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.'"
Bullshit. This isn't about terrorists, it's about my privacy and my rights as an American. The true test is whether or not our leaders are competent enough to defeat terrorism without destroying the laws and rights that made this country great.
Offering other means to fight terrorists is not 'coddling' them. And voting 'yes' just for the sake of being able to vote 'yes' would be an even larger problem. My message to congress: engage brain before voting. I would rather have everything scrutinized than making progress for the sake of making progress. When you gather 100 people from different parts of the country together, there's bound to be more than a few that have reasons not to vote 'yes' or 'no.' That's called Democracy and that's how it's supposed to work.
What is it with Republicans and their extreme views? The world isn't black and white. You can't tell me that by fearing for my civil rights I'm less able to combat terrorism. And what the hell is up with this tunnel vision of one and only one option on nearly every issue? Stop being selective about revealing consequences! This might help you fight terrorism but it's also going to give you powers that the wrong government officials could abuse! You cannot deny this so stop sidestepping it.
My work here is dung.
does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
Calls between foreigners and Americans include Americans and are thus totally covered by the 4th Amendment.
What's so hard about that?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Big Brother's just being lazy- he's about 22 years later than he was s'posed to be.
In all honesty, each and every Senator that voted "Yes" to this needs to be removed
from office ASAP- they took a damn oath of office and they just broke it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You have correctly identified the problem: both the Democrats and the Republicans. That's the first step, and I'm glad you have made it. But now what are you going to do? Just rant here on Slashdot? That won't accomplish very much.
I am very glad that many Americans today are seeing the core problems. But what's needed is Americans who will protest. Americans who will take a real stand against the wrongs they see committed in their names. Are you one of those Americans?
Here is the House record on who voted for and against HR 5825.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Funny how an administration who prides itself in defending freedom is the greatest threat to freedom. Illegal wiretaps, torture, suspension of habeous corpus, secret prisons, and kangeroo courts are the markings of tyranny --- not freedom.
When all else fails, run.
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
I just love this argument. You must choose: Your supposed freedoms or DEATH?
I think this argument should be used at every end of the political spectrum. Which do you want, Net Neutrality or DEATH?
By the way, Mr. Coward, I believe the american revolutionaries answer to the question of liberty or death would be the latter.
Call your representative in the House (or check their web site) and find out how he/she voted. If s/he voted for the bill make sure to vote for another candidate if the seat is up for election in Nov.
Normally I wouldn't say to vote for or against a candidate based on only one issue. But this bill is unconstitutional and anyone who voted for it is disregarding our rights and the constitution itself and is therefore unfit as a representative. Please vote accordingly.
Developers: We can use your help.
If it can't be delivered to Bush by Nov 7th, the midterm elections could make a significant diffeence in whether this is approved.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
For you will surely receive it. If there's one thing slashdotters love, it's a simple bumper-sticker slogan that makes everyone feel better.
Yet we all cede various amounts of "essential liberty" for safety - temporary and permanent.
We do not drive as we wish to ensure proper order on the roads (we hold to the proper lane... well... most of us).
We cede liberty to do as we wish when we want to constantly. Building codes, taxes, standards, all interfere with us doing precisely what we wish to do.
Certainly there is a question here between "liberty" and "essential liberty" - is it essential to drive precisely as we wish? - but the fact remains that giving up liberty allows for order.
Quoting Ben Franklin is wonderful and all, but can one quote another founding father in response?
"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain." - George Washington
We can play dueling quotes all we want - do the "pains" Washington mentions include potential conflicts of interest with civil liberties? - but until a mature discussion that doesn't depend on what men said well over 200 years ago out of the present context comes up, I don't think it will be very productive.
At present, I have no opinion on the bill as I have yet to read it and do not trust the media's ability to interpret anything correctly. When I have a chance, I'll read it and some more insightful (non-blog, non-mass media) commentary and then form an opoinion.
Not that I can think of. The Duopoly has no desire for reform - the current system works just fine for their interests. Alternate systems such as Condorcet voting offer honest chances to all candidates, forcing them to compete on the strength of their platforms and ideals. To get someone in who wants reform, you have to work within the current system to elect someone outside the Duopoly. But the current system is unlikely to get that person without reform. It's catch-22 - but you'll never get anything if you don't try! Vote for any party that promises to shrink the size and scope of government and remove power from the gov't to restore it to the people. You may not agree with them 100%, but if the goal is to shrink gov't, they'll have less ability to do those things that you disagree with.
And isn't that the whole point?
Constitutionally Correct
The torture one is. The sad thing is it may be too late as it is about to be passed into law (Only Bush has to sign it).
Basically it will do the following.
- Free Bush from any warcrimes (backdated)
- Remove Habeus Corpus. This means you can be detained for your life and never be charged of any crime or even see a courtroom.
- Allows the use of torture (as long as it is the US doing it)
- Allows extraordinary rendition to continue.
The fun part is that these only apply to non-Americans. But wait theres more! All the US government has to do is declare you a non-combatant and according to this bill you automatically loose your citizenship.
Of course they would only ever use this on terrorists and at least this way we will never need to worry about them ever doing this to an innocent person.
No, there is a difference:
The U.S. government is here, it has an infrastructure and oversight over communications, the economy, law enforcement, social services, and the most potent reservoir of arms (small and large) in the world. It engages in transactions of every kind (economic, social, political) numbering in the billions every week.
The "terrorists" are an ill-defined, not-very-well-armed group of people that the government would like you to be afraid of. They engage in at most several hundred random transactions all over the world in a given year.
The U.S. oligarchy would like to use fear of the terrorists to keep you and the public from fearing what they are doing. Whether this takes the form of your being so afraid of the terrorists that you can't focus on anything else, or whether it takes the form of your deciding that there is nothing at all to be afraid of/all fears are equally invalid, they don't care.
They're just happy you're not watching to see what they're doing. Anyone who reads the bills in question and doesn't realize that this is a power grab has a truly naive belief in American Exceptionalism and the uniquely benign nature of the American military-industrial aristocracy vis-a-vis those in the rest of the world.
There is a big difference between the government and the terrorists: the government is big, it's powerful, and now it owns you.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil Disobedience.
Use TrueCrypt with the AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI encryption for those partitions.
For phones, you could look into encryption handsets or telephone scramblers. There's this one too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.
Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.
With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy, Tor and i2p and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
Now its OUR turn.
You take from us, we take back.
Using the nonsensical word "Islamo-fascist" should disqualify you from any discussion. There's no relation between fascists and terrorists, that's just a made up word to create more irrational fear.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Don't you think it would be nicer if you didn't have to engage in an arms race with your own government that you (i.e. the electorate of the USA) appointed?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
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.
And let's not forget that fewer than 3,000 Americans died from the 9/11 attacks. The flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year, according to the CDC. The flu. So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight an "islamo-fascist" movement that is so dire, so dreadful in nature that 5 years ago it killed less than 1/10 as many as are killed by the flu every year? That's the plan? Wow, that isn't stupid at all.
I immediately see how a problem that, over a 5 year span of time, was less than 1/50 (that's less than 2%, mind you) as deadly as the damned flu virus warrants a watering-down of habeus corpus, a precedent of selective exemption from judicial review, and the steady erosion not just of old-fashioned civil rights, but of the very idea of checks and balances that was intended to keep us free. Who needs any of that outdated crap? Oh, wait, I forget, our forefathers were thinking with a pre 9-11 mentality! Now it all makes sense! To follow what the forefathers wanted would be to give in to the terrorists! Am I doing okay here?
It's not going to make the terrorists that want to kill Americans go away. The US not doing anything during the 1990s didn't stop them from bombing the Cole or the first unsuccessful World Trade Center bombing. We didn't do anything then, and they just kept coming.
Hello, Mr. Goddamn Liar, nice to meet you.
The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.
At this point, a vote for a Democrat is just to stop everything is the "solution". That's the hope of a lot of those on the left
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Seeing as how the longer we stay there, the worse things get, the more terrorists attacks there are, and the more this war costs, that seems like a good fucking idea to me. "STAY THE COURSE! CUT AND RUN!" I have an idea! Know what would fight terrorism! You hitting yourself in the hammer! Just once, mind you. Oh wait, that didn't stop terrorism? Try it again! In fact, KEEP trying it! It'll work! GEORGE BUSH said so!So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes. Maybe they'll stick. Maybe people will forget what a fascist sack of shit George Bush is. Then again maybe it'll turn around and bite you in the fucking ass because while you're all gung-ho over the GOP and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to, the values and treasure of your country are being willfully destroyed by those same people you so worshipfully defend.
Have a nice day, see you October 5th.
How is it FUD? FUD is calling every fucking thing that you don't agree with "Terrorism". FUD is labeling everyone that doesn't agree with you a "Terrorist". FUD is calling every country that has Extremists as HARBORING "Terrorists". FUD is creating a bill and labeling it "Anti-Terrorist" just to get the fucking thing passed.
So in the above list, what makes you think that a statement made against the current government wouldn't be "labeled" as a Terrorist, "just to make sure". Where would your law suite be? Think you would still win? YOU were just labeled a "Potential" terrorist, who is going to back YOU, now.
This is what SCARES the piss out of me. What country do we live in again? The terrorists ARE WINNING. They have the perfect patsy in GW, he reacted EXACTLY the way they expected. He is promoting Terror more than the Terrorists EVER could.
Until he realizes this, they ARE WINNING.
How many freedoms do we have to "Give up" in the name of feeling safe?
Scott Carr
The only way things could ever change back to the way they were, the only way we would have to be cautious about how much power we give government, is if a Democrat is elected. Then, yes, it follows that power corrupts, and is inimical to freedom. But until that day, don't get stuck in a pre 9/11 mentality. If you need me to repeat it a few more times for effect, I can. Sorry about not being good enough at HTML to have a flag waving in the background as you read this.
I absolutely can't believe that such a term has come into common use. It boggles the mind. For everyone, here is a definition of fascism from Wikipedia:
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Sound like any government we know?
Now, for the historical parallels to Germany, that everyone who doesn't know their history ridicules. Please feel free to read about:
The Weimar Republic (compare to today's polical and esp. economic situation)
The Reichstag Fire (compare to 9/11)
The Enabling Act (compare to current legislation on torture, wiretapping, habeas, etc.)
Does any of this sound familiar? Hello? Perhaps people need to realize that those comparing Nazi Germany and the United States are not pulling the comparison out of thin air... unlike those trying to compare Al Qaeda and the Nazis, which have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
What the fuck is this "Stay the course" bullshit?
A PLAN has things like:
#1. Milestones
#2. Budget
#3. Criteria for success
#4. Timeline
If we aren't hitting the milestones on time and on budget, then the plan needs to be re-evaluated and possibly dumped.
So far, all I've seen out of Bush and Co is:
#1. When we kill/capture Mr. X, things will improve.
#2. When the Iraqis do Y, things will improve.
So, an un-limited amount of money, to follow an un-known plan, to achieve un-stated objectives in the un-defined future.
How much money is too much to spend?
How many lives are too many to lose?
How long is too long to wait?
If you cannot answer those questions, then all you have is a fantasy.
You've completely missed my point. I don't object with a single thing you've said. What you just stated was a rational opinion on why government intrusion is less of a threat than terrorists. I have no problem with rational reasoning. I have a problem with fear mongering. Emotional rhetoric based on appeal to fear and appeal to consequences fallacies is garbage no matter whose pumping it.
Running around using words like 'tyranny', 'police-state', and 'facism', with virtually no analysis or intellectual honesty is just as bad as running around talking about 'islamofacists' and 'terrorists'. Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever. Just because you happen to agree with the ends doesn't justify the means. I am intellectually offended by people who resort to the same logically fallacious bullshit because they realize that sophistry is the most effective way to convince people they are right.
I'm not going to be scared of the government because someone can call it "facist" and yell about "tyrrany". It's hyperbolic and fallacious and it sets off my bullshit sophistry alarms from three miles away. That rhetorical tactic is fundamentally identical to overstating terrorist threat.
"Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away."
Voting for anyone you don't believe is the best candidate is throwing your vote away.
Voting as if it's a sporting event in which you "win" if you bet on the right candidate, is throwing your vote away. You don't win - you lose because you supported someone you don't approve of, and now they're going to govern you in ways you don't like. Loser!
Your one vote has very little statistical significance - but when you vote for a 3rd party that gets 1/10th as many votes as the major parties, your vote has 10 times the impact.
Voting for a 3rd party sends a message to both major parties that you are fed up with both of them, and that you aren't going to fall for the "throwing your vote away" lie any more. That's the only message they truly fear. If 20% voted for a 3rd party, one or both other parties would try to change to win back those votes.
Millions of people believing the lie that voting 3rd party is throwing away their vote, is how we got where we are today. So tell me - aren't you glad you didn't "throw your vote away"? Aren't you happy that you supported the current situation, either by voting Republican, or be contributing to the idea that others who voted Republican would have been throwing their votes away by voting 3rd party?
Sure it's horrible to have one party dominate both houses and the executive branch. But hoping that Gridlock will save you is a loser's game - gridlock just slows down the rate at which you lose. Your only chance to improve things is to vote your conscience, and encourage others to follow your example.
That's funny, I could have sworn that by a couple of days into the Normandy invasion, the Germans were gone, the mines were cleared, and the beaches were a pretty safe place to be. And this far out from D-Day, the allies had utterly defeated the Nazis, and were not hemmoraging daily reports of appaling incompetence, cronyism, and nearsightedness Over There. Furthemore, the Marshall Plan was being drawn up to revive Europe's economy and infrastructure, and unqualified cronies and no-bid contracts to American war profiteers did not figure greatly in the plan.
Since Godwin's already out of the bag in this thread, I submit that a different WWII parallel to draw with Iraq is between Rumsfeld and Göring. Both pursued ideologically-driven war strategies (the feasibility of low troop strengths in Iraq and whistling past the graveyard on what to do after the shooting stopped vs. the feasibility of resupplying Stalingrad solely by air) in flagrant disregard of both the reality on the ground and the advice of their best military professionals.
We would arrest a few masterminds, then go about our merry way. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda would just recruit more people in their place and attack us again.
Funny, I recall widespread ridicule from the right when Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at Osama in Sudan and barely missed him. Saber-rattling to distract us from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I believe was the talking point. Oh, and using a million dollar missile to destry a $29.99 tent. I also recall that the people captured in the WTC, Cole, and Embassy bombing investigations continue to be some of our best intelligence sources about Al-Qaeda (and since they've been interviewed instead of tortured, we get information from them more than once, and about things we haven't directly asked them about, and can be reasonably sure they didn't make it up to make the bad man stop.)
we could not let this dictator remain in power after 9/11. He was a thorn in our side.And how's that working out? It sure is a relief not to have Iraq as a thorn in America's side. Makes Iran/Hezbollah, North Korea, Sudan, FARC, etc. really tremble in fear to see our military no longer tied down in Iraq.
You don't seem to mind the fact that the government examines your luggage before you get on an airplane, do you? Your luggage might have your freedom of expressions in it. Letters to your wife, artwork, etc.
If the TSA reads documents in my luggage, I sure as hell do mind, as should you. Their responsibility is to keep weapons and explosives from endangering aircraft, not to be thought police.
The FISA process with its retroactive warrants wasn't broken. The only reason Bush would need to go around it that makes any sense is that he's using wiretaps on political enemies, journalists, or others he has absolutely no business eavesdropping on. And pointing to the internment camps, one of the ugliest episodes in our nation's history, to defend Bush isn't doing him or your position any favors.
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fas
I hope I didn't brain my damage.