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.

Comments

Scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

Attention to those who shared our data illegally: Legal immunity doesn't mean you're not scumbags. That is all.

Re:Scumbags

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Legislation granting legal immunity also does not mean that you are legally immune.

Governments can pass whatever laws they like, but if those laws are later found to be unconstitutional, then they are rendered void, and so are immunities granted under them. Admittedly there is no chance of that happening in this case, but still... that's the theory. Pity about the practice.

Re:Scumbags

[bckrispi]

Remember, this is the "John Roberts" Supreme Court we're talking about...

Re:Scumbags

[sumdumass]

While this is true, it is only to the extent that the immunity would be given after the fact. The constitution supposedly protects us from post facto laws which would mean you couldn't be prosecuted for anything happening after the immunity or whatever law(or lack of) was manipulated to remove the immunity.

So basically, any Telcos that didn't participate in the beginning, but does now after the immunity and revised FISA laws, if those laws get rejected or ruled unconstitutional as your suggestion indicated, they still have the effect of immunity.

I'm not sure I said that right. Basically, if the law get overturned in two months but during that time, some of the holdouts decide to help, they cannot get prosecuted for the their related actions during the time the law actually covered them (or appeared to cover them).

The basis is that you cannot pass a law making what you did legally yesterday illegal today then prosecute you for your actions yesterday.

Re:Scumbags

[dpilot]

>Legal immunity doesn't mean you're not scumbags.

No, but it means that they don't have to care.

To paraphrase, "Legal immunity means never having to say you're sorry."

Re:Scumbags

[murrdpirate]

Personally, I'm glad that the government listens in on phone calls made outside the country to suspected terrorists. I know that it has the potential for abuse, but I think that can be prevented. Someone will blow the whistle, as they already did. That being said, I do agree that it does appear to be unconstitutional. I just think it should be made constitutional.

I disagree that the people in the telecom industry are scumbags. I don't think they enjoy giving out their customers' information. They are in an awkward situation. They could have faced legal problems either by obeying or disobeying the president. I don't think you should have to be punished by obeying the president. If we decide that it truly is wrong, I think the president should be punished, not those that carried out his orders.

Re:Scumbags

[LilGuy]

I'm declaring immunity for all sharers of copyrighted materials over the Internet. It's just as lawful.

Re:Scumbags

[XeresRazor]

Google the Nuremberg trials, Principle 3 I believe covers it, "I was just following orders" hasn't been an excuse for a long time now.

Re:Scumbags

[Monsuco]

Google the Nuremberg trials, Principle 3 I believe covers it, "I was just following orders" hasn't been an excuse for a long time now.

This aint exactly crimes against humanity, and the United States did this sorta thing (wiretapping) in WWII.

Re:Scumbags

[sumdumass]

I'm not familiar with that, tell me more about it.

Re:Scumbags

[ultranova]

The basis is that you cannot pass a law making what you did legally yesterday illegal today then prosecute you for your actions yesterday.

That's right. Shrinwrap EULAs are the proper way to do that.

Re:Scumbags

[sumdumass]

I always thought of shrink wrap EULAs as a way to defraud someone. Not a law punishing someone.

And to that point, the shrink wrap style licenses seem to have some legal issues that get challenged every so often.

This is great news! I support the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

(In case anyone is watching)

Who watches the watchers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who watches the watchers? - Nobody it seems.

Re:Who watches the watchers?

[jay-be-em]

The coast guard.

Re:Who watches the watchers?

[Echolima]

The Illuminati

Re:Who watches the watchers?

[thoughtlover]

"Who watches the watchers? - Nobody it seems."

Well, of course, it's The Watcher. But his race has sworn to be noninterventionist.

Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[neoform]

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?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[SomeGuyTyping]

I didn't see anything about phone lines in the Bill of Rights. Did I miss something?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[varmittang]

Yeah, but as far as I know its congress that has to hold him accountable. And by the looks of this, they just don't care. All the people can do is vote at elections, which makes us powerless when the people we voted for wont do anything.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[BlowHole666]

The Dems control congress so SOME dems had to vote for this bill to get it passed. It is simple math.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Qzukk]

I didn't see anything about phone lines in the Bill of Rights. Did I miss something?

Yeah, I didn't see anything in there about phone lines either. Did find this though:

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 it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Anonymous Coward]

No It is called treason. And the President will be pardoned by whomever is the next president.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[l2718]

If Bush failed to uphold the Constitution, he can be impeached (that is, tried) by Congress. I doubt that this will happen. In this case though it's not Bush but rather Congress that is enacting inappropriately. The solution here is to vote them out in the upcoming election. The constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, but this clearly refers to laws which criminalize what was not criminal at the time, not laws which de-criminalize what was criminal at the time. This "immunity" law enhanced the provincial atmosphere of the US congress, where individual bills are rampant and particular interests trump national issues. The US excepted I haven't encountered countries where laws are commonly passed which, on their terms, apply to only one person or only one company.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DigiShaman]

SCOTUS can still review the issue.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Mongoose Disciple]

Yup. The Fourth Amendment.

I suppose you could argue that a person's phone calls aren't included in the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" that the government isn't allowed to search or seize without a warrant, but I can't imagine any sane person really believing that and arguing it as anything but an intellectual exercise.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[betterunixthanunix]

Considering that we live in a country where electronic records are considered "documents," I don't think anyone can actually claim that internet communications are not protected by the 4th amendment. Alas, it falls on deaf ears.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[djasbestos]

It's the principle of the matter...one day they're allowed to listen in on your innocuous phone calls, the next they are dragging you out of bed and summarily executing you in the street for "conspiracy to undermine American/family values" (whatever those are...). It's a slippery slope, and in my lifetime, politicians have only gotten scummier with time. I'm loathe to trust them with more power than they already wield / have given themselves. A free society does not find genesis in a blackbox, black op, surveillance culture.

It's like UF said about "Microsoft Genuine Advantage"..."we never said it was an advantage to the customer..."

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Tackhead]

> Considering that we live in a country where electronic records are considered "documents," I don't think anyone can actually claim that internet communications are not protected by the 4th amendment. Alas, it falls on deaf ears.

Alas, if only that were so.

In Sov^H^H^HPost-9/11 America, it falls on listening ears.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

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?

Yes and the same can be said of the Democrats who went along with this travesty...

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[gardyloo]

If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that. It's been a long time since I studied the Constitution of the United States, but I do NOT read the 10th Amendment as saying that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[jay-be-em]

You remind me of ridiculous patents of the form

Doing X ... on a PHONE
Doing Y ... on the INTERNET

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[courtarro]

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?

Do they need to align themselves with the president to enhance their image to the public? He's certainly not winning popular approval right now.

Do they need the approval and agreement of the president to achieve useful goals? He has yet to approve anything that doesn't fall into his specific ideology.

Do they expect the president to return the favor and compromise on other matters? He certainly hasn't so far.

So what's left? Why is Congress bowing down to this monster at their own expense? I can't understand why the Republicans in Congress support such an unpopular tyrant, much less the Democrats. Congress looks like a bunch of whipped dogs. Do none of them have the balls to start giving our government some semblance of repair and restoration?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[neoform]

Actually, I think congress is allowed to, but it's the people's job to keep their government accountable.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[scubamage]

Actually people are provided privacy by the constitution in any situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, if I close the door on a pay telephone booth, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was ruled by the supreme court because the constitution is meant to protect privacy of people, not specific places and channels. So if I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any information gathered while I have said expectation is unconstitutional. Let me see if I can find the case law on that.. been forever since civil liberties class.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[huckamania]

"not laws which de-criminalize what was criminal at the time"

According to FISA, they have 72 hours after tapping a thing, to get a warrant. The phone companies, for FISA to work, must allow the NSA to tap the lines 72 hours in advance of a warrant. The phone companies, have done nothing wrong. The NSA, in this instance, has done nothing wrong. It is only after 72 hours of tapping something that the NSA could have possibly done something wrong. The NSA cannot be expected to also provide the phone company with a warrant that says 'gee, we tapped this line on this date for this guy and these two numbers, but don't tell no one else'.

The phone companies can not compel the NSA to provide the warrant after the 72 hours and even if they did, it wouldn't change the fact that they can't travel back in time 72 hours to not provide them with the information. In short, the phone companies should not be prosecuted because some bureaucratic cya attitude by some namby-pamby pencil pushers get cold feet when their daddy-complex superior had to get his colon scoped and didn't sign the extension for the 72 hours their boss was in the hospital.

Fixed my Ubuntu display finally. It was the video card. Linux rocks.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[msuarezalvarez]

"liars and traitors". You surely seem to have swallowed the pill...

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Rogerborg]

Remind me; which Article explicitely guarantees your privacy?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[visualight]

This is what angers me:

Democratic leaders scrambled to persuade their members to oppose it, but with Republicans accusing Democrats of being weak on terrorism, a "no" vote proved too hard to sell, and so the bill was pulled from the floor.

WTF? Do they think we're such fools that we can't see through rhetoric like "weak on terrorism if you won't be criminals with us"? CHRISTONASTICK. They think this way because they're shielded from us in their offices/chambers whatever. If they had to come outside and deal with a real person getting up in their face (like in real life) this bullshit wouldn't fly.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[scubamage]

Case: Katz v. US, 1967. Excerpt, " join the opinion of the Court, which I read to hold only (a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and unlike a field, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic, as well as physical, intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, [p361] and (c) that the invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant. As the Court's opinion states, "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The question, however, is what protection it affords to those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a "place." My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Thus, a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected," because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable. Cf. Hester v. United States, supra. "

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

Of course the dems passed this, you dont think Hillary wants this kind of power when she is in the white house?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Rogerborg]

It's apparently 'reasonable' to monitor everyone in time of war. Luckily, we're always at war.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[drmerope]

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?

No, you're forgetting that there is another side to our constitutional protections: each branch of the government gets to draw its own conclusions about the meaning of the constitution. This is why for instance, when Congress passes a law and the executive enforces it, the court may nonetheless refuse to uphold any convictions under that law. Similarly, if Congress passes a law that the President believes violates the constitution he may ignore it; it is in his eyes, "not a law".

This is the keystone of the tripartite system of government.

In the case of the fourth amendment, the courts have developed the exclusionary rule to handle disagreements with the Executive as to the meaning of the 4th amendment. The executive may search and seize willy-nilly but the court does and will refuse to take notice of evidence that it believes was gathered in violation of the 4th amendment. No evidence means no conviction, no imprisonment, no loss of property, etc.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[gb506]

If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that.

Well if that's the case I hope we can shut down the Dept. of Health and Human Services along with the Social Security administration, both of which fall far outside the scope of what the framers intended, and combined account for over $1.3 Trillion of the $2.8 Trillion 2007 federal budget.

There were 133,092,565 tax returns filed last year, which means if we shut down HHS and SSA each and every taxpayer could be refunded $9,768.00. Think you can fund your own health care insurance and retirement with $10k per year? Absolutely.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[feed_me_cereal]

oh, you mean the people who put Bush in power + 2 people he put there?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Kadin2048]

The President can't be tried for treason, at least not in the way that a normal citizen can. He can only be impeached; beyond that he has immunity for official acts committed while in office. Once he's out of office you can't impeach him, and he's still immune as long as he doesn't do anything further after leaving, so there's no reason why a pardon would be necessary.

The difference between, say, Bush and Clinton, is that the things people dislike Bush for are mostly all official acts. They may be abhorrent, but they're official, and thus he's shielded from personal prosecution. Clinton got into hot water (re Paula Jones) because it was alleged that his sexual advances weren't 'official' acts and thus unprotected. Although Clinton argued that everything a President does should be immune, this was rejected by the USSC: acts conducted as the President are untouchable except through Impeachment proceedings; acts conducted as a private individual can still have civil liability (and potentially criminal liability as long as it was prosecuted after the person left office so as not to interfere with their official duties).

I think you'd have a hard time going after Bush personally, outside his role as President, so it's basically a non-issue. As there doesn't seem to be the will to conduct impeachment proceedings, he's free and clear.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[RetardsForRonPaul]

Please. If you havent noticed, Bush finally found his veto pen, and the Dems don't have a filibuster-proof majority. Not that the Republicans have to filibuster... they just threaten to and the Dems roll over.

While I'm first in line to be ticked off at the Dems for thier uselessness (since I voted the bastards in), you can hardly blame this on the Dems. Bush and the rest of the proto-fascists have a hard on for this police state they're creating, and there is little the Dems can do to stop it, for the time being.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[elrous0]

Because the Democratic Party is made up of a bunch of spineless, undisciplined pansies who run in fear at the slightest threat of a showdown, even when in a position that should give THEM the power?

They're like a guy who plays chicken in an SUV and runs off the road the second the other driver starts his compact car.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[huckamania]

In this case, search and seizure doesn't apply since the papers and effects are crossing our border. Go to the border and cross it some day and you will find that they can and will search your car. Not always, but often enough that they seize something probably several times a day.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[buswolley]

I hate it too. Democrats are afraid that if they vote against it and a terrorist kills a bunch of people, then the democrats are gonna look weak, and stupid, and then they WILL lose the election.

See, the problem is that the President **could** let a terrorist plot succeed right before the election by directing the CIA or FBI to do other things. He **could** make the democrats look weak and unable to defend America right before the election, and by claim that the plot would have been stopped by wire tapping.

Sure, he could get blamed after investigation for being complicit, but that would be after the fact(election fact, that is)

Just some crazy hypotheticals...

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[eam]

We might not be such fools, but most people are.

I think back to visiting the film library at the hospital where I work. It was the day after one of the debates between Bush & Kerry. The folks in the film library were all planning on voting for Bush. Their reason: Kerry used too many words in the debate.

He used too many words...in a debate...

I sort of lost all hope then.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[omeomi]

It's apparently 'reasonable' to monitor everyone in time of war. Luckily, we're always at war.

Shhhhh!!! We're not supposed to notice that!

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[HangingChad]

Yes and the same can be said of the Democrats who went along with this travesty...

That's what really chaps my undies. I despise the Republicans but the Wishycrats being such pussies dealing with the White House is hair-pulling maddening.

I would vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote Republican, but I can really understand why they despise Democrats. Voting for telecom immunity just really pisses me off. Yeah, trample on the Constitution but don't worry about any actual consequences.

A pox on both our houses. We need a third option.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[mbrod]

They do nothing because it is politically advantageous for them to do nothing. The president is unpopular, the more he does the more it will hurt the Republicans in the next election.

The public knows the reason nothing can get done in congress is because there are still too many batsh*t crazy, fascist enabling Republicans left in the Senate. In 2008 the public will take care of this problem at the ballot box.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Wylfing]

I can't quite tell how the children posts are arranged, but it has been said in several follow-ups that:

1. This can be prosecuted to the Supreme Court, which is perhaps the best forum for this kind of Constitutional discussion
2. Congress can choose to impeach the President for failure to uphold the oath he swore
3. We can all vote Demo and hope that a change of administration will bring a new attitude to the White House

I suspect all 3 of these measures to fail, and for domestic surveillance to continue. It has succeeded in Britain already. A change of administration is highly unlikely to reverse domestic surveillance by the Executive, because Mr. Clinton was as much a part of establishing this as anyone. The SCOTUS might declare it illegal, but the Executive will simply ignore it, as they have with admonishments from Congress so far. And Congress has shown itself unwilling to impeach this President for any abuse whatsoever.

Therefore, the most likely vector for getting this checked is to remember that Congress funds everything. Vote to eject any members of Congress who will not hold the purse in hostage against these abuses. The Executive will fold when it runs out of money.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Chris Mattern]

The President can't be tried for treason,

Sure he can. He can be tried and convicted of any breach of the law he might be guilty of, and be sentenced to penalty prescribed by law. The President is not above the law.

He can only be impeached; beyond that he has immunity for official acts committed while in office.

He can *also* be impeached, yes. Impeachment is not the only legal proceeding the President can be subjected to, it's only the only one that will remove him from office. Yes, he has immunity for official acts. But not everything the President does is an official act. If he does something that he is not authorized by the laws of the United States to do, it's *not* an official act.

Chris Mattern

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[smurfsurf]

Best thing: you don't even need congress to declare war anymore.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

you can hardly blame this on the Dems.

Huh? Thats like saying if a cop (Democrats) sees a man beating his wife (Bush and the Constitution) hes not at fault for standing by and doing *nothing*..

Bush and the rest of the proto-fascists have a hard on for this police state they're creating

You just dont seem to get it... why did the dems not strongly oppose this? Because odds are they will be in the white house in 2008 and they would love to have this kind of power... Remember all the 'missing' FBI files in the white hose during the last administration?

They are playing a game; when one is in power the other uses procedural measures to stop them (like stopping judges from even getting a vote), the party in power complains about obstruction tactics the political winds of change blow and when the shoe is on the other foot its the same game with the roles reversed.

You cant honestly believe the party that considers hate speech too offensive to be covered by the first amendment is anything short of a fascist entity can you? The dems tell you what to think, and the republicans listen in to every word you say... Either way until some third parties start asserting themselves we are in real trouble..

and there is little the Dems can do to stop it, for the time being.

LOL you cant really be saying this, your as bad as the Republicans who blindly let their party leave its core values (small government) under the guise of 'well we dont have a super majority, but when we do, then things will be different'... What a sad joke. The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it...

The GOP as a minority party killed everything Bill Clinton tried to do between 1992 and 1994. They made their agenda (for example: welfare reform, balanced budgets, and (unfortunately) NAFTA) Clinton's agenda. Phil Graham risked his political career to stop Hillary care and won. Sadly that GOP is gone all we are left with is two parties with *slightly* different agendas (no neither is about the constitution or your rights) who will do whatever they can to accomplish it.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Buckler]

The only thing I can figure is that the Democrats in Congress are simply allowing him to take as much rope as he needs to hang himself, thereby helping to assure a Democratic victory in 2008. Given the fact that any progressive legislation they attempt is either vetoed by the President, stymied by the Justice Department Republican sockpuppets or filibustered by the Congressional Republicans, it doesn't appear that they have much choice in the matter.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered the possibility that they realize that they may be on the other side of the coin some day and may want those powers for themselves? The job of a Senator is to be elected President. If you were going to run for President and win, wouldn't you, being a politician and a slimeball (but I repeat myself), want the maximum amount of power in the long run, not just in the short term?

Basically, in exchange for their short-term (and our long-term) inconvenience, they get power, and we get the shaft.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

FYI: This is why traditional conservatives are for small government... I call my self a small government socialist and a big government conservative... I want states (like MN for example) to take care of healthcare, education, ..... Pretty much anything but foreign relations, *actual* interstate issues, and the military.. Your state reps are allot more accountable then your federal ones..

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DustyShadow]

nor did you see abortion or any other right that has been read into the constitution. 14th amendment was written for slaves/blacks but has been applied to all races and even women.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[smurfsurf]

In that case: If the telcos did nothing wrong, they don't need a law extempting them from prosecution when they won't be found guilty, don't they?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[mbone]

Because they are compromised (either bought off, or blackmailed, or both).

We no longer have a Republic. Maybe we can win it back.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[kalirion]

Stephen Colbert: "This is the famous pocket constitution... did you shrink this down yourself?"
Dennis Kucinich: "No, no, no. George Bush already did that."

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[baffled]

Luckily, we're always at war. Not if you vote for Ron Paul in your state's primary election!

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[plague3106]

I wouldn't say Bush Wins = Consitutional loss... more like Goverment wins = constitutional loss.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Alpha830RulZ]

Could it be that the surveillance has uncovered enough dirt, on enough members of Congress, that a little blackmail can be applied?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Relic of the Future]

"The phone companies can not compel the NSA to provide the warrant after the 72 hours"

Why the hell not?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[rtb61]

What about people on minimum wage, they get paid around $10,000 per annum total, so hmm, as long as they don't eat, or wear clothes or need a place to sleep and don't pay any tax at all, then they too can fund their health and retirement insurance. Or better yet, they just die when they are no longer productive, because it is their fault they are getting a minimum wage, born with low a IQ and lacking in education.

Now for those individuals who suffer an accident and their insurance runs out, they deserve to be cut off, and their lazy children can go out and get a job, being in primary school is no excuse. As for those in the military who were wounded in service, well, they should have been more careful, what right should they have for free medical services etc. for their clumsiness in being shot or blown up.

I suppose your political slogan would be, if you can't pay then you deserve to die. For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[lawpoop]

Let's not lose focus on what this is. The phone companies are turning over a few calls or switching over a few conversations to the NSA. This is the Total Information Awareness project. The phone companies are turning over *all* records of *all* conversation to some agency or agencies that is creating a aggregate database of all information on all Americans. All phone records, all credit card records, all legal records, school records, anything and everything electronic. Not surprisingly, the original logo for this agency/project was the All Seeing Eye scanning the United States.

This project was proposed shortly after 9/11, and supposedly scuttled after public outcry. But wikipedia claims that the various functions were farmed out to different agencies and projects.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Altus]

wouldn't there be something to gain by trying and failing at the senate though? it only makes it easier to unseat someone if you can say "hey, you voted against this thing, allowing the (hated) president to get away with spying on good, wholesome American citizens."

Of course if there is an attack before the next election this wont work, but then, if there is an attack, all bets are off.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[vimh42]

United States of America: Silence! Or you will be held in contempt of the Bill of Rights!

Bush: I have nothing but CONTEMPT for the Bill of Rights!

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[zzsmirkzz]

Because of political parties and the loyalty toward the party line and not the people . Also, I daresay that at the top of both the Republican and Democratic party are the same people, with the same goals. The divide between the two parties is an illusion perpetrated by those at the top to undermine and eliminate the people's power to vote. You have two choices, one from our side in wolves clothing, and another from our side in sheep's clothing, make your pick, either way we win. Couple that with a winner-take-all electoral voting system and it becomes increasing improbable/impossible for a real candidate that is by the people and for the people to ever get elected. Only those that are by the party and for the party get elected. This is why I do not vote in presidential elections, I know for a fact my vote is meaningless, it gets thrown away because I would never vote for a republican nor for a democrat.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[bdjacobson]

Perhaps this is why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[timeOday]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How much more plain can it be? You can't tap my phone calls without a warrant, and you can't get a warrant without probable cause that I personally am committing crime. I apologize in advance for ranting, but what's the problem with you people who think blanket warrantless searches are legal? Can't you read the Constitution? Or do you just not care? Do you honestly want to live in a police state, or do you simply think the US cannot be one, by definition? Seriously, what are you thinking?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[SIIHP]

Is there any way you could throw more straw men into a single post?

I like the appeal to emotion, but when the discussion is the constitutionality of these services, your post that boils down to "WAHHH! POOR PEOPLE GET SICK TOO!!! YOU'RE EVIL BECAUSE YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!!!" misses the point totally.

"For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing."

None of those things are provided for in the Constitution, so a constitutionally valid government must be, for you, something that you don't want or need.

Just keep that in mind when the parts of the Constitution you actually care about keeping get run over. No amount of "THINK OF THE POOR PEOPLE!!!" trumps the Constitution, no matter how much guilt you feel.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[fishbowl]

>The only thing I can figure is that the Democrats in Congress are simply allowing him to take as much rope as he needs to hang himself, thereby helping to
> assure a Democratic victory in 2008.

I don't think they are too worried about '08. They are letting the Republicans make things bad enough for themselves that they will remain out of power for decades to come.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[cHiphead]

But WHY is DHHS and SSA in such debt, answer that question and you'll find its not a result of their own doing, its a result of congressional and executive mismanagement (aka RAPE) of their fiscal budgets time and time again.

Cheers.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[gb506]

Look, you mental midget, not only did you not understand my post in any way, it appears, since in my sarcastic post even minimum wage earners would get the $10 per year (effectively doubling their income), it's obviously not possible to shut down HHS and SSA now - my post was an attempt to illustrate how far afield we've gone from the limited government envisioned by the framers, and to try to drive home exactly how much is spent on these two bloated behemoths. Discounting payments on the national debt, more than half the federal budget is consumed by these two departments, the responsibilities of which are not enumerated in the constitution.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[JohNNy1 4]

While the U.S. is busy spying on themselves, who's actually watching our real enemy? "We the People" have failed to hold the Government liable for its actions. We need a revolt, a new beginning, a new Constitution, realize a Government is not a tangible thing it is an idea, an agreement among our self's we must take it amongst ourselves to change this "idea" this "agreement" even if this means war.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[mbrod]

Under current rules in the Senate they can't just try. Anything either side doesn't like they filibuster (the virtual filibuster, not the real one, because no one actually filibusters anymore, they just threaten to) and require a cloture vote 3/5's (60 votes) of the Senate to move anything even to a vote.

So the Senate is pretty much out of commission for now.

Searching on virtual filibuster you can see a lot of people do not like them operating this way. They would prefer if the parties actually hated a bill so much, make them filibuster it for days on end, instead of just the virtual filibuster which requires them to essentially do nothing but say it.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[russotto]

Tried the soap box. Nobody's listening.

Tried the ballot box. Didn't make no difference.

Tried the jury box. Was excluded from the jury.

Ain't touching that last box. Looks like there's nothing to be done.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Ain't touching that last box. Looks like there's nothing to be done.

No, it looks like you would rather have your government commit crimes under your authority than do what you have to to hold them accountable.

Which is your choice, of course, but don't pretend it isn't up to you, the American public. The means are there for you to stop an out-of-control government, but none of you really want to that much.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

You're forgetting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's where all that stuff falls under.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

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?

Huh? How can it "clearly" go against the US Constitution? I can only guess you're referring to the prohibition against "unreasonable searches." But how is it clearly unreasonable to eavesdrop on phone conversations between suspected or known international terrorists and people residing within the US? I can't imagine a good argument for why that would even be "unreasonable", let alone "clearly unreasonable."

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

All the people can do is vote at elections, which makes us powerless when the people we voted for wont do anything.

The power that we gave ourselves when we adopted the Constitution is the power to vote out any representatives who fail to act in the best interest of people, or who fail to uphold the Constitution. That's why their jobs are put on the chopping block every 2 years.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[moeinvt]

Q: "Remind me; which Article explicitely guarantees your privacy?"

(Is that you Mr. Gonzalez?)

A: There isn't one.

Now, tell me which Article explicitly grants the Federal government power to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens?

The whole POINT of The Constitution is that The People have inalienable rights that do not need to be explicitly elaborated. The Constitution places limits on the power of government, not limits on the freedom of the citizens.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[japhmi]

You're forgetting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's where all that stuff falls under.

Except the preamble isn't the part of the Constitution that gives Congress any actual power, it just sits there looking pretty and giving a reason why a Constitution was written.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[RetardsForRonPaul]

The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it... 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. The little bit they've tried to get done is met with threats of filibuster by the Republicans and a hue and cry from the right-wing douchebagosphere. So there's little hope of them getting anything done. I can understand the country's frustration with the Dems - and I'm just as frustrated with their inaction - but temper that frustration with this knowledge. So spare me the rant about Democrats. The Republicans have had 6 years to fuck things up, and thats with a Republican Congress that votes in lockstep and a rubber stamp in a suit for a President. The Dems have a _slim_ majority, but it's their fault that the march towards a police step continues unabated? And how many Republicans are pushing for a flag burning amendment? How many are pushing for Congress to denounce MoveOn for stating the obvious? Spare me this petty bullshit and pay attention to something that actually fucking matters.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Kadin2048]

Sure he can. He can be tried and convicted of any breach of the law he might be guilty of, and be sentenced to penalty prescribed by law. The President is not above the law. You're splitting hairs as to what constitutes an 'official act.' While your opinion is valid, I doubt very much that the courts will accept such a minimalist interpretation. I strongly suspect that pretty much everything Bush has done that's considered objectionable or controversial, would be considered official, and be shielded from direct prosecution.

Go read a summary of Nixon v Fitzgerald; that's probably the most obvious case. But there's a whole chain of jurisprudence establishing it. Starting in common law, but made very clear in Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), then again in the Nixon case, and then again in the Clinton one. In Clinton, discussing Fitzgerald, Justice Stevens writes: "As we explained in Fitzgerald, 'the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity's justifying purposes.' Because of the President's broad responsibilities, we recognized in that case an immunity from damages claims arising out of official acts extending to the 'outer perimeter of his authority.'"

So if you wanted to successfully prosecute a President, you would have to show that the act was well beyond the outer perimeter of his authority. I think you'd have a very hard time showing that, because in most cases the Bush administration has been pretty devious in coming up with rationales for their actions, generally via enlarging the scope of the Executive. And as long as it's arguably within the perimeter of Presidential authority at the time, he would have a pretty solid immunity claim.

The correct way to go after Bush would be via impeachment, since there, there's no official-duties exception; trying to go after him personally for what are clearly acts as President, rather than as a private citizen, is a non-starter. If he beat his wife or kicked dogs, it'd be different. But starting a war is pretty clearly an official act, since it can't be done by anybody except the President. It's a very, very weak case.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[japhmi]

Or, maybe, we can leave those jobs up to the states.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

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!

Huh? How does the wiretapping program divert any power from the legislative branch to the executive? It is done as part of the execution of military intelligence gathering, which has always been the purview of the executive branch. If it was being done for law enforcement, that would raise Constitutional issues, but it would still be part of the purview of the executive branch. So I don't understand the argument.

So what's left? Why is Congress bowing down to this monster at their own expense? I can't understand why the Republicans in Congress support such an unpopular tyrant, much less the Democrats. Congress looks like a bunch of whipped dogs. Do none of them have the balls to start giving our government some semblance of repair and restoration?

Aside from the fact that the president is still more popular than Congress, they support wiretapping of terrorist conversations because it is their responsibility to provide the legal framework for the protection of the country. Still don't get why you think it's "at their expense."

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[japhmi]

But starting a war is pretty clearly an official act, since it can't be done by anybody except the President. It's a very, very weak case.

Except that the President can't start a war. The right to declare war is given to Congress alone.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

No, go back and read. The Dems don't have a big enough majority to beat a veto by Bush.

The Dems dont veto anything, the worst part is they cant override a bush veto... But very *very* few congresses have ever had one party in a super majority and the Republicans in the early 90's as a *vast* minority did more to shape the agenda then the Dems are doing today. If they were so inclined the dems could go to the mat with Bush right now... They could have for example *NOT PASSED THIS TRAVESTY OF A BILL*

They don't have a big enough majority to stop a filibuster.

The cowards could let the republicans filibuster over the right to ease drop without a warrant, personally if every decision you make as the majority is based upon opinion polls and spin you dont deserve a super majority...

So there's little hope of them getting anything done.

You're not getting this... The american people did not send them to do something, they sent them to *STOP* something... Im not asking to impeach the guy theres not point trying but how the hell did they pass this! This is *actively!* participating in the process.

The Dems have a _slim_ majority, but it's their fault that the march towards a police step continues unabated?

It is, at this point, as much their fault as Bushes because this was not a result of them not being able to over come a veto this was: Bill "Should Bushes unconstitutional domestic spying continue" Democrats: "AYE!".

And how many Republicans are pushing for a flag burning amendment?

You mean like this? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html) "Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal." Dont know, off the top of my head, the number of republicans trying to ban flag burning but I know Hillary is one of them.

Spare me this petty bullshit and pay attention to something that actually fucking matters.

Says the man who ignore the fact the dems just voted in favor of unconstitutional spying while deflecting with the evils of the flag burning amendment (Which incidentally the front running dem for the white house supports)... Sorry to say this but I have to be honest, if you buy the DNC line that 'when we have a super majority well be different' your as foolish as the republican voters who have been believing that for 13 years..

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[rwyoder]

It's apparently 'reasonable' to monitor everyone in time of war. Luckily, we're always at war.

I always forget; Are we at war with Eurasia, and allied with Eastasia, or is it the other way around?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[ciggieposeur]

Because the Democratic Party is made up of a bunch of spineless, undisciplined pansies who run in fear at the slightest threat of a showdown, even when in a position that should give THEM the power?

Given their history of trashing rights and the social safety net throughout the 90's, yes, they are spineless. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", "The End of Welfare as We Know It", bankruptcy "reform", student loan "reform", etc.

But they are also triangulating for 2008. They are allowing the current status quo of trashing the Constitution and Executive/Judicial corruption to continue in the hopes of winning big next November.

Imagine for a bit what would happen if they DID actually stand up to the Republicans. If they refused to fund the war, the Republicans in the Senate would let the rest of the government shut down and promptly go on the news to blame the Democrats. Really, the Republicans don't care if Social Security checks stop going out, or if the EPA has to shut down, or if IRS employees are forced to find other employment for lack of paychecks. If Democrats actually tried to impeach, what is the real likelihood that the country would go under Martial Law? Not since WWII has the country been this close to that.

I'm beginning to understand why the Dems are so powerless. The truth is that the real choice right now for America is a little more bullying for one more year followed by some cleanup legislation resulting in only a few hundred more civilian lives ruined, or the real loss of our entire republic with millions of lives affected and the risk of violence via a totalitarian Republican state ala 1984.

As spineless as the Democrats have been, they are nowhere near the level of outright fascism as the Republicans have been. The Dems want only to make some money and fame and retire in luxury, and they will compromise their constituents a little to get it; the Republicans OTOH are willing to burn the entire nation to the ground if they don't get what they see as owed to them.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Mr. Slippery]

Well if that's the case I hope we can shut down the Dept. of Health and Human Services along with the Social Security administration, both of which fall far outside the scope of what the framers intended, and combined account for over $1.3 Trillion of the $2.8 Trillion 2007 federal budget.

Well, the Constitution should be interpreted based on its text, not by what we think the framers intended. The framers themselves were opposed to that notion. As Madison put it, "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character." It's why the records of the proceedings of the Convention were not published until long afterward.

Anyway. There is a little bit of wiggle room in Article I Section's grant of power "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"; I'm willing to consider that this gives the fed broad powers to buy goods and services on behalf of the nation, though block grants to states to run their own programs might be better.

There were 133,092,565 tax returns filed last year, which means if we shut down HHS and SSA each and every taxpayer could be refunded $9,768.00. Think you can fund your own health care insurance and retirement with $10k per year?

You do understand that with progressive taxation, people with lower incomes benefit less from tax breaks, right? I certainly would not get a check for $10k.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[meringuoid]

Luckily, we're always at war.

Not always. Only until Terrorism surrenders.

My estimate is that will happen the year after Drugs surrender.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

Who's talking about the preamble? I'm referring to Article I, Section 8. Right before they give examples of what Congress can do.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Kadin2048]

Except that the President can't start a war. The right to declare war is given to Congress alone.

Which it was. Personally, I would have liked for Congress to call a spade a spade and pass an actual Declaration of War (which Ron Paul proposed, to his credit), but they basically did it under a weasely 'war by any other name.'

I think this is crappy, but the courts have had ample opportunities (including one directly related to Iraq) to say that it's invalid, and they have not. It's the same way that every U.S. military action since World War II has been carried out.

For now, the War Powers Act of 1973, which allows unilateral military action by the President for up to 60 (really 90) days, and indefinite military action with a Congressional use-of-force authorization beyond that, is the law of the land, pretty much without serious dispute.

So, sorry, but that's not going to fly.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Actually, I do RTFA]

one day they're allowed to listen in on your innocuous phone calls, the next they are dragging you out of bed and summarily executing you in the street for "conspiracy to undermine American/family values" (whatever those are...).

But what you don't understand is that there will be no need for a jury to determine if you are guilty. The government already tapped your phones and observed you, so they know you are. And there is no need for a judge to determine if evidence is admissible, because it is all legal under the "Terrorists are bad!!! Terrorists -> :'-( Act of 2008."

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[ciggieposeur]

Huh? Thats like saying if a cop (Democrats) sees a man beating his wife (Bush and the Constitution) hes not at fault for standing by and doing *nothing*..

Actually, it's more like a cop sees a man beating his wife in the middle of a cheering crowd who are all packing machine guns. You can try to stop the assault but there's a good chance you're going to go down too, or you can wait for backup. In this case, the backup is still a year away.

I think the Dems are pretty spineless too, but even in their weakened state the Republicans are still more powerful because they've got the Executive and the Judicial wrapped up. Dems impeach Bush? Martial Law. Dems threaten to suspend funding for Iraq War? Soldiers DON'T come home, instead Senate Republicans shutdown the government entirely until Dems capitulate. Dems try to hold Verizon/ATT/etc. accountable? Republicans threaten to shutdown the entire government in response. Dems want to expand a welfare program to include lower middle class people? Republicans threaten to shutdown the entire government in response.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[abern]

I agree, Federal government was created to protect its citizens' rights and freedom and now they are writing legislation to suppress our liberties? Shouldn't American's be concerned about this? The totalitarian rule that America is falling into is being masked by deception Terrorism and immigration should be the least of our worries, when the government protects companies from the right to a FAIR trial, that is a direct violation of the bill of rights.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

Most people would consider "That line of the Constitution should be ignored because I don't like it" to mean you're an idiot, not that you're right, but you can go ahead thinking how you like while the rest of the country ignores you.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

SCOTUS can still review the issue.

This may sound pedantic, but it's not: SCOTUS has NO power to review ISSUES. It ONLY has power to review CASES.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[KudyardRipling]

Those ears would hear better if they were not clogged with cushy jobs, nice homes, SUVs, retirment portfolia, entertainment systems, vacations, RVs, boats, etc.

Jury nullification works. That is why there exist military tribunals to circumvent the same.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Altus]

OK, I guess "you voted against the closure of a bill that would have..." just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[erroneus]

And let's not forget that part of the reason that medical care is so expensive is because it's presumed that "insurance" will cover the actual costs. If medical expenses were back in the hands of the people, we'd likely see lower medical costs and potentially higher quality since people would be shopping for themselves once again. (Invisible hand?)

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[elrous0]

But they are also triangulating for 2008.

The problem is that they're ALWAYS triangulating for "the future." They're always so worried about what might happen in the future that they are forever conceding the PRESENT, and the future is a eternally moving target. "We can't act on universal healthcare TODAY" becomes, for all intents and purposes, "We can't act on universal healthcare EVER." They're always thinking of what they will do someday, and never what they're going to do today.

The Clinton administration backpeddled all through the 90's and look what it got Democrats, loss after loss. The Republicans, meanwhile, made the most out of every single victory. The Republicans were HUNGRY for it. When they won, they didn't sit back and think "Well, now that we've won, we had better start compromising, lest the Democrats blast us for being too extreme." They wore "extreme" like a medal, tauting it as something to be proud of. And it made them more powerful, not less. Were it not for the folly of the Iraq War, they would no doubt STILL be in full power today. Democrats could learn something from that. With some party discipline, they could unite as one voice and turn their "extreme" stances into virtues to be proud of, instead of perceived liabilities.

Democrats need to learn to stand together and fight. Until they learn that, they will forever be on the defensive against a much better organized Republican Party that will always win. And they need to start by busting some heads in their own party to enforce party discipline.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

Actually, it's more like a cop sees a man beating his wife in the middle of a cheering crowd who are all packing machine guns

Except that the cops outnumber the crowd...

You can try to stop the assault but there's a good chance you're going to go down too, or you can wait for backup. In this case, the backup is still a year away.

Except this was the Dems *actively* passing a bill... Its like giving the mugger brass knuckles while you 'wait for backup'.. BTW The dems swear up and down that the huge majority of hte people are with them on getting out of Iraq now, on Ending crap like this domestic spying.. either (a) They dont buy their own propaganda or (b) They dont care what a huge majority of the people want.

I think the Dems are pretty spineless too, but even in their weakened state the Republicans are still more powerful because they've got the Executive and the Judicial wrapped up.

Had the dems simply not passed this bill the judicial branch would not have been involved...

Dems impeach Bush? Martial Law.

I dont fault them for not impeaching, for this you need the votes.. All the dems had to do to prevent the situation from getting worse is *not pass this bill*. You can make all the excuses in the world but if they cant summon the will to stop this bill when they are a simple majority I fear greatly for what they would do as a super majority.

Dems want to expand a welfare program to include lower middle class people? Republicans threaten to shutdown the entire government in response.

Besides, I dont fault them for having their agenda hampered by the minority, its a good thing that can happen its why were are not a mob democracy. Wha tI fault them for is *going along with the minority on this bill*. The republicans have the stones to shut down the government to stop an entitlement program but the dems cant muster the will to fight over our civil liberties? whats the problem here?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[rujholla]

If you are going to use that to justify social programs then Bush et all can think maybe providing for defense of its citizens through domestic wiretapping could fall under

the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

The SCOTUS might declare it illegal, but the Executive will simply ignore it.

Let's hope so. All it will take is a spineless president to get elected next who is intimidated by the SCOTUS, and we're doomed. The real crisis here is in the expansion of judiciary influence. I assume that military spying has always been a borderless endeavor, so I don't see anything new there except new technology.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[phantomlord]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.

So, what exactly does "the general Welfare" mean?

From:
FEDERALIST No. 23
The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or o

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[RetardsForRonPaul]

Hey, don't get me wrong, I loathe Hillary too. But it's because she's moved so far fucking right I can't believe she didnt defect with Lieberman. In fact, I loathe most of the Dems as they continue to see how far right they have to go to keep their office. All of the little web surveys to tell me which candidate I should vote for say Kucinich, to give you an idea. If I had to pick from the current front runners, I'd go with Edwards. The fact is the country is full of adults with the mentality of 8 year olds who got scared after 9/11, and in general public opinion has shifted right in recent years. The Dems slow movement to the right follows this trend. And the Dems are fractured compared to the Republicans. Normally I'd consider that a sign of a healthy democracy. But the GOP votes in lockstep, so that dissent has become a liability.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Jehosephat2k]

Touching the last box makes you a terrorist. The government has that one covered. In fact, that is what this whole thing is all about, not "fighting terrorists".

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[KudyardRipling]

He could secretly order the placement and detonation of a nuclear weapon on American soil. Plausible deniability will be invoked as well as martial law. No one wants to think the unthinkable because that means that all for which they worked so hard would be in vain. It would not profit the politicians for the people to see the vanity that liberty has become.

Lawyers have no need for dentists.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

Yeah, I didn't see anything in there about phone lines either. Did find this though:

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 it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.


The only branch of government that is forbidden, by exclusion, from being part of the process of gathering military intelligence is the JUDICIARY.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

or you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing.

To me, a caring and sharing society would be one where people are only generous with their own money, not with other people's money.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

You're forgetting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's where all that stuff falls under.

WOW! It does no such thing! It merely states that having a Constitution is beneficial for the general welfare of the people! The phrase is nowhere used in the enumeration of powers to any of the branches of government!

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

Except that the President can't start a war. The right to declare war is given to Congress alone.

Yeah, as long as you have a dictionary that defines "declare" as "start." You might also want to tell it to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They both started undeclared wars. Probably because the Constitution gives the president the undivided power of command and control over the armed forces.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

Again, Article 1, Section 8. Gives Congress the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[imgod2u]

"Inter Arma, Enim Silent Leges"

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[ciggieposeur]

The republicans have the stones to shut down the government to stop an entitlement program but the dems cant muster the will to fight over our civil liberties? whats the problem here?

The problem here is that the Republicans will shut down the federal government if the Dems don't give them what they want. They did it in 1994. They already break the law with impunity, how much more would it take for them to throw out the entire Constitution in order to keep their power? Add in the fact that one Democrat is actually a Republican (Lieberman): the minute the Democrats actually have a good chance of beating the Republicans in Congress then Lieberman switches and it's game over until 2008 anyway.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear: the Republicans are willing to destroy the government if they don't get their way. The Republicans are like a foreign country with nukes; you can try to negotiate, but if that doesn't work you still have to back down. They are the drug dealer in the neighborhood that has already bought off the cops; they are that batshit crazy stalker walking right through the restraining order.

Maybe this doesn't play nice with your "we've got the power!" narrative going in your head, but oh well. Our government is designed to halt on major disagreement, back in 1789 that was a feature but now it's a bug. If the Social Security checks stop flowing, or gas prices jump past $7/gal, or Walmart's shelves go empty, and every Republican goes on TV to blame the Democrats, people will blame the Democrats too. The only alternatives to a non-functioning federal government are Martial Law and revolution, and odds are the American people will accept Martial Law long before they risk their families for some lofty notions of civil rights no one really used anyway.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

Bush certainly can provide a wiretapping program using that, however, the 4th amendment restricts the ability to actually use it pretty heavily.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

It's apparently 'reasonable' to monitor everyone in time of war. Luckily, we're always at war.

There are two completely different standards for the conduction of war and the enforcement of criminal law. This is why it is important that they are kept separate. What is reasonable for a cop is different from what is reasonable for the NSA. It is reasonable for us to make EVERY effort to listen to foreign terrorists, whether they're inside our borders or outside.

As for eavesdropping in general, I don't see the 4th amendment as addressing it at all. It's addressing disruptive searches. Despite the SCOTUS's opinion to the contrary, I don't think that the 4th amendment prevents arbitrary warrantless domestic wiretapping for law enforcement.

It could be (and obviously is) argued that there is a fundamental right to privacy that implies that the government should be unable to attempt to obtain any non-public information about us without meeting the standard of probable cause -- but that does not seem to be addressed by the 4th amendment. All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition. I'm personally skeptical that there exists any such fundamental right, or that there is any utility to having such a right enforced. It seems that anyone, either a private citizen or a government, should be free to attempt gather whatever information is of interest to them. And individuals should be free to attempt to secure any information that they want to be kept secret. It is the actions that affect others, both of individuals and governments, which should be restricted.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Jeremi]

Also, I daresay that at the top of both the Republican and Democratic party are the same people, with the same goals. [...] This is why I do not vote in presidential elections, I know for a fact my vote is meaningless, it gets thrown away because I would never vote for a republican nor for a democrat.

Even granting your premise as largely true (and I agree that in many areas it is), do you really think we'd be mired in Iraq right now if Al Gore had become president in 2000? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[zzsmirkzz]

Maybe, Maybe not. It doesn't really matter all that much. Iraq is mostly about distraction and a justified (loose usage) place to dump large piles of cash (goals of those at the top). With Al Gore, maybe it would be Iraq, maybe it would be Iran or North Korea, or even something else entirely (another Sex Scandal perhaps) to distract the people from what is really going on, while at the same time shoveling boatloads of money to specific places with little to no oversight. The main point is; If the issue at hand is being widely reported by the mainstream media, everyone is talking about it, and it has the country pretty much completely polarized, chance are it is only a tool of distraction and the real issues/agendas that the people in power care about are being missed and are going on while no one is paying attention.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[N3WBI3]

The problem here is that the Republicans will shut down the federal government if the Dems don't give them what they want.

Thats not a problem its call resolution! And if the republicans can muster the resolve to fight to stop entitlements then dammit the dems should be willing to shut down the government to stop if from infringing on our liberties!

When someone ask why its shut down just answer 'We thought it better to shut down the federal government than to allow it to dismantle the bill of rights. Pelosi is nothing but a calculating coward..

they already break the law with impunity, how much more would it take for them to throw out the entire Constitution in order to keep their power?

Better a death by a thousand cuts? Guess what, youre not getting a super majority in the hose and senate in 2008, nor 2012... If you cant for our liberties now get the hell out of the way for someone who will... Ill take 41% of the house and senate who are willing to fight for our rights rather than 51% who will let them erode 'until the time is right'. You're actually making excuses for the Democrats on passing this? how much of a party hack are you? "Yea its the republicans fault a democrat controlled house passed a bill shredding the constitution" "They have been doing it longer than us so you cant really be mad at the dems"

Republicans are willing to destroy the government if they don't get their way.

Come off of it they shut down the government in 94 and in 96? and the government survived...

Our government is designed to halt on major disagreement, back in 1789 that was a feature but now it's a bug. If the Social Security checks stop flowing

Which is freaking why you should not have the fed doing all this crap in the first place.. It *is* a good thing that the minority can stop things from going through.

Walmart's shelves go empty, and every Republican goes on TV to blame the Democrats

They tried that in 96 and the republicans took a drubbing in public opinion for it

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition.

You mean like...FISA?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[sumdumass]

When I was a kid, the only people making minimum wage were the school kids and retirees looking for extra income. Sure there were some adults who haven't worked a day in their life and made minimum wage for the first year or so they worked steady.

$2.90 an hour just wasn't anything you could live on comfortably. But you didn't live on it, you used minimum wage jobs as stepping stones to get better jobs that paid more. Your employer took someone without a work record or a good work record, paid him the minimum and then increased the salary in order to keep the productive ones around and encourage the unproductive people to move to something they are better suited for. There is a built in incentive program that means if you produce, you get paid more. If your not getting paid enough, you trade up jobs and goto someone willing to pay what your worth.

For some reason, now you are expected to be able to make a career out of working as the fry guy at McDonald's. And yes, Even McDonalds pays more then minimum wage. They have since I was a kid. That was their strategy, pay more for better help which means better service which in turn means more repeat customers. Maybe it is this public transportation thing where people cannot get around on their own and can only work at places the bus or subway takes them and the employers are exploiting that. I would say th situation there requires making it easier for people to become independent of the public transport system so they can go make what they deserve.

But even if you look at the $10,000 a year number you mentioned, if there are two of you making that, you have $20,000 a year which is a livable wage by any standards. So maybe the problem isn't as much people thinking that the stepping stone jobs of my day are career paths today and more to the I have to do it alone mentality that ends up with babies having babies that they cannot afford and everything else we see corrupting society.

I would say that there are more constructive ways to approach this problem then giving everyone something. When you give someone something they are not willing to provide for themselves, there is no incentive for them to get it themselves. When you give them the tools to achieve, they will to varying degrees of success.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

We've always been at war with Shi'ites, we've always been allied with Sunnis.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[iminplaya]

The solution here is to vote them out in the upcoming election.

That would be an absolutely worthless exercise if everybody simply replaces republicans with democrats and democrats with republicans. You need to vote out the party, not just the individuals, if you want to make any difference at all.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[sumdumass]

I don't want to live in a caring and generous society. Life needs villains, people need people to work against. No form of utopia has ever successfully existed because people break down without conflict. In a caring and generous society, good will become evil and evil will disappear among us without being noticed until society reverts back with a bloody revolution.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Chris Burke]

LOL you cant really be saying this, your as bad as the Republicans who blindly let their party leave its core values (small government) under the guise of 'well we dont have a super majority, but when we do, then things will be different'... What a sad joke. The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it...

Yeah. They may not be able to get the supermajority in the senate, they may not be able to override a Presidential veto, but they do have all they power they need to do the one thing they were by and large elected to do: End the war in Iraq.

It's simple. All they have to do is refuse to vote for any defense spending bill that does not include a deadline for troop withdrawal. Bush will veto it. So they make another bill, with the deadline, and send that one to Bush. He can veto that one too. Doesn't matter. If he wants any money for his war at all, then he will eventually have to sign the bill or withdraw simply by virtue of not having any money to continue. All they have to do is have a spine. That's it. There's no trick to it, no challenge.

So Bush and the Republicans will accuse them of not supporting the troops. So what? They've already accused the Dems of that plenty of times. The fact is that right now the majority of Americans disagree, and we think that supporting the troops means bringing them home. Are the Democrats really that scared of Bush's barbs and jibes? Do they really think their approval ratings are as low as Bush's because they "don't support the troops"? When it's so obvious that their ratings are low because they have utterly failed to perform the task they were voted in to perform? We want them to stand up to Bush. We want them to laugh off Bush's hypocritical criticism.

It comes down to this: Are the Democrats in Congress really just a bunch of spineless idiots? Or is doing what the people want, despite the obvious gains in popularity it would give them, not really on their agenda? Well, probably a lot of the former, but even more the latter. More and more it seems like the difference between Democrat and Republican is completely artificial, and their stated platforms have very little to do with their true intentions. The main difference, it seems, is which subset of the population they try to sucker into given them their chance to hold the reigns of power, and the lies they use to do it.

We'll see in 2008 (well, 2009 really). We'll see if they actually roll back fascism and the damage done to our rights, if the new President tries to end the war. Or will they suddenly find that unrealistic, too politically difficult, or even threatening to national security! We'll see. But in the meantime the hairs raise on the back of my neck when I think about it.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

Actually people are provided privacy by the constitution in any situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, if I close the door on a pay telephone booth, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was ruled by the supreme court because the constitution is meant to protect privacy of people, not specific places and channels. So if I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any information gathered while I have said expectation is unconstitutional. Let me see if I can find the case law on that.. been forever since civil liberties class.

Except that there is a big difference between the rights actually guaranteed by the Constitution and the grandiose constructions made of them by the Supreme Court. Only the former apply to the actions of the Congress and the President. The latter is only relevant to cases and controversies which are heard by courts. Of course, the Constitution doesn't give the Court the power to form these grandiose constructions, but it also failed to provide any checks or balances to correct it if they did.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

Two words:

Democratic. Primary.

Yes, now, vote for every Democrat you see to get rid of the Republicans. But during the primary vote out all the spineless asshat Democrats who continued to enable this Administration.

That includes you, Hillary, the worse 'triangulator' of the bunch, the one who spent all the time 'comprimizing' with the Republicans back in 92 to get a shitty insurance-company-run health care, and then acted surprised when the Republicans refused to vote for it anyway. The one I'm going to have a lot of trouble voting for if she wins the primary, and if someone sane like Bob Dole was running against her, probably wouldn't.

Luckily for her, the Republican are fielding a bunch of Bush v2.0, so the choice is rather easy. (First person to mention Ron Paul get bitchslapped. He's just sane in the single most important way, the way tat all other Republicans are insane, but he's completely insane in other ways.)

In 10 years, I want to see the entire Democratic party replaced. Every single one of these 'triangulators' who didn't stop this war, every one of them who provided cover to Bush, every single damn one of them. I'm putting up with them now to remove this criminal administration, and they are gone as soon as possible.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Jeremi]

Maybe, Maybe not. It doesn't really matter all that much.

Perhaps not to you. It matters very much to me. Besides the tens of thousands of lives lost, the hundreds of thousands injured, the millions displaced, and the trillions of dollars wasted, the other real casualty is our country's honor. It used to be that you could make a serious case that the United States was a country with principles and values, and other countries were inspired by us. Now our reputation is a complete laughingstock, and over the last 5 years the US gov't has done more to discredit the very notion of 'democracy' then Al-Quaeda could ever have dreamed of doing themselves. Instead of a "beacon of freedom", we are now a symbol of torture, murder, and unjustified war and occupation. So perhaps Gore would have had a sex scandal, likely he would have doled out favors to his supporters, but I think it's unlikely he would have irrevocably desecrated the country's image the way Bush has done.

So there is a difference. It may be the difference between a stale bologna sandwhich and a dripping fresh dogshit sandwhich, but given that choice I'd much prefer the stale bologna. (Of course what I'd really prefer would be a nice tasty sandwhich, but in a winner-take-all system you generally only get two choices)

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

Assuming what you say is true, the Democrats need to do it and make them snap.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[thejynxed]

It's not that they don't care, you have to take into account that this current administration has issued more signing statements "exempting" themselves from various bills signed into law, and current laws on the books than any administration in US history. The statements number in the hundreds at last count. They claim Executive Privilege on just about anything Congress sends up to the White House, including their use of the Congressional Power of Subpeoena (see Scooter Libby trial, Gonzales, Gitmo, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc). The person responsible for almost every single signing statement signed by the President and issued out of the White House is now VP Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. If anyone should be marked as a traitor to the Constitution and put on trial, that's one guy to take a close look at first, with Cheney and Bush right behind him. They've done everything they can to undermine the Constitution and Congressional/Judicial power without resorting to shredding the damned thing, and all in the name of "restoring power to the Presidency".

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition.
You mean like...FISA?

No... FISA has nothing to do with establishing a right of privacy to citizens. Besides, FISA is unconstitutional and therefore void, as it gives executive powers to the judiciary branch.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[cayenne8]

"It's been a long time since I studied the Constitution of the United States, but I do NOT read the 10th Amendment as saying that."

Basically, the Constitution of the US, is to spell out the LIMITED powers of the government. It is not there to enumerate the citizens rights. It spells a few specific ones out for them, but, those are not all. Most every natural right is granted to a person...unless the States basically make laws against a behavior.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[courtarro]

The latest episode of Frontline, which aired on Tuesday, explains how the administration has manipulated power in favor of the executive branch, making questionably legal moves in order to make the wiretapping program possible. Had the checks and balances been working, that program would never have made it off the ground. Congress has fought the program with generalized attacks, but has never gone so far as to eliminate it.

As for Congress being less popular than the president: I can only imagine that's because a) the people who agree with Bush like him for his charm, and Congress has little charm, and b) the majority of people who dislike the president end up hating Congress for being unwilling to stand up to him. I'm in that boat.

Congress should look at it this way: if they're so unpopular, they have nowhere to go but up by taking on the president's policies.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[japhmi]

For now, the War Powers Act of 1973, which allows unilateral military action by the President for up to 60 (really 90) days, and indefinite military action with a Congressional use-of-force authorization beyond that, is the law of the land, pretty much without serious dispute.

So, in order for our troops to be somewhere more than 90 days, the Congress has to act. Sure, it may not technically 'declare war,' but it has to do something.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

I'll watch that Frontline episode at some point, and maybe it will explain your point. But my take is that the actions of Bush in the last 8 years have been essential for bringing the power abuses of Congress back into check. Especially important has been his use of signing statements which I hope the next president will continue. It's a reminder that each branch has the independent responsibility to understand and adhere to the constitution as it is written, regardless of how the other branches are interpreting the constitution.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[zippthorne]

How does "general welfare" of a nation in any way imply the specific welfare of any given individual? If socialist programs are so important to you, why not propose an amendment specifically granting the government the authority to do them?

Everyone always wants to do things of arguable constitutionality (and by virtue of the certitude of both sides of the various debates, certainly ambiguous constitutionality), but it seems that lately (as in the past half century or so) the route has been to get the courts to declare those things within the existing document rather than using the process specifically delineated to accomplish their goal.

As another example, the second amendment. Everyone argues about whether the "well regulated militia" clause means that the government has the right to register or deny specific arms in the population. I say, let's just have a constitutional convention, with all the attendant public debate, and make the constitution say what we want it to mean.

It's not supposed to be a "living document" in the sense that it means what it needs to mean according to fashionable social mores at any given time. It's supposed to be in the sense that there is a mechanism to change it to say what we need it to say. That mechanism is deliberately a slow and cumbersome process for what should be obvious reasons.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[huckamania]

Thank ElRon for the tactic of suing in every jurisdiction to win your case. The telcos can win 1000 times over and it only takes one loss for them to get raped.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[huckamania]

I'd be worried if the US government had a track record of good intelligence or building computer systems. All evidence is to the contrary. If the US government had kept control of the internet, there would be less then a million computers on it and none of them could do anything even remotely interesting.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[ciggieposeur]

Assuming what you say is true, the Democrats need to do it and make them snap.

Let me get this straight: you are willing to turn mainland USA into a war zone so that at most a few hundred regular people won't go to jail while a dozen or so executives *might* go to jail. You're willing to let hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of old people starve for this. You're willing to shut down the public schools, the university system, the hospitals, the civilian police forces, and let National Guard units roll tanks through the major cities for this. Is that right?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

Again, Article 1, Section 8. Gives Congress the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

You are talking about the enumerated power to collect taxes. That those taxes are limited to being used for purposes of providing for the common defense and the general welfare, does NOT make "providing for the general welfare" an enumerated power! (It does exclude such things as the "welfare" program from the constitutional uses of tax revenue, as it is neither for the common defense nor the general welfare, but for the welfare of a small minority of the citizenry.) The particular powers that Congress is given, pursuant to providing for the common defense and general welfare, are listed AFTER the power to collect taxes for those purposes.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[lawpoop]

Okay, but don't they have a rather good record of overthrowing democratically elected governments abroad? What paltry pile of questionable intelligence were they acting on then, and how much better do they have it now?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

Yes.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[zippthorne]

Please explain what you mean by "illegal immigration reform" There are at least two entities demanding this, and their proposals are not in any way similar.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Touching the last box makes you a terrorist.

No, terrorism is when you attack innocent people to scare them into demanding change from their government. Terrorists use terror as a weapon. The use of force against a politician does not automatically mean that it is terrorism, in fact it's pretty much impossible for it to be terrorism, unless you are killing politicians in order to scare other politicians into doing what you want.

Taking back control of a country that is no longer in the hands of its people is not terrorism, it is a coup or a revolution. Do you really consider the USA's founding fathers to be terrorists?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[zzsmirkzz]

I wasn't actually saying the war itself didn't matter that much, just who was President at the time probably wouldn't of mattered all that much. I want to clarify that in my original post I did not say nor intentionally imply that I thought Al Gore would of invaded Iraq. Also, regarding the Invasion of Iraq, that was approved by Congress before it happened, so to put the full responsibility onto Bush's shoulders is rather a skirting of the facts. If Congress had denied his wishes, things might of been different. The quick reply to that is the mis-representation/bad-intelligence that was fed to Congress, the UN, and the people. While this very well is a valid point, saying that Bush was behind it all himself, well that's assuming a lot. It very well could be that Gore would have been fed the same bad intelligence, which would have left him little choice but to relay that very same information to Congress, the UN, and the people. Determining how different things would be if things had happened differently is nothing but mere speculation, there is no way to know.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

Were you born stupid, or did it take training?

Of course FISA established a right of privacy for citizens. A specific one that said anyone wiretapping their communications was behaving in a criminal manner.

That's how laws work, you see. We protect people's right to live by criminalizing, for example, murder. We protect their right to privacy by outlawing the monitoring of them.

And wiretapping is not an executive power. Even if it's not unconstitutional, it's not a 'power' of any sort.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Xybre]

And the republicans who supported it. And the justices who let him into office. And everyone else for not standing up against it. It's everyone's fault. Even we libertarians. Are we all together going to rectify this or bend over, grab our ankles and hope it's over quickly?

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

If I read it from an extremely pedantic stance, I can see how you can come to that conclusion, but it's an awkward way of getting there.

To me, it's always meant that "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is the end goal, with the power to collect taxes being the means of getting there. Your view is more that collecting taxes is the goal, then giving a justification for it, which just seems to be the wrong way of looking at things.

And again, looking at it your way, I can see that you'd conclude that the list given is an absolute, whereas if you look at it the other way, the list just seems to be things felt to be particularly important.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Jeremi]

The quick reply to that is the mis-representation/bad-intelligence that was fed to Congress, the UN, and the people. While this very well is a valid point, saying that Bush was behind it all himself, well that's assuming a lot. It very well could be that Gore would have been fed the same bad intelligence,

The critical difference is that the Bush administration wasn't just "being fed" bad intelligence, it was actively demanding that the reports be slanted in such a way that they would make a case for war, and cherry-picking everything it got, selecting only the intelligence that bolstered its case and ignoring everything else. Having finally got the "facts" it wanted (Cheney personally visited the CIA many times to make sure their people understood exactly what sort of things he wanted to see in the reports), the Bush Administration then fed their intentionally misleading reports to the media, Congress, and the people. To portray the Bush administration as an innocent receiver of faulty intelligence data is way off the mark. It doesn't matter how much of it Bush was personally responsible for and how much of it was his associates/cronies' fault -- it's the Bush Administration that came to power, not just Bush the person. Congress does take some blame in falling for the ruse, but it wasn't Congress's idea (and there is something to be said for trusting your President's judgement in times of trouble)

Say what you will about Gore, but I can't imagine he (or his associates) would have started a war by relentlessly hyping up the extremely flimsy evidence that Bush used to start his.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[pluther]

But how is it clearly unreasonable to eavesdrop on phone conversations between suspected or known international terrorists and people residing within the US? I can't imagine a good argument for why that would even be "unreasonable", let alone "clearly unreasonable."

That would be perfectly legal.

And perfectly OK with me. And most of the people responding here.

But that isn't what this bill does.

It's already legal to wiretap suspected criminals, whether they be terrorists, thieves, or drug dealers. Even if they're only in the United States with no international part to the conversation whatsoever. And it has been legal for a very long time.

With the advent of FISA, it even became legal to begin the wiretap first, and get the warrant later. And even that can be OK in some cases. Shaky, and easy to abuse, but a good case can be made that it's needed.

Skipping the warrant altogether, giving blanket permission to wiretap anyone, for any reason, with no record ever being made of it having been done, or why, or who authorized it, yeah, that's a very, very, very bad thing by an order of magnitude over what was there before.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[slashid]

Apparently He is above the law and beneath contempt.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DigiShaman]

Except that the President can't start a war. The right to declare war is given to Congress alone.

The president has the executive legal authority to use military force. Only congress however can "officially" declare war. As I know, only when congress makes an official declaration, you can start drafting.

Remember the bombing of the aspirin factory and Mogadishu under the Clinton administration? Yup, that was perfectly legal too.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

Were you born stupid, or did it take training?

Your mother is ugly.

Of course FISA established a right of privacy for citizens. A specific one that said anyone wiretapping their communications was behaving in a criminal manner.

That's how laws work, you see. We protect people's right to live by criminalizing, for example, murder. We protect their right to privacy by outlawing the monitoring of them.

Even though you're clearly retarded, I'm not going to completely explain your retardation to you, I'm only going to give you a hint by informing you what FISA stands for. This is how we can help you to aquire thinking skills of your own. It stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

And wiretapping is not an executive power. Even if it's not unconstitutional, it's not a 'power' of any sort.

It's not a power of any sort? I think your retardation has metastasized. You are no longer even coherent.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Qzukk]

The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Such as FISA, which the executive branch openly flaunted with their wiretaps.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Shajenko42]

Also, I daresay that at the top of both the Republican and Democratic party are the same people, with the same goals.

Not exactly. The people at the top of the two parties are likely quite different.

They're just getting paid by the same corporations.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

And again, looking at it your way, I can see that you'd conclude that the list given is an absolute, whereas if you look at it the other way, the list just seems to be things felt to be particularly important.

Well, to make sure that no one drew that conclusion, they included the 10th amendment, specifically prohibiting the federal government from exercising any power not specifically enumerated. If you read the Federalist Papers, the WHOLE POINT of the constitution was to make a government limited by enumerated powers. As Chief Justice Marshall said,

"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."

Given this, it would complete undermine the purpose of enumerated powers if they had made one of them "to provide for the general welfare." That could include ANYTHING. And they didn't.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Such as FISA, which the executive branch openly flaunted with their wiretaps.

That argument would be completely valid, except that Congress does not have the constitutional power to change the balance and separation of powers defined in the Constitution. While Congress does have the power in general to set the rules and regulations for intelligence gathering, those rules become unconstitutional when they take part of the power of executing the spying function away from the executive branch and give it to the judicial branch.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[zzsmirkzz]

Notice how I was careful to only say Bush and said nothing of his Administration. Bush's cabinet may be his own cronies or they may be his party's cronies, which one it is I know I'm not certain of. The other thing that I am not certain of, and I assume neither are you, is who Gore's Administration would of been made up of. You see, one can compare Bush to Gore, apples to apples, but one cannot compare Bush's Administration to Gore's Administration because Gore's Administration never existed. The whole 20/20 hindsight sort of thing. Also to note, I believe I heard (could be wrong) a few people in the Bush Administration were also in the white house during the Clinton administration (to possibly negate the democrat/republican distinction) and since Gore was Clinton's VP, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination that these very same people in the background may have been there to intentionally slant the reports.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

For the record, I agree with you, but the mentality isn't about what these people deserve, it's about efficiency over compassion. The poor don't deserve to die, they just don't deserve to be supported. Sadly, it makes perfect sense.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[StikyPad]

Unfortunately, the problem this year is the same problem we've had every other year: The candidates suck.

Personally, I'm voting for Colbert/Kasperov '08.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Kadin2048]

So, in order for our troops to be somewhere more than 90 days, the Congress has to act. Sure, it may not technically 'declare war,' but it has to do something. Correct. Which they did. It was called the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq" and I linked to the Wikipedia article concerning it in the previous comment. It was passed on Oct 11 2002 and signed into law on October 16. The invasion occurred several months later in March of 2003.

The only time I'm aware of in recent memory where you could go after a president for violating the War Powers Act was Clinton during Kosovo, because there was a period during the bombing campaign where he was over the 90-day limit that the Executive branch is allowed with Congressional approval, and Congress hadn't authorized anything yet. By law, all military action should have been halted, but of course it wasn't, and the whole thing basically became a non-issue when Congress went ahead and authorized it. (And there was, by and large, no public or political fallout.) But that situation never existed with Iraq; the AUMF was passed before the invasion occurred.

Similarly, Afghanistan was authorized by Congress in the fairly broad AUMF passed right after 9/11 that pretty much gave the President carte blanche to go after anyone who'd been harboring terrorists, but was pretty specifically aimed at the Taliban.

Both AUMFs have since been de facto renewed by the passage of funding (I don't know whether there have been specific re-authorization bills separate from funding; I assume that this is either not required, or happens simultaneously with funding) since their original passage. Congress could at any time pull the plug on hostilities by simply refusing to authorize more funds, or only authorize funds conditional on a drawdown (which is how they forced a pullout from Somalia in 1998; they just didn't authorize money for anything except protection of U.S. Embassies and other interests), but apparently they're not interested in doing that.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[huckamania]

"overthrowing democratically elected governments abroad?"

I'd say they have a mixed record. The CIA tried to dabble in fixing governments, but mostly they failed. The intelligence gathering of the US never changed directions after the cold war until 9/11.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[lawpoop]

Can you refer me to some cases where their guy didn't get in? I'm aware of several cases where the guy they supported ultimately won ( mostly in South America, but Iran also comes to mind ), but I haven't yet heard about their failures, aside from the Bay of Pigs.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

Given this, it would complete undermine the purpose of enumerated powers if they had made one of them "to provide for the general welfare." That could include ANYTHING. And they didn't.

But it doesn't include ANYTHING, as the rest of the Constitution narrows things down rather substantially.

If you interpret it as strictly as you want to, anything beyond life as usual in the 1700's would require an amendment, which would just slow down the government over time until it came to a complete halt. I can't see that being the intention.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[Jehosephat2k]

"Do you really consider the USA's founding fathers to be terrorists?"

The British did.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[sumdumass]

I have heard this argument before. I believe it has quite a bit of weight to it. Officially, it goes something like, while congress has the power to regulate the military, the power of commander in chief cannot be taken away. And being able to collect battlefield inteligence unhindered is a critical part of executing the position of commander in chief.

Don't let battlefield inteligence restrict the thought of the role to a specific battlefield. It goes on to anything that would effect the battle.

I'm actually waiting for this to goto the supreme court. I want to see if congress actually does have the authority to restrict constatutionally mandated powers of the president. My guess is if they can, then there is nothing stopping congress from passing a law saying you can't find another law unconstitutional under the same grounds. I doubt congress would be able to pull something like this over on the supreme court. And I don't think it matters who is on the supreme court either.

The implications that congress has the power to limit constitutionally mandated powers of another branch of government without properly changing the constitution is chilling. Too bad more people don't see the question this way. Because this is what it is boiling down to and that is some of the other stuff that can happen.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

If you interpret it as strictly as you want to, anything beyond life as usual in the 1700's would require an amendment, which would just slow down the government over time until it came to a complete halt. I can't see that being the intention.

Not sure what you mean. Only things beyond the enumerated powers require amendment, and the government didn't decide it wanted to vastly exceed these until FDR. Yes, adhering to the Constitution would have significantly slowed down FDR and his successors. That was supposed to be the point of the Constitution.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

This is how we can help you to aquire thinking skills of your own. It stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Yes, because that's a useful way to know what laws do, look at the title of them and guess. Here is the actual statute from FISA:

Title 50, ch 36 subchapter I 1809) A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally--
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

Look, it's what you argued didn't exist! FISA create a 'right to privacy' under the law, although not using those words, and requires all wiretapping 'under color of law' (Aka, as part of the operation of the government) to be authorized by statute.

While you can yammer about how the 4th amendment doesn't say what all courts have said it says, that's really rather irrelevant. The government cannot listen to communication of private individuals, by law, regardless of to any constitutional claims. A law must explicitly be passed allowing such listening.

So, when you say that 'Not being wiretapped is not a constitutional right, although Congress could pass a law creating privacy for such communications' and I twice pointed out that FISA does exactly that, you didn't even bother to look it up to see if that might have some basis in fact, thus demonstrating you're not just misinformed, you're willingly misinformed about this issue.

In other words, you didn't actually listen to the right-wing talking points well enough. The claim on the right has to be that the executive branch has some constitutional right to wiretap, not that people don't have a right not to be wiretapped. That last concept was Nixon's, and the response was FISA, to outlaw wiretapping on statutory grounds. (In addition to the always-assumed-before-then constitutional grounds.)

It's sorta like, even if we didn't have a right not to be deprived of our life without due process, the executive branch still couldn't wander around killing people because killing people deliberately is almost always illegal, without an reference to the constitution at all. Just plain ordinary laws make it illegal. Likewise, wiretapping without operating with the explicit legal framework laid out by the laws is illegal, and that's entirely unrelated to whether or not doing that is constitutional.

It's not a power of any sort?

If it's a power, you should be able to find a reference to it in the Constitution. You can't. The executive has no power allowing them to gather foreign intelligence.

You could possibly argue he has the right to use the military however he wants, aka, as much as Congress lets him, but, sadly for you, neither the NSA or the CIA are part of the military, he has no 'constitutional right' to them. They aren't even part of 'faithfully executing the law', as they are not law enforcement. They are something created solely by Congress under Congress's power to provide for the common defense.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[macdaddy]

Hey, quick question. Can you point me to the digital copy of the Federalist Papers that you're using? I have it printed but I'd love to have a digital copy too. I'm sure a Google search would generate hundreds of hits or more but it would appear that you've already done the leg work in finding a good copy so I thought I'd ask. Thanks

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[huckamania]

So Iran is an example of CIA success? Were you in a coma at the end of the 70s, beginning of the 80s? Vietnam and Greece would be two examples of CIA blowback, but I'm sure there are more. I can't think of any CIA backed governments in existence at this time.

When taken on its own, this all seems like scary stuff, but when you consider 1/2 of europe behind an iron curtain, its naive to think that the CIA wasn't just doing its job.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[E 99]

Title 50, ch 36 subchapter I 1809) A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally--
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

Look, it's what you argued didn't exist! FISA create a 'right to privacy' under the law, although not using those words, and requires all wiretapping 'under color of law' (Aka, as part of the operation of the government) to be authorized by statute.

Uh, how is that a right of privacy? That electronic surveillance can only be used when it is backed up by a statute doesn't mean that it can't be used, and doesn't mean that other means of surveillance can't be used.

While you can yammer about how the 4th amendment doesn't say what all courts have said it says, that's really rather irrelevant. The government cannot listen to communication of private individuals, by law, regardless of to any constitutional claims. A law must explicitly be passed allowing such listening.

There are at least two exceptions to that prohibition. One is the exception provided in FISA, that the law doesn't apply if their is a warrant, and the other exception is any application in which the law is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court has long held, laws that are prima facie unconstitutional are completely null and void, and laws that are unconstitutional in specific applications are null and void in those applications. The Congress has the power to create by law military organizations and agencies, and to provide them with basic regulations, but any laws they pass which impede on the President's constitutional power to actually use those agencies to conduct national security operations are unconstitutional.

It's sorta like, even if we didn't have a right not to be deprived of our life without due process, the executive branch still couldn't wander around killing people because killing people deliberately is almost always illegal, without an reference to the constitution at all. Just plain ordinary laws make it illegal. Likewise, wiretapping without operating with the explicit legal framework laid out by the laws is illegal, and that's entirely unrelated to whether or not doing that is constitutional.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of war. That's where the executive branch wanders around killing people; often without any authorization whatsoever from Congress.

You could possibly argue he has the right to use the military however he wants, aka, as much as Congress lets him, but, sadly for you, neither the NSA or the CIA are part of the military, he has no 'constitutional right' to them. They aren't even part of 'faithfully executing the law', as they are not law enforcement. They are something created solely by Congress under Congress's power to provide for the common defense.

By what stretch of the imagination are "the military" and agencies "provided for the common defense" separate concepts? Aside from the fact that the president runs ALL the executive agencies established by Congress, and that is the meaning of "faithfully executing the law", the NSA IS part of the Department of Defense, and in fact must, by law, be directed by a lieutenant general or vice admiral.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[edwdig]

Not sure what you mean. Only things beyond the enumerated powers require amendment, and the government didn't decide it wanted to vastly exceed these until FDR. Yes, adhering to the Constitution would have significantly slowed down FDR and his successors. That was supposed to be the point of the Constitution.

It's just that you've personally decided that FDR is a sticking point for you.

I think that if you interpret the Constitution as strictly as you seem to want to, then almost everything done by Congress in the past hundred years or so are unconstitutional. Probably further back than that even.

You've got a general list of powers and some specific stuff spelled out that's based on a society where travel is done by horse or boat, travel to another state is an uncommon occurrence, letters carried by horse are state of the art communication, and motors aren't invented yet. Amendments would need to be a very common thing to keep up.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[scubamage]

That's false. The purpose of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution's meaning as it applies to cases which the court feels need clarification. This is why not all cases are accepted by the supreme court. Congress and the President are bound by their interpretations.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[sumdumass]

Is there a mechanism for skipping the appeals process and going straight to the Supreme Court?

There is, I'm not sure how to invoke it. Basically something is in question and it is important enough that it would goto the US supreme court and time needed for regular appeals would be too long for some reason. Bush and Gore ended up in front of the supreme court in 2000 on a fast track system like this.

At this rate, good luck getting to find out.

If I feel like a law is unconstitutional and I break that law, I must still face the consequences (and in fact, I almost certainly must be facing the consequences in order to have standing to challenge the law at the Supreme Court). Why should AT&T or Verizon be held to a different standard?

Well, I think a lot of what is at heart here is that AT&T or Verizon cannot make the arguments that the president had the authority to do or order something to happen. SO maybe immunity shouldn't be granted unless it is only to find out if the white house was justified in their actions. At that point, if they weren't, then the telcos involved have to mount a defense. And if the only effective defense places them in violation of another law, then they would have essentially lost a fundamental right in the ability to defend themselves. But if the president is justified in his actions, then the telcos involved have an affirmative defense in that no law was broken.

And something that could be even more complicated, is the idea of commander in chief having these powers and the FISA laws are actually constitutional and restrictive when the president isn't acting as commander in chief. But in any case, unless the government is willing to allow the telcos to disclose everything in a truthful manor without regard to national security or repercussions because of it, then it is a little unfair to prosecute them when they cannot defend themselves.

It is a balancing act that I think Congress itself doesn't want to find out. It is too beneficial for some to keep this unresolved so blind accusations can continue to be made as well as some might be unwilling or reluctant to give up power if it is found that they cannot limit the president's abilities while in constitutionally mandates roles.

This law should be permitted to die, the President should seek an injunction against the application of whatever law he doesn't like against whatever thing he wants to do, and let the Supreme Court do the job it's been doing since 1803.

I agree. But it seems that congress would rather implement the program much in the same as it was at the time they claim a violation was present. I guess the difference now is that more members of congress get the report and the FISA courts get a list of names after the fact.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[DavidTC]

Uh, how is that a right of privacy? That electronic surveillance can only be used when it is backed up by a statute doesn't mean that it can't be used, and doesn't mean that other means of surveillance can't be used.

Perhaps you have forgotten the point of this discussion, so I will remind you. I quote:

It could be (and obviously is) argued that there is a fundamental right to privacy that implies that the government should be unable to attempt to obtain any non-public information about us without meeting the standard of probable cause -- but that does not seem to be addressed by the 4th amendment. All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition.

I pointed out that FISA, which is 'a law passed by congress', established that prohibition, but, as you have no idea what FISA is, or apparently, what anything is, we've had about ten inane posts about it.

The Congress has the power to create by law military organizations and agencies, and to provide them with basic regulations, but any laws they pass which impede on the President's constitutional power to actually use those agencies to conduct national security operations are unconstitutional.

When did the president get put in charge of national security? Congress is in charge of defending the nation, which is the closest thing to 'national security' I can find in the constitution.

That's the second time you've just made up a term and decided it was a presidential power, the first being 'waging war'. STOP IT.

By what stretch of the imagination are "the military" and agencies "provided for the common defense" separate concepts?

Um, in the 'constitutional' stretch of the imagination?

However, you're right, except backwards. Congress is actually in charge of creating rules and regulations for both any executive civilian agency it chooses to let exist, and the military if it chooses to let that exist.

At any level, which means, in theory, it could actually issue orders to troops in the field. This is obviously stupid, the intent of the constitution is that the President is told what to do with the military and civilian agencies, within what boundaries, and he does it.

Now, traditionally, he's given looser play over the military, because micromanaging a military is stupid, part of the concept of the chain of the command is that, at each level downward, orders should become more specific, from 'invade that country' at the top to 'set up that mortar right here and attack those guys over there with it' at the bottom.

Where you have become confused is to think that 'commander-in-chief' means 'absolute boss'. A commander-in-chief is merely the highest 'military rank' possible. It does not mean that no one can control that person, it means that is where the military ends. We end it at a civilian, which is slightly confusing, but we did that way on purpose because what that actually means is that no one else can give them military orders because no one else is at any point above them within the chain of command, not that no one can make the top civilian follow civilian laws and regulations. (Including those that control what orders he can give the military.)

It is like being Secretary of State...that's where the State Department ends. Anything above that is not the State Department. That doesn't mean there's nothing above it or that the State Department has no controls besides that person.

Aside from the fact that the president runs ALL the executive agencies established by Congress, and that is the meaning of "faithfully executing the law", the NSA IS part of the Department of Defense, and in fact must, by law, be directed by a lieutenant general or vice admiral.

The NSA is entirely a civilian organization. It is lead by a military officer in a civilian capacity. Pretending and wishing otherwise doesn't make it so.

In our country, a

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss

[lawpoop]

So Iran is an example of CIA success? Didn't they help get the Shaw into power in the 50s?

Were you in a coma at the end of the 70s, beginning of the 80s? Well, I was 5 in 1983...

Vietnam and Greece would be two examples of CIA blowback, but I'm sure there are more. I can't think of any CIA backed governments in existence at this time. OK, so their guys don't have staying power, but they do seem to be capable of overthrowing governments, right? I didn't claim that they could keep their guys in power.
 
Which might be a silver lining in the next few years...

Game Over

[varmittang]

Game over man! Game over!

Re:Game Over

[HunterZ]

Maybe we can build a campfire, sing some songs. Why don't we try that?

Re:Game Over

[OriginalArlen]

Good news!

ex post facto

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:ex post facto

[garcia]

2) The US constitution forbids ex-post-facto laws

They've (all of the bastards, not just the blatant fascists) already shit on the Constitution, what the fuck does it matter now? And what are we going to do about it? Nothing. We did what we thought we could and put the opposite party in power to try and keep the dirty fuckers in check but for some reason the spineless little shits have done exactly the opposite of what we expected them to.

The only other option is to demonstrate, riot, and eventually overthrow the entire government and rollback all of Bush's "policies" to those that were in existence in 2000. But that won't work either because then he'll just declare yet another state of emergency and stay in office forever fulfilling my expectation that he will attempt to become Freedom Fighter (aka Dicktator -- yes, spelled corrected) for Life.

Re:ex post facto

[MobyDisk]

I do wonder about this. What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms? It seems we are really close to the threshold here:

1. Companies collude with the executive branch to perform illegal and unconstitutional activities
2. Government passes law giving themselves the power to do this
3. Government passes law giving immunity to anyone who helps

I can actually FORGIVE #1, as sad as that is. But only because I trust the courts and congress to hold them accountable. But then when congress passes an immunity law, then what the heck???? That's about one step short of just granting themselves the power to do whatever they want. "You mean it's illegal to burst into your house and steal your possessions and rape your family? Oh, well, then we'll just fix that tomorrow in the next session..."

Now everybody will jump on my and say how they aren't really busting into American's houses. But that misses the point. The exact same tactic used to bust into American's phone lines is what would be required to bust into American homes. It's the same laws, same tactics. Frankly, I don't care if they listen in on suspected terrorist phone conversations .0001% as much as I care about the fact that they are trying to pass laws to make it legal after the fact.

So where do I recruit an army? ...NO CARRIER

Re:ex post facto

[Raul654]

"The US constitution forbids ex-post-facto laws" - the generally accepted interpretation of the prohibition on ex-post facto laws is that Congress may not make something illegal after-the-fact; this does not, however, prevent them from retroactively making it legal.

Re:ex post facto

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Apart from failing in their duty to remove an unethical President from office?

Re:ex post facto

[courtarro]

I recommend watching Frontline: Cheney's Law, which aired on Tuesday (the 16th). It's an eye-opening look at the broad expansion of powers that has taken place under Cheney's guidance. This issue of Frontline discusses the wiretap program as well as torture. What surprised me most is that it makes John Ashcroft look like the voice of reason during his years in the administration.

Re:ex post facto

[garcia]

What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms?

At no point will the vast majority of people be interested in taking up arms. Fuck, over half the population doesn't even vote and 50% of those that do voted for the fascists. Another 35% of the 50% that voted for him think that what he's doing is completely and utterly correct in every single way mostly because they agree with his "morals".

When the government shuts off TV and they can't watch Wayne Newton dance like a robot and sing like a drunken karaoke participant three times a week will they finally decide it might be time to pay attention to something other than what is force fed to them alongside advertisements for more products that's only purpose is to keep them further in debt to those that the government has colluded with.

So where do I recruit an army?

At this point, armed militias are worthless against the power of the US Army and its remaining allies. They have weapons that we may acquire, regardless of the numbers of individuals we have on our side, will be of no match to the powerful arsenal that the government has.

Re:ex post facto

[Red Flayer]

At this point, armed militias are worthless against the power of the US Army and its remaining allies.

Tell that to the Vietnamese and the Iraqis.

Asymmetric warfare works.

Also note that the US armed forces attacking US civilians in an unpopular "war" would never happen. Either the US gov would intervene far before it got to any kind of scale, and spin it so that there was popular support for their actions (or do it covertly), or they'd have to accomodate the "rebels" in some fashion.

Too many political careers would be on the line for using the US armed forces against a popular movement.

Re:ex post facto

[Gorm the DBA]

Congress does, however, have the power to determine which subject matters are within the jurisdiction of the Courts ("with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Article 3, Section 2), so in this case Congress is basically saying "Courts can not hear suits regarding this matter".

Voila...no case, no verdict, immunity.

Re:ex post facto

[garcia]

Tell that to the Vietnamese and the Iraqis.

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.

Re:ex post facto

[Foolicious]

What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms? It seems we are really close to the threshold here: [kind-of-off-topic]

What are these arms you speak of? You have actual arms? I have some guns, but the same people that may be the recipients of me "taking them up" know all about me having them because they passed laws a relatively long time ago about me registering them and having a special ID card (I live in Illinois). And now they want to keep passing laws regarding those guns because the current ones aren't enough, apparently. After all, who really needs a gun now anyways? Times have changed and we can trust the government to do the right thing. They've certainly show they can, righ...oh wait...

Pish posh, of course. Eventually, we'll be at the point where it would literally be our arms -- the things that extend from our scapulas and clavicles with ulnas and humeruses and radiuses -- that would need to do any sort of revolting because they'll have scraped away an amendment to their supposedly precious Constitution. Mess with people's "free speech" or "civil liberties" and they crap their pants while having a fit. But subtly screw with other parts of the Constitution and those SAME pants-crappers become governmental apologists trying to explain why those weren't and really aren't actual rights.

[/kind-of-off-topic]

Re:ex post facto

[southpolesammy]

I don't think taking up arms is the correct thing to do at this point, but I do believe that the citizens of the United States need to enact our First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. What's less clear is whether US citizens have a right to revolution as that was conveniently left out of the US Constitution, despite its significance in the US Declaration of Independence as a means of formally declaring our intent to form a new government apart from Great Britain.

Re:ex post facto

[cthulu_mt]

They tried to impeach Clinton when they had the chance. That should be worth something.

Re:ex post facto

[Scrameustache]

Now everybody will jump on my and say how they aren't really busting into American's houses. And they would be dead wrong.
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.

Re:ex post facto

[Apotsy]

I do wonder about this. What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms?

It is clear now that there is one thing and one thing only that would ever cause the American people to revolt:

If the doors to WalMart were locked and there was no food or other goodies on the shelves.

Anything short of that, and the shit train keeps on running. No one cares. Of course, that day is rapidly approaching, so take heart ... sort of.

Re:ex post facto

[kalirion]

How hot does a slowly warming plate need to get before the toad jumps off?

Re:ex post facto

[Anonymous Coward]

Unethical is not a High Crime or Misdemeanor...

Re:ex post facto

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, but looking in from the outside, I don't understand how any American can possibly believe Clinton's indiscretion was worthy of impeachment while Bush Jr's systematic erosion of the checks and balances in your government and immoral actions causing the deaths of countless thousands of people apparently are not. You would think that given the obvious centralisation of power around the executive branch and its willingness to outright ignore the authority of the other two apparently on a whim, you would see Congress and the judiciary restraining the President as a survival measure if nothing else....

Re:ex post facto

[Nimey]

I'm ready to take up arms, myself. I just need enough *other* people doing it that I won't be simply tossed in the gulag for the rest of my life.

Re:ex post facto

[tiqui]

I do wonder about this. What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms?

You do not have the right to take-up arms. The word "people" in the Constitution really only means "The Militia", which is now The National Guard and that is under the control of the President. You'd better not have any guns. Guns are only for the government employees in law enforcement or the military...they know what's best for you anyway

Liberals rarely recognize or appreciate the role of the 2nd ammendment in protecting the rest of the document and are always too eager to re-interpret it and shut it down. In doing so they lose all credibility when they scream about the 1st, 4th, or any other. Every lefty group around has long claimed that The Constitution is a "Living Document" and each generation is free to re-interpret it (change it's meaning without actually ammending it) to suit whatever mood they are in or satisfy any desire they have. Therefore, by that disgusting and perverse twist, Bush and the Congress are doing nothing wrong here. I'll start listening to all the left-wing screeching about the need to obey The Constitution as written when the ACLU admits that Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Bork, etc. are correct that The Consitution is absolutely NOT a "living document" and it may only be "re-interpreted" by being officially and properly ammended

You reap what you sow. Move along. Nothing to see here. LOL

Re:ex post facto

[compasseng]

You mean it's illegal to burst into your house and steal your possessions and rape your family? Oh, well, then we'll just fix that tomorrow in the next session...

I wish people would stop making stupid comments like this. No one is doing that. And it doesn't help. Moderates (or others) who might be swayed see comments like that and dismiss your whole post, which was mostly reasonable until you said that. We need serious discussions about what to do about this. This is serious stuff.

Re:ex post facto

[Cajun Hell]

What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms?

When televisions stop working, and they can't get their football games and "reality" shows anymore.

But seriously, The People haven't even tried voting yet, so it's way too early for guns. The Rs and Ds still get 99% of the vote. No matter how bad you think things are, overall, America approves, and keeps demonstrating that approval every two years. Our leaders are pretty safe.

Re:ex post facto

[IgnoramusMaximus]

At this point, armed militias are worthless against the power of the US Army and its remaining allies. They have weapons that we may acquire, regardless of the numbers of individuals we have on our side, will be of no match to the powerful arsenal that the government has.

You assumed that all of the US Armed forces politicaly monolitic and would side with the government. In reality what would happen, as in any civil war, a portion would join the rebels. How large a portion? That's anyone's guess. But the resulting warfare would be far removed from "militias vs mechanized divisions".

In my view, that is precisely why various Fundamentalist Christian Dominionist movements are, for many years now, desperately attempting to take over the Air Force, for they see it as the key deciding factor in any future conflagration.

Re:ex post facto

[cthulu_mt]

I think the missed the humor element in my post. Also, Clinton wasn't being impeached for his affair. The charges were related to his Perjury and Obstruction of justice in regards to the investigation thereof. Not that the investigation was legitimate...but there is something about Two Wrongs and a Right.

Re:ex post facto

[runderwo]

Congress cannot override the Constitution through an act of Congress. An unconstitutional act by the government thus cannot be forgiven through an act of Congress.

It is dubious whether the principle of ex post facto would apply to law-breaking government even in the case of a Constitutional amendment.

The only ex post facto forgiveness that will occur is if people roll over and let the government get away with this.

Re:ex post facto

[gknoy]

Liberals rarely recognize or appreciate the role of the 2nd ammendment in protecting the rest of the document and are always too eager to re-interpret it and shut it down. In doing so they lose all credibility when they scream about the 1st, 4th, or any other....

Just because someone has been wrong in the past, does not affect the truth or validity of their current statements or arguments. It is foolish (though common human behavior) to discredit someone due to past untruthfulness, but it falls into the trap illustrated by Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf.

Someone may be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make them wrong when they're talking about abuse of the constitution. Look at the claim at face value, not at whether the claim was made by a "lefty" or "liberal screecher", and judge the claim on its own merits, not on the merits of the claimant.

Re:ex post facto

[Nimey]

The problem with moderates who haven't decided that Bush and his Congressional enablers are Bad is really more with the moderate in question, IMO.

You'd have to have your head pretty far up your ass to not notice all the badness coming from DC since 2001 and realize "this is bad".

Re:ex post facto

[daigu]

Unethical? I'd be happy if they just started with some of the illegal stuff.

Re:ex post facto

[popejeremy]

I would suggest that you read more history. An armed revolution, even when backed by a just cause, will almost always merely institute chaos. The thing with a revolution is that you have to be able to practically guarantee that the country will be better after your revolution than it was before it.

Are there deeply seated problems with the functioning of our Republic right now? Yes. Will an armed revolution only make it worse? Yes.

Re:ex post facto

[E 99]

Frankly, I don't care if they listen in on suspected terrorist phone conversations .0001% as much as I care about the fact that they are trying to pass laws to make it legal after the fact.

So where do I recruit an army? ...NO CARRIER

It was never illegal in the first place. They are only granting civil immunity after the fact. You can still sue the government if you think they've listened to you unconstitutionally. In my view, there's nothing even remotely unconstitutional about it.

Of course, you're going to get even more depressed when you realize that if it ever did come to violence, my side owns most the guns.

Re:ex post facto

[Hemogoblin]

What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms? It seems we are really close to the threshold here: Good luck with that. Threatening to take up arms against the United States government sounds like a great way to get yourself put on a terrorist watchlist, extradited, and tortured. Hmmm, maybe eliminating most checks and balances wasn't such a great idea after all...

Re:ex post facto

[Quenyar]

The Federal Government has just completed some legislation that grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the administration's illegal domestic surveillance program. This is tantamount to a passive admission of guilt. Whay aren't more people mad about this? Now, I am not a big fan of laws on conspiracy. I don't think that they're generally a good idea, but they are the law of the land and tens of thousands of people are in jail today because of them. But they don't apply, apparently, if you're a bif telecommunications company and you aided and abedded the government in breaking the law. Here's what happened, if you need a refresher: the Bush administration went to the major telecommunications firms and asked them to set up wire taps on an unspecified number of US citizens. The telecommunications companies said, "where's the warrants?" The Bush administration replied that they did not need warrants and that it was a matter of national security. Most of the telecommunications companies (except for Quest) went along with the administration and complied with the illegal request. Now, if this was you or me and some agent of the US government asked us to do something illegal, we'd be in danger of going to jail for a vbery long time if we just went along with them and broke the law - this is particularly true if we used any special knowledge or tools to accomplish the illegal act, especially if the lillegal act required that knowledge or those tools. Evidently, the folks at the telecommunications company read the rules the same way, because their lobbyists have been busy as bevers on this issue -- and this week they've been effectively pardoned for their role in what might be the largest single act of anti-constitutional piracy in this nation's history. This is another example of the Bush administration's lack of respect for the law - their obvious lack of respect for the other branches of government and the Consitution. During World War I and World War II, the government sought and got special powers to deal with threats to national security - but in both instances, the Supreme Court said "so far and no further" and in neither case was the administration released from judicial oversight - they had to get a sitting judge to issue a warrant. In the 1970's, the Nixon administration was caught breaking the law and spying on US citizens. This is one of the reasons why Nixon had to resign from office. At that time, the legislature considered the problems of national security and came up with the FISA court compromise - a way for the administration to get what they said they needed and still protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. This legal means was not good enough for the Bush administration (which includes many of the same players who were responsible for the Nixon domestic spying scandal, like Mr. Cheney). Citing the 911 tragedy, the Bush administration claimed the right to spy on any citizen without any oversight whatsoever, provided that they claimed to have a good reason for doing it. Allowing your government to do whatever it wants to do because they claim to have good intentions is a recipe for tyranny. When the government tries to do things like this, it is the responsiblity of every responible citizen of the republic to oppose them in whatever way they legally can. If they fail to do so -- if they fail to hold the law breakers accountable and demand justice -- then they deserve what they get. This used to be a pretty good country, where the government was held accountable by the people and we used to send government officials, legislators, and even judges to jail fairly regularly when they broke the law. But today, when legislators connive with the administration to retroactivly pardon wrongdoers before they've even been brought to the bar of justice, we shrug our shoulders and accept the inevitability of bad government. Bad government does not come about by itself, nor is it inevitable. Bad government is allowed to flourish when we enable it by our apathy and acceptance. While

Re:ex post facto

[grassy_knoll]

In my view, that is precisely why various Fundamentalist Christian Dominionist movements are, for many years now, desperately attempting to take over the Air Force, for they see it as the key deciding factor in any future conflagration.

Which would work so well, since airpower is the deciding factor in the current Iraq campaigns... oh, wait...

If any dear readers are wondering what the parent poster is on about, read this for a short introduction.

Re:ex post facto

[QuantumRepublic]

Actually, the Constitution bars things being made retroactively ILLEGAL. They can Constitutionally make things retroactively LEGAL. Like in this hideously irresponsible case...

Re:ex post facto

[DavidTC]

Why would anyone need to convince 'moderates' of anything? Any actual moderate sees full well what's going on.

Re:ex post facto

[grassy_knoll]

Air power certainly is useful against large troop formations, stand alone structures ( and structures in a mixed environment with either guided munitions or saturation bombing ) in the right terrain. Deserts are particularly good environments; mountains much less so.

If one presumes a civil war between religiously motivated / secular combatants, I'd think that it would quickly devolve into the level of insurgency. Even if one side, say, turned San Francisco ( or Mobile, Alabama ) to rubble through air strikes, this would likely have the effect of mobilizing the other side into greater action ( or, at least, mobilizing a "radical" element ).

Please keep in mind: I'm not arguing with the inferred strategy, but rather it's effectiveness.

Re:ex post facto

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Please keep in mind: I'm not arguing with the inferred strategy, but rather it's effectiveness.

Neither am I proposing that Air Force would, on its own, somehow win the day, merely that it is a very major element in such potential struggle, control of which is very desirable to some. How effective it would be in the end is far too complex a thing to predict, depending on myriad of factors such as the tactics and competence of commanders of both sides, logisitics, sequences of events etc etc all the way down to weather, and would be something for historians to piece together for decades afterwards.

Re:ex post facto

[10101001 10101001]

the generally accepted interpretation of the prohibition on ex-post facto laws is that Congress may not make something illegal after-the-fact; this does not, however, prevent them from retroactively making it legal.

You know, at first I was going to disagree with you. But, then, I ended up reading about a ruling made in 1798 on the interpretation of ex-post facto. It's made pretty clear that you're right. I can only interpret this to mean that it was assumed that at the point that the government would begin to legalize all its and its cohorts' criminal acts after the fact that the republic was lost, leaving the only option being one of an overthrow of the sitting government. After all, with a power-hungry government, being able to legally legalize your illegal actions after the fact makes it trivial to perform *any* action with the knowledge that you can fix the results in the future; such logically makes whoever has the most power above the law.

Re:ex post facto

[CristalShandaLear]

What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms?

We passed that threshold long ago.

France rioted because their government wanted to make it easier to fire people and give less vacation time. Americans have allowed the very foundations of our Constitution to be distorted and so very much else to pass and we still have yet to do anything more than march or carry and a sign. And why is that?

Well two reasons.

First is divide and conquer. Racism and bigotry. Rich versus poor. Geek versus Joe Six Pack. Working Mom versus Stay at Home Mom.

We allow all these idiotic labels to come between who we are. We are so busy cataloging the enemy that we forget we are all in this together.

We must never forget the stupidity that got us into this mess. Bush promised that Americans would be the overlords with all our smarts and tech and the natural inclination to rule (Whiteness). All the other countries would have to bow to our superiority and if they didn't, well we always had military superiority and could "shock and awe" them into doing what we wanted.

And we found out that people in other countries are just as smart as we are and smarter. And that military superiority doesn't mean an automatic win. And that you can only bomb people for so long before the "shock and awe" wears off and they fight back. And they are pissed.

Secondly, Because we are afraid. I am afraid.

We know that our phones are being tapped, our email is being read, that our homes can be 'sneak-and-peek' searched and we would never know. That anything we read at the library or search on Google, Yahoo or MSN will most definitely be held against us in a court of law. We can't even drive without our tags being randomly searched and anyone with OnStar can be heard or traced. Our homes and the homes of our family and friends are easily found with a simple search so even if we strike out on our on, our nearest and dearest can easily suffer.

And once we are detained, we can be held for as long as the government says we must be held and we can be tortured and we simply have no rights to be treated anywhere near human anymore. We see the war against "them" and we know that it really wouldn't be that hard for us to be put in the same situation...that our government might not have a problem turning on it's own people.

We are afraid. We live in fear. And the fact that we go to work every day and come home and maybe go to the movies or post on slashdot or watch "reality" TV - some this keeps us believing that there we are still free - that Democracy, truth, justice and the American way have prevailed.

But those ideals have not prevailed. We have failed them and the result is that we are now living under the tyranny of the White House.

No amount of voting or peaceful demonstration will stop them now. Nothing short of full scale revolution will allow us to take our country back and undo the damage we have done to others.

We must admit our mistakes. We must hold our government accountable.

It is long past time that we take up arms and defend the true American way from those who would rob us of our dignity, cower us in fear and divide us against each other.

Problem is, only the gang bangers and the government have guns.

Democrats

[BlowHole666]

Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats

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.

Re:Democrats

[imadork]

Not necessarily. The funny thing about the US Senate is that there are plenty of "parliamentary maneuvers" which require 60 votes to overcome. But the Democrats only have a slim 51-49 majority, and that's just because there are two independants that caucus with them. As the Majority party, they have a majority in all the committees and can basically control what gets to the floor in the first place. But once something is on the floor for the full Senate to consider, there's all sorts of mischief that can occur.

Re:Democrats

[lithium bandit]

All this means is that the Democrats rely on campaign contributions from the giant telecom companies too. To vote to indict them without Republican support would result in them losing millions for the next election.

Re:Democrats

[AtariDatacenter]

Yes, but not getting your own legislation forward, as a majority, does not mean that the minority gets to pass whatever legislation they want. Here you have the democrats rolling over, again, acting as though they're compelled to pass the legislation that the minority wants.

If the MINORITY has so much power to pass legislation, why doesn't the MAJORITY? [Answer: empty excuses]

Re:Democrats

[UncleTogie]

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.

Re-translation: When Congress has little internal oversight, it's easy for the telecom companies to buy votes.

Re:Democrats

[Dolly_Llama]

In a Democrat controlled congress

Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective, despite what Rush tells you.

Re:Democrats

[RetardsForRonPaul]

Translation from StupidRightWinger-speak: The Dems with their slight, not filibuster-proof majority, were unable to do much of anything to stop this bill in the face of the rock-solid party line votes of Republicans as well as a couple of Dems who are busy in a race to the bottom of the barrel with their right-wing colleagues. That, and the President who didnt know the meaning of "veto" before Novemeber 2006. Hell, I doubt that moron knows the meaning of the word now, but I'm sure the douchebags he takes his orders from have a pretty good idea.

Re:Democrats

[phantomlord]

Part of the success the Congressional Republicans had in the mid-90s was the fact that they would send bills up knowing they would be vetoed. Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he finally signed it in 1996 (an election year) to try to take an issue away from the Republicans. Granted, Bush isn't up for election again next year, but you can at least force him to make a stand (which would bleed over into the Republican party in general via ad hominism) like with SCHIP. The Dems were smart to pass it and force Bush to veto. For his part, Bush bungled the veto and should have gone into depth about why he was vetoing it instead of letting the Dems define the public face of the issue.

Re:Democrats

[DavidTC]

For his part, Bush bungled the veto and should have gone into depth about why he was vetoing it instead of letting the Dems define the public face of the issue.

He didn't bungle anything. It's become increasingly obvious that not only does Bush not care what people think about him, he doesn't particularly give a flying fuck about other Republicans and their reelection chances. Why should he, he's a sociopath. The Republican party is no longer useful to him, and, hence, it doesn't matter how damaged it is.

The real question is, as I can see this, why the Republicans can't, and in addition to stupidly not get off the Titanic, they continue to praise both the captain, Bush, and the many many icebergs they crashed into, like Iraq. And something like 1/4th of the Democrats think it's a good idea to climb on board also, to show they won't let the people who already sunk under the water die in vain.

This is one of those true historic stories that wouldn't be good fiction because it makes no fucking sense. Truth is only stranger than fiction because everyone in real life is apparently a complete fucking moron. Bush is the only person whose behavior makes any sense at all, if you assume he's an amoral power-mad lunatic.

Manuvers? What?

[Applekid]

Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers. Oh please. -1 Flamebait. Democrats have a majority vote. Maybe not enough to counter a veto but certainly enough to pass the hockey puck up to the Prez. Implying it was "GOP parliamentary maneuvers" is kinda like saying I don't have the money to buy a stick of gum because they moved the shelf.

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.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[debilo]

The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though.

Because in a couple of months there will probably be a Democrat Administration that can thoroughly enjoy all the new uncontrolled powers that have been passed into law or simply seized during the past few years, while at the same time being able to pin the blame on the Republicans by saying "It wasn't us, it was them."

Re:Manuvers? What?

[pzs]

Why are they caving quite so much? I genuinely don't understand it. Politicians are most concerned about re-election and appearing weak in front of the electorate but by capitulating over and over again, they must know that they are making things worse for themselves.

What I also don't quite understand is how much of the country is now spitting nails about just how clueless these dipshits are and yet there is absolutely no movement or change whatever. What do people have to do - march on Capitol hill?

Is this actually going to get any better when (note I don't even bother with "if") there is a Democratic president? You're still going to have an utterly inept congress who take 17 photo-calls with cute children before failing to achieve anything useful.

Utterly, utterly bonkers.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Blue dog dems are voting more like republicans right now. They recognize that they're weak for their reelection bids, and don't want to piss off their constituents. Never mind the fact that with the way things are shaping up right now, it looks like the next election cycle is going to be a "vote out the incumbents" type of event.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[tbannist]

Actually they caved for a number of different reasons:
1) Progressive Democrats didn't like the bill because it wasn't strict enough.
2) Conservative Democrats didn't like the bill because it was too strict.
3) Republicans didn't like the bill because they could end up in jail.

In the end, spite didn't win out, and a couple of the conservative Dems were convinced that it could hinder the performance of the foreign espionage and, more importantly, their personal re-election campaigns.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[pi_rules]

Oh please. -1 Flamebait. Democrats have a majority vote. Maybe not enough to counter a veto but certainly enough to pass the hockey puck up to the Prez.

No, they can't get something to the president alone. You need 60 people to call for cloture in the senate before a vote can be taken.

Yes, I'm one of the 8 people in America that watches CSPAN.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[parcel]

It's a little scary that people don't understand that. Especially after all the Republican hubbub about removing filibuster power a couple years back.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[smooth wombat]

Because in a couple of months there will probably be a Democrat Administration that can thoroughly enjoy all the new uncontrolled powers

And I can't wait for it. As I have said many times on here, I am a lifelong republican but absolutely abhor what these facists have done to both the party and the Constitution.

As it stands now, there will be a Democratic president in 18 months and when the republicans, most importantly Fox/Rush/et al, start screaming bloody murder about all the powers the new president is wielding and running rampant over the Constitution, I will be the first one in line telling them to fuck off as they are the ones who forced these powers through, claiming all the while that these powers were absolutely needed to fight terrorism, despite the protests from people calling them an abomination against civil liberties. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

Yeah, the Dems caved, for whatever various reasons, but I can't wait see the Dem president and all the apoplectic seizures the Reps will have trying to claim these powers are somehow unConstitutional and should be revoked.

Hell, I'm even happy there might a third party, neo-conservative candidate just so the Republican vote gets split, all but guaranteeing a Democratic president.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[Altus]

I assure you that when they do the republicans will raise holly hell. They wont need a majority to whip the middle into a conservative frenzy when its those godless heathens taking advantage of these powers. If the dems get power and use these same tricks they could be out in 4 years (2 for congress) if they aren't careful .

Re:Manuvers? What?

[roystgnr]

No, they can't get something to the president alone. You need 60 people to call for cloture in the senate before a vote can be taken.

True (although I'd like to see the Republicans forced to do some real filibustering, not just threatening to filibuster and laughing when the Democrats back down). But in this case that doesn't apply - the telecom companies have already broken the law; the Democrats (at least the ones who care about civil liberties) don't need to pass any new ones. All they need to do is not cooperate with the criminals who are trying to get off the hook.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[lawpoop]

The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. Anthrax. The answer is anthrax. And, it's in the hands of a bat-shit crazy man.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[DavidTC]

So not only should we vote them out of office, we should probably hold some sort of mental health evaluation to see if they are a danger to themselves or others.

They're weak for their reelection bids because they aren't stopping the president. It really is that simple.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[DavidTC]

What I want to happen is to elect a Democrat who says, straight out, at their innaguration:

In 20 months, I will imprison every Senator and Representive, without charge, using the powers you morons have granted me. I will veto any bill disallowing this, I will use my magical signing statement power to undo any vetos you override, I will declare you illegal combatants or something and keep you from seeing a court at all, even if you explicitly say you're entitled to one. (What are you going to do if I don't?)

You know where the constitutional amendments are so this doesn't happen again. Or rot in jail. Or resign. Your choice.

Oh, and pass an amendment that just grants you protection, and I'll simply claim you aren't Congressmen or even American citizens. Have fun proving that without access to a court.

Re:Manuvers? What?

[rastoboy29]

The problem is the Senate Rules they're playing under these days which require 60 votes to do anything important.  The rules are essentially designed to require consensus, which is not, personally, what I hired them for.

outmaneuvered

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

11% approval rating for Congress

[timon]

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?

Re:11% approval rating for Congress

[M. Baranczak]

The approval rating for Congress as a whole doesn't mean dick. Most of the individual members have pretty good numbers among their constituents (otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place).

Re:11% approval rating for Congress

[Mawginty]

Of course stuff like this is why. They can't force a redeployment from Iraq. They can't get the SCHIP expansion passed and they can't protect civil liberties. Those are the things the democrats stand for, and they are not doing a good job.

But the party leadership would like to do a good job. They traded ideological purity for majority control in the 2004 election. The majority party leadership gets to decide which bills make it to the floor and which get killed in committee. That's where most of the power is in Congress, so it wasn't such of a bad trade. That said, it still isn't the power to actually pass a law. The moderates (and even right-wingers) who gave the democrats the majority also don't vote like democrats on many key issues. Their majority is hollow. So while we aren't getting the telecom/wiretapping law we'd get if the republicans were in the majority, we aren't getting the one we want (or at least I, a registered democrat, want).

And in all honesty, there is some principle to not holding the telecoms responsible. They were following the directions of law enforcement. They were probably entitled to trust those law enforcement officials to know the law, and not ask them to do something that violated federal or state law--as it can be complicated. But law enforcement asked them to do exactly that. I'd like to hold the FBI and the DHS accountable, the telecoms are a proxy. Don't get me wrong, I'm mad that they took away my proxy, but I recognize it for what it is.

Re:11% approval rating for Congress

[NeutronCowboy]

And yet, the majority of Congresspeople get reelected again and again and again.... The only explanation I have is that the 89% of those who don't approve how Congress works approve of how THEIR Congress critter funnels pork THEIR way.

As much bitching as there is about Congress, the President and other elected officials, they all keep getting re-elected. I say we, as in the US, have the democracy/republic we deserve. Its suckiness is a reflection of how much we suck in picking our representatives.

Re:11% approval rating for Congress

[paranode]

What's more fucked up is a lot of that disapproval is probably coming from neocons who are upset that the Republicans aren't far enough to the right and attacking Iran as we speak...

its just a godamn piece of paper

[bad_bwoy]

its not like it makes millions of dollars for the government or aides them in anyway, why should they give a shit about it?

This quote:

[khasim]

"There is absolutely no reason our intelligence officials should have to consult government lawyers before listening into terrorist communications with the likes of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and other foreign terror groups," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

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.

Re:This quote:

[geeknado]

According to the article, it's actually unclear whether or not the provisions involving the FISA court are or are not present in the Senate version of the bill. All that is clear is that the TelCos will be granted immunity for their actions to date. That doesn't actually imply that such actions in the future will be condoned. IMO, we need all the details here. As much as my heart would love for the TelCos to get blasted for their involvement, the other points are far more weighty in terms of our constitutional freedoms going forward...Not that blanket warrents are a huge step forward, but even so.

Re:This quote:

[Kamots]

"Unfortunately, it probably takes a lot longer then 72 hours for any intelligence gathered to reach a person who can actually use the intelligence. 72 hours is 3x too long for a television show and probably 1/10th of the time needed for the intelligence bureaucracy to do anything with it."

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here... but it sounds like you're confused about what the current law allows and reacting to the timeframe without understanding what the timeframe relates to.

The powers that be can do thier survelience, then after it has been done and while they are acting on that information go to a court and say "Hey, we spied on these people, here's why and here's why we couldn't wait to ask you before we did it; do you think that we were right to do so?"

And you'd have no objection to officials having a camera in your bedroom either. I mean, it's obvious that they'd only use it if they thought a serious crime was being committed. I can't see how a corrupt official could misuse it.

Re:This quote:

[jcgf]

72 hours is 3x too long for a television show

So you are saying that tv shows should be 72h/3 = 24 hours? Personally I can't stand watching for more than 2 hours at a stretch.

Re:This quote:

[Rich0]

Unfortunately, it probably takes a lot longer then 72 hours for any intelligence gathered to reach a person who can actually use the intelligence. 72

That is just how long they have to declare the search to a court. They don't EVER have to tell the subject of the investigation about the wiretap. This is about oversight - not about publicity. The FISA court records remain completely sealed, and the court itself is about as protected as the CIA from evesdropping.

There is no reason that somebody can't bother to tell a secret court about a secret wiretap 3 days after it is placed. The government can act instantly and worry about the paperwork later. And they have PLENTY of people to handle the paperwork...

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're allowed 10 years to file the paperwork. It's insane to apply criminal standards of probable cause to the process of gathering military intelligence. It's only our extreme arrogance that lets us even consider this.

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.

The most crucial aspect of checks and balances is the separation of powers. No branch of government has influence over all aspects of government. Control over most aspects of government is split in some manner between two of the three. Checks and balances break down when the separation of powers fails to be respected. The judicial branch of government is given by the Constitution NO power over the conducting of warfare or the gathering of military intelligence. The continued expansion of judiciary power into all aspects of government is precisely the currently impending point of failure of the constitutional system of checks and balances.

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

The powers that be can do thier survelience, then after it has been done and while they are acting on that information go to a court and say "Hey, we spied on these people, here's why and here's why we couldn't wait to ask you before we did it; do you think that we were right to do so?"

I guess that really boils it down right there. It begs the question of -- Why is a judge in charge of what the NSA should be doing when the Constitution says that the president is in charge?

Re:This quote:

[imgod2u]

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're allowed 10 years to file the paperwork. It's insane to apply criminal standards of probable cause to the process of gathering military intelligence. It's only our extreme arrogance that lets us even consider this.

Terrorism is a policing problem, not a military problem. You're trying to find the hidden bad guys and catch them even when they're hiding amidst a bunch of innocent people. The military is there to wear a uniform and blow the other guy up for carrying a different flag. It is designed for cold-blooded destructive ability, not for its uncanny ability to tell friend from foe.

The most crucial aspect of checks and balances is the separation of powers. No branch of government has influence over all aspects of government. Control over most aspects of government is split in some manner between two of the three. Checks and balances break down when the separation of powers fails to be respected. The judicial branch of government is given by the Constitution NO power over the conducting of warfare or the gathering of military intelligence. The continued expansion of judiciary power into all aspects of government is precisely the currently impending point of failure of the constitutional system of checks and balances.

Again, it's national security, not warfare. Just because the hawks are screaming "we're at war" does not make it so. I suppose you think criminal procedures should not occur for prosecuting drug felons because it's the "war on drugs".

Re:This quote:

[Jeremi]

I guess that really boils it down right there. It begs the question of -- Why is a judge in charge of what the NSA should be doing when the Constitution says that the president is in charge?

Because the rules in the Constitution supercede the will of the President, and it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution.

Don't they require Civics classes in high school anymore?

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

Terrorism is a policing problem, not a military problem. You're trying to find the hidden bad guys and catch them even when they're hiding amidst a bunch of innocent people. The military is there to wear a uniform and blow the other guy up for carrying a different flag. It is designed for cold-blooded destructive ability, not for its uncanny ability to tell friend from foe.

It's a military problem. You think when we take down an Al Qaeda safehouse in Pakistan, we should be getting a warrant first and knocking on the door? Protecting the country from foreign enemies who want to destroy it, is by definition what the military is for.

Again, it's national security, not warfare. Just because the hawks are screaming "we're at war" does not make it so. I suppose you think criminal procedures should not occur for prosecuting drug felons because it's the "war on drugs".

"National security" IS the concern of the military, not the police force. It's obviously irrelevant whether or not the rhetoric involves the use of the word "war". But the country won't last much longer if we ever decide that national security is no longer a job for the military. The correct distinction is between fighting foreign enemies of our country and prosecuting domestic violators of domestic law.

Re:This quote:

[DavidTC]

The constitution says no such thing. The military is required to operate entirely within the rules spelled out by the Legislature. Without them there wouldn't even be a military.

And it's the job of Congress to provide for national defense, anyway.

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

Because the rules in the Constitution supercede the will of the President, and it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution.

Don't they require Civics classes in high school anymore?

Uuh, apparently not. The Constitution doesn't say that it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution. The rules of the Constitution say that the President decides what the military does, and a judge does not.

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

The constitution says no such thing. The military is required to operate entirely within the rules spelled out by the Legislature. Without them there wouldn't even be a military.

And it's the job of Congress to provide for national defense, anyway.

No. Providing for the national defense is split between the Congress and the President. See Article II, section 2. The point is that the judiciary has no role. It cannot be given a role by Congress, because the separation of powers established by the Constitution takes precedence over any acts of congress made under it.

Re:This quote:

[huckamania]

Or maybe you refine your methods. Still, I doubt they are transmitting their wiretaps over a wire to their home network. More then likely they use over night express and probably not every night.

It's all just nit picking. They are not sitting in a closet at AT&T, Verizon, etc. They hopefully aren't sending across the network. Is the 72 hours from the time they tap or 72 hours from the time they realized they tapped or 72 hours after they figure out what language is being spoken and get someone to translate it? If it's not the later, then it really is a race against time.

The 3 days is a reference to 24, which shows how the world can be saved in 1 day by 1 angry (drunk) man.

Re:This quote:

[DavidTC]

Can you not actually read or something?

Congress is in charge of the 'common defence', not the president. (And by 'common defense', they mean 'defense of all', aka, national defense.)

But more to the point, Congress in charge of making 'Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces'. Congress is in charge of the military, I don't care what fuzzy-headed thinking you're doing about 'commander-in-chief', the president can only act within rules and regulations created by congress. A commander-in-chief is in charge of the military, it does not mean that no one is in charge of him or he follows no rules, just that the top of the military reports to him.

Congress can require all wars are fought with nerf bats if it wants, or that there's no military at all. Congress set the rules.

And, more to the point, the existence of 'regulations' does, indeed, imply that the court system in involved in it. Congress makes regulations, everyone follows them, the court decides them.

And, perhaps even more relevantly, 'commander-in-chief' has nothing to do with foreign intelligence gathering at all. There is nothing in the constitution that would grant an 'intelligence gathering' power to the President. Not any sort of mention of any sort. None whatsoever.

Foreign intelligence gathering exists solely because Congress, while providing for the national defense, decided to make such a system and, like all the other agencies they set up, handed over to the executive to run. It's no more a presidential power than running the Post Office is.

Re:This quote:

[Jeremi]

Uuh, apparently not. The Constitution doesn't say that it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution. The rules of the Constitution say that the President decides what the military does, and a judge does not.

So you are saying that it's the President's job to interpret what his own legal abilities are in all matters regarding the military? What if he was to (just hypothetically of course) interpret the Constitution as saying he's allowed to use the military to kill his political opponents, stage a coup, and start a dictatorship? According to your logic, that would be perfectly acceptable. According to common sense and the framers' idea of checks and balances, however, the powers of each of the three branches of government are to be held in check by the other two. That's why a judge (and/or Congress) must have a say in the matter.

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

Can you not actually read or something?

Congress is in charge of the 'common defence', not the president. (And by 'common defense', they mean 'defense of all', aka, national defense.)

Can you not actually read or something? Congress and the president are jointly in charge of providing the common defense. Their respective roles in this are enumerated in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.

But more to the point, Congress in charge of making 'Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces'.

Yes. You seem to do fine when you actually quote the document. The problem seems to be in reading comprehension

Congress is in charge of the military, I don't care what fuzzy-headed thinking you're doing about 'commander-in-chief', the president can only act within rules and regulations created by congress. A commander-in-chief is in charge of the military, it does not mean that no one is in charge of him or he follows no rules, just that the top of the military reports to him.

Brilliant. I think you are thinking of a parliamentary system where there is no separation of power, and the legislative body has total power, including power over executive functions. If the president had no power except to do anything but what the Congress told him to do, there wouldn't be much point in holding an election for him would there be. If the Constitution isn't self-explanatory enough for you, try reading the Federalist Papers.

Congress can require all wars are fought with nerf bats if it wants, or that there's no military at all. Congress set the rules.

That's largely true. Congress has the power to create the military, to arm it, and establish its regulations. The president has the power to use it.

And, more to the point, the existence of 'regulations' does, indeed, imply that the court system in involved in it. Congress makes regulations, everyone follows them, the court decides them.

The court system is involved when a civil law suit or a criminal prosecution is filed. These are the "cases and controversies" which the Constitution gives them power over. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination give them power over deciding what country to invade or what country to spy on.

And, perhaps even more relevantly, 'commander-in-chief' has nothing to do with foreign intelligence gathering at all. There is nothing in the constitution that would grant an 'intelligence gathering' power to the President. Not any sort of mention of any sort. None whatsoever.

Since the beginning of history, waging war has involved spying on the enemy. To argue that these are unrelated activities is asinine. To argue that spying on our enemies is related to some OTHER function of government besides the waging of war is similarly asinine.

Foreign intelligence gathering exists solely because Congress, while providing for the national defense, decided to make such a system and, like all the other agencies they set up, handed over to the executive to run. It's no more a presidential power than running the Post Office is.

Congress sets up the institutions necessary for intelligence gathering, and then turns them over to the President to run, but running them ISN'T a presidential power?

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

So you are saying that it's the President's job to interpret what his own legal abilities are in all matters regarding the military? What if he was to (just hypothetically of course) interpret the Constitution as saying he's allowed to use the military to kill his political opponents, stage a coup, and start a dictatorship? According to your logic, that would be perfectly acceptable. According to common sense and the framers' idea of checks and balances, however, the powers of each of the three branches of government are to be held in check by the other two. That's why a judge (and/or Congress) must have a say in the matter.

The President swears allegiance to the Constitution. How could he do that if he didn't know what he was swearing allegiance to? Do you really think he should be swearing allegiance to some given judge's spin on the Constitution? There is a danger if ANY of the branches try to subvert the constitution, and that is why the founders gave them ALL the independent duty to follow it, regardless of if another branch tries to say that it says something it doesn't.

There are indeed checks and balances between the branches. Congress can set up rules and regulations for the military, but only the President can command the military. There are many checks and balances that would prevent a scenario like the one you suggested. The first is the fact that the military chain of command will refuse to carry out any such clearly illegal orders. Another is that the Congress would impeach him for treason. Another is that Congress could dismantle and defund the military if necessary. It's absolutely true that each branch is held in check by the other two, but only in the ways that are actually prescribed in the Constitution.

But if the judiciary branch had the universal power to interpret the Constitution for the other two branches, how could the other two branches possibly enact any check on the power of the judiciary?

Re:This quote:

[Chris Burke]

I guess that really boils it down right there. It begs the question of -- Why is a judge in charge of what the NSA should be doing when the Constitution says that the president is in charge?

Uh... Because the Constitution also says that the President can't tell the NSA to spy on people without a warrant issued by a judge.

That's the only thing the judge is involved with. The judge isn't telling the NSA what to do, he's telling them whether what they've been told to do is Constitutional or not.

Of course if what they're doing is Unconstitutional, then the President should tell them to stop doing it. But that's only the case with Presidents who uphold their oath to uphold the Constitution. Thus the current problem.

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

Uh... Because the Constitution also says that the President can't tell the NSA to spy on people without a warrant issued by a judge.

Uh... what constitution is that in? It's not in the US Constitution.

That's the only thing the judge is involved with. The judge isn't telling the NSA what to do, he's telling them whether what they've been told to do is Constitutional or not.

Of course if what they're doing is Unconstitutional, then the President should tell them to stop doing it. But that's only the case with Presidents who uphold their oath to uphold the Constitution. Thus the current problem.

No... the people who support the FISA law are arguing that a judge should have to issue a warrant for the NSA to be allowed to gather certain intelligence. The constitution establishes a separation of powers. The entity capable of determining for the NSA or any other executive agency whether something is constitutional or not is the AG, specifically, the Office of Legal Council or OLC. The judicial branch has no right to impose their constitutional interpretations upon those of the AG or the OLC or executive agencies. The interpretations of the judicial branch is only relevant in the case of civil or criminal lawsuits, in which case the judicial branch's interpretation of the Constitution is used to resolve those particular cases.

Re:This quote:

[Chris Burke]

Uh... what constitution is that in? It's not in the US Constitution.

Hundreds of years of precident have establish that 4th Ammendment rights apply to mail, telegraph, telephone, and recently email and SMS messages. You've actually heard of the 4th right, and it's application to wiretaps, right? There's only hundreds of years of precidant, you can't seriously have read the Constitution with any context and not know.

No... the people who support the FISA law are arguing that a judge should have to issue a warrant for the NSA to be allowed to gather certain intelligence. The constitution establishes a separation of powers. The entity capable of determining for the NSA or any other executive agency whether something is constitutional or not is the AG, specifically, the Office of Legal Council or OLC.

Did you just hear that phrase, or have you read the Constitution? "Separation of powers" doesn't mean within each branch, that branch itself is sovereign and no other branch can tell it what to do (a naive but wrong intepretation). It means that of all the powers a government might have to control not just the people but the government itself, each branch is given a distinct set of powers that hold sway over and counterballance the powers that the other branches have over them. There is a section where it is described what each branch is given the power to do, and yes that includes powers that govern the branches of government other than their own.

Article 3, Section 2 gives the judiciary the explicit power to decide cases involving the government itself, including all branches, that arise under the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution itself, the highest law of the land. You're confused thinking that because this "deciding" power is only executed within the auspices of a court case, that this is the only place the power applies. This is wrong. What the Constitution is saying is that "deciding" conflicts of law is a power exclusive to the Judiciary, so only decisions made there are enforceable under law. The FBI (executive branch) cannot put you in federal prison (executive branch) in accordance legalities and penalties defined in the U.S. Code (legislative branch) unless they bring you before the court (judicial branch) and the court rules that the laws are in harmony with the execution of those laws and with the Constitution itself.

What that means is that the Attorney General's opinion is nothing more than that -- an opinion. He can advise the President on what he believes is legal, and accuse some party before the court of doing something illegal. But his mere advice or accusation means nothing. Until the issue is brought before the court, no penalty is applied to the accused. And if someone accuses the government, only the court decides if the law applies and penalties can applied to the government. And that decision, in either case, is binding. And these decisions, since the inception of the Constitution, have included the issuance of warrants to allow the executive branch to conduct searches in accordance with the 4th Amendment. A binding decision on whether the 4th Amendment is respected or not.

You should really read the Constitution. I think once you read what it actually say, and what powers it grants to each branch regarding the actions of the other two branches, you will eventually come to appreciate a design where each section of an isolated branch of government with a different agenda is able to poke their fingers into the workings of another. When the checks and balances work, it does a very nice job of preventing any particular power of the government from being used too wantonly.

But just to reiterate -- yes, the Courts have the power to tell law enforcement agencies that they can or can't conduct surveillance, and there's no way you can have any clue and seriously be questioning this power.

Re:This quote:

[imgod2u]

It's a military problem. You think when we take down an Al Qaeda safehouse in Pakistan, we should be getting a warrant first and knocking on the door? Protecting the country from foreign enemies who want to destroy it, is by definition what the military is for.

Ok, scenario:

Foreign people enter the U.S. without any declaration of war. They are disguised as just visitors and/or immigrants. They are planning to execute a plot to blow up a building. They have support from several citizens of the U.S. Is this a problem for:

a) The FBI/CIA in conjunction with police forces.
b) The army.

But because it's brown people, it all of a sudden becomes a "we're at war" thing?

"National security" IS the concern of the military, not the police force. It's obviously irrelevant whether or not the rhetoric involves the use of the word "war". But the country won't last much longer if we ever decide that national security is no longer a job for the military. The correct distinction is between fighting foreign enemies of our country and prosecuting domestic violators of domestic law.

Erm, no. See, we have an entire division of government that is setup to deal with foreign enemies that are not part of a military force (the CIA). The idea that the military is efficient at such activities is really stretching the idea of what a military is. And to get back to the original point, the acts of gathering intelligence and performing covert operations (and not a military strike against a foreign army) is absolutely not part of "warfare". The reason being that "war" is never declared. This may seem like semantics but there really are a few caveats that make the difference:

1. Only congress can declare war, whereas covert intelligence operations can be performed and ordered by the executive branch regardless of the blessings of congress.
2. There is no specific goal and criteria for covert intelligence operations. The executive branch does not have to qualify its progress and list a goal as an end.

In other words, the reason that "warfare" does not have to be supervised is because the conditions for starting war and ending war is determined by Congress, thereby putting a check and balance on what the executive branch is allowed to do. No such checks and balances exist for covert intelligence operations. Congress does not have the authority to declare "ok, the war on terror is over". Considering the fact that criminal investigation (and yes, terrorism is a criminal act) categorize squarely as a policing activity, I see it as absolutely reasonable to have the judiciary branch oversee it.

Re:This quote:

[E 99]

Hundreds of years of precident have establish that 4th Ammendment rights apply to mail, telegraph, telephone, and recently email and SMS messages. You've actually heard of the 4th right, and it's application to wiretaps, right? There's only hundreds of years of precidant, you can't seriously have read the Constitution with any context and not know.

The 4th amendment relates to criminal investigations and prosecutions. We were talking about the gathering of military intelligence by a military body. The judicial precedents for interpreting the 4th amendments are respected by the judicial branch of government. As such, they must be respected by the executive branch of government in order to get conviction in criminal cases. This is an example of checks and balances and separation of powers, in that the power to convict criminals of according to laws passed by the legislature is split between the executive and judicial. The power to spy on military enemies is not split between the judicial and executive. Only the executive and legislative are given any roles in the providing of national security. Since the goal is to obtain information for military purposes, and the goal is not obtaining convictions in court, the judicial branch, along with its precedents, are irrelevant. In sum, the 4th amendment does not inherently mandate warrants, and no precedent suggests otherwise; and if it did, the precedents of the courts don't effect the other branches except where those branches must constitutionally interact with the courts.

each branch is given a distinct set of powers that hold sway over and counterballance the powers that the other branches have over them. There is a section where it is described what each branch is given the power to do, and yes that includes powers that govern the branches of government other than their own.

exactly right.

Article 3, Section 2 gives the judiciary the explicit power to decide cases involving the government itself, including all branches, that arise under the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution itself, the highest law of the land. You're confused thinking that because this "deciding" power is only executed within the auspices of a court case, that this is the only place the power applies. This is wrong.

No, this is a fundamental constitutional principle. The power of the courts are limited to "cases and controversies." More on this below...

What that means is that the Attorney General's opinion is nothing more than that -- an opinion. He can advise the President on what he believes is legal, and accuse some party before the court of doing something illegal. But his mere advice or accusation means nothing. Until the issue is brought before the court, no penalty is applied to the accused.

You're talking about a criminal prosecution. In a criminal prosecution, due process requires that the courts get the final say on any legal questions, and as you say, the AG's opinion is just an opinion. However, in the functioning of an executive agency, the AG gets the final say, and the court's opinion, if they have one, is just an opinion. This is the fundamental principle without which the separation of powers would never work. If the Court could tell the other branches what the law said, regardless of what it actually said, they could have all power over the government.

What that means is that the Attorney General's opinion is nothing more than that -- an opinion. He can advise the President on what he believes is legal, and accuse some party before the court of doing something illegal. But his mere advice or accusation means nothing. Until the issue is brought before the court, no penalty is applied to the accused. And if someone accuses the government, only the court decides if the law applies and penalties can applied to the government. And that decision, in either case, is binding.

Re:This quote:

[DavidTC]

Can you not actually read or something? Congress and the president are jointly in charge of providing the common defense. Their respective roles in this are enumerated in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Perhaps you would like to list where the president's role in providing for defense is in the Constitution. All I see is that he is commander-in-chief of a military that may or may not exist on Congressional whim.

Yes. You seem to do fine when you actually quote the document. The problem seems to be in reading comprehension

Whereas you, of course, don't seem to be quoting any of the document at all. Odd, that.

The court system is involved when a civil law suit or a criminal prosecution is filed. These are the "cases and controversies" which the Constitution gives them power over. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination give them power over deciding what country to invade or what country to spy on. No, and no one's saying the court system should be doing that.

What the Judicial branch is doing is enforcing the rules and regulations that Congress has created for the military. I'm otherwise confused as to who you think is in charge of said rules. Yes, there are specific inferior courts for them, created by Congress, (Exactly like all other Federal inferior courts.), under the UCMJ, but those courts answer to the Supreme Court.

Since the beginning of history, waging war has involved spying on the enemy. To argue that these are unrelated activities is asinine. To argue that spying on our enemies is related to some OTHER function of government besides the waging of war is similarly asinine.

The president is not in charge of waging war. You can't just make up terms and say the president is in charge of them.

The president is in charge of the day-to-day running of the military. You can argue that makes him de facto in charge of intelligence conducted by the military, assuming that Congress has not passed any rules or regulations otherwise, which is a reasonable position. He's in charge of all the behavior of the military barring rules and regulations to the contrary, and that presumably includes all the normal functions of the military.

Sadly for your point, neither the CIA or NSA are even part of the military in the first place, so that point falls rather short of where you were trying to land it. And they aren't 'not part' in just some technical sense. They are not under military chain-of-command, they are not under UCMJ, they are not treated as member of the military under any treaties.

The military intelligence agency is the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. (And some other things, like ONI and MCIA and other branch organizations. And now MIP.) It's easy to tell the difference...the DIA and other military operations are headed by generals and other officers that report to other generals and the Joint Chiefs, the CIA is headed by a civilian. The NSA is, weirdly, headed by a military officer by law, but that's simply a law as opposed to being part of the traditional military chain of command, they don't report to the Joint Chiefs, and the Deputy Director is always a civilian, as is almost everyone in the organization.

Re:This quote:

[Chris Burke]

See, you're still operating under the delusion that because the courts are only capable of exercising their Constitutionally exclusive right to decide issues of law under the auspices of a court case, that their decision has no effect anywhere else, and that other people have the power to make binding decisions on the interpretation of law elsewhere.

This is not true. The Attorney General can never make a binding decision on a matter of law. Much like your personal lawyer can give you legal advice which you are free to act upon, his statement that something is legal or not does not make it so. The AG saying spying is legal or not does not make it so, so even if he says "this is legal" and Bush acts upon it, that does not mean it is legal. That's not what "Separation of Powers" means. It means that the Executive branch has some powers which do NOT include deciding issues of law, and the Judicial branch DOES have this power while not having any of the powers of the executive branch. If the Court has not had the opportunity to decide an issue of law because no case has been brought, that does NOT mean that someone else (like the AG) gets to decide, it means the issue is UNDECIDED because ONLY the judiciary has that power.

A clear example of this was when the former Attorney General Ashcroft actually said that the NSA program was illegal, but Bush went ahead with it anyway. Not even George Bush was operating under the un-Constitutional irrational belief that the AG's opinion is in any way binding. But for some reason you are.

And you're also wrong that the 4th Amendment requirement for warrants for searches only matters in criminal prosecutions. It is the LAW, and the law doesn't only apply in a courtroom. A courtroom is just the place where you get your ass handed to you by the a judge for breaking the law. If the police search your home without a warrant, not only will any prosecution they bring against you be thrown out, but then you can turn around and sue the police department, once again bringing the issue before the court, and if they decide in your favor then the appropriate penalties will be applied to the government. If the police department's legal counsel told them that the warrantless search was legal, that is irrelevant.

If the police don't bring any criminal charges against you, you can still sue them for the illegal search, because they broke the law. You are utterly wrong that due process for convictions is the only reason the 4th matters. It matters because a warrantless search is illegal under the Constitution.

You say regarding the precedent of requiring warrants that "they must be respected by the executive branch of government in order to get conviction in criminal cases" which demonstrates your profound misunderstanding. The reality is that they must respect this precedent because to do otherwise would be illegal, and absolutely charges can be brought against the government for breaking the law. That is why they must comply with the 4th Amendment.

This ties in with your delusion that court decisions only impact the other branches of government when they are required to interact with the courts, i.e. criminal prosecutions the executive branch wishes to bring. This is blatantly false. Court precedent frequently causes sweeping changes to how the Executive branch is allowed to operate in things that have nothing to do with any future criminal prosecutions they might want to get. A recent example was when someone challenged the military (i.e. executive, non-judicial) tribunals to try terror suspects, and when the court issued their decision that these tribunals as designed were illegal, the military (i.e. executive) had to STOP and CHANGE how they formed their tribunals, even though they were EXPLICITLY not for the purpose of traditional criminal prosecution.

Maybe you should call them up and let them know that the court's precedents are non-binding outside

Save your selves?

[houghi]

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.

Re:Save your selves?

[mcpkaaos]

And you still think that terrorirst want to desroy your way of living?

If they don't (and they won't), our government, in trying to convince us otherwise, surely will.

Re:Save your selves?

[pembo13]

I think us non-Americans should be a lot more worried than the Americans. At least they are of use to their corporate overlords: they pay tax and consume. Your country could simply be invaded tomorrow and then have it claimed you were housing terrorists, planning terrorism, supporting terrorism, or just deny the whole thing.

A Good Thing (tm)

[Jennifer York]

It is not new, and not ever going to change: The government agencies responsible for knowing what people are planning to do domestically and abroad must be able to gather information. Where is the info? How is it transmitted? Who owns the network?

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.

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[visualight]

You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.

What? No, these options are unacceptable. I choose to not trust any administration and insist that the power to break the law and then provide yourself with retroactive immunity should not be granted to government.

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[zappepcs]

The problem with your argument is singular, and profoundly intuitive despite the fact that you and the current US government want you to not see the simplicity of the truth.

No one has yet shown why pre-9/11 intelligence infrastructure was not or is not good enough. The simple fact is that it is and was a workable and competent system, replete with oversight and check and balances. The current government failed to utilize it correctly, or twisted the information that it fed them in order to create public support for a war that was not needed, and to create support for taking away our rights and freedoms. This is how repression works.

The more that you and others begin to believe that this illegal intelligence system is 'needed' the easier it is for the government to take away even MORE of our rights.

You must be new here? The news agencies are reporting lately of more and more intelligence that was ignored or twisted into lies to mislead the public, and not just the US public, but the world public. They could have bought Saddam off. They had multiple chances to arrest Osama. They KNEW there were not WMDs. Is the picture becoming any clearer? This current Administration twisted the truth, manipulated the news, and broke the law to create an environment where you, and others like you would simply roll over and let it happen. There are more than a few scary comparisons to pre-WWII Germany.

The pre-9/11 intelligence infrastructure was and is functionally good enough. More is not needed, and only erodes the rights they claim to be protecting. You are a FOOL to believe the claims of the same people that lied to you to get you to support a war that is illegal, and was TOTALLY unnecessary.

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

There are more than a few scary comparisons to pre-WWII Germany.

What's even more scary is that no one's even yelling "Godwin" anymore. More and more people are treating this as a valid comparison.

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[Alpha830RulZ]

You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.

We didn't elect this one. Their minions in Florida stole it.

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[roystgnr]

You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.

You say "if" as if it was an open question, so tell us: did you trust the current administration when Bush said "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order"? If so, have you learned your lesson yet? If not, do you think they've become more trustworthy since?

Of course, the question itself is built on false dilemmas.

What if you trust your government with some power but not with this level of unchecked power?

What if you trust some parts of your government more than others?

If all we have to do when the government does something wrong is "elect a new one" then what was the point of that Constitution and Bill of Rights anyway?

How do we elect a new government when we often only get to vote between people who will violate the Constitution proudly and people who will whimper about it but enable the violations anyway?

Even if we find a government willing to promise not to abuse it's power, what do we do if those promises are violated? Enforce the rule of law, or wait another 2-4 years and try again?

Do you believe in any limitations on investigative power? Do you understand why many of many of the rest of us do want some limitations, and why we are proud that many such limitations are spelled out in the founding documents of this country?

You point out World War II as an example of espionage being used to reduce a military threat; you also point out that since then it has become easier for spies to gather information, and I would add that the United States now faces vastly reduced military threats. Given those two facts, do you think the tradeoffs between the risk of internal corruption and the risk of external threats dictate increased or decreased restrictions on wiretapping?

When Republicans try to frame this debate as "They won't let us spy on Al Qaeda", are they successfully fooling you?

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[Xybre]

Unfortunately, it is a valid comparison.

Re:A Good Thing (tm)

[jdjbuffalo]

That's because people can finally see the writing on the wall. It's not Godwined when there are so many obvious similarities that we can't joke about how real this problem is becoming. One word. Scary!

Fiction!

[isotope23]

This is obviously fiction!

Everyone knows someone on /. could NEVER have one of those WIFE thingies!

In Red-state Amerika, the Gub'ment watches You...

Re:Fiction!

[An ominous Cow art]

I have one of those WIFI thingies; is that close enough? :-)

I was depressed about this...

[Xochi77]

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!

Re:I was depressed about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy my crack, I smack my bitch
Right here in hollywood

Re:I was depressed about this...

[msuarezalvarez]

Ah, if it were that simple! You have to keep in mind that the US is quite good at exporting its domestic madness...

Re:I was depressed about this...

[Travis Mansbridge]

Interestingly enough, though admittedly this is according to Wikipedia, the CIA produced and smuggled Heroin into the U.S. to fund an Afghani radical movement.

If you were sarcastically referencing this, forgive my comment.

Re:I was depressed about this...

[Intrinsic]

I'm now just watching news about american politics like its an episode of 24. Try it sometime, its actually pretty enjoyable.

The only problem with this (and I dont mean to sound like the US is all that) is that our bullshit capitalistic system will be comming to a country near you in the very near future. Better that everyone get involved in putting a stop to this balent disregard for civil and human rights.

Re:I was depressed about this...

[C0C0C0]

Please oh please share with us the name of your enlightened country of origin so we can pick it apart. Yes, the U.S. is having some serious problems and we are losing much we once cherished. However, in all my studies, I have yet to find a better place to live. I have yet to find a foreign government that was not just as fucked-up in its own special way. If, however, you are living in this magical Shangri-La, please do share it with the rest of us. My passport is up to date.

Re:I was depressed about this...

[Xybre]

No one is safe. Sure the old "axis" and "cold war" targets are first on the list, they're there to cause instant cultural flashbacks. But when that becomes old, they'll jump the people who didn't support them, who were obviously aiding the terrorists through inaction or directly.

Re:I was depressed about this...

[ballpoint]

And now you even have a Palmer-like character, Obama, running for president. It's getting harder every day to decouple reality from fiction.

When 11% is "good enough"

[murderlegendre]

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.

Slight correction:

[khasim]

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.

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

Mail your congress person, then post here.

[olddotter]

I did.

You have to be vocal. "./" the congressional in boxes!!

Re:Saving lives

[NiceGeek]

in order to save the village...we had to destroy it.

Re:Saving lives

[murderlegendre]

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.

Contact your representative, THEN post to Slashdot

[swatter]

Please contact your representative FIRST, then post to Slashdot(*). Otherwise, save your (metaphorical) breath...

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.)

So you're saying the Democrats are cowards?

[SIIHP]

"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.

amnesty

[Speare]

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.

Re:amnesty

[Captain Splendid]

Nah, we don't need tot ar and feather the GOP. Just wait 12 months until Hillary wins the White House, and all of a sudden, they'll be wailing and gnashing their teeth about all these executive powers she has. It'll be fun.

Republican = Suck

[cc_pirate]

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.

Re:Republican = Suck

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Yes. Because it's the Republicans' fault that a Democratic controlled Senate failed to pass a bill. You should get a radio show on Air America.

Re:Republican = Suck

[parcel]

Yes. Because it's the Republicans' fault that a Democratic controlled Senate failed to pass a bill. yup. How hypocritical.

Re:Republican = Suck

[EveryNickIsTaken]

You can use these "links" and quote these "sources" all day long. Truth doesn't come from sources and books, it comes from the gut. And my gut tells me that you're a communist.

Re:Republican = Suck

[parcel]

Stephen! I didn't know you posted on Slashdot!

Re:Republican = Suck

[faloi]

So instead of doing the right thing even though they might not get it through, they just fold? That's some good politicking there.

Re:Republican = Suck

[msuarezalvarez]

I am sorry, but the truth does not come from the gut. Rational analysis of the available information provides the closest thing to truth we can come up.

Re:Republican = Suck

[parcel]

It's not that they can't get it through, that's been the case all along. They couldn't even bring it to the floor for a vote. SCHIP didn't have a chance of passing either, but they had the votes to bring it to the floor (and even override the veto in the senate).

Re:Republican = Suck

[gangien]

You know, there ARE limits to freedom and there should be (classic example of fire in a crowded theater). Now I don't know the context of that quote, but you've taken it out of context anyways (and I've never seen it in context). So all it is, is an emotional appeal that lacks any backing with logic.

Worthless Gutless Democrats.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

When I lived in the States, I was a registered Democrat.

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

Re:Worthless Gutless Democrats.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid the experiment of American Democracy is over.

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.

No more Democrats

[dlthomas]

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.

Re:No more Democrats

[notamisfit]

They've never had an interest in "protecting freedom". Right now, the only reason they even bring up the Constitution (which most of them seem to think is an outdated piece of paper requiring an updated "living" approach) is to try and make Bush look bad, which is kinda like shooting out street lamps to make the sun go down at night.

Re:No more Democrats

[The Master Control P]

1) The democrats are fucking traitors for letting the BushCo republicans do this.
2) The senate is split 51/49 - it's all about compromise; Do you really think they can say "fuck you, we'll do what we want" with a 2% majority?

That being said, someone needs to tie them down and bitchslap some sense into them. It's as if they're fucking terrified of the republican spin machine and utterly paralyzed by their fear of taking any risks. I'm going to write a letter to my senators & rep, explaining that Bush's "Vote for us or the turrists will kill you" mantra has lost it's effect for 75% of the nation's population.

Re:No more Democrats

[dlthomas]

With 51/49, it's hard (in the Senate) to make stuff you want happen if the other side doesn't want it. It should be balls easy to make stuff you *don't* want *fail* to happen, however, and this kind of thing should be high on that list.

As a side note, in case it wasn't clear, I'm firmly of the opinion that we shouldn't have more Republicans, either. The mainstream of both parties are unacceptable in the extreme. Some fringe candidates offer alternatives of varying degrees of quality, but they've got the party machinery against them as much as any third party candidate. It's time for something out of left field - hopefully it doesn't take something violent.

Re:Saving lives

[jay-be-em]

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.

Telco immunity gives *Bush* immunity

[Eternal Vigilance]

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.

That's it

[Darby]

Open season on Republican.

Kill every one of the cowardly treasonous bastards.

Re:That's it

[hypnagogue]

Bad idea. The Republicans have the guns.

Ever wonder who they spied on?

[murderlegendre]

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?

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:This is great news! I support the White House!

[flitty]

They forgot to mention the name of the new government department this establishes.. Introducing - Minitrue!

How they did it

[sammy baby]

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.)

Republican = Democrat = Suck

[fredrated]

Where do we go from here? Surely not keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils' since the 'lesser' is not by much.

I saw this in Berlin recently.

[speedlaw]

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.

Majority? Not So Much...

[mpapet]

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.

You mean like Social Security?

[geoffrobinson]

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.

Re:You mean like Social Security?

[imgod2u]

The general welfare clause could be interpreted to mean those. Though they'd have to be ratified on a case-by-case basis. No, I think the 14th amendment has more to do with this. All citizens are to be granted privileges and immunities becoming of a citizen of the United States to the end of securing life, liberty and equal protection of law.

Why Dems Caved

[Slashdot Parent]

The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. Election coming up.

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.

Re:Why Dems Caved

[Irish_Samurai]

Me too. I wish I knew who I could trust to protect my Constitutional Rights. I know who I trust. Me and my Glock 17.

Re:Why Dems Caved

[Slashdot Parent]

I know who I trust. Me and my Glock 17. I'm a little curious how a firearm protects you from unlawful surveillance.

Re:Why Dems Caved

[Irish_Samurai]

I'm a little curious how you think unlawful surveillance is the root problem here.

Keep looking for a savior, you'll get what you deserve.

Re:Why Dems Caved

[Slashdot Parent]

I'm a little curious how you think unlawful surveillance is the root problem here. I'm pretty sure the topic of conversation here was unlawful surveillance. Did I miss something?

Re:Why Dems Caved

[Irish_Samurai]

Funny, I comprehended the topic as general government disregard for our rights. But hey, if you feel better by pointing out snide useless semantic observations to matters that require more thought, then be my guest.

The right balance between freedom and protection?

[hasbeard]

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?

Why immunity is GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Why immunity is GOOD

[DavidTC]

Nope. Immunity granted for testimony is a good thing.

Immunity granted with no plans to ever try anyone or no idea how large the lawbreaking is not a good thing.

Democrats?

[josephtd]

And why exactly did anyone bother changing Congressional leadership?

I think they want the power too.

[FatSean]

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.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[lawpoop]

Call me paranoid, but I think it has to do with anthrax.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[Greyfox]

The joke's going to be on them when Stephen Colbert wins on the Republican ticket.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[Altus]

If Hillary every abuses power like bush did (and gets caught) she will be out on her ass. Even if the republicans don't have the power in congress to get her impeached they would drag her through the mud for it. It wouldn't take much to turn the tide against her and have her out in 4 years. She is controversial enough without pulling any shit like this.

It would be a lot easier to run a smear campaign against the wife of a known adulterer, first female president, and "liberal" new age new york type than it is to smear a down home conservative country type like bush.

Not that thats fair, its just the way it is.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[pokerdad]

If Hillary every abuses power like bush did (and gets caught) she will be out on her ass.

The point is that she won't have to. The balance of powers between the various branchs has shifted because of the actions of Bush, and this new unbalance will still be in place if Hillary wins in 08; the Dems expect to win the White House and that is why they are making no effort to put presidential powers back to their intended levels (or at least, that's how the argument works).

Re:I think they want the power too.

[RetardsForRonPaul]

I'll do you one better and just call you a fucking moron. The right wing hued and cried during the Clinton years about the coming police state, then promptly change their tune because OMGTERROR911CHANGEDEVERYTHING. I think the only thing Repugs are afraid of is that Hillary has a bigger dick than all of them. Or maybe some brown people getting health care.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[spun]

Call me paranoid, but I think it has to do with anthrax. Call me absurdist, but I think it has to do with SCUBA diving chimpanzees in clown costumes playing underwater violin concertos.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[Altus]

sure, but that puts you in the position of saying (to the public anyway) "hey, the other guy did the same thing" where "the other guy" is the least approved of president in history.

While clearly Hillary would be granted the same powers on a legal basis I think she would be more likely to get roasted in the public eye than Bush has been (which is quite a bit honestly). I believe it is the potential ballot box fallout that would keep her from using some of these tactics (or punish the dems if they decide to use them anyway).

Generally speaking the republicans can get away with quite a bit more than the democrats from a PR standpoint. They have fanatical followers and run tight administrations with few leaks or public disagreements. Also, they have a killer PR machine. The democrats don't have these advantages.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[M$ Mole]

Wait...you mean like Jefferson did with the Alien and Sedition Act? Rail against the person that made it law and then just use it to your advantage?

It's as if you cynically believe that the Democrats are just "making a show of it" by putting up limp opposition and allowing these things to continue so that they can then turn around and continue to use them against us but for them.

I, cynically, agree.

Re:I think they want the power too.

[DavidTC]

Speaking of that, how do you think they're going to react when the media finally starts reporting Bush started his wiretapping program right after taking office, not after 9/11?

As much as I hate the spying...

[AndyG314]

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.

Re:As much as I hate the spying...

[pluther]

I have to say I kinda agree with the decision to give the telecoms immunity.

...

The telecoms can't be blamed for caving.

Absolutely they can be blamed. They, like anybody else, have not just a right, but a responsibility, to disobey an illegal order.

Especially after Congress made it clear last year that illegal wiretapping is still illegal. The whole purpose of that legislation was to remove any doubt as to the interpretation of the law.

And, even if they did go along with it, when Congress asked them to testify, they should not have, in any matter whatsoever, refused to provide data, including who was wiretapped, and who asked them to do it.

And yet another argument...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

who else in congress has a 'wide stance'?

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:who else in congress has a 'wide stance'?

[gaforces]

Or maybe it saves lives, has saved U.S. life at home and abroad, and they can prove it.

Re:who else in congress has a 'wide stance'?

[pluther]

Or maybe it saves lives, has saved U.S. life at home and abroad, and they can prove it.

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.

Re:who else in congress has a 'wide stance'?

[Scrameustache]

Or maybe it saves lives, has saved U.S. life at home and abroad, and they can prove it. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but Santa Claus isn't real.

Re:who else in congress has a 'wide stance'?

[Mr. Slippery]

Or maybe it saves lives, has saved U.S. life at home and abroad, and they can prove it.

There's no "unless it might save lives!" exception in the Bill of Rights, and for good reason.

Liberty entails risk.

Re:who else in congress has a 'wide stance'?

[dpilot]

Let's pretend that the Democrats do check Bush's power on some piece of legislation.

All the administration needs to do is "permit" on attack to succeed, and they've destroyed the Democrats and guaranteed their ability to get ANYTHING in the name of anti-terrorism, without significant debate.

Personally, I think we need to introduce legislation pronouncing Bush as "King" or "Supreme Ruler" for the duration of his election, above the law. Then enumerate some of his "powers", which just happen to correspond to what he is currently doing. Things like:
* Rewriting scientific reports to fit with religious dogma or business interests
* Suspend inconvenient portions of the Constitution
* Eliminate accountability to the other 2 branches

Sigh...

[GarfBond]

From an NYT article:

At the start of the day, Democrats were confident that the measure would gain approval in the House despite a veto threat from President Bush. But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders put off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again.

The Republican measure declared that nothing in the broader bill should be construed as prohibiting intelligence officials from conducting the surveillance needed to prevent Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda "from attacking the United States." Had it passed, it threatened to derail the Democratic measure altogether.

Democrats denounced the Republicans' poison pill on Mr. bin Laden as a cynical political ploy and "a cheap shot." But Democratic leaders realized that they were at risk of losing the votes of a contingent of more moderate Democrats who did not want to be left vulnerable for voting against a resolution to stop Al Qaeda, officials said. So the leaders pulled the measure, promising to take it up again next week once they could solidify support.

The Republican maneuver "would have killed the bill, and we couldn't risk that," said a senior Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal leadership deliberations. "We thought we'd be able to defeat it, but it became clear that we couldn't."

The episode revealed, once again, fault lines within the Democratic Party over how to tackle national security questions without appearing "soft" on terrorism in the face of Republican criticism.

Blame the Republicans for being a bunch of 'tards and assholes, blame the Democrats for being spineless in the face of ads going "John S. loves al-Qaeda and hates our country!"

Cheney's Law: Executive Power Abuse

[JohNNy1 4]

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/

Re:Cheney's Law: Executive Power Abuse

[Radical Moderate]

Yeah, I watched it a couple nights ago, pretty chilling stuff. I've had it with the MSM and I'm tired of supporting Comcast so I got rid of cable last month, PBS is about the only station I get. And you know what? I don't really miss the other hundred and forty seven channels. At least I won't once football season's over.

I figure I'll be wealthier and wiser, Ben Franklin would be proud!

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

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?

Off by one error

[hey!]

The one you're looking for is IX, not X:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

Re:Off by one error

[hey!]

The part that give Kansas veto over Massachusetts probate laws.

Unless marriage is, in effect, a contract.

Re:Off by one error

[Touvan]

Your use of gay marriage is a problem here. The issue with gay marriage is that at it's core, it's legislating a religious institution. Marriage is defined by religion, a very clear violation of several points in the constitution. It is therefor most certainly a federal civil religious rights issue. After all, gay people have the right to be free from religious persecution too - and their churches say gay marriage is fine and dandy.

The fix is simple though, once you understand the problem. Just get rid of state/federal endorsed marriage - or more simply, call the legal agreement something else. A Certificate of "Civil Union" would violate no religious belief.

Re:Off by one error

[Mr. Slippery]

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

Actually, yes, they do, or would if the Constitution meant anything: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." If you're married in one state, you're married in every state.

No bullshit about a "public policy exception", please, there is no such thing in the Constitution. The Full faith and credit clause does not say "...unless the other state really, really, really doesn't want to."

In another generation, the kids are going to read about homophobic and illiterate state legistlatures from making asses of themselves the way we read about miscenegation laws today, and wonder how people could be so stupid.

Re:Off by one error

[bckrispi]

The issue with gay marriage is that at it's core, it's legislating a religious institution. Marriage is defined by religion, a very clear violation of several points in the constitution.

Not quite. Sociology 101 tells us that Marriage is culturally universal. It is a social contract, not necessarily a religious one.

Re:Off by one error

[bckrispi]

No bullshit about a "public policy exception", please, there is no such thing in the Constitution. The Full faith and credit clause does not say "...unless the other state really, really, really doesn't want to."

*cough*slavery*cough*

Re:Off by one error

[E 99]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
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.

Yeah, it makes us spit because it's INSANE, IRRATIONAL, and COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what the founding fathers said about the amendment. The amendment is there to ensure against people trying to use the enumeration of rights as if it were a comprehensive enumeration as rights, thereby enlarging the powers of the government. Instead the amendment itself has been used like you have suggested by the SCOTUS as an excuse to claim broad interpretational freedom over the Constitution to greatly enlarge the power of the government in that manner, and in particular the unelected branch of the government. This is precisely the reasoning that has undone everything that the Constitution was supposed to provide for the people.

Re:Off by one error

[imgod2u]

While true, it is still no business of the federal government.

Re:Off by one error

[Touvan]

Do you mean to suggest that marriage works the same in every kind of society? I think you need to check your facts on that and get back to me if you do. Marriage is as diverse as the people who practice it.

Also, as far as governments are concerned, it's a legal contract, complete with many legal benefits (power of attorney for example) not a social one, which is why you can only have one spouse for example, even though multiple spouses (sometimes many husbands, sometimes many wives) occur in many different social religious systems.

Regardless, the only real reason there is opposition to gay marriage, that it violates the religious beliefs of those who oppose it. And that's just not good enough.

Finally, the government can get out of my personal social decisions as well as my religious decisions (religion is a social practice, BTW - see sociology 101). It has no place in either.

Re:Off by one error

[bckrispi]

Do you mean to suggest that marriage works the same in every kind of society? I think you need to check your facts on that and get back to me if you do.

My facts are solid. You need to check your assumptions.

Re:Off by one error

[bckrispi]

^ While I agree with you in principal, I don't see how this can be practical. What about health insurance benefits? In the case of divorce, who gets custody of the children? How are marital assets divided? In the case of a marriage involving an existing child, how are adoption rights handled? In legal proceedings, spouses are shielded from being compelled to provide testimony against each other. There are legal ramifications and protections granted by marriage that are difficult to simply walk away from.

Re:Off by one error

[Jeremi]

Instead the amendment itself has been used like you have suggested by the SCOTUS as an excuse to claim broad interpretational freedom over the Constitution to greatly enlarge the power of the government in that manner

How does ensuring that the government does not trample on peoples' rights "enlarge the power of the government"? It seems to me that when the court does something like declare abortion bans unconsitutional or gay marriage bans unconstitutional, they are defending the implied rights of citizens, not expanding the power of government. And that seems to be precisely the intent of the phrase "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re:Off by one error

[Mr. Slippery]

*cough*slavery*cough*

What about it?

Re:Off by one error

[Touvan]

Well on this page, they mention a number of different kinds of marriage, including Monogamy and Polygyny:

http://www.sociologyguide.com/marriage-family-kinship/Types-of-marriages.php

Maybe you have some other source to back up your assertion that your "facts" are solid, but you didn't provide any. Am I to just take your word on that?

Re:Off by one error

[Touvan]

All of those issues you raise have already been established by the laws surrounding the same problems with standard 1 man and 1 woman marriages. There are no extra burdens applied to same sex couple marriages.

I think the parent meant that it's not for the government to decide who can marry who. It's none of their business. They either offer some benefits to everyone, with a fair set of rules, or they offer those benefits to no one. It's that simple.

Re:Off by one error

[E 99]

How does ensuring that the government does not trample on peoples' rights "enlarge the power of the government"? It seems to me that when the court does something like declare abortion bans unconsitutional or gay marriage bans unconstitutional, they are defending the implied rights of citizens, not expanding the power of government. And that seems to be precisely the intent of the phrase "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The power to make abortion legal or illegal is given by the 10th amendment to the states. If it existed in the federal government at all, it would exist in the legislature. So they both expanded the power of the federal government, and subverted the separation of powers, not to mention undermined the central principle of republicanism, that laws are determined by representatives of the people.

The idea that their finding that the unborn weren't people somehow increased the rights of the people makes as much sense as saying the same thing about their earlier finding that blacks weren't people. Sure they increased the rights of slave holders and the rights of people who wanted to abort their children. They didn't do much for the rights of children or blacks though. It doesn't get any more egregious than this. This is unfettered and arbitrary government that is not answerable to the people or correctable by any non-violent means.

Re:Off by one error

[bckrispi]

Fine, I'll use the source you gave...

Marriage is one of the universal social institutions established to control and regulate the life of mankind.

Silly Touvan.

Re:Off by one error

[Dragonslicer]

What about health insurance benefits? In the case of divorce, who gets custody of the children? How are marital assets divided? In the case of a marriage involving an existing child, how are adoption rights handled? In legal proceedings, spouses are shielded from being compelled to provide testimony against each other. There are legal ramifications and protections granted by marriage that are difficult to simply walk away from. I think that government should handle marriage the same way schools handle emergency contacts. You get a piece of paper from the government, fill in the name of the person you want to have all those legal rights/powers that a spouse has, and mail it back. For most married people, that would be their spouse. Single people would still be able to assign that legal status to a parent or sibling.

Re:Off by one error

[Touvan]

Oh sure, jump all the way back to the beginning of the conversation. ;-P

Ok, Ok, here goes:

It is an institution with different implications in different cultures. Its purposes, functions and forms may differ from society to society but it is present everywhere as an institution. Seeing as how "its purposes, functions and forms differ from society to society" and "different implications in different cultures", how can you say, "Marriage is culturally universal". That's clearly not what it said on that page.

None of this makes the main thrust of my position any less valid. It's an institution that the government has no business micromanaging. If they want to offer some kind of legal benefits to couples, then that's what they should do, and do it mindfully, and fairly.

I still maintain that in the U.S. marriage is largely a religious institution (taken the "form" of religion) and that the attempts to limit access to same sex couples come from proponents of that form (to enforce their "implications" - and their religious ideals as they relate to "permissible mates"). That's obviously a problem for anyone who's a member of a church where same sex marriage is endorsed.

Here's the direct link to the quoted page: http://www.sociologyguide.com/marriage-family-kinship/Marriage.php

Re:Off by one error

[Touvan]

That, to the best of my knowledge, is pretty much what they did in Vermont with "Civil Unions". There is still the rights issue, where the state denies same sex couples the same rights (religious and legal) as their fellow opposite sex citizens.

Re:Off by one error

[bckrispi]

Would a "free" state be forced to recognize the "slave" status of an escaped slave under this clause?

Re:Off by one error

[scot4875]

+1 Burn.

--Jeremy

Re:Off by one error

[cayenne8]

"In another generation, the kids are going to read about homophobic and illiterate state legistlatures from making asses of themselves the way we read about miscenegation laws today, and wonder how people could be so stupid."

You might want to use a different term than 'homophobic'. That implies someone is afraid of gay people, which I'd guess is not the broadest case. You can be against homosexuality, think it is wrong, without being necessarily afraid of it. Myself, I think hey, live and let live, what 2 consenting adults do in private is their business....but, I'm also against the wholesale crucification of people that do have an anti-PC view on sexuality, or race or whatever. Freedom of speech and thought has a negative side, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Not sure about the illiterate statement you made....kinda hard to tell with the spelling mistakes.

:-)

Just kidding...easy to fumble-finger while typing a quick /. response.

Re:Off by one error

[Mr. Slippery]

Would a "free" state be forced to recognize the "slave" status of an escaped slave under this clause?

Seeing as how slavery is banned in all states by Amemendment XIII, not so much.

If you mean prior to that, it gets interesting. Seems to me a free state would have to recognize the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of a slave state, and vice-versa. A free state would have to recognize a slave-owners claim - but on the other hand, a slave state would have to recognize a free state's grant of citizenship. I'm not sure how that would all work out.

But the fact that the full faith and credit clause might have protected slave-owner's rights doesn't mean it's bad. A slave-owners "rights" would also have been protected by Amendment IV's protection agsint seizure, Amendment V's guarantee of due process and protection againt taking, and Amendment VII's right to a jury trial in civil cases involving the value of slaves

Re:Off by one error

[imgod2u]

All those can either be handled like legal contracts (where the *State* government steps in only to enforce the contract that the two individuals constructed and agreed to with each other) or through non-legislative means (their respective churches for instance and/or holy leader).

Government has no business defining what a "marriage" is. If two people come and ask the government to uphold a contract they themselves drew up and agreed to, that is available as rule of law.

Re:Off by one error

[Mr. Slippery]

You might want to use a different term than 'homophobic'. That implies someone is afraid of gay people, which I'd guess is not the broadest case.

Heavy sigh. No.

First, the ending "-phobia" also means "intolerance or aversion for" something.

Second, fear of their own repressed homosexual feelings is very often at the root of the intolerance these people exhibit. Really, only people whose heterosexuality is hanging by a thread can possibly argue that fully accepting gays is going to be a threat, will somehow "turn" people gay.

These folks are all expressing intolerance and aversion, and many are fearful. "Homophobia" is exactly a precise and correct word.

Freedom of speech and thought has a negative side, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Sure, they have a legal right to be assholes, to fear and hate and wallow in their own ignorance, and I'll stand up for that right. They can choose not to invite gay folks to the cotillion - and gays can choose not to invite them to the drag show.

But neither group has a right to make discriminatory and unconstitutional laws.

Not sure about the illiterate statement you made....kinda hard to tell with the spelling mistakes. :-)

Just bcause I kan reed doesn't meen I kan speelll or tipe. :-)

Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[Spy der Mann]

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.

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 ;-) to your favorite politician. If they jail you for that, make a statement and give it to the press, to the international press, etc.

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.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[GnarlyDoug]

I'm not the original poster, and I don't agree with his post either. It's not yet time to use force (I think there is still time to change things by voting), and the poster singles out Republicans when the Democrats are just as bad or even worse. Both sides are working to seize total power. However there is one fatal flaw in your argument. Under the philosophy of Natural Law there is one reason you can use force against another, and that is to protect your rights or the rights of others. It doesn't matter if those people are politicians, religious leaders, or whatever. Ballmer, RMS, and so forth are not violating anybody's rights. Politicians on both side right now are. Your analogy of killing politicians and killing people you don't like is baseless. One has a moral foundation, the other is just murder. Your argument would be akin to saying you cannot kill someone trying to rape you or your wife because that would be like killing your neighbor because you don't like him.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[Darby]

It's not yet time to use force (I think there is still time to change things by voting),

Well, on that point we disagree. Who out of the current crop of candidates who even has a snowball's chance in hell even sounds sane? They're all trying to up the ante on the war on abstract concepts and in increasing the police state. None of them are being sane and pointing out that it's all a bunch of crap that needs to be dismantled and those responsible held accountable. And no one who was sane or honest would stand a chance becasue the3 media would fucking slaughter them. It's been far too late for voting to do anything for a long time.

and the poster singles out Republicans when the Democrats are just as bad or even worse.

I singled them out because your statement that the Dems are just as bad or worse is complete lunacy. The Democrats are disorganized, incompetent idiots. The Republicans are organized, competent and extremely dedicated to destroying everything America stands for in order to install a fascist theocracy. Anybody who supports the Republcans and doesn't want exactly that is either a liar or a fool. Claiming that the Democrats have as bad of ideas as the Republicans would be more defensible, but still wrong, however they aren't competent enough to get them done.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[E 99]

The Republicans are organized, competent and extremely dedicated to destroying everything America stands for in order to install a fascist theocracy. Anybody who supports the Republcans and doesn't want exactly that is either a liar or a fool. Claiming that the Democrats have as bad of ideas as the Republicans would be more defensible, but still wrong, however they aren't competent enough to get them done.

First, a brief history lesson. One of the central tenets of fascism was the abolition of religious institutions and the formation of a secular state. So "fascist theocracy" is an oxymoron. Republicans want the opposite. The most "extreme" of us even want to restore religious freedom to schools. The thing that Republicans have most in common is a desire to return to an adherence to the Constitution. So saying that we're "dedicated to destroying everything America stands for" is kind of insane. We're only dedicated to destroying the cancer that has been eating away at the Constitutional form of government from within the Judicial and Legislative branches for the last hundred years and more.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[Darby]

First, a brief history lesson. One of the central tenets of fascism was the abolition of religious institutions and the formation of a secular state. So "fascist theocracy" is an oxymoron.

I have no interest in history "lessons" from fools. You've proven yourself to be one.
If that idiotic nonsense you spewed were anything approaching sane, then explain the extremist Christianity of Nazi Germany, including "gott mit uns" on all of the freaking uniforms.

Republicans want the opposite. The most "extreme" of us even want to restore religious freedom to schools. The thing that Republicans have most in common is a desire to return to an adherence to the Constitution.

Bullshit, you idiot. If that were true, then the Republicans wouldn't be the biggest big government party, now would they? They wouldn't Have needed to pass laws retroactively excusing those complicit in their treason, now would they? They wouldn't be trying to shove religion everywhere, now would they? They wouldn't declare large chunks of the bill of rights null and void such as the topic of this article, now would they?
Look, I know you're a deeply ignorant fool who hates the idea of thinking and just spouts lies you hear from the very people using you to fuck your country, so there's no need to make it any more obvious.

So saying that we're "dedicated to destroying everything America stands for" is kind of insane.

No, it just involves understanding that actions speak louder than words. You're claiming that America stands for imposing religious rule, making up lies in order to justify invading foreign nations in order to rob the American people in order to grow the government and give handouts to large corporations so they don't have to bother competing. So, yes, you do sound insane because you can't seem to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

We're only dedicated to destroying the cancer that has been eating away at the Constitutional form of government from within the Judicial and Legislative branches for the last hundred years and more.

Bullshit you idiotic moron. That would be the Libertarian party. All the people who want that left the Republican party a long fucking time ago.
I mean seriously nitwit, Reagan put FDR to shame in growing the government and Bush might well top Reagan.
Try thinking instead of repeating the *very fucking obvious* lies of politicians.

The Republican party stands for corporate welfare and religious extremism and that's it. Why do you think Bush was elected entirely becasue he hates fags? Seriously, moron, try thinking and do some god damned research. Don't just keep spouting easily refuted idiocy. You just look dumber all the time.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[E 99]

I have no interest in history "lessons" from fools. You've proven yourself to be one.
If that idiotic nonsense you spewed were anything approaching sane, then explain the extremist Christianity of Nazi Germany, including "gott mit uns" on all of the freaking uniforms.

Well, since you asked so politely... The Nazis adopted a great deal from the Fascists, but they chose to to co-opt and control religion and use it in their rhetoric, whereas the Fascists just tried to eliminate it. However, you don't deserve to learn any of this, because you are an uncivil ass.

Bullshit, you idiot. If that were true, then the Republicans wouldn't be the biggest big government party, now would they? They wouldn't Have needed to pass laws retroactively excusing those complicit in their treason, now would they? They wouldn't be trying to shove religion everywhere, now would they? They wouldn't declare large chunks of the bill of rights null and void such as the topic of this article, now would they?
Look, I know you're a deeply ignorant fool who hates the idea of thinking and just spouts lies you hear from the very people using you to fuck your country, so there's no need to make it any more obvious.

Do us all, and especially yourself, a favor and log off of moveon.org and grow a brain. There's nothing in the above vomit that's even connected enough to reality to respond to. You are literally delusional.

That would be the Libertarian party. All the people who want that left the Republican party a long fucking time ago.

The Libertarian party is far better than the Democrats, but they tend to have certain extreme and untenable views, for example on foreign policy. Obviously not all Republicans are great, but all the competent thinkers are Republicans, including Bush, Cheney, Fred Thompson, and others.

The Republican party stands for corporate welfare and religious extremism and that's it. Why do you think Bush was elected entirely becasue he hates fags? Seriously, moron, try thinking and do some god damned research. Don't just keep spouting easily refuted idiocy. You just look dumber all the time.

Bush was elected entirely because he hates fags? I'm completely seriously when I say that I think you need mental help. Look into it.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[E 99]

One of the central tenets of fascism was the abolition of religious institutions and the formation of a secular state. So "fascist theocracy" is an oxymoron.

Yeah, about that--you're thinking of Communism. See The Doctrine of Fascism:

I'm not thinking of Communism. Communism opposed religion even in principle. Fascism just abolished the religious institutions, regardless of its rhetorical support for religion in principle. See the Fascist Manifesto, of which one of the tenets was:

The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[Darby]

Well, since you asked so politely... The Nazis adopted a great deal from the Fascists, but they chose to to co-opt and control religion and use it in their rhetoric, whereas the Fascists just tried to eliminate it. However, you don't deserve to learn any of this, because you are an uncivil ass.



Not much point in being polite to lying fools.
You're thinking of the Communists though, nitwit. The Nazis didn't "coopt" religion. The holocaust was merely the implementation of the plan laid out by Martin Luther.
I agree that I don't deserve to "learn" idiocy which seems to be all you have to offer.


Do us all, and especially yourself, a favor and log off of moveon.org and grow a brain. There's nothing in the above vomit that's even connected enough to reality to respond to. You are literally delusional.

I've never been to moveon.org, but I always seems to hear you wingnuts talk about it when you're unable to counter arguments so I'm not surprised.

And of course, all of those things I mentioned are what the Republican party has actively involved in lately including the topic of this very article. So clearly you are unable to address the massive obvious failings of your party so you just claim they're not actually a part of reality.
That sort of delusional idiocy clearly works on you and the rest of the weak willed cowards and fools who comprise your party, but they don't work on me, Sparky.


The Libertarian party is far better than the Democrats, but they tend to have certain extreme and untenable views, for example on foreign policy. Obviously not all Republicans are great, but all the competent thinkers are Republicans, including Bush, Cheney, Fred Thompson, and others.

They're also far better than the Republicans. Hell, the Democrats are better than the Republicans at fiscal responsibility (and have been for decades since that cunt Reagan) and that fact makes the Republicans truly pathetic.

Oh, competent thinkers? You truly are a pathetic troll.


Bush was elected entirely because he hates fags? I'm completely seriously when I say that I think you need mental help. Look into it.

Yes, absolutely. Exit polls showed overwhelmingly that support for him was largely based on his hatred of gays. Given that the elections were so close, that made all the difference.

Come now, what else did he have going for him? A record of incompetence, drug addled drunkenness and cowardice?

So, seriously now run along little idiotic troll. I've fed you far too much.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[E 99]

You're thinking of the Communists though, nitwit. The Nazis didn't "coopt" religion. The holocaust was merely the implementation of the plan laid out by Martin Luther.

blah blah blah... I'm not feeding you anymore, troll. Seek mental help. If you're on drugs, stop doing them.

Re:Don't make a fool out of yourself.

[GnarlyDoug]

Well, on that point we disagree. Who out of the current crop of candidates who even has a snowball's chance in hell even sounds sane? They're all trying to up the ante on the war on abstract concepts and in increasing the police state.

I said nothing about the current crop of candidates or this go-around. You read that into my post when it was never there. I said there is still time to change things by voting. I did't say there was much chance this time around. However the internet is beginning to bear fruit when it comes to smart-mob activity and a new type of smart grass-roots efforts. Ron Paul for example is no joke. He has ammassed a large sum of money. In terms of revenue generation he beats McCain, and in terms of liquid capital he even beats Gulianni. Thanks to the massive internet driven new-age grass-roots efforts around him, he has hardly had to spend any money at all for his advertising. I can't go anywhere without seeing home made signs for him. So he'll have millions to spend on the first primaries. I'm not saying he will win, but he won't be a no-show either. He may be a sign of what is to come. If the internet begins to reinvigorate part of the voting base that has been silent up till now and they rally in nearly spontaneous but organized fashion around a candidate, then we could actually see the rise of viable alternative or 3rd party candidates.

I singled them out because your statement that the Dems are just as bad or worse is complete lunacy. The Democrats are disorganized, incompetent idiots.

The first part doesn't even make sense. You couldn't have singled Republicans out based on my statements because the first time I responded to anything you said was AFTER you had singled out Republicans! You are obviously not paying much attention to what is being said by whom and instead are lost in your emotions.

The second part is just plain ignorant. The Republicans have no real analog to the massive network known as the Shadow Democratic Party. Democrats are outraising Republicans 3 to 1. Democrats control the house. Yeah, real disorganized and incompetent.

IMO the Republicans are now mostly Fascists with deep and organized ties to corporations. Democrats are now mostly Socialists with deep and organized ties to neo-Socialists and international Communism. Go ahead and write the Democrats off as disorganized fools if that make sleep better.

Dear Congress,

[Dracos]

Start doing your jobs.

Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States

Re:This is great news! I support the White House!

[Chris Burke]

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.

false political dichotomy

[Scrameustache]

The Dems control congress so SOME dems had to vote for this bill to get it passed. It is simple math. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

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?

Dude, where's my civics class?

[pdm]

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.

One such maneuver:

[twoallbeefpatties]

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.

Bush can't be sent to jail for this...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

Re:Bush can't be sent to jail for this...

[Kadin2048]

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. Riiiight. Man, that must be some good shit you're smoking.

That's so ridiculous as to hardly be worth responding to, but I'll do it anyway: while the guy is startlingly unpopular as a President, I think you'd find a vast amount of opposition to anything stupid like allowing a former President to be prosecuted overseas. It just ain't gonna happen.

The U.S. never joined the Court of Human Rights because the first time you had a U.S. serviceperson being prosecuted by a bunch of Europeans, regardless of the validity of the charges, you'd have people clamoring for the U.S. to bomb the Hague. We'd rather bring them back and execute them ourselves than allow some outside body to give them a lesser punishment, if it means subjugating the U.S. to a foreign authority. It always has been and always will be, for the foreseeable future anyway, a key aspect of both U.S. politics and the national character in general.

U.S. voters are like Red Sox fans: we love to boo our own when they're not doing well, but that doesn't mean we're going to go cheer for the other team.

Or, more bluntly, George Bush -- like every other President that's ever held the office, regardless of his miserableness as a leader -- is only a foreign assassin's bullet away from being a national hero. We're the only ones who get to tar and feather our leaders.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[wolfemi1]

What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

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?

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[magus_melchior]

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.

Re:Contact your representative, THEN post to Slash

[Etcetera]

Please contact your representative FIRST, then post to Slashdot(*). Otherwise, save your (metaphorical) breath...

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.

Key quote

[gillbates]

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 democrats did NOT cave!

[iminplaya]

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.

Re:The democrats did NOT cave!

[Kazrath]

Pretty much sums up my opinions also. Our current government and the less than desirable choices available to replace the current leadership leaves me feeling pretty gloomy on the long term outlook of america's stability.

There is really no one thing that I can say is the "Start of the problem" or any one thing corrected that will make any impact on the current situation. Right now the american government is like a condemned house which we should knock down to the foundation and rebuild it fresh new and stable.

Re:The democrats did NOT cave!

[iminplaya]

No, there are plenty of choices that are available. Our problem is that we only accept the choices that are presented, in bite sized portions, with pretty colors and shiny objects, or magic beads as the case may be. But I will add this, if any of those available choices should present any real danger at all to the way things are, then there will be no election. What you are watching here is a beautifully choreographed soap opera, and we simply suck it up. We have the power. Will we use it? Doesn't look very likely. Things are too good for most of us. Change is very disruptive, especially in a world where most people are very resistant. We have made our choice, and we choose "stability" and convenience.

9/11 did not nullify the constitution

[GuyverDH]

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[wolfemi1]

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[z0idberg]

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?

Re:Contact your representative, THEN post to Slash

[Nimey]

Done.

Although what I have to say to my Representative cannot, in general, be said. It may only be fired with extreme prejudice.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

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?

Oh Please Grow a Pair

[mpapet]

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

Just curious, who would you see as our greatest presidents, and why?

Can anybody say "Ex Post Facto"

[spikedvodka]

(From Wikipedia):

Ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. From the US Consitution:

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

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?

Re:Can anybody say "Ex Post Facto"

[Eldragon]

A Little more info from Wikipedia:

"An ex post facto law is a law that retrospectively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law."

In this case congress is granting immunity, not punishing them for something they did that was legal at the time.

Re:Can anybody say "Ex Post Facto"

[spikedvodka]

which is in effect, making it retroactively legal for them to have "Shared" information

Re:Can anybody say "Ex Post Facto"

[Creepy Crawler]

The Ex Post Facto exclusion meaning is thus:

Now, it is legal to fart in the Capitol Building. You fart in there.

They pass a law saying it is illegal to fart in the Capitol Building, pre-dating the bill, so you are arrested. Nuh-huh-huh.

Ex Post Facto means literally "After the fact".

Case in point: Indiana Chicken 'rapist'

He was tried under animal cruelty statues and theft. Note at that time there was no bestiality law in effect, so Indiana could not try him on a law that did not exist at the time of said crime. Now, there is a bestiality law on the books (thanks to the chicken fucker).

Who Out Manuevered Who?

[starX]

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.

Re:Who Out Manuevered Who?

[moeinvt]

The Republicans and Democrats out maneuvered The People.

That's what will wake up the conservatives

[Cajun Hell]

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? ;)

Nah, they wouldn't manage it.

[FatSean]

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.

Re:Nah, they wouldn't manage it.

[Altus]

my point was that they don't have to... they just have to get her out in 4 years and further discredit the Dems in the process. They can do this by making her look like a cold hearted, godless monster. They have the PR to do it and Hillary is a fairly easy target because of her image, being the first woman president and being associated with Bill.

Hillary will have to tread fairly lightly in her first term.

Re:Nah, they wouldn't manage it.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

But they would want to impeach Hillary. Just like the impeached Bill (although they didn't remove him.) Why would they want to pass anti-choice/anti-gay legislation?

Re:Nah, they wouldn't manage it.

[Johnny5000]

But they would want to impeach Hillary. Just like the impeached Bill (although they didn't remove him.) Why would they want to pass anti-choice/anti-gay legislation?

Anti-gay because the Republican party is made up of religious wackos and self-hating closet-cases.

And anti-choice because being fewer abortions means more babies for Republicans to eat.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[dgr9449]

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'.

Re:This is great news! I support the White House!

[jorgeleon]

sorry, but I cannot find the bill:

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

Re:Contact your representative, THEN post to Slash

[shma]

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.

Re:Contact your representative, THEN post to Slash

[chumpboy]

What is the bill number?

Yup

[paranode]

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.

What you get...

[tiqui]

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.

Re:What you get...

[dougr650]

The enemy is more dangerous than our own government? Really?! Last I checked, it wasn't terrorists who were eroding our constitutional rights. It wasn't terrorists who ignored the citizens of an entire city after a major natural disaster. The cost in lives from the attack on 9/11 was around 2800 people. The last confirmed count of US deaths in Iraq confirmed by the DoD was around 3800. But they were killed by terrorists, too, right? Nope, guess again. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, despite what our Dear Leaders would like us to believe.

Re:What you get...

[Hemogoblin]

Considering that you're hardly safer than you were before, giving up civil liberties hardly seems a worthwhile trade.

Perhaps the correct solution should have been preventation, rather than enforcement and reactionary? If the USA had a perfect international image and everyone loved them, where would the terrorists come from?

Also, the War on Terror is not a war, it's a slogan. A war is between two countries with a definate purpose. The War on Terror is a description of using harsh techniques to try and find anyone who dislikes the country.

Re:What you get...

[10101001 10101001]

The nation is at war. The people in "fly-over country" get that.

I'm in "fly-over country". And I'm not stupid enough to believe we're at war.

If they get serious about the war, then perhaps they will get more cooperation in defining the limits.

Yea, that's great. And next up, once parents recognize that the police using tasers on toddlers isn't a form of torture but is merely part of an education program, perhaps they'll have more cooperation in defining the limits of that education. You, after all, have to drink the kool-aid to get any say in the cult.

Denying reality is not the best way to get the masses to support you in your paranoia.

Really? It worked pretty well with the "War on Terror". Terror is a distortion of reality to cause unreasonable paranoia, resulting in unreasonable actions. Instead of working to ease that paranoia by showing how it *was* a distortion, wars were started that only further fueled that 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.

Who is "the enemy"? To our government, the enemy is, in part, whoever our army kills. Even when the government sends our army into another soverign nation, it is those civilians and soliders who defend their home who are "the enemy". So, I say the argument of who is more dangerous is a non-sequitor. Our government is a danger to whoever they chose to be a danger to. Our government creates most of our enemies (quantitatively; qualitative is another debate).

Seriousness on the war gains credibility on the rest.

I'm serious about "the war". I'm serious that I want to see Bush impeached, most of Congress censored for their "authorization" to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, for the countless troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to be recalled immediately, and for all funding in "war efforts" to stop. There's only one way to end a war when you create your own enemy: find the will to stop fighting.

Re:What you get...

[tiqui]

The enemy is more dangerous than our own government? Really?!

Yes. The enemy plans to kill innocent US citizens. The US govenment does not plan to kill US citizens. You'd have to be educated by a unionized school teacher to not be able to see that.

Last I checked, it wasn't terrorists who were eroding our constitutional rights.

This is such a weak load of paranoia. List the rights you have personally lost.

It wasn't terrorists who ignored the citizens of an entire city after a major natural disaster.

So now you're saying that the Democrats who run New Orleans and Louisiana are more dangerous than Al Queda? hmmmm... you may have a point...

The cost in lives from the attack on 9/11 was around 2800 people. The last confirmed count of US deaths in Iraq confirmed by the DoD was around 3800.

By this nutty thinking we would never have fought WWI, WWII or the Civil War. Most Americans prefer to take-on an enemy after he makes it clear he IS an enemy but before he can do overwhelming harm

But they were killed by terrorists, too, right? Nope, guess again. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, despite what our Dear Leaders would like us to believe.

Osama Bin Laden sure seems to think we're fighting his boys in Iraq. Guess you know more about his outfit than he does. Iraq was a situation that had to be dealt with sooner or later. UN sanctions were slipping away, Saddam had been funding suicide bombers, he claimed to have WMDs and most intelligence agencies of western governments thought he had them or was working on them. He caused his own misery by interfering with UN inspectors that would have been able to clear him. He was in violation of the cease-fire terms of the 91 gulf war and was shooting at American personnel on a nearly daily basis, so we had every legal right to wipe him out. Funny that Abu Nidal turned out to be hiding from the US in Iraq... nothing to do with terror indeed.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

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.

You're wrong, fancy that

[SIIHP]

"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.

Re:You're wrong, fancy that

[imgod2u]

You're using a "because it is, it must be right" argument. The *mandatory* nature of jury duty may very well be considered unconstitutional. *Many* laws, if inspected for constitutional validity, don't meet that.

Re:You're wrong, fancy that

[SIIHP]

"The *mandatory* nature of jury duty may very well be considered unconstitutional."

Except it isn't and never has been ruled so, so that argument is irrelevant. It may be a chocolate sundae, but until it is, it isn't.

"You're using a "because it is, it must be right" argument. "

Not so my good douche, I'm using the old "because the Supreme Court ruled it so, it is so" which AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, is the ONLY criteria that matters.

But apart from being wrong about all of that, your post was ok.

Re:You're wrong, fancy that

[SIIHP]

I can see why you posted AC, it's pretty clear from your post YOU HAVE NO IDEA WTF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

His point was "if it's not in the Constitution they can't do it". I refuted that.

You posted, well, something completely unrelated.

Reading is most people's friend, but it looks like it's kicking your ass.

Re:You're wrong, fancy that

[sumdumass]

I dunno, the AC brought up an interesting argument if you ask me.

It might be more related then your willing to give credit to. It would appear that if a jury is an integral part of a court, or just part of a court and a person is guaranteed that type of trial if they want it, then the parts of the constitution allowing congress to set up the courts also allows them to set up the jury process.

So the part saying "and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish", could be construed as making the courts happen. That is if ordain and establish could be construed to mean more then saying this is a court. Congress would need to not only say this is a court, but makes laws governing the procedural administration, funding and so on in the court. It makes sense that providing for a jury of your peers would be part of it.

Re:You're wrong, fancy that

[d34thm0nk3y]

nt

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[jjn1056]

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

No susrprise.

[moeinvt]

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.

Re:No susrprise.

[I_Voter]

moeinvt wrote:

I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
------------

Since private member based political parties, starting in the 1880's, have been effectively outlawed, words like Democrat or Republican are, from the voters perspective, little more than labels. Once elected the U.S. House has "party" discipline, but almost none in the U.S.Senate.

If the next election provides a filibuster proof U.S. Senate, or a Democratic President and control of both House and Senate then the lack of real political parties will become very apparent. I personally doubt that much would be reversed.

Heck if the Democrats had that much political power they could use the U.S. Constitution to mandate proportional representation for U.S. House elections and runoff elections for all state Senators!

U.S. Constitution
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.

Note: Congress banned multi-member districts for U.S. House elections in 1967, during the Johnson administration.

I_Voter

Re:Hooray!

[Jawnn]

Mod parent up. Government colluding with business is the very definition of fascism, folks.

This may be a big nail in the coffin wherein lies our liberty, but not the last. I find it utterly unthinkable that elected officials, each and every one of whom have sworn to uphold the Constitution, have continued to enable a program that hides what is supposed to be visible, namely the machinations of government ostensibly "of, for, and by the people".

Though there have been many since we have allowed ourselves to trade liberty of the illusion of security, this is a particularly dark day for that liberty. We should all be ashamed.

Or, they can send SOMEONE ELSE!

[khasim]

The powers that be can do thier survelience, then after it has been done and while they are acting on that information go to a court and say "Hey, we spied on these people, here's why and here's why we couldn't wait to ask you before we did it; do you think that we were right to do so?"

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.

Re:Or, they can send SOMEONE ELSE!

[Chris Burke]

I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.

Oh, there's a problem with the process all right. The problem is that even though the FISA court is widely regarded as a 'rubber-stamp' court that grants very nearly all warrant requests, they do at some point require the most basic of evidence to establish probable cause in accordance with the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

And the Admin can't do that. So you see, this is a serious problem with the process.

No, really. That's their problem with the system. It requires the tiniest scrap of justification for a search, based on a presumption of innocence, and this isn't how our admins work. If they had the tiniest scrap of evidence, then they could have gotten their FISA warrant no problem and this would have never become an issue. They didn't get the warrants, so they don't have the evidence. That's not the way this administration works -- with evidence, that is. They much prefer massive dragnets that might by luck actually catch someone who is truly worthy of surveillance, though this would only be coincidence since they are so poorly targeted. Obviously no court, even FISA, would find that such a dragnet meets the requirements of the 4th Amendment, so they bypass it.

It's not that different than the mentality behind Abu Ghraib or Gitmo -- in many cases they actually have no evidence at all that the person being detained is an insurgent or terrorist, but that only matters if the detainment is ever able to be questioned before an actual court. Since that's not going to happen, they just arrest everyone who looks funny (or is turned in for a reward by a warlord), treat them like a terrorist under the assumption that they are, and maybe after a few years decide that they weren't worth keeping after all and let the suspect go if they feel like it. Us U.S. citizens are just damn lucky that they are so far only able to do this to us in secret by listening in on us, not actually dragging us off to secret prisons. Much. Yet.

Who cares? That excuse is ridiculous

[SIIHP]

"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.

Fifth amendment not relevent here

[bikerider7]

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.

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.

Re:Fifth amendment not relevent here

[starX]

First of all, care to reference any specific legal decisions supporting that argument?

Second of all, so many attorneys general, so little time.

Re:You folks are ignorant, so Republicans will win

[Peyre]

One nitpick: technically, 40% of the Senate can block passage of a bill. Once a senator starts a filibuster, other senators can call for a vote to invoke cloture. Cloture requires a 60% majority and, if passed, ends the filibuster. I'm with you on the rest. Although like others I'm increasingly frustrated with the Democrats, and have been toying more and more with voting third party. (Contrary to popular opinion, third party can be the strongest vote you ever cast--except that the point isn't to win an election, but to influence the next one. It doesn't take a lot of votes for a third party to get the attention of the major party it's taking votes from, at which point the major party starts to realize it needs to poach something from the third party, or otherwise win back the votes it's losing.) Not that I'm planning to vote third party, but I'm thinking more and more about doing it.

Don't Panic!

[spun]

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. It's worse than that. Now they have Genuine People Personalities. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Re:Don't Panic!

[Chris Burke]

It's worse than that. Now they have Genuine People Personalities. [wikipedia.org] Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

I dunno... for some reason I find the idea of Marvin being the AI behind government surveillance vaguely comforting.

Now one of those gibbering happy door AIs, that's scary.

Re:You folks are ignorant, so Republicans will win

[greg_barton]

Contrary to popular opinion, third party can be the strongest vote you ever cast--except that the point isn't to win an election, but to influence the next one...

In theory, yes. But there are many factors that reduce that impact, among them: 1) entrenched two party organization, 2) polarized electorate, (ensuring that a 3rd party will either be tiny or formed of incompatible political groups) 3) media manipulation (seen in the fact that Ron Paul is doing better than many Republican candidates, yet is being ignored or mocked by the media) and 4) short attention span / rejection of the past.

It's true, we are.

[commodoresloat]

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.

Re:You're pathetic

[RetardsForRonPaul]

You apparently don't know how Congress works, but I'm the imbecile? The GOP congress, with a strong majority in both houses and a rubberstamp for a President, fucked things up for 6 years. The Dem congress with a slim, non-filibuster-proof majority and a President that finally realized he can veto stuff (and not just tack on signing statements) hasn't managed to fix things after 6 years of fuckups, but it's their fault? You're right, I have a bias, against mouth-breathing Republicans who flunked out of civics class. Moron.

Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss - 2nd Amendment

[gabrieltss]

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.

I realize you're just making excuses...

[SIIHP]

"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.

The real story

[YIAAL]

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[ChaosDiscord]

What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?

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.

Why do we now see him [Lincoln] as one of our greatest presidents?

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.

It it legal immunity?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I didn't think that the Congress could legislate away our 4th amendment rights.

Re:It it legal immunity?

[SpaceLifeForm]

No. The story is BS. Nothing will happen until next week.

Re:It it legal immunity?

[sumdumass]

They can under two conditions. One is if and when habeas corpus is suspended. But then they aren't really gone, they are just changed around from the norm and are subject to judicial interpretation. Even if the interpretation is done by a military court.

The second condition is when your fourth amendment rights are taken to mean something more then it actually means. And then it isn't really taking anything away, it is correcting the incorrect interpretations. There could be a number of reasons there are incorrect interpretations, including congress getting it wrong. And if congress got it wrong, then what you said would be true because eventually they would be set straight. just maybe not before it adversely engulfs you.

New terrorism tool

[HTH NE1]

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.

Re:You're pathetic

[SIIHP]

"The Dem congress with a slim, non-filibuster-proof majority"

ALLOWED A BILL THAT WAS A TRAVESTY TO PASS ON THEIR WATCH, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE POWER TO STOP IT, THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

The AC was right about you.

"Moron."

At least you signed your post.

Why you're wrong

[SIIHP]

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.

Re:Why you're wrong

[edwdig]

I'm talking about Article 1, Section 8. Try reading the actual constitution.

Re:Why you're wrong

[SIIHP]

All that proves is that you have to interpret that article a certain way to get to your position.

Which quite nicely proves my point that it IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

As I said, You're STILL WRONG

Try UNDERSTANDING the Constitution, reading just doesn't seem to be doing it for you.

Re:Why you're wrong

[edwdig]

You must be speaking a different language than the rest of us.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Let's simplify that. Congress has power to collect money to pay debt and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.

Are you trying to suggest that the "general welfare of the United States" is referring to the land itself? Or that the government is supposed to be concerned with itself rather than the people?

All you're doing here is saying "You're wrong!" over and over without giving any reason why, despite you being presented with very clear English taken directly from the Constitution that says otherwise.

If you're going to suggest that Congress having the ability to collect taxes to provide for the welfare of the United States doesn't mean they can create social programs, at least give some support.

Legit targets now?

[Phillup]

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...

Foreign consequences

[davegravy]

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.

You're still wrong

[SIIHP]

"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.

Re:You're still wrong

[imgod2u]

"to pay for the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

Re:You're pathetic

[RetardsForRonPaul]

Allowed a Republican wet dream of a bill, designed to shield this administration from facing justice, to pass, yes. I'll save my righteous indignation for all the fascist wannabes in the Republican party that voted unanimously for this. Thanks. RTFA. It's a bit more nuanced than "the Dems rolled over OMG".

Fire Every Single One

[rbrander]

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.

Re:Fire Every Single One

[drunken_boxer777]

I agree with you.

Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of the problem is a lack of awareness of political issues. There are about 300 million people living in the US. That's about 9 times the population of Canada. It would take a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money to attempt to inform all of those people.

Additionally, a ridiculous number of people here vote for a single party, across the board, regardless of what individual politicians stand for. I know somebody who is from an immigrant community. Her parents, unlike most in that community, speak English. They are also active in their church, like most of that community. Do you know what happens come election days? All the people of that community go to that church and vote exactly how the church tells them. They don't speak English, so they don't understand the politics. They only know what the church tells them. The church tells them to vote for one party, and they vote for that party. The church actually organizes buses to mobilize the entire community to vote the way its leaders have decided.

Imagine how many other communities are like that? How many church leaders are Republican and tell their congregation to vote Republican? Regardless of whether the community speaks English? (I'm not trying to point the finger at non-English speakers or certain church-goers; I'm just providing an example of how a herd of people is easily manipulated to all vote according to another's wishes.)

I wish it were as easy as you state.

Re:Fire Every Single One

[rbrander]

I know, it does seem hopeless. But politicians can be moved to better attitudes simply from a perception that they'll be facing real opposition, demonstrations, etc. Jerry Pournelle once wrote about his time working in a Congressman's office that five letters per day trickling in on the same issue was regarded with real alarm and excitement.

In theory, that means an organization of (500 congressmen X 10 letters/day X 10 days)= 50,000 letter-writers, could, for 10 days, have all Congress talking of nothing else in the hallways but the new "hot button" issue that they simply must address.

Exactly what I expected

[SIIHP]

"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.

Re:You're pathetic

[phantomlord]

110th Congress: House: 202R 233D Senate: 49R 49D 2I (both I caucus Dem giving them a majority)
109th Congress: House: 232R 202D 1I Senate: 55R 44D 1I
108th Congress: House: 229R 205D 1I Senate: 51R 48D 1I
107th Congress: House: 221R 212D 2I Senate: 50R 50D followed by Jeffords jumping aisles to make it 49R 50D 1I, ended up 50R 48D 2I due to Wellstone's death

In the House, the power advantage is exactly opposite as it was in the last Congress. At no point in the Senate, have the Republicans held the super majority of 60 needed to automatically break any filibuster. So, in the interest of civics, how did the Republicans have a strong majority in both houses while the Dems only have a slim majority or is that just your bias slipping in there trying to demonize one party while letting your guys off the hook? If the Dems believe something, pass it and make him veto (like with SCHIP). If they don't pass it, it's because they don't really believe in it and are just using it as a talking point so they can keep getting votes from people like you (like the Republicans keep talking about wanting a small government to get votes from that wing of their party).

That's because Ashcroft was the voice of reason

[paladinwannabe2]

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."

Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats

[smchris]

"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.

Re:Who cares? That excuse is ridiculous

[Chris Mattern]

They got elected to do a job NOW, and that job is not "get reelected".

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

Re:You're pathetic

[phantomlord]

We're talking about Congress' ability to pass a law, not whether or not the law would be signed and pass judicial review. If Congress truly believes something, pass it and make it get vetoed and/or overturned on appeal. If they won't pass it, it's because it doesn't really matter to them.

Blaming the other party for your party's lack of conviction is pretty sad.

PS - The Republicans didn't attempt to outlaw filibuster, they talked about making a vote for cloture require only 51 votes. I like how it's ok for the Dems threaten to filibuster but it's bad when the Reps do it.

Re:You're pathetic

[SIIHP]

"GOP rang up holy hell at any democratic threat of filibuster, going so far as an attempt to outlaw the filibuster."

OH NO! THE GOP THREW A TANTRUM!!!

Why does that stop the Dems from doing their job? Oh it doesn't.

"I know a lot of highly partisan people..."

Funny coming from an AC who thinks throwing a hissy fit is deterrent to doing your job as an elected official.

"You're purposefully removing context"

And YOU are purposefully pretending that stamping their feet and holding their breath gave the GOP some magic power to impede congress.

"Maybe someday the world will get lucky, all the manipulative and purposefully deceptive assholes like you will be dead"

Better hope not, your criteria would put you 6 feet under.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[hasbeard]

Thanks for a very thoughtful and interesting answer.

There is no shortage of caring

[paranode]

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.

Re:There is no shortage of caring

[rtb61]

No the governments, you elect create incompetent government departments on purpose to redirect tax dollars to friendly for profit corporations, that you do not take your elected administration to task for creating failing government departments is just foolish.

Private rarely does it better (although they spend millions of dollars on marketing and PR to convince the foolish that they do), in fact their focus is specifically to do the cheapest, worst possible job they can get away with, just look at the highly profitable inefficiencies of a privatised Iraq war.

So tell when is the gun fair and unfair, when you use then gun to define what is or is not yours, or when you use the gun to take what you need, or when you use the gun to eliminate those you feel don't have a right to anything, ownership is defined by the gun. So tax dollars used to benefit you and protect your greed is OK (as long as other people are paying it) but tax for other people needs regardless of circumstance is bad (let them beg for charity).

Free market is autocracy and slavery, that is what it devolves to, a controlled, enforced and regulated market, with social controls is freedom and democracy.

YAY!

[SIIHP]

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.

America's Poor International Image (in my opinion)

[Hemogoblin]

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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[CrystalFalcon]

The most obvious difference is that it was possible for the US to win the Civil War.

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.

Scumbags?

[daveschroeder]

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

Re:Scumbags?

[JayBat]

The problem is that it is not at all obvious that ANY of the activity was "illegal" or unconstitutional.

Oh, yes, of course. The *obvious* reason for legislation to preemptively grant you legal immunity from criminal prosecution is because everything you did was perfectly legal! The logic is brilliant, just brilliant.

Sheesh. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

-Jay-

Re:Scumbags?

[DM9290]

"Foreign intelligence outside of the US is NOT subject to court oversight of any kind."

US intelligence agents are subject to prosecution, imprisonment, possibly even death outside the united states according to the laws of the country they are operating in. There is no legal defense of "foreign spy" and people caught intercepting communications without lawful authorization (as defined by THEIR laws, not US laws) in other countries would be subject to prosecution whether or not they happen to be Americans. hell.. in some other countries they might just "disappear".

there is a little thing called "sovereignty". And most countries don't give a rats ass if George W. Bush personally authorized the intercept.. they want you to follow their own laws.

NEWS FLASH: The President of the United States is not LITERALLY the leader of the free world.

Re:Scumbags?

[Chris Burke]

Bullshit. It has always been a requirement when ANY party to a conversation being listened to was in the United States for a warrant to be issued. The target of the surveillance is irrelevant, it's the involvement of someone afforded the protections of the U.S. Constitution that is relevant. Intelligence agencies have long complained about this very requirement because it means they have to be very careful listening in on foreign conversations without a warrant because if one side turns out to be a citizen in the U.S. then they can't record it. This requirement is enshrined in FISA, the very law that the administration ignored.

And the RESTORE Act tries to undo this requirement, which would of course be unnecessary if you were correct and this requirement never existed. But, of course, it did.

And since Bush has admitted that his program targeted people in the U.S. with warrantless surveillance, it sure as hell is cut-and-dry that he broke the 4th Amendment regardless of your argument.

Of course as the other poster pointed out, all this legal ass-covering would be a pretty hilarious response to something that was not illegal at all. Since Bush's only defense of his program is that he, as President, does not have to comply with the law in matters of National Security, it would be rather hilarious if he could much more easily claim that he was in fact complying with the law without referring to unlisted Constitutional powers. But really, why bother, when they've guaranteed the issue will never be tried by a court?

Re:Scumbags?

[Enrique1218]

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.

Do you think America will win this "war" by locating every terrorist and dropping a bomb on them? Will that deter the next one? Terrorism fundamental idea is that people will bend to the fear of death and by extension have no rights. In contrast, we believe that every human is born with unalienable rights that cannot be violated by any entity. I believe that the more people believe the latter in the Middle East- the less terrorism we will have. That laughable idealism maybe our only salvation.

Re:America's Poor International Image (in my opini

[Hemogoblin]

Speaking of Maher Arar, apparently the US. Gov. just officially apologized to him regarding the mistake. Check out this quote.

Republican Dana Rohrabacher also apologized, but said he would fight any efforts by Democrats to end the practice of extraordinary rendition, whereby terror suspects are grabbed by government agents and taken to another country where local authorities may torture confessions out of them.

"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.

Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio

[ChaosDiscord]

...the civil war was the US fighting other parts of the US. Of course it was possible for the US to win.

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.

Re:Hooray!

[sudo]

Well, sort of. Government giving protections to corporations is a characteristic of fascism (so is obsession of national security, dictatorial leadership, nationalism, disdain of individual human rights ...) but not free markets/trade.

I think this government has it's own classification. Maybe neo-corporatism?

How is this possible?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

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.

Re:How is this possible?

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Why can't a majority of Democrats ever win in congress?

Because they're fricking cowards! They won't stand up to the Republicans because they know the Republicans will spin anything the Dems do that doesn't match the Bush agenda as supporting terrorists. Further, they're scared that those in the middle will buy into that crap. And they have reason to believe it, it's how Bush got re-elected in 2004.

Re:How is this possible?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Sp[in is not limnited ot the Republicans. Be honest with yourself.

Re:How is this possible?

[Fantastic Lad]

You also have to wonder how well programmed the congressmen are. --You don't survive in politics unless you go with the orthodox version of reality, believe in lone gunmen, and have nothing to fear from Zionist persuasion and blackmail. Are any members of congress making less than six figures? --And where did that money come from? Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but it seems to me that those with spotless records and clear consciences tend to die in small plane crashes.

"We must indeed all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." --Yes, Prime Minister

-FL

It's a little early to say the White House has won

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Chris Dodd is putting a hold on the bill:

Senator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Election Central has learned.

Dodd will send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon informing him of his decision. Dodd also plans to put up a page today at his campaign Web site where opponents of the immunity provision can register their opposition.

Limited Government

[Garrett Fox]

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.

Nobody's winning

[CamoCoatJoe]

Tell that to the Vietnamese and the Iraqis.

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.

Re:Nobody's winning

[Red Flayer]

I'd add that in Iraq, nobody's winning. The insurgents are making trouble, but they aren't really getting what they want.

I disagree; they are winning because the will of the American people to stay there is shrinking. In asymmetric warfare, they don't need to "win" -- they just need to not lose until the conventional forces are withdrawn.

Right on the $$$

[Sir_Eptishous]

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...

Re:You're pathetic

[phantomlord]

I like how it's ok for the Dems threaten to filibuster but it's bad when the Reps do it. Wow, what sort of twisted fucking Fox News world do you live in, you idiotic partisan fuck? The only comment I've ever heard about GOP filibusters is that people find it pretty fucking ironic that the GOP threatens it after their previous tantrum about how it shouldn't be constitutional. No tantrums, just a mention that GOPers (like you) are pathetic, short-sighted, selfish hypocrites. The Republicans never said filibustering shouldn't be Constitutional, cite your source (dailykos, du, opinion blogs, etc aren't news sources). What they said was, filibustering judicial nominees should be Unconstitutional since the Constitution says that the Senate merely has the power of "advice and consent" in terms of nominees. That is, either vote up or down the President's nominee, the Senate doesn't have the power to pick the nominee. Don't let facts get in the way of your ideology though.

If Congress truly believes something, pass it and make it get vetoed and/or overturned on appeal. This is an idiotic fucking argument that can only be made by somebody who doesn't live in reality. Available options: Option 1) Take a compromise position that you don't really like, but is better than the alternative. Option 2) Take a "stand" that you know will be overturned, thus leaving you worse off than if you did option 1. Now I know that idiotic partisan fucks (from all sides) love to claim that everybody should take option 2, but that allows for no progress at all and most people feel that some progress is better than cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Only a complete and total ASSHOLE would claim that it's better to purposefully waste everybody's time in a way that gains nothing than it is to accept a shitty compromise that gains slightly. Person A: I think I'm going to ass rape you
Person B: I don't think you should ass rape me at all
Person A: Ok, I'm willing to compromise with you. I'll ass rape you but I'll use lube.
Person B: Ok. It's better than having no progress on the issue at all.

Either you believe in something or you don't. Making a bad law, just for the sake of having made a law, is worse than having no law at all. The DMCA grants safe harbor to service providers who remove copyrighted content when asked, something that they didn't have prior to that law, but most people would say the DMCA sucks ass. Which is the bigger debacle, a world with no DMCA or one with it (because at least they did something)?

PS - if the only comment you've ever heard is that it is ironic that the GOP is filibustering after threatening to eliminate filibusters for jucidial nominees, I suggest you talk to a wider range of people and peruse a wider range of news.

Bullshit, stop making excuses for them

[SIIHP]

"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.

Re:Bullshit, stop making excuses for them

[Chris Mattern]

Not cynicism, just simple logic. Elections are contests. Contests are won by the one who is most focussed on victory. Therefore, politicians in office have re-election as their highest priority, because the ones who don't, don't get re-elected. They lose to someone more focussed on winning the election than them. That's the primary reason I'm libertarian. You can't trust the government to do what's best for people, only to do what it needs to do to stay in power.

fChris Mattern

No I'm not, you're just not capable of reading

[SIIHP]

"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.

Re:No I'm not, you're just not capable of reading

[edwdig]

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.

I'm sorry, you did give reasons. First you claimed I was talking about the preamble, at which point I corrected you. Since then, you've repeatedly said that I have no comprehension skills, yet have refused to give an alternate meaning. If you don't give an alternate meaning, there's nothing for me to refute.

Like I said, your reading comprehension apparently sucks. Get that handled before you start lying about what people are saying again.

I've given reason to show that your reading comprehension sucks, to which you keep saying "No, your comprehension sucks." It's like arguing with Pee Wee Herman...

Well, good!

[WheelDweller]

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.

Re:Saving lives

[ee_moss]

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?

A beacon of hope?

[dlthomas]

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/exclusive_senator_chris_dodd_will_put_a_hold_on_telecom_immunity_bill.php

If he stops that bill, I, for one, will be giving him some serious consideration. ... haven't done so yet, so I can't say I actually endorse him in general, but I certainly endorse his action here!

Re:Scumbags? Wrong

[fizzywhistle]

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

Re:Bottom line on the politics

[The Master Control P]

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.

I can quote the part that allows tapping to begin up to 72 hours before a warrant is applied for in an emergency situation. So what are you talking about?

Slant

[The AtomicPunk]

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.

Yup.

[Fantastic Lad]

This police state is brought to you by BOTH halves of the demopublican party.

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

Fight or Flight

[Unlikely_Hero]

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)

Middle East. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

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.

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

Re:Middle East. . .

[WheelDweller]

Well, see, that's the problem with a populace with no real sense of history. Comparing what Bush is doing to Der Fuhrer is like comparing cotton candy to jeans. Yeah, both have mass...

Sit down with the History Channel for a few nights. Learn what the "Night of the long knives" was all about. Learn how he annexed a friendly nation, then planned a 'stunt' to invade Poland. And we're YEARS away from throwing people into ovens. And Bush? He gets a consistently bad rap at EVERY opportunity from the George Soros-purchased press, and that's all you listen to; Rush Limbaugh is a HUGE fat man, bigoted and spreading hate...Fox News Channel has mind-altering lies.

Except Rush hasn't been fat for about 10 years, he's consistent on being racially fair, and Fox News is so popular *because* it doesn't take marching orders from the 80% of the media tied to what was the Democrat Party. Nevermind- your mind is made up!

Fascism is not headquartered in the Republican Party- not by a long shot. About 1/3 of them are Liberal, signing on with the latest hoax, Global Warming, as well as the continual efforts to buy votes by spending my tax money. I'm a *little* less ticked at my party, as you are, with yours.

Wanna talk Fascism? Someone from Media Matters holds a mike in front of a Congressman. "Rush Limbaugh called the soldiers 'Phoney Soldiers'! What do you have to say about that?" Except he never said such a thing.

But that didn't stop the AP, and let's face it, all the other cells of mind-numbing media from jumping on the story, despite the transcripts on his website, no one bothered to check. THEN they took it to the floor of the Senate where they called him everything but a white man, taking up the time we pay for, to present a lie, that is easily proven to have never happened.

THEN Harry Reid and 40 of his Liberal buddies, still armed with the lie, sent a letter to the head man over at Clear Channel, who is one of Rush's friends. The original paper demanded that he be shut down- that his hate was too high. (Except, it never happened.)

The original, with the signatures of all 40 Democrat signers is now up for bid on eBay, as an example of what the government was designed NOT to do: harass a private citizen. Last I heard, the bids were over $100,000.

I say all of this because this is the third or fourth time your party has exercised Fascism in the last couple of months. You have to understand, liberalism can't compete in a debate; it has too many years being tried to have merit. But the Liberals are here to take your power: that's what the universal healthcare is about. Never mind it will break the bank, nevermind we'll lose the top learning centers in the world, never mind it will be as ignorant and horrible as the one in Britain, Canada, or (gulp) Cuba....they want that power. ...and all they had to do to get it from you is program you.

About the war:

The muslim extremists have been fighting it for about 50 years; we've just not decided to respond until now. Time after time Saddam shot missiles at our planes, defending the no-fly zones at the UN's request, without calling off the ceasefire. Clinton didn't want to rock the boat.

Having the battle of chaos versus civilization right next door to the central point of muslims is a GREAT way to show them that they can make their own government. They need no king. They don't even have to have body parts cut off, if they transgress. Do you have any idea what this is going to mean?

Checkpoint Charlie; a spot on the Berlin wall separating East and West Berlin. People wanted out of Soviet Russia so bad, they risked their lives getting out. Ask anyone over 40. When Iraq becomes it's own state, and it's a tourist attraction, and life is beautiful, people living under the kings and theocracy will rebel in droves. Al-Jazeera won't be able to lie about the squalid living conditions in Morocco, or report how bad things are in any "normalize" muslim-owned country any more: too many people wil

To their faces.

[Fantastic Lad]

I'm a Canadian, too, and your conversations are being monitored all the time anyway through Echelon and similar. Our secret services are actually among the top sneaks in the world today. Canada is only marginally immune to the evils down south. The thing we seem to have going for us is that there is a somewhat more powerful collective awareness that people should treat each other nicely, and that this frequency of thought is better entrenched here in the Great White North than in other parts of the world. We can all do our bit by continuing to stay educated, to work toward self-awareness and positive self expression, to not put up with petty tyrants, and generally treat people respect and love.

This email has been filed away somewhere, but so what? I'd happily repeat the above to their faces.

-FL

Re:To their faces.

[davegravy]

I don't understand how anyone can be complacent knowing their email is being stored away. Even if one is sure he poses no risk to those listening, how can any government be trusted not to abuse such a power?

If we're not going to put up with petty tyrants then it really needs to be possible to have unmonitored communication. If we were discussing our distaste for the tyrant of the day, and contemplating the need to dispose of him, then that isn't information he should have for obvious reasons.

Re:To their faces.

[Fantastic Lad]

I don't understand how anyone can be complacent knowing their email is being stored away. Even if one is sure he poses no risk to those listening, how can any government be trusted not to abuse such a power?

You're right; Governments can't be trusted.

However, complacency is certainly not my position. But I'm not about to lead a muzzles-blazing charge into. . . well, where, exactly? The Military Industrial Complex isn't located in an office block somewhere. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the complex isn't more a psychological one; an inherent condition of the human race, resulting from the dual prongs of greed and fear. --Except even that I don't believe entirely, since we all have choice. I think the way to combat the system is to rigorously choose against it at every fork in every road. If I choose not to act selfishly and destructively, to call down the lies when I hear them and have the energy available to speak up, then I act to cut off the energy which flows to the Beast. If everybody simultaneously decided not to hurt people or to act selfishly or to keep secrets or to feed away their energy to the wrong people, the whole evil empire would shudder to an immediate halt.

I doubt that can happen all at once, so a little bit at a time is the next best alternative. I think a great way to start would be to figure out a fool proof genetic method to test for psychopathy, and to remove such individuals from all seats of power. It's doable, and it would do a lot to fix this world.

-FL

Real Issues? What are they? How do we know?

[evought]

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.

Nope. Don't buy it.

[Fantastic Lad]

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.

Re:This is great news! I support the White House!

[AVee]

Wonderfull, at this rate they might even manage to understand irony somewhere in my liftime.

Re:They definately do.

[AVee]

Define 'American way of life'. Is it caring about what is right an just? Or is it sitting on the couch watching TV and wining about about how oil prices make driving your ridiculus more expensive.

America used to mean freedom and democracy, now it means war, stupid consumers and a democracy which consist of choosing between getting screwed and getting fucked by politicians. In my book any country with a voter turnout The USA is basically ruled by the rich elite, I suggest you start changing job titles. Senator becomes Duke, CEO becomes Bishop.

Because the Democrats Want Power, Too

[macduffman]

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.

-1 Burn

[Touvan]

Not quite. Read my other response. He mischaracterized what it said on that site.

She'll use "I'm not as bad as Bush tho!"

[FatSean]

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.

Opposition party my ass

[godless dave]

It seems most Democratic senators don't understand the concept of an "opposition" party. Capitulation is not opposition.