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.
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!
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?
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).
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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?
If you're posting from any other country that calls its system a form of democracy, I can assure you that, based on your standards, your country's democracy "experiment" failed long ago, as well.
However, considering that you are still able to make posts like the one above, I am assuming your standards are far beyond a system any country the Earth has yet to produce.
The situation will right itself. Perhaps not immediately, but it will in time. But has democracy failed? No. It just has not had a chance to shift from an extreme back to a medium on one topic. Citizens should have faith in the Constitution, give the situation time, and work toward what we know is right.
And please, try to keep a level head when posting. Spouting extermist dogma of fascism and the oppression by the military/industrial complex just gets you rightfully moderated as Flamebait.
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.
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."
Start doing your jobs.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
It seems unlikely, though. Considering how big a deal they make out of every "foiled terrorist plot" they uncover that turns out to be a bunch of wankers who live in a warehouse and talk about blowing up buildings but are too busy passing the pipe to get around to learning how to actually make working explosives, you would think that if they had any actual successes from a controversial program they would be trotting it out all over the place.
Of course, if they did, then you'd still have people like me asking how come they couldn't follow the Constitution and get a warrant before wiretapping, and keep track of who they were wiretapping and what they used the information for.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.