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.'"

Comments

Re:Republicans!

[Mongoose Disciple]

Both parties are full of shit. Although it appears that Republicans are simply more full of shit than Democrats at the moment. Don't confuse me with a Democrat, it's just much easier to criticize a party when it owns all three branches of the government.

Amen to that. The question is, how do we take our country back from these yahoos?

I mean, I'm all for voting out the particular yahoos who decided this was a good idea and are telling me the government needs to spy on me without due process for my own safety. No question about that. But does that really effect long-term change in government and how it does things?

Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away. Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?

I love this country, but it kills me to see where it's going and what it's doing. There's got to be a way to fix it, but I don't know what that would be.

that old gag

[BitterAndDrunk]

As has been said over and over and over - warrants could already be gotten retroactively, and most of the 4th amendment restrictions have already been broadened over the last 4 decades. If the gov't wants to tap someone, they can already.

But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.

Re:Campaing finance reform + voting reform

[crazyeddie740]

Jeppe Salvesen said, "[A needed reform is c]ampaign finance, because the money dependency in politics means those with money get to dictate/influence policy. After all, the politicians feel more accountable to the donors than they do to the public. With enough money, the politicians can just buy the necessary amount of advertising - and they will get that money if donors know the representative delivers the votes & influence in Congress the donors' agenda requires."

Here's a simple reform - get rid of political ads on TV. It's long been established that broadcast media isn't as protected as print or speech - hence the lack of boobies on TV. The vast majority (or at least plurality) of campaigning budgets goes to TV ads. Most campaign finance reform goes after the supply - limiting how much donors can donate. That, to me, is a recipe for corrupt end runs around the law. This reform, on the other hand, would go after the demand side. Donors could give as much as they want - or at least as much as they can under the current rules - but the politicians wouldn't need them as much. That hopefully would mean that they would be more willing to represent the people, not the corporations. It would also even out the playing field for grassroots candidates, who have popularity but no war chest - the difference in funds wouldn't make as big of a difference on election day.

The problem with this reform is that you would need an act of congress - I don't see the FCC doing this on their own initiative.