terrorists attack, I'm all for it. Do that publish what they learned or try to use it in court, I have a problem with that. It's not the gathering of information that is dangerous, it's what they decide to do with that info.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
One difference between an "occupation force" and an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" is that you can generally tell who the members of the occupation force are and you can tell when they go away and the threat is gone.
Wouldn't it be easier to give up certain liberties to the government to fight an occupation force because you know :
a) who the exceptional powers the government now has is to be used against and
b) when the threat has passed so those powers can be taken away from the government again (assuming they are willing to give them back up).
With an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" how do you know who to use the powers against? There will be obvious targets but due to the nature of the threat there will be very non-obvious targets who look for all the world like ordinary citizens. Are you willing to face the force of those powers yourself so the government can fight the good fight? or are you just happy for other citizens to do so as long is it isn't you (because after all, you have nothing to hide).
And who says when the threat has passed? There is no invading army at the border to tell the threat is still there so when does the government give up its special powers granted to it to fight the bad guys? What if the powers that be decide the threat has never passed?
I think it would be much easier to give up some rights to fight an invading force than terrorist type threat. So if you wouldn't give them up for an invading force you definately shouldn't in this case.
Individually there is very little that we can do but, collectively, people can make a huge difference. For proof just look to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and other organized groups of the Religious Right. You do not have to agree with them to see that they have made significant changes to the United States. Only the foolish and/or ignorant would deny the power of well organized groups with cohesive messages and clear goals. (Google these groups and see what I'm talking about).
Feel powerless? You are not alone. Feel like your voice doen't matter? By itself one vote rarely does. But collectively, people can move mountains (politically speaking).
Try joining these groups so they can speak for you in matters you care about and know about (and those you don't know about but would care if you did):
1) ACLU
2) EFF
3) Judicial Watch
4) MoveOn.org
5) Amnesty International
6) Union of Concerned Scientists
The list goes on and on and on.
I'm a member of one, two and four and I can't say I *always* agree with everything they do, but I do most of the time for most of the things they do.
Stand up, speak out, ally yourself with groups that share your values and be heard for a change (literally and figuratively speaking).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Unreasonable -> without reason -> without merit
Hence, a warrant so that a judge can decide if the tap has merit. Your argument, like many preceding it, assumes that once they have the information there is any way of stopping them from doing anything with it. The floodgates are open at that point.. it's too late. The information is out in the open and can go anywhere.
Saying that the potential for abuse is reason to do without is absurd. Anything can be potentially abused. The police is a prime example. What is to stop the police chief from taking over a city? The military? OK, what's to stop Rumsfield from taking over? The potential for abuse exists, should we do away with the police and the military? Of course not. This can be said for anything. A hammer can be abused, should they be banned? It's not the tool I have a problem with, it's the abuse. So until I see an abuse taking place, I have no problem with it. While I have not seen the gov't abuse us the data they have already retrieved, I have the terrorist abuse the rights we all have. While I'm not saying we should do away with our rights, there are some adjustments that should be made. I'm willing to give up the asumption of a private phone call overseas for security.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
which were to be the other "compare" that goes with the Enabling Act.
If you're not aware of Bush's signing statements, see this.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Not that the government needs to specify a new way to loose your citizenship. All they have to do now is:
1 - Declare you a unlawful enemy combatant (with no congressional or judicial oversight).
2 - Torture you until you're coerced into renouncing your citizenship before a U.S. consular officer.
3 - Enter you into the military comission (torture) system.
Now, the torture step is currently illegal if you're a US citizen. However, once step 3 is complete you lose access to any civilian court which would hold the government accountable and find your renouncement invalid (as it was coerced).
I don't believe that the systems that limit the scope of the surveillance are sufficiently accurate to only select calls of interest. I think they're casting a wide net, and keeping as much data as possible.
Actually, these are limited to calls overseas. While that is a wide net, it is still limited. And I don't think you have a bank of NSA employees with recorders, pencil and paper listening to every overseas call made. I'm sure the system is automated with a machine listening for keywords and watching for calls made to "hot" areas where terrorists are known to exist.
And if by "stopping a terrorist attack", that means "erroneously break into your house, zip tie you and your family, and deport you to Syria", is that still OK?
Absolutely not! Breaking into your house, zip tieing my family and so on effects my life and the life of my family. Listening to calls to Pakistan has no effect on my life whatsoever. Hell, I don't even know if they are listening, how can it have any effect?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Have you watched congressional proceedings lately. You have a congressperson or senator giving an impaasioned plea for/against legislation, then the camera pulls back and you see there's virtually no one in the room. It's so discouraging to see this. It used to be that the congressional auditorium was always packed.
I read that the founding fathers actually had a prediction for how long our democracy would last before reverting to some sort of monarchy. They did their best to put checks in place to prevent this but as you can see by recent events, this is no guarantee. I believe some predicted a couple hundred years was hopeful.
and yes, I am worried.
Watch, listen, read and vote in November as if your life depends upon it.
I mean one party already makes those promises, but in fact does the opposite. Many voters just don't seem to notice.
1. Get elected on promises to shrink government.
2. Lie us into war.
3. Expand government like nobody else has before.
4. Blame the expansion on the war.
5. PROFIT!!!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Associating with someone doesn't mean anything really.
So, according your rules, if Achmed in Chicago calls Osama BinLaden's phone in Pakistan, it doesn't mean anything really? I think associations mean quite a bit here. Now I'm not saying Achmed should be arrested for calling BinLaden, but I think the gov't should at least know what is being said. For that matter, I don't even think that government should even approach Achmed in this case unless some sort of attack is being planned. But my whole point is, how is the gov't supposed to know what is being planned unless they listen in? Achmed may be calling buy some goats for his grandmother who lives in Pakistan, but unless the gov't knows that, he's going to be on a watch list just for making the call. People can be cleared just as easily as they can be implicated with this. But to NOT even listen because he might be buying goats is a bit naive. That's like saying the guy wearing the ski mask in the bank might just be cold.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Democrats are every bit in the pockets of the "big aristocracy" as the Republicans.