Slashdot Mirror
White House Wins On Spying, Telecom Immunity
EllisDees sends in a Washington Post report that Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats, who withdrew a more stringent version of legislation to control the government's domestic surveillance program. The legislation that will go forward includes a grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.
Attention to those who shared our data illegally: Legal immunity doesn't mean you're not scumbags. That is all.
(In case anyone is watching)
Who watches the watchers? - Nobody it seems.
So we're officially a Fascist state now right? Is this the last nail in the coffin?
So is it fair to say that when Bush "wins", that's a loss for the Bill of Rights?
I'm not sure how immunity can be granted when it clearly go against the US Constitution, given that the president takes an oath "to uphold the United States Constitution", doesn't this mean he's in breach and therefore liable of contempt?
MABASPLOOM!
Game over man! Game over!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1) Congress does not have the power to grant pardons
2) The US constitution forbids ex-post-facto laws
This is above-and-beyond the obvious fact that it is perhaps the most illegal and immoral thing I've ever heard of congress doing.
Translation: In a Democrat controlled congress the Democrats could not convince their own people to reject this bill. Thus the bill passed with the help of some Democrats voting for this bill.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
It seems more and more clear that he is the only one of either party worth voting for.
The Dems have shown themselves less than capable of standing against the neocon madness.
Their arguments about needing more numbers may be partially true, but they clearly switched their focus to 2008 the second they got into power. They are too scared to do anything that might get in the way of the 2008 sale.
We need principled leaders to do the right things that might offend large numbers of people, not more reeds that bend in the wind. That's how we ended up in this mess.
The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. The people have spoken and put them in trusted seats of power and they CAVED. I'm sure there are lot of home teams cheering from the stands only to have the players go, "ah, well, it's a lot of work to play the game. Let's concede."
I'm disappointed.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Outmaneuvered again! That seems to happen every day to these brave Democrats we elected; despite their sincere wishes to do the right thing, they just get outmaneuvered every time and have to surrender rather than risk... well, I'm not sure what, exactly, but it must be something.
It's like the burglar who smashed my window the other day. I politely asked him to leave, yet he refused. I threatened to call the police, but he said that I shouldn't. Well, you can't argue with that! He outwitted me fully and truly!
I let the burglar ransack my house because, let's face it, I had no choice. Sure, I had a gun and a cell phone, and he was unarmed, but he kept outmaneuvering me at every turn. I said I would shoot if he raped my wife, but he preempted me! Before I knew it, he was raping my wife, and it was just too darned late to stop him, so I put down my gun and wrote a press release (which I intend to publish EVERYWHERE to let the world know how this burglar has wronged me).
Sound the alarms!
Any wonder why they have such low approval numbers, even lower than Bush? Do you think stuff like this just might be why? Do they ever think this might be why?
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
its not like it makes millions of dollars for the government or aides them in anyway, why should they give a shit about it?
Of course not. That would be stupid.
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
There's more risk of corrupt officials using this to further their own agendas than there is that it will stop any terrorist.
Because of this, no further investigation can be done on who and what and why and those were most likely the same people who did not want an investigation in the first place.
As a non-American I think Americans have serious issues. To lie about a blowjob: BAD! To lie to go to war and rape your rights: let's re-elect him.
Mmm. TV might have to do something with it. See a nipple or say fuck, scream. See people killed, daytime TV.
And you still think that terrorirst want to desroy your way of living? I would say it is bad that you don'[t want to destroy it yourself.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They will do it anyway they can, and have been doing it for over 60 years. It's just now, when we are so digitally integrated, that is has become so much easier for them.
You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.
I recommend reading "A Man Called Intrepid". It details the beginning of the spy game, and how it dramatically turned the second world war around. The burden on our intelligence forces is great. The responsibility even greater. Have you elected the government you trust to use this intelligence infrastructure properly? Don't blame the telcos, blame those who are abusing the info.
Dominant Meme
This is obviously fiction!
/. could NEVER have one of those WIFE thingies!
Everyone knows someone on
In Red-state Amerika, the Gub'ment watches You...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
but then I remembered I'm not American! Seriously, I'm over the whole horror of your brutal invasion of Iraq, trampling of civil rights, endorsements of torture. I'm now just watching news about american politics like its an episode of 24. Try it sometime, its actually pretty enjoyable. You had the regular spies, corrupt politician etc. But now you have mercenaries with cool names like Blackwater, unnamed gov. agencies tracking every piece of digital data, hidden detention centers... I'm waiting for the nex big twist. Maybe, it comes out that the drug war was a move by the CIA to push up drug prices, so the gov could make more money to fund their secret mercenary wars by smuggling in drugs, while at the same time filling up the prisons with second class citizens unable to vote, but conscriptable! hmmmm, I can't even tink up insane conspircy theories that aren't plausable anymore... cool!
Well, here's why their approval rating is flat on its back at 11%.. cozying up to big telecom, while the people scream for their 4th amendment rights. Take that, rule of law. What's an industry-wide get out of jail free card cost these days, anyway?
Now that this is over, they can go back to offending Turkey and China.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Good. Fuck the terrorists and those who fight against US from within (read Democrats here please). All this public infighting only helps our enemies. The Dems know this - give aid and comfort. The enemy (al queda) of my enemy (Bush) is my friend.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
Every one is a coward and a traitor to the people who elected them.
It is as bad as you think and they really are out to get you.
In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to.
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall071001.gif
and
http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-15-07Large.jpeg
I did.
You have to be vocal. "./" the congressional in boxes!!
Think Deeply.
in order to save the village...we had to destroy it.
Excuse me. I think we can manage to keep ourselves "safe" without sanctioning a big business / government conspiracy that systematically deprives us of our 4th amendment rights.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
It's easy. If you don't know who to contact or how to phrase your objection use this link:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=727&page=UserAction
Note that you can modify the letter template before you hit send if you don't agree with all of the text or wish to add points of your own.
There is another informational article on Salon.
(*) Does not apply to non-US citizens. (Although nothing actually stops you from mailing them anyway.)
"In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to."
So the Democrats who voted for this bill are too cowardly to vote for what's right instead of what's politically convenient.
Yeah, I'd say you're exactly right about that.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I think that every Republican who worked toward this should be tarred and feathered in their districts. Especially after they whine and bitch and holler about how bad it would be giving "amnesty" to all those illegal immigrants who have been actively supporting their agricultural state economies for years. This wiretap immunity is corporate amnesty.
[
And just six short years ago I used to be a republican... Never voted for GWB though. I could see his fascism coming with his campaign speeches "There ought to be limits to freedom" - GWB.
Well, he sure made that one a reality.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Bush and his fascist cronies disgusted me, and when an opportunity came up for me to leave, I left. But I left hoping the Dems would grow a spine and fight for What's Right, or even something resembling it.
They are worthless jellyfish. They could stop the war tomorrow (simply not fund it), but they don't.
They don't have to vote FOR this fascist nonsense, but they DO.
Pelosi and Ried are DISASTERS - every bit as criminally culpable as Bush, because he couldn't do it without their complicity. They have rolled over and over and over on every major vote. They have proven themselves unworthy of governance, and the Republicans are, sadly, even worse.
I'm afraid the experiment of American Democracy is over. People talk about 2008 being the most important election. I disagree. I think it's over. It doesn't matter who wins the White House: the military/industrial party will continue its endless reign of terror.
The election of 2008 may be momentous, it could be equal to Germany in 1932, or the USA in 1860. Either way, I do believe that the USA is in line for some serious turbulence, and I have serious doubts that it will survive as a democratic republic.
If the Republicans DO win in 08, either prepare yourself for some desperate fighting (which the USA/gov will lose), or do what I did: Leave. ASAP. If the Dems win, and get a super majority in the Senate/House, then prepare for a rollercoaster ride, as the Fascist News Channel (Fox et al) whips the witless masses into a froth.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
...all the constitutional lawyers on slashdot to start pontificating.
What? There are none? Could have fooled me.
Of course, in the past, when snail-mailing my congressmen, I received no response and saw no change in voting stance.
When e-mailing, occasionally I get an auto-response that may or may not pertain to the issue I originally e-mailed about.
"Contact your Congressman" is a joke. They don't read it, they don't care.
If they can't stop this kind of thing after we give them a majority in both houses, what bloody good are they? Throw the bums out! They're not getting a vote or dime of mine until they show some sort of interest in protecting our freedom.
Saying terrorists don't want to destroy the American way of life is completely asinine. *They* *are* saying it.
:p
The problem is, they've already won. This isn't the US I grew up in, and I doubt it'll ever again be the US I grew up in. Very rarely does power seized ever get released. And the power grabbing of the Federal government has been going on since before our civil war.
That's all well and good. There are plenty of downsides to a strong Federal government; there are also upsides. The US wouldn't be the power it was and still is without a strong central government. (The rest of the world of course might consider that a *good* thing - hah.) This country would be very different, and probably worse off, if state government was the real power.
So yay Federal government - or yay, back when we actually had a Constitution to protect us from the ridiculous excess that comes with it. But now it's merely 'a damned piece of paper'.
I'll tell you what. Compare the probability of being killed by a terrorist attack to the probability of being killed by second hand smoke. I think you'll find there are more effective ways of reducing innocent deaths via legislation, in particular ones that don't require our government to take a dump on the bill of rights.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
BushCo don't really give a rat's ass about Congress, except when they've been tied up and begging for abuse a little too long and someone from the Administration has to go to the Hill and spit on them.
The courts, however, especially at the level of the Circuit Courts, are a different story.
The telco immunity provisions in this legislation are to keep the White House from being found (as part of some telco trial) to have broken the law. It's got little to do with protecting the telcos other than as a way to sell it to the public.
Glenn Greenwald over at Salon had a good interview with the EFF's lead counsel in the ATT/NSA/let's-just-snoop-the-whole-backbone trial that explains this quite well.
This is all about closing off the courts to examination of Executive Branch violations of the Constitution. Which is why it's actually a much, much bigger deal than most people seem to understand.
Open season on Republican.
Kill every one of the cowardly treasonous bastards.
Do you think it might have included members of congress?
Historically, this is one corrupt group of people. Has Bush got the drop on enough key players, that he can win the push-and-shove when he needs to?
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
You're saying in order to save lives we should give up the same freedoms our forefathers gave their lives to get us? If this is really the sentiment of America, we have officially come full circle and are once again living under "King George".
If we let the army patrol the streets and ground all flights indefinitely, think of how many lives we can save!
They forgot to mention the name of the new government department this establishes.. Introducing - Minitrue!
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
You're right - some Dems did vote along with the immunity-carrying version. And I'm afraid that the ultimate story of what happened on this bill makes the GOP look like childish assholes, and the Dems look like brainless, spineless pansies.
So far, the best collection of linkage and summary I've seen on this has been at The Mahablog (Warning: liberal. Like me, so, deal.)
Where do we go from here? Surely not keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils' since the 'lesser' is not by much.
OK, we have a Dem Majority in Both Houses. Elected mostly as a rebuke to Bush/Fortune 500 company polices for the last 8 or so years. They have done NOTHING on Iraq. They give in to spying, give a free pass to companies who have grossly violated rights without any shred of probable cause or, god forbid, a Judges' Order. There is, in Berlin, the site of the old Gestapo headquarters. There, the history of Nazi Germany is told. The second and third parts of the display concern the Holocaust, and the usual graphic disgusting pictures. It's not the scary part. The first part of the display, word for word, and law for law, discusses how the "rule of law" society that was pre war Germany was dismantled. Preventative Detention was how all those "undesirables" were kept in Prison Camps. Judges were selected who were "loyal" (Bush v. Gore anyone ?) Many small words and paragraphs were modified or changed to allow unfettered executive power. No, Bush is NOT a Nazi, but to ignore the historical parallels is to be blind. There is now officially NO opposition party. We're screwed. Steal a song, huge damages with no real burden of proof. Monitor every comm going through a switch, and we'll pour you another drink while we word the amnesty provisions.
You can't possibly call what the Democrats have a working majority.
To make matters more complex, historically, coordinating the democratic party faithful is the equivalent of herding cats. Unfortunately, it is the nature of the Democratic party, unlike the Republicans who coordinate much more effectively because they tended to operate as a minority for so long.
For every single post that is angry in some way shape or form about this kind of legislation, what are you going to do about it? The Republic needs you to do something right NOW.
I know it's not cool to have a political agenda and see it through, but dammit that's how this Republic gets back on track.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. wouldn't be allowed if we followed your interpretation. And I agree with your interpretation.
This is why the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR tried to pack the court.
People, for the most part, don't want to follow the Constitution. We would have to become libertarians (for the most part) and stop voting ourselves money out of the treasury.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If a terrorist attack happens between now and 11/2008, Democrats are going to have a hard time explaining why they voted against wiretapping the terrorists.
You know and I know that wiretapping terrorists always has been and always will be legal. No one is against wiretapping terrorists. But so far, nobody has managed to explain that in a way that the majority of the general public gets it.
For all their anti-USAPATRIOT Act talk, how many Democrats actually voted against it? And its renewal? I'm disappointed. Me too. I wish I knew who I could trust to protect my Constitutional Rights.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
What is the right balance between freedom and protection? During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (not just for "foreign combatants" either). He also ordered Confederate sympathizers held without trial. His view was that he was doing what was necessary to preserve the Union. I invite those who read this post to do a bit of searching on Lincoln's handling of personal freedoms during the Civil War, compare his actions with President Bush's, and then tell me what you think. Is it ever justified to limit personal freedoms (even though guaranteed by the Constitution) in time of war? Lincoln was reviled by many (most as you would expect in the South, but many in the North). Why do we now see him as one of our greatest presidents? What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?
"I'm not sure how immunity can be granted when it clearly go against the US Constitution"
Well, without asking you where in the Constitution you found that information, I'll address you concern (as ill-founded as it is).
Immunity in this case is a GOOD thing. Here's why.
In the case of giving testimony, should there be no immunity, the telcos and their representatives can choose not to incriminate themselves, and thereby avoid giving ANY testimony about who did what when.
Once immunity is granted, the telcos CANNOT refuse to testify on grounds they may incriminate themselves. Should they chose to avoid giving testimony, contempt is now an option.
Immunity prevents the telcos from hiding behind the "self-incrimination" excuse.
And before you come up withe reasons why it won't work, look at all the mob trials. Immunity is SOP there, and works incredibly well for exactly the reasons I stated.
From what I can tell, all the crowing about the immunity being a bad thing comes from the ignorance of the population that reads slashdot, and has no bearing on reality.
And why exactly did anyone bother changing Congressional leadership?
To be fair, it's not like the legislation has been passed yet. There are still plenty of opportunities to scuttle the immunity legislation. Sure, it sucks that a Dem in a leadership position caved, but the compromise bill still has to be voted on in the Senate, and a companion bill adopted in the House, so it's a little premature to call this a "Bush victory."
This is going to save lives, no doubt. Quantifying how many lives it saves is another matter. Anybody against this bill - democrat or republican - is ignorant of the times, and perhaps needs to adjust the order of their personal agenda's priorities.
You must be kidding. Constitutional rights > Terrorist threat. Without the former, the latter would cease to be.
"What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?"
Perhaps none in their actions. The difference lies in why they were/are done. Lincoln faced a real crisis. The existence of the Union was threatened. Bush faces a problem that has killed fewer people than flea bites. The money would be better spent protecting us from fleas.
Call me a cynic, but I think that the Democrats would love to have Hillary in the White House with these over-reaching powers, so they do nothing.
Blar.
I have to say I kinda agree with the decision to give the telecoms immunity. They are kinda between a rock and a hard place. The legislative and executive branch of the government disagree and the telecoms are stuck in the middle. They were told what to do by a very intimidating branch of the government. The telecoms can't be blamed for caving. Blame the NSA or the President, that's the responsible party.
If it's dead, you killed it.
in favor of encrypted, Anonymous P2P.
Those of you wanting real tinfoil hats, should download Waste, I2P, and install them in a hidden truecrypt volume.
But protesting against this abuse and voting for a privacy-supporting candidate is mandatory.
You obviously need to do a little reading of your own. Lincoln was fighting an open war within the United States, a civil war that consumed our country. None the less, the supreme court struck the Alien and Sedition laws down at the time as unconstitutional, and Lincoln later claimed suspension of habeas corpus as one of his worst mistakes that he regretted for the rest of his life.
"It is the ancient and undoubted prerogative of this people to canvass public measures and the merits of public men." It is a "home-bred right," a fireside privilege. It had been enjoyed in every house, cottage, and cabin in the nation. It is as undoubted as the right of breathing the air or walking on the earth. Belonging- to private life as a right, it belongs to public life as a duty, and it is the last duty which those whose representatives we are shall find us to abandon. Aiming at all times to be courteous and temperate in its use, except when the right itself is questioned, we shall place ourselves on the extreme boundary of our own right and bid defiance to any arm that would move us from our ground. "This high constitutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living, we shall assert it ; and should we leave no other inheritance to our children, by the blessing of God we will leave them the inheritance of free principles and the example of a manly, independent, and constitutional defence of them."
If this is the bill I think it is, it essentially makes legal the surveillance. When the program was reviewed, it was not struck down entirely....rather it was said that congress has so long to make it legal, and if they don't, then it is out of bounds. The "immunity" was requested by the administration in a retroactive fashion ie. since it will be legal from here on out, make those who participated before it was ruled verboten protection.
The lack of a civil war?
The most confusing part about all this is that any members of Congress continue to support the president on these matters. The broad wiretapping program is part of a serious (and so far successful) campaign by Cheney and his compatriots to expand the powers of the executive branch. While Congress continues to have their efficacy whittled away by the administration, they sit back and let him do it!
Why?
Because covert, ubiquitous surveillance is a GREAT way to dig up dirt on politicians.You can't take the sky from me...
Okay, I know this sounds odd, but hear me out. I am working on a program that dials a modem to random "interesting" numbers and plays back either a message or a number station-type barrage. It can even simulate a conversation if it finds another copy of this same program out there. Why is nobody interested in this software to at least screw with the pattern and content analysis of these traitors? If nothing else, it bogs them down in bogus data and slows them down.
I'm sure a few hundred calls to and from a small "cell" of these programs would sure as hell raise a red flag. Drag them down with bullshit and club them with their own lethargy.
More info on evading wiretaps. Stay safe out there.
PBS has a GREAT GREAT documentary about the Bush's Administration...errrr...Cheney's Administration abuse of Executive power. "For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power" PBS Frontline News. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
Could the argument be made that the threat of terrorism (especially nuclear terrorism) compares to the threat Lincoln faced? What do you think about that argument?
What the framers are telling us here is to pay attention to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, not just the letter. There is no right of privacy explicitly recognized in the Bill of Rights, but the SCOTUS has found it in the "penumbra" of various provisions of the Constitution. This kind of language makes a strict constructionist spit, but you have to restrain the government from attacking the underlying interests protected by the Bill of Rights, otherwise the Ninth Amendment means nothing.
With respect to the idea that "If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it," that makes things seem more simple than they are. It is true that the government only has powers granted to it by the Constitution, but the Constitution is not a strict enumeration of government powers. The government has powers which are reasonably derived from the responsibilties it has been given. "Reasonable" is a big problem, I agree. If we were writing it today, we'd probably write it differently.
I think one kind of situation the tenth applies to is the gay marriage debate. This is precisely the kind of thing that is up to the states and to individuals living in them. If Massachusetts wants to mary gays, and the gays themselves want it, then it's none of the other states' business. They don't have to recognize the marriage, but they have no business trying to undermine Mass laws. I think, however, the Federal Government is obliged to recognize Mass marriage law.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, I'm enraged about this, too. But if you do that or ask someone to do that, they will respond! You think the government can't kill someone for "treason"? Violence is NOT the option.
;-) to your favorite politician. If they jail you for that, make a statement and give it to the press, to the international press, etc.
Let's assume a pro-linux fanatic goes out and kills Ballmer. Don't you think there are pro-microsoft fanatics who will LOVE to see RMS or Linus dead?
Look what happened to Kennedy - by inciting violence you are giving the bad guys the excuses they need to get rid of the GOOD guys.
On the other hand, you're COMPLETELY WELCOME to carry as much rotten tomatoes as you want and... "send" them
Remember: The pen is mightier than the sword.
So, if anyone wants a tomato-your-antifavorite-politician season, the heck, why not? At least they'll KNOW we're pissed.
Start doing your jobs.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States
That might have worked fifteen years ago, when the NSA was only using hundreds of thousands of 15 nm CMOS processors in their surveillance super clusters (a super cluster is a cluster placed above another cluster).
Now that they have their trillion-node quantum computer cluster with Strong AI they can easily detect sarcasm and insincerity, and you have surely been marked as a dissident.
The enemies of Democracy are
You can't take the sky from me...
Hi, thanks for you post. Could you help me out with a link to President Lincoln's later thoughts on his habeas corpus suspension that you have cited?
At what point in time did we just throw away all the core fundamentals of government and replace them with EULA style legalese ?
I thought the senate/house represented the people of their district/state. Isn't that how's its supposed to be? Since when is at&t, Verizon, and other crooked telco companies considered constituents? I always thought that public voters held the ultimate power - but apparently the ballots us people use are full of hanging chads, multiple votes, and mistakes, while the ballots these corporations submit are green and have a nice portrait of Ben Franklin on them.
I hope I see a government that serves the people in my lifetime.
Forgive the link to the liberal blogosphere, it was the first thing I came across:
As noted below, GOP Rep. Eric Cantor came up with a clever way of throwing a wrench into the FISA bill, which was scheduled to be voted on today and which is opposed by Republicans.
He threatened this afternoon to submit an amendment that would have mandated that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization...from attacking the United States or any United States person."
Though this language has no real legislative meaning, it nonetheless was effective in forcing Dems to yank the bill. That's because he introduced this in such a way that would have procedurally forced the bill to go back to committee and delayed it for an untold amount of time.
That left House Dem leaders scrambling today to figure out how to respond. And so, instead of letting this measure effectively scuttle the legislation, they decided to postpone the vote until next week in order to regroup and figure out how to proceed. "This legislative maneuvering by Republicans was a cynical attempt by Republicans to kill the bill," a senior House Dem aide griped to Election Central.
Granted, it was pretty spineless of the Dems to not call the GOP out more directly for trying to poison pill the bill and take a stand against such a silly amendment (and as someone who voted for one of those Democratic senator, I'm personally pretty pissed), but that doesn't mean the minority party doesn't have any tools at their disposal.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
but remember there's a lot of pissed off people in Iraq who would love to see Bush pay for his crimes against the Iraqi citizens. I'm sure some international arrangement can be done after Bush is out of the office. And he WILL get out. Sooner or later, he will.
Um, that we were actually at war in our home country? That we are looking at Lincoln through the rose-tinted lenses of Uber-patriotism instilled by our public schools (i.e., NO American president ever did anything that was just WRONG, it only took a while to be appreciated)? Personally, I don't see him as one of our greatest presidents, he was just in at the right time, much like 9/11 Giuliani.
Ok, thanks for your answer. But please speak to the other part of the question. Is it ever permissible for the government to limit or even violate some personal freedoms in time of war?
The latter was a very real threat, as several states had seceded from the Union and amassed a standing army. The former is, at best, speculation and appeals to fear; so far, the most touted reason for us to enter Iraq (the threat of WMDs like nuclear weapons) has been at the very least, a haphazard intelligence fiasco-- and at worst, a blatant lie.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
I did... I wrote in and told him not to support the legislation that has now been withdrawn because I thought it was a bad idea. Oh wait, perhaps your 'advice' wasn't meant for people like me... Sounds like the typical results from attending a Rock the Vote concert or something.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans,
Actually, that's more like extending our laws beyond American soil. The Constitution can't even be extended past the executive branch these days, much less beyond our borders.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
They outright lied.* They never intended to pose any serious challenge to the status quo on any issue. Many of us already knew and tried to warn you for a very long time. When are you going to begin to accept the truth?? You are fools to think that either side of the party is going to give up any power at all. And I would hope by now that you realize these people are ALL crooks and differences amongst any of them is less than insignificant."11% approval rating" Hmmpf! Tell it to my truthiness detector. Come election time we will see a 90-95% approval rating, as always. "Vote out the incumbents". Yeah, replace one lizard with another. That'll fix it. This is like watching the steam roller scene in Austin Powers. A slow moving disaster and everybody just stares, screaming, "NOOooooo!"
Congress to America: YHBT HAAA hahahahaaa!
*to the person who put that in his journal many mounts ago, thanks.
What?
If we allow our government to nullify aspects of the constitution and bill of rights in the name of the war on terror, then the terrorists have won already.
Part of the reason we were targets for so long was because of the freedoms we have^H^Hd.
Declaring that we no longer have the freedoms from things like invasion of privacy thru illegal signature statements, or that the bill of rights doesn't actually give us any rights as it's worded that congress may pass no law that takes away the rights, rather than specifically granting said rights, gives us an insight into the current illegal regime trying to rule our country out of a democracy and into a militaristic government where the government is the highest power and the people are nothing.
So our government works it's way towards becoming a terrorist organization and we just sit around taking everything they feel like dishing out.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Time of war? What are you talking about? I don't see any war! I don't see any declaration of war! What about the utter desparation of whatever "war" we're apparently in gives anyone the right to infringe on freedom? This "time of war" bullshit is really wearing on me, given that Vietnam was much worse of a conflict than the Iraq conflict, and even THAT wasn't a WAR.
What threat of nuclear terrorism exactly?
Does plain old terrorism not elicit the desired response anymore? Is Joe Sixpack becoming so conditioned to the terrorism buzzword that you have to add the nuclear threat into the equation to get the desired "Oh-My-God whatever can we do? please save us from the terrible horrors! Whatever you need to do is fine just make it go away!" response?
Done.
Although what I have to say to my Representative cannot, in general, be said. It may only be fired with extreme prejudice.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
In the Senate, ONE SENATOR can block the passage of a bill. It's just set up that way. So, yes, in the Senate there were "parliamentary maneuvers," something Republicans (and a compliant press) would have been howling about before the 2006 elections. (Remember judicial nominations?)
And for all of you saying "the Democrats went along" and "they're the same as Republicans," thanks a whole hell of a lot. Your attitudes will get the Republicans re-elected. (Especially if you're apathetic and stay home on election day.) In the current political landscape they no doubt must go along or risk being tarred and feathered on terrorism.
Did we have this crap before 2001? NO. End of story.
Ok, please forget about the present situation for a moment. Consider this. Do you envision "any" war time situation where you would approve limiting constitutionally granted freedom?
Breaking the law is still a punishable crime even if the law was later changed.
All the people can do is vote at elections
No. That cynical attitude gets you exactly this kind of outcome.
You and the moderators need to get a political agenda and do what it takes to see it through. That's how the Republic is supposed to work.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Just curious, who would you see as our greatest presidents, and why?
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. Now how is this legal?
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
The granting of immunity to the telecos is in the wake of telco's refusing to testify just how broad the information they've handed over is. Now that they don't have the fifth amendment to hide behind, when congress subpoena's their CEOs to testify, they'll have to answer.
Actually, I'm kind of glad they did this. It seems to me more likely that we'll find out just how communist Bush has been.
That's one of the more amusing things about the last few years. Conservative Republicans have continued to vote for the radical far-left Republicans that we currently have in power. Put a Democrat executive in place, though, and the conservatives should (?) wake up. (Hopefully, forming a new party or joining the Libertarians, but that's a pretty far-fetched hope. More likely, there will be some sort of Republican reform.)
The question is: will they still have voting rights, so that they can do something about it in 2010/2012? ;)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
6 years of Republicans with a majority in the Legislature, a Republican President, and a Conservative-biased Supreme court and none of their anti-choice/anti-gay legislature passed. I don't think they could get Hillary impeached.
Blar.
Well, I happen to think that Lincoln made a mistake, too. But that's neither here nor there. The biggest difference I can see is that Lincoln was fighting a tooth-and-toenail war with another organization. He had well-defined goals (preserve the union). This 'War on Terror' is less like the Civil War and more like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, and those have been going on for decades with no end in sight. In essence, Lincoln said 'when we win the war', and Bush says 'whenever'.
News alert, Ex post facto has no historical basis in this nation, and its also very doubtful whether this man Thomas Jefferson ever actually existed, let alone having had been a proponent of the social quagmire that would be a liberal democratic society. On top of that, wHy don't you give linking to the innaccurate Wikipedia pages you've vandalized to support your spurious bs points, mkay?
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm
I did find other more disturbing than the article:
Let's take money from NASA, we need more control of the people: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00367
The children! the children!... we don't need stinking advance technology, the country is outsourcing anyway:http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00366
i just threw up in my mouth a little.
www.unity08.com
Please contact your representative FIRST, then post to Slashdot(*). Otherwise, save your (metaphorical) breath...
Why? At least when people post to Slashdot, they know that someone will actually listen to what they have to say.
I came here for a good argument
What is the bill number?
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
And moreover they only won their seats because of opposition to the war in Iraq and promises to bring the troops home. Tick, tock, tick, tock and they keep passing more funding to keep it going and do nothing to fulfill their election campaign spiels. They have shown themselves to be completely spineless for the most part.
This is what you get when you over-reach.
The more-liberal members tried to make the requirements so onerous that even more-moderate members of the Democratic party could not support it. Their efforts were turning warfare into courtroom drama. We have never before required court orders to approve of spying upon enemies overseas; had we done so, FDR would have had a lot of trouble fighting WWII. If the left wants to use this sort of legislation to score cheap political points and/or undercut spying efforts against foreign enemies, it should expect blowback and a re-bound. Adults would get together and seek intelligent solutions, but there are not enough adults on Capitol Hill and with the elections looming things are only going to get worse.
The nation is at war. The people in "fly-over country" get that. As long as one party sticks its fingers in its ears, closes its eyes, stomps a lot and whines in an effort to convince everyone to hand the whole effort over to their lawyer friends, they cannot get the traction they want on some of this stuff. If they get serious about the war, then perhaps they will get more cooperation in defining the limits. Denying reality is not the best way to get the masses to support you in your paranoia. The public will be more-likely to listen to your concerns about the dangers of our own government once you admit that there is a war and the enemy is actually more dangerous. Seriousness on the war gains credibility on the rest.
That's certainly a good point. The Confederate States of America was certainly a more defined target than say "Islamic fundamentalism inspired terrorism". It will be hard to know when to "declare" victory. Terrorism from one source or another seems to be with us for the foreseeable future.
"If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that."
Jury duty.
That's not in the Constitution, but because the Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial, the power to impanel juries is implied. After all, how can one have a jury trial with no jury?
This is not the only example that proves you wrong, just the most obvious.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I guess the difference is that the USA is in no danger of being destroyed and the freedom of millions of black slaves is not on the line.
In fact, many people are starting to wonder if this policy itself is not the greatest threat to the USA since the Civil War.
Lincoln definitely did a lot of things he should be reviled for, i's just that his ability to hold the Union together and the fact that he started the process of ending slavery in the US has generally caused us to be willing to overlook this things.
Additionally, those things stopped when the war was over. The war had a clear goal as well. Either the North would defeat the South of vis versa. It's not like this Orwellian thing of eternal war we are in.
One might also want to point out that Bush seems to think he needs more power and less freedom for Americans to defeat terrorism than we needed to defeat the USSR in the cold war.
Lastly, no one has shown me that 9/11 would have been avoided if the gov't had these powers on 9/10. In fact, all analysis has shown that gov't had enough power to prevent 9/11, just that it wasn't using it very well. 9/11 could have been avoided if some various gov't agencies had talked to each other better. So the gov't has no excuse to take my freedoms away, AFAIK.
peace, or not?
John
Peace, or Not?
I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
No, it seems like it's business as usual for the rubber stamp Congress. Just another obvious sign that we're really under single party rule.
The Republicans and Democrats create a good illusion of opposition by criticizing each other verbally, and staging a few bitter debates about BS issues like flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion. When it comes to important issues like civil liberties, imperialistic military crusades, out of control government spending, immigration and globalization however, they happily work together in the noble spirit of bipartisanship to screw over the average U.S. citizen.
The only wasted vote is one cast for Republicans or Democrats. It's a vote against civil liberties, a vote to endorse the wars, and a vote to continue all of the other disastrous policies that our government is pursuing.
Lincoln was attacked.
Bush attacked.
Giving politicians license to ignore civil liberties protections because they chose to attack someone has obvious negative consequences. (A better plan would be, frankly, to declare both the President and vice-President ineligible to ever run again for federal office in the event of a shooting war (>50 casualties) and all Senators and Representatives ineligible if it lasts more than 3 months.)
So where do I recruit an army?
Certainly not here on Slashdot. This cyberplace has been historically full of liberal wankers who have been convinced that there's no legitamate reason for citizens owning a handgun or any long gun that falls outside the realm of a hunting-only firearm.
I find it quite ironic and puzzling that the right wing neocons, while being the first to walk all over the Constitution and grind it into the dirt when it comes to our privacy rights, are also the only ones willing to stand up for the RKBA too. Bizzaro world, this USA has become, indeed.
And they can even have one team do the surveillance and a DIFFERENT team file the paperwork and handle the FISA court stuff.
You know, I'd have a BIT more regard for their cause if they had a trailer parked in front of the FISA Court's office, packed with people busily filing the paperwork that they claim cannot be done in time.
If they were demanding more people to handle the workload
If they were demanding secure offices closer to the court
I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.
"We might not be such fools, but most people are."
Who fucking cares? They got elected to do a job NOW, and that job is not "get reelected".
There is no reason to kowtow to an uninformed populace, that's not your god damned job.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
This has nothing to do with granting immunity.
First of all, a corporation cannot hide behind the 5th amendment. Second of all, it will be a cold day in hell before Democrats hold someone accountable.
Last I checked, the Senate is responsible for passing bills, not the White House. If this bill was so BAD, then why didn't the Democrats... who have the MAJORITY in the Senate, shoot it down instead of voting for it? HHMMM?
Let me know when you get an answer to that one.
When the GOP controls congress, everything's their fault.
When the Democratic Party controls congress, everything is still the GOP's fault.
That line of reasoning (yours by the way) is irrefutable proof that your opinion is worthless because of obvious and unrepentant political bias.
You're an imbecile.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why was this post modded down? The man was expressing his right to free speech in a less offensive manner than some her do.
Look, folks. The Alamo ended on March 6th 1836. We cannot afford to be complacent -- we live in a post-3/6/1836 world now.
All the people can do is vote at elections, which makes us powerless when the people we voted for wont do anything.
This is why we -at least- still have the 2nd Amendment. If need be we can take back our government by FORCE if necessary.
The next election just DO NOT vote for any incumbant - simple. Vote Third Party down the line. If people just quit voting for the corrupt ass Republicans and Democrats we just might have a chance. The two parties are basically the same thing - just different names. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves right now.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Ha ha, fucker. You fucked yourself out of some fuckin mod points. Shit yeah. It's too bad bastards like you just feel the need to curse up a fuckin rant, rather than ask the goddamn question in a intelligible fuckin manner. Then some dude comes along and points out some shit about you having a valid point in yer fuckin post, basically asks the SAME FUCKIN QUESTION and gets a Score 5: Insightful mod. Motherfucker!!! Meanwhile, you sit there like a goddamn cocksucker with your original mod point cuz not one of these fuckers took you seriously.
You got pwned, bi-atch!!
"No, go back and read. The Dems don't have a big enough majority to beat a veto by Bush. They don't have a big enough majority to stop a filibuster."
No, but they most certainly DO have enough power to prevent this bill from ever being passed. Your excuses would hold water were it not for the fact that we aren't asking the Dems to pass a bill, in this case we're wondering WHY THEY ALLOWED A BILL LIKE THIS TO BE PASSED AT ALL.
They DO have the power to stop things like this. They CHOSE not to use it.
Stop making excuses.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Bush sold this to the Democrats by telling them that it represents a "more European" approach to surveillance. Which is, largely, true.
Of course, the Europeans don't have the U.S. Constitution. But Congress seldom troubles itself with such problems.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
The most obvious difference is that it was possible for the US to win the Civil War. The Confederacy could surrender and accept reintegration into the US. You could look to the future and see this possible case.
When, exactly, will we defeat terrorism? How will we know we have won? Who can surrender on terrorism's behalf?
Terrorism, like crime, drugs, hunger, and poverty, isn't something you can go to war against. Sure, you can have a War on Terror like we have a War on Drugs, but it's a colorful metaphor, not a basis for policy. These are problems that we will probably never resolve and we can only limit the problem through constant and eternal effort. I'm willing to discuss limiting my civil rights for a war with concrete end goal. I'm not willing to limit them until we defeat an abstract noun.
Perhaps because most people's knowledge of him is limited to what they learned in grade and high school, which tends to gloss over the negative bits? Perhaps because while he did do many terrible things (like suspending habeas corpus), he did accomplish many great things? This is in contrast to Bush, who does lots of terrible things and so far hasn't shown any signs of great things. What few good things he's done (overthrown the Taliban and Hussein) tend to be overshadowed by the catastrophies he's dumping on his successor.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I didn't think that the Congress could legislate away our 4th amendment rights.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
"All the masked men need to legally burst into your house and shoot you dead is for someone to dump their pot seeds in your trash can."
Please, shut the fuck up. They were not "someone"'s pot seeds. How about instead of self serving, disingenuous bullshit, you read up on the fucking case.
"On Friday, police charged Noel's husband, Charles, 51, with two counts of possession of black powder - possessing any amount over five pounds is illegal in Baltimore County, according to Vinson - and single counts of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
Matthew Noel, 19, and Sarah Betz, also 19, were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana, according to Vinson."
The cops came in, yelled "police" and all you have to refute that is the statements of a CIVIL ATTORNEY. If you're dumb enough to believe he's tellign the truth, then either you're unfamiliar with attorneys or you're way dumber than you previously let on.
I like the anti-government rant, but lying about what happened like you did is pathetic and makes me wonder why your opinion should be trusted on anything.
Seriously guy, you're taking the word of a civil attorney...
Oh great! Now to terrorize Americans al Qaida can just cold-call random numbers in the US from a tapped foreign number to have random families hauled off to Guantánamo for association with a terrorist group. Checking the Caller-ID won't save you either.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
oh wait thats was John Edwards I was thinking of. Different crackpot.
You argument of "welfare of the country" comes from The Preamble. What does that mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"The preamble neither grants any governmental powers nor inhibits any of its actions"
Wow, that completely proves my argument in destroys yours in ONE SENTENCE.
"Most people would..."
Avoid running their mouths about the Constitution when it's clear they don't know WTF they're talking about?
Too bad you're not most people.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
So... that pretty much makes them "official" partners in the "war on terror".
Does that mean that they will now be considered legitimate targets in this "war" now?
So, bombing communications infrastructure would no longer be "terrorism" but rather "honest" war making...
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
This is actually extremely shortsighted of the Democrats:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/02/07/NEWS12418.dtl
As Nixon has shown, presidents are willing to use their spying powers against political opponents during elections, and for the most part are able to get away with it. If it weren't for the good conscience of an insider who was able to anonymously cause the Watergate leak (at risk to his own life), Nixon would likely have continued to have gotten away with it and be remembered as the anti-communist president who improved relations with China.
Right now, I'm willing to bet that Rudy Giuliani (and his ilk) are partying like it was 1969.
I'm a Canadian, with several American friends in the US. While I realize the chances of my conversations being recorded or monitored are slim, I will now be explaining to these friends that as a matter of principle I simply won't communicate via telephone with them any longer. I hope this will send a strong message and I hope other non-americans adopt a similar approach. One can only hope that isolation from the rest of the world, surrounding walls that grow ever higher, will make Americans feel enough like prisoners to attempt an escape.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Re-read that, because it doesn't say what you think it does. It grants the power to tax, that's what it's for. Had you read it correctly, you'd see it says "Congress has the power to TAX."
It IN NO WAY allows for the institution of unconstitutional programs like Social Security, despite how you choose to misread it.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
How many people do you know that are on minimum wage, and are not students or have some other means of support? What do they have for possessions (I can't count the number of times I've seen someone complaining about their income, then showing off their new TV, cellphone, etc.)
Did you know that there's this thing called Medicaid? WIC? That there are laws that when you are injured, the Emergency Room HAS TO treat you, regardless of your ability to pay?
I'm another goddamn foreigner sticking my nose into American business to comment here, but I think you have to go beyond expressing outrage and dismiss civil servants that aren't serving vital interests.
Canada finally got fed up with the corruptions and lawbreaking of a long-term Liberal government recently and didn't vote enough of them back in last election to form a government; it seems to have been an instructive experience.
My recommendation, for what it's worth? Since "FISA" didn't protect your constitutional concerns, start a "FESO" movement, maybe on the web like that "MoveOn" bunch. FESO as in "Fire Every Single One" of the representatives that vote for this law. Gather funds, donate them to anybody who opposes them in primaries for their own party, or to their opponent across party lines -- assuming the opponent will make a campaign promise to work to repeal the law and never vote for any one like it. Make it your sole vote and sole concern, ignoring all their other service, ignoring all the pork they bring to your district. Vote, and donate, and volunteer strictly on this issue. Make it a single-issue election for every member of "FESO.ORG".
Obsessive? Maybe, I don't know American politics enough to say; but the commentary here (and by Glenn Greenwald) seems to be saying this is very, very important at a deep constitutional level.
Clearly, this issue has little traction in the American Congress for its own sake, so they will only make it a priority if they believe their jobs depend on it. I heard that 98% of Congress are re-elected in a given election; offhand, that sounds to me like your main problem right there, you aren't firing enough people to make the rest responsive.
The warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, we already knew that. Neither Congress nor the White House can grant immunity for assisting with an unconstitutional act. They simply don't have the legal right to do so.
Of course, this White House has broken so many laws already, and Congress has been so unwilling to do its duty and call them on it, that this really doesn't surprise me anymore.
"Thanks. RTFA"
I did, that's how I knew you were trolling.
"It's a bit more nuanced than 'the Dems rolled over OMG'"
Yeah, the Dems rolled over, lubed themselves up, and took it in the dumper with a smile on their faces, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. Yeah, sure, call it "nuanced" if it makes you feel better.
You're still making excuses, and they're getting worse.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I always liked Ashcroft- he was (and probably still is) a just and honest man, who actually believed in minor details like upholding the constitution and following laws. (Now, he also believed in passing laws most slashdotters disliked, but he waited until he had the legal authority before doing something questionable, and was open about what he was doing). I always felt that he resigned because he disagreed with the administration about how the 'War on Terror' should be handled. Certainly he seemed to think we had gone far enough, when he resigned, he wrote "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
"Outmaneuvered"? As in, "Ah shuckin's Missie Voter, I's powerful sorry them slippery Republicans done pulled the wool over our eyes yet agin"?
I'm really sick of the Democratic Party shuffling out the stupid card. Either they really _are_ stupid, or they are insincere and think _we_ are stupid.
In either case, why would they think I would want to re-elect them or their kind? I say zero tolerance, zero respect. That's what this sort of shuck and jive about "outmaneuvering" deserves.
Legal immunity granted current the current administration doesn't mean much to us, they too are dirty fucking pigs.
Just so you jack-offs in office know, you're going down, and hard.
See you in hell, you miserable bastards.
*boom*
Every politician's main job is to get re-elected. They'll try to make voters think their main job is something else, but that's because they're trying to get re-elected.
Chris Mattern
Thanks for a very thoughtful and interesting answer.
And there is a lot of charity. When the government puts a gun to your head and asks you to "donate" or go to jail, it's not really much about charity anymore though. Then everybody ends up actually paying more than they would have (except the people who pay nothing at all) otherwise because the government is so incompetent at running anything efficiently.
Now look up what "general welfare" means in that context to see why what I said was correct.
Hint, it's not what you think it is.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Hell, in Canada we apply the Charter of Rights and freedoms to everyone, even foreign nationals. I'm perfectly happy with that even though I'm fronting the bill with my tax dollars,
That's why we give refugee claimants multiple court hearings, access to lawyers, and all that other good stuff. I'd rather have a few people abuse the system than screw those who are really in need. When fuck-ups do occur, like Maher Arar being handed over to the Americans to be extradited, a huge stink is made about it.
I probably have a warped view of the situation, but I'm really starting to dislike the US. I realize that I shouldn't stereotype against all Americans, but even so I'm still hesitant about even travelling there. It's a bad sign when soon-to-be highly trained professionals are scared to come work in your country.
I hate to point out the obvious, but the civil war was the US fighting other parts of the US. Of course it was possible for the US to win. At least, some part of it. It was pretty much a guaranteed outcome.
The problem is that it is not at all obvious that ANY of the activity was "illegal" or unconstitutional.
It's just that people like to think of it as being that clear-cut, when it isn't.
Collecting foreign signals intelligence on foreign targets (i.e., non-US persons) outside of the United States DOES NOT (and should not) require a warrant, or any court oversight. That includes:
1.) When the other end of the conversation is also foreign; and
2.) When the other end of the conversation is within the United States
Yes, you read that right. Just because a target of foreign intelligence collection makes a call to even a US citizen within the United States doesn't mean it suddenly requires a warrant. That's how it's always been. A warrant is only required when it is a US citizen and/or the target is on US soil. That has always the case, and is the case with all iterations of the various legislation (Protect America Act, RESTORE, this agreement, etc.).
The "new" issue is that the United States should also be able to do 1.) and 2.) above without a warrant when the traffic travels through the United States, either incidentally or by design. The warrant requirements for domestic surveillance are designed to protect the target of the surveillance, not the mechanisms, processes, techniques, or companies that enable the surveillance. If the target of the surveillance does not fall under warrant requirements, no warrant should be required.
The legal questions arose because the interception of the communication happening on US soil put it in an understandably gray area. But it was NOT clear that it was illegal or unconstitutional, as some seem to think it so clearly was!
The whole process of court oversight and warrants is designed to protect people who are afforded the protections of the laws and constitution of the United States. Foreign persons outside of the United States DO NOT get these protections. You may think they do (you'd be wrong), or think they should (laudable, but laughable, idealism), but the fact of the matter is, they do not.
The Protect America Act was overly broad and prone to abuse because one person, the Attorney General, was the entity to "sign off" on the declaration that a target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person outside of the United States. The new legislation will use FISA processes for that signoff, but still without warrants.
The funny thing everyone is missing here is that the only point of contention was whether or not telecoms should be granted retroactive immunity for the assistance they already provided. The House Democrats are the ones who introduced the RESTORE Act. Here, look and see what it does. It allows warrantless surveillance of communications where a foreign target outside of the United States is a party, regardless of where the other endpoint is, and regardless of whether the intercept is done on US soil. The primary difference between it and the Protect America Act is that FISC (the FISA court) oversees the process, targeting procedures, and signs off on targets being reasonably believed to be outside of the United States.
How is it illegal to provide assistance for the monitoring of things that have have already been found to not require a warrant (in the case of the logging of start and endpoints of phone numbers, but NOT content, which constitutes a "pen register", or of targets that have no warrant requirements whatsoever (non-US persons outside of the US)?
Warrants are there to protect US citizens and other persons afforded the rights of the Constitution and US law. Warrants, in this context, affirm that the target of surveillance is protected by applicable laws and has certain rights. Warrants provide a judicial oversight process.
Foreign targets outside of the United States have NEVER had any of those rights or protection
"Yes, we should be ashamed" of what happened in the case, Rohrabacher said.
"That is no excuse to end a program which has protected the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American lives." Hardly sincere sounding, since it comes across as "We did it, it's a bad policy, but we're still going to do it." I don't know how anyone can believe that rendition and torture is acceptable behaviour.
The US government had a clear goal: stop the secession and reabsorb the states involved. It was possible to fail at that goal. If they had failed, the Confederated States of America would have been an independent country. The CSA would have won and the US would have lost.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Why can't a majority of Democrats ever win in congress? Could it be that both Democrats and Republicans are voting for these things? Stop the 2 party bullsh*t. We'll never get what we need if we leave it up to these clowns. Vote 3rd party in 2008. There is NO WAY you can blame this exclusively on the Republicans. ...If you are intelligent.
Let me come at this issue from a different angle than the argument I see in nearby branches of this thread. Is the United States' government designed to have limits other than the Bill of Rights, or to give politicians the authority to do absolutely anything that doesn't directly violate freedom of speech etc.? A reading of the document and its context suggest that it's best understood as a limited government. If phrases like "to regulate interstate commerce" and "to promote the general welfare" are understood to mean "to do anything Congress feels like doing," then why have specific "enumerated powers" such as the creation of a patent office? Those specific powers are listed as things the government is authorized to do, not as examples of things the Founders had on their to-do list.
A broad interpretation of the general welfare clause also contradicts the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." If promoting the general welfare means Congress may do anything it wants to, then there are no powers not delegated to the federal level, and the Tenth Amendment is meaningless.
So, the most reasonable interpretation of the Constitution says that the government has only specific, limited powers, and that the government oversteps its authority when it claims to have no limits but the Bill of Rights. This overstepping has arguably happened repeatedly with the growth of the welfare state and creative abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Revive the Constitution.
Can I get a "ha ha" tag? OMG this is hilarious... slashtard heads are a 'splodin...
Our interests there were/are not as important as those domestically. I doubt that the same kind of pussy-foot action would occur if a full-scale war were to take place on American soil. I'd add that in Iraq, nobody's winning. The insurgents are making trouble, but they aren't really getting what they want.
Also, things are getting worse here, but I'd much rather be here than there.
This is not a signature.
Democrats are not stupid. Nor are they spineless. They well understood that the outcome of voting against the Republican measures would have been political suicide.
Verizon reported that it handed over information to law enforcement thousands of times, and only 700-odd times to the Federal Government. Among those cases handed over was the online posting of child molestation. Information that led to the rescue of a young boy being molested by a convicted sex offender.
Voting against immunity for telcos would have been accurately portrayed as "the child molestor and terrorist protection act." Because it would have opend the door to a flood of lawsuits against telcos for handing data over to any government branch: federal, state, local. Which would have had the effect of protecting terrorists and child molestors.
Civil Liberty absolutists are fine with that. Parents with children are not. The raw politics would have made it political suicide for Dems, who are already perceived (accurately) in caring more about restricting government's ability to intercept telecom info in the name of civil liberties than protecting the public.
Yesterday the WSJ ran an article on how Acxiom collects all sorts of data from government sources (tax rolls, voting rolls, etc.) to build up a dossier on people, adding info from website registration and warranty cards. When you browse a website serviced by Acxiom, they place a cookie on your hard drive and can target ads to you based on your income, political affiliation, property ownership, educational level, warranty items purchased, and anything else. Acxiom probably has more detailed dossiers on people in the US than the NSA. They also have more resources.
Civil Liberties absolutists are simply not believable by the majority of the public because absolutists are fine with Google or Acxiom collecting and selling massive dossiers on people, but restrictionists on the government to actually do good: fight terrorists or stop child molestors.
The case where FISA required a 10 hour delay to get a warrant JUST to tap info in IRAQ to rescue a kidnapped soldier was revealing. Dems do not want relatives of dead soldiers making ads saying "Congressman Demo cared more about Moveon than saving my son's life. He voted FOR requring a warrant in IRAQ to tap the communications of people who kidnapped my son. The ten hour delay cost my son his life. Congressman Demo cares more about legalisms than saving soldiers lives."
This is the politics: civil liberties absolutism means ordinary people lose and terrorists and child molestors and other criminals win. It's why non-partisan people like Gen Hayden, DCI McConnell, Dem Jane Harman, and others have opposed further restrictions.
AQ is not going away. Neither are other groups like Abu Sayyaf, JAM, and all the other Jihadist terror groups. Or child molesters, various other criminals, and so on. People expect their government to do something and will PUNISH those lawmakers who put interests of absolutists over that of action.
[As a practical matter Google and Acxiom are more likely to pursue an enemies list than the lame-duck GWB who is weak and ineffective. Childish behavior is not conducive to long term efforts to figure out how to have oversight of desperately needed intelligence activity. Unless you'd like to contemplate the vigilante and other action if a nuke goes off in say, Dallas or NYC. Given Pakistan's shaky government under siege from AQ and the Taliban, that's a reality. Ask Bhutto who just barely escaped assassination today.]
My friend, you're right on the money.
The precedents set in the last seven years won't go away. There will be no "class of '74/Watergate Babies" that will come in and even attempt to to be cleaning house. Anyone who thinks that when the next president gets elected they will voluntarily give up those powers is definitely no student of history. Democrats want those over reaching powers just as much as Republicans do. They are biding their time, and when Hillary gets elected, she will use those powers how she deems fit. And what will be the ultimate hillarity (pun/sp intended) is when The Right will bitch and moan to high heaven about how "our rights are being trampled on", etc;, etc;,
People seem to forget the outrage at Clinton/Reno during the 90's. The Right was drenched in conspiracy theories of how Clinton would "put people in camps if they prayed at school", etc;.
Interesting how the shoe is on the other foot, except now, The Right got exactly what they decried in the 90's...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Article 1, Section 8 (which is NOT part of the Preamble):
"Section 8: The Congress shall have power
* to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
To yell "you're STILL wrong!" without any facts or argument to back that up when you've just been proven wrong (it's NOT part of the Preamble) is not a rational argument. If you want to claim that someone else doesn't understand it, it would help to establish that you DO understand it...
"Yes, now, vote for every Democrat you see to get rid of the Republicans"
Um, I'd rather vote for the best candidate thanks, which even though your post implies otherwise, IS NOT GUARANTEED TO BE A DEMOCRAT.
You should probably vote for the best candidate too you know.
"Every politician's main job is to get re-elected."
That's just a steaming pile.
Their job is to serve the people, and by saying things like you did, you further the idea that it's ok for them to focus primarily on getting reelected.
Your excuse is just as big a problem as the scumbags who you're making excuses for. Save the cynicism, it's ineffective, tired, and childish.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
"All you're doing here is saying "You're wrong!" over and over without giving any reason why"
NO, that's a lie. I gave my reasons already, you just seemed to have decided you wanted to forget them, because you can't refute them.
Like I said, your reading comprehension apparently sucks. Get that handled before you start lying about what people are saying again.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I'm usually a big fan of keeping the government out of my business...but if just ONE nuclear bomb goes off, it's gonna effect the 'civil rights' of something like 10,000,000 people in the initial blast, and who knows how many more will die from the dust, radiation ('cause it won't be a 'clean' nuke, and at ground level or below) and all the other reasons.
There has yet to be a case filed where such surveillance has injured anyone that *wasn't* a terrorist. If you've been inconvenienced, please step up.
I fear the Fed *more* when it decides it's going to decide when I get my medical care, if at all.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
The probability of being killed by a terrorist is only as low as it is because we have had measures like this actively in place. Countless terrorist attacks have been prevented in this manner.
It boggles my mind that anyone would be selfish enough to allow another innocent American/person be killed at the expense of "the Man *might* try to see what illegal activities I'm up to (if I'm acting suspiciously)." What are you trying to hide that someone else has to die? It is a good thing this bill passed, in a democrat-controlled congress nonetheless, 273-156.
And how about the 1st amendment rights? Far-lefties reminding everyone non-stop about the 4th amendment forgot about the 1st when they modded my original post down to flamebait, suppressing my ability to share my opinion. Who's taking a dump on the bill of rights here?
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/exclusive_senator_chris_dodd_will_put_a_hold_on_telecom_immunity_bill.php
... haven't done so yet, so I can't say I actually endorse him in general, but I certainly endorse his action here!
If he stops that bill, I, for one, will be giving him some serious consideration.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. How can you be so wrong and yet get modded insightful (who says Geeks can't be Conservative stooges)? You've mashed different FISA issues together to make it sound like there were no FISA problems. I believe thats called a strawman, but you beat the crap out of him, congrats. No way you work at a telecom, no siree.
As noted below parts of FISA have been ruled unconstitutional. SO YES it is illegal. Your strawman argument is crap. A court ruled it was illegal to intercept communications where both parties were outside the US, that was the reasoning behind updating FISA. The Democrats were on board with that part, but the repubs put all kinds of extras in there (like the immunity) which is not exactly an earth shattering development (evil people do evil things). Yes some Dems love big business and don't mind the idea of legalizing anything that helps profits, but thats not a case to dismiss all the problems with FISA or the administrations handling of this issue. Then theres all the scare tactics the Repubs used to ram the vote down congresses throat. Everything around FISA has been yet another Repub. clusterf#!k.
If you want a detailed, thoughtfull analysis from, i dont know, a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you check out Glen Greenwald's blog at Salon. He's far more knowledgable than I.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald
might also check out the eff. who are involved in this case
while you're there, give 'em some money, because there are too few people fighting the good fight and far too many like the parent spreading misinformation.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/09/parts-fisa-held-unconstitutional
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
what if the dems don't make any headway in your freedom if they win the presidency in the first 100 days? they keep making big claims about this but so far we've seen nothing in return. are you simply going to switch your footing or finally going to take a real stand by going third party?
my guess is that you're all too weak to do anything truly against the grain.
I have to appreciate the subtle slant that somehow the Democrats are trying to save us from this.
What a joke.
This police state is brought to you by BOTH halves of the demopublican party.
I hope Hillary wins just so some of you people *MAY* realize there's no difference.
Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, or give it up - this Republic's done.
Amen.
It struck me last night that it works like this; "Sow and Harvest".
--That is, the system builds up a massive, robust economy, (using, of course, continued dirty pool via the alphabet agencies), and then sucks it all into the MIC when the crop is ripe. A Democratic government is sort of like feeding the beef cattle and letting them get some air before shipping them off to the Republican rendering plant.
John F. Kennedy was a spike in the system, so he had to die. Man, everybody in the power/money world hated him. (The linked on-line book was penned by the French secret service under pseudonym. It's an analysis of his presidency and all the forces he was setting into motion and doesn't really get into the actual assassination.)
-FL
Yep, its that point.
I would like to stay and fight, but I'd rather leave this place. This administration awakened in me the idea that nations are silly concepts, screw that. I'll go where I'm most free. Bye bye US, hello Switzerland/Liechtenstein.
For those of you seeking to stay and fight I suggest http://www.gunbroker.com/
Best of luck. (I mean that)
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Well, I don't know about you, but I've lost people to Afghanistan and the world lives in fear and loathing and ill health as a result of Bush & Dick. I feel a little more than inconvenienced. Every day is a lot darker than it needs to be, and I don't like walking around knowing that with a pen stroke, Bush can put anybody behind barbed wire with zero legal recourse. Surveillance may not directly inconvenience you, but it's arguably the most vital organ in the fascist beast. --And while it was healthy and strong pre 9/11 it certainly wasn't used to stop guys with box cutters from boarding those jet liners. --In fact, I'd argue that it was used to make sure 9-11 went down the way it did. So if 10,000,000 people get atomized in an atomic fireball, it won't be because surveillance failed. It'll be because people aren't saluting quickly enough.
-FL
This email has been filed away somewhere, but so what? I'd happily repeat the above to their faces.
-FL
Oh, for heaven sakes, no one is going to revolt over this, or even do anything that the telco's would notice. Now if you really WANT to make a statement, slashdotters, here is how you do it.
Go to your computer, and write a document petitioning your congressperson to put a maximum billing rate of 2 cents on telco's calls. Now print it out, and leave in in every one of your neighbors doors along with instructions on how to mail it to thier congressperson.
Everyone is going to sign it and send it; no one like high bills, and there is nothing particularly partisan about it. On the other hand, the Congresspeople are going to take notice.; an response concerning over 30% of their constituents would scare the hell out of them, usually, they can't get that many people to vote in the election.
And the telco's would notice, since it would shave their already thin profit margin to the bone. And THAT might convince them that they need the public's good will more than the governments, and cooperating with invasion of privacy is not good for public relations.
In addition to the corrections other posters have made, by side-stepping FISA and other oversight (which is, in fact, Constitutionally required whenever a US citizen is *involved*, regardless of target), how in the world do we actually know what the actual issues are? The administration has done everything in its power (legally and otherwise) to forestall any legitimate investigation into the issues, so the bottom line is we really *have no idea* who was or was not being listened in on, aside from unverifiable and suspect assertion. And we do know that the technical means emplaced could be used for just about anything. How many times recently (e.g. NSLs) have we seen paperwork 'lost', 'misfiled', misreported, or powers otherwise routinely misused?
If nothing was being done against the law, why the evasion? Why the requests for immunity? Why the stream of requests for relaxing oversight? Is not the question the government constantly shoots at us "If you have nothing to hide why are you worried?" Perhaps the whole thing is legit, but it is certainly not above-board, and I will believe 'legit' when it is properly and thoroughly investigated, and when there proper oversight is again the norm, not the exception. 'Trust me,' doesn't cut it. If they cannot find the time and cause to get a warrant within 45 days *after* surveillance begins, there is a problem.
Hm.
First of all, the Democrats are not my party. They are the Sowing half of the human harvesting cycle, on which the Republicans appear to be the reapers.
As for your other points. . . The last time I checked in with Rush Limbaugh, he was blustering away using loud, bullying and logically flawed emotional arguments to sway his listeners. Emotional arguments are the lowest form of political persuasion available this side of brute force, worthy of no respect at all. Until people figure that out, they might as well get used to slavery and misery. But I guess that's okay if they think they like it and have no awareness of how others lead happier lives.
I studied quite a bit about the Night of Long Knives. --And I didn't need television's History Channel to do it. The History Channel is just another tool of perception shaping. Before I ditched TV altogether, (the propaganda and mind-control box that it is), what I saw of the History Channel was thinly and perhaps not even intentionally disguised. It makes war look like a fun, well reasoned and albeit a hard but necessary thing. --And it successfully, (in your case anyway), causes people to think that fascism comes in only one flavour. The understanding of how to control a population has come a long, long way since the 1940's.
Also. . . You commented upon health care. Sheesh. --One film I would direct you to is Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. (Yes, the conservatives can't stand him, and despite some of the liberties he has taken in previous films, I'm aware of no similar objections to this latest film. And in any case, he doesn't work up a lather yelling at the camera like Rush. He provides concrete research rather than John Wayne references.) As a Canadian, who enjoys a country with a far higher standard of living than the U.S., I must say that when my girlfriend cut the end off her finger, having it put back on at no cost to her was wonderful, and it happened within an hour of her walking into the hospital.
As a baker in a small business and with a prior history of previous abnormal illness, she wouldn't have been eligible for American health insurance, nor at the age of twenty-one would she have been able to afford the doctor's bill. Yet, amazingly, Canadian society manages to have a health care system which, while it does suffer from a few flaws which can be traced to bad government, it's pretty awesome, and we do it while maintaining a standard of living far higher than that of the U.S., with barely a fraction of the starving and illiterate people south of the border. Heck, the percentage of our population living in prisons is also not the highest in the first world, (unlike that of the U.S.). Indeed, I look at such a stunted system as the American one, and constantly hold myself in amazement that such a cruddy state of affairs can actually have hardened supporters who are not among the elite. --That believing a vibrant, giving and highly valued young woman as my girlfriend is in her community, can live with the benefit of excellent health-care is somehow limiting of her freedoms is the result of such an astounding con job by the American political system that I have a very hard time believing that people can be so easily misled. I see a free and happy girl as compared to a girl who would probably have lost her finger under the U.S. system. How is that freedom? --The people in Communist Russia were told lots of lies by their government as well, but the difference is that without television and lots of mind-numbing creature comforts and high-sugar foods, the people of Russia for the most part didn't eat up the propaganda like the Americans do. --That's an example of those advancements in population control techniques I mentioned earlier.
In any case, you asked if anybody has been inconvenienced by the surveillance problem in the U.S. and I said, "Yes." And your answer to that appears to be general apologist jargon, which I do not buy for some of the reasons I just described.
Wonderfull, at this rate they might even manage to understand irony somewhere in my liftime.
american is waste to protect herself.Then how can it involve in other countries matters.It will be die herself in a pound.So protect herself With NSG first.IT IS WASTE COUNTRY IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD.
I disagree. I think it's because a lot of the strong Democrat Senators are (a) too busy with worrying about primaries that are going to happen nearly a year before the general election, and who are also (b) eyeing the White House and drooling over the thought of what kinds of powers this idiot administration has left them with.
It comes back to an unfortunate consequence of our two-party system, where if you're the party who isn't in power, you don't try to undo the evils of those in power, you try to become the power and take advantage of where the last scumbags left off. 90% of the dissidents in this country are cyring "Oust Bush, Oust Bush!" instead of "Restore Freedom or We'll Vote Libertarian/Green/whatever," and the Democratic leadership is only happy to comply.
Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
Not quite. Read my other response. He mischaracterized what it said on that site.
http://www.unfocus.com/
This argument works wonders. Whenever anyone complains about the US using torture, or reducing civil liberties, or spying without a paper trail...the standard response is "At least it isn't as bad as *insert oppressive regime*". That disingenuous excuse seems to be good enough for most Americans, I am sad to say.
Blar.
It seems most Democratic senators don't understand the concept of an "opposition" party. Capitulation is not opposition.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -