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.
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
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.
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.
"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.