Slashdot Mirror
White House Wins On Spying, Telecom Immunity
EllisDees sends in a Washington Post report that Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats, who withdrew a more stringent version of legislation to control the government's domestic surveillance program. The legislation that will go forward includes a grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.
Attention to those who shared our data illegally: Legal immunity doesn't mean you're not scumbags. That is all.
(In case anyone is watching)
So is it fair to say that when Bush "wins", that's a loss for the Bill of Rights?
I'm not sure how immunity can be granted when it clearly go against the US Constitution, given that the president takes an oath "to uphold the United States Constitution", doesn't this mean he's in breach and therefore liable of contempt?
MABASPLOOM!
Game over man! Game over!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1) Congress does not have the power to grant pardons
2) The US constitution forbids ex-post-facto laws
This is above-and-beyond the obvious fact that it is perhaps the most illegal and immoral thing I've ever heard of congress doing.
Translation: In a Democrat controlled congress the Democrats could not convince their own people to reject this bill. Thus the bill passed with the help of some Democrats voting for this bill.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. The people have spoken and put them in trusted seats of power and they CAVED. I'm sure there are lot of home teams cheering from the stands only to have the players go, "ah, well, it's a lot of work to play the game. Let's concede."
I'm disappointed.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Outmaneuvered again! That seems to happen every day to these brave Democrats we elected; despite their sincere wishes to do the right thing, they just get outmaneuvered every time and have to surrender rather than risk... well, I'm not sure what, exactly, but it must be something.
It's like the burglar who smashed my window the other day. I politely asked him to leave, yet he refused. I threatened to call the police, but he said that I shouldn't. Well, you can't argue with that! He outwitted me fully and truly!
I let the burglar ransack my house because, let's face it, I had no choice. Sure, I had a gun and a cell phone, and he was unarmed, but he kept outmaneuvering me at every turn. I said I would shoot if he raped my wife, but he preempted me! Before I knew it, he was raping my wife, and it was just too darned late to stop him, so I put down my gun and wrote a press release (which I intend to publish EVERYWHERE to let the world know how this burglar has wronged me).
Any wonder why they have such low approval numbers, even lower than Bush? Do you think stuff like this just might be why? Do they ever think this might be why?
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
its not like it makes millions of dollars for the government or aides them in anyway, why should they give a shit about it?
Of course not. That would be stupid.
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
There's more risk of corrupt officials using this to further their own agendas than there is that it will stop any terrorist.
Because of this, no further investigation can be done on who and what and why and those were most likely the same people who did not want an investigation in the first place.
As a non-American I think Americans have serious issues. To lie about a blowjob: BAD! To lie to go to war and rape your rights: let's re-elect him.
Mmm. TV might have to do something with it. See a nipple or say fuck, scream. See people killed, daytime TV.
And you still think that terrorirst want to desroy your way of living? I would say it is bad that you don'[t want to destroy it yourself.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They will do it anyway they can, and have been doing it for over 60 years. It's just now, when we are so digitally integrated, that is has become so much easier for them.
You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.
I recommend reading "A Man Called Intrepid". It details the beginning of the spy game, and how it dramatically turned the second world war around. The burden on our intelligence forces is great. The responsibility even greater. Have you elected the government you trust to use this intelligence infrastructure properly? Don't blame the telcos, blame those who are abusing the info.
Dominant Meme
but then I remembered I'm not American! Seriously, I'm over the whole horror of your brutal invasion of Iraq, trampling of civil rights, endorsements of torture. I'm now just watching news about american politics like its an episode of 24. Try it sometime, its actually pretty enjoyable. You had the regular spies, corrupt politician etc. But now you have mercenaries with cool names like Blackwater, unnamed gov. agencies tracking every piece of digital data, hidden detention centers... I'm waiting for the nex big twist. Maybe, it comes out that the drug war was a move by the CIA to push up drug prices, so the gov could make more money to fund their secret mercenary wars by smuggling in drugs, while at the same time filling up the prisons with second class citizens unable to vote, but conscriptable! hmmmm, I can't even tink up insane conspircy theories that aren't plausable anymore... cool!
Well, here's why their approval rating is flat on its back at 11%.. cozying up to big telecom, while the people scream for their 4th amendment rights. Take that, rule of law. What's an industry-wide get out of jail free card cost these days, anyway?
Now that this is over, they can go back to offending Turkey and China.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to.
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall071001.gif
and
http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-15-07Large.jpeg
I did.
You have to be vocal. "./" the congressional in boxes!!
Think Deeply.
It's easy. If you don't know who to contact or how to phrase your objection use this link:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=727&page=UserAction
Note that you can modify the letter template before you hit send if you don't agree with all of the text or wish to add points of your own.
There is another informational article on Salon.
(*) Does not apply to non-US citizens. (Although nothing actually stops you from mailing them anyway.)
"In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to."
So the Democrats who voted for this bill are too cowardly to vote for what's right instead of what's politically convenient.
Yeah, I'd say you're exactly right about that.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
And just six short years ago I used to be a republican... Never voted for GWB though. I could see his fascism coming with his campaign speeches "There ought to be limits to freedom" - GWB.
Well, he sure made that one a reality.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
BushCo don't really give a rat's ass about Congress, except when they've been tied up and begging for abuse a little too long and someone from the Administration has to go to the Hill and spit on them.
The courts, however, especially at the level of the Circuit Courts, are a different story.
The telco immunity provisions in this legislation are to keep the White House from being found (as part of some telco trial) to have broken the law. It's got little to do with protecting the telcos other than as a way to sell it to the public.
Glenn Greenwald over at Salon had a good interview with the EFF's lead counsel in the ATT/NSA/let's-just-snoop-the-whole-backbone trial that explains this quite well.
This is all about closing off the courts to examination of Executive Branch violations of the Constitution. Which is why it's actually a much, much bigger deal than most people seem to understand.
You're saying in order to save lives we should give up the same freedoms our forefathers gave their lives to get us? If this is really the sentiment of America, we have officially come full circle and are once again living under "King George".
If we let the army patrol the streets and ground all flights indefinitely, think of how many lives we can save!
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.)
OK, we have a Dem Majority in Both Houses. Elected mostly as a rebuke to Bush/Fortune 500 company polices for the last 8 or so years. They have done NOTHING on Iraq. They give in to spying, give a free pass to companies who have grossly violated rights without any shred of probable cause or, god forbid, a Judges' Order. There is, in Berlin, the site of the old Gestapo headquarters. There, the history of Nazi Germany is told. The second and third parts of the display concern the Holocaust, and the usual graphic disgusting pictures. It's not the scary part. The first part of the display, word for word, and law for law, discusses how the "rule of law" society that was pre war Germany was dismantled. Preventative Detention was how all those "undesirables" were kept in Prison Camps. Judges were selected who were "loyal" (Bush v. Gore anyone ?) Many small words and paragraphs were modified or changed to allow unfettered executive power. No, Bush is NOT a Nazi, but to ignore the historical parallels is to be blind. There is now officially NO opposition party. We're screwed. Steal a song, huge damages with no real burden of proof. Monitor every comm going through a switch, and we'll pour you another drink while we word the amnesty provisions.
What is the right balance between freedom and protection? During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (not just for "foreign combatants" either). He also ordered Confederate sympathizers held without trial. His view was that he was doing what was necessary to preserve the Union. I invite those who read this post to do a bit of searching on Lincoln's handling of personal freedoms during the Civil War, compare his actions with President Bush's, and then tell me what you think. Is it ever justified to limit personal freedoms (even though guaranteed by the Constitution) in time of war? Lincoln was reviled by many (most as you would expect in the South, but many in the North). Why do we now see him as one of our greatest presidents? What is the difference between what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what President Bush is doing right now?
"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.
Call me a cynic, but I think that the Democrats would love to have Hillary in the White House with these over-reaching powers, so they do nothing.
Blar.
The Illuminati
in favor of encrypted, Anonymous P2P.
Those of you wanting real tinfoil hats, should download Waste, I2P, and install them in a hidden truecrypt volume.
But protesting against this abuse and voting for a privacy-supporting candidate is mandatory.
You obviously need to do a little reading of your own. Lincoln was fighting an open war within the United States, a civil war that consumed our country. None the less, the supreme court struck the Alien and Sedition laws down at the time as unconstitutional, and Lincoln later claimed suspension of habeas corpus as one of his worst mistakes that he regretted for the rest of his life.
"It is the ancient and undoubted prerogative of this people to canvass public measures and the merits of public men." It is a "home-bred right," a fireside privilege. It had been enjoyed in every house, cottage, and cabin in the nation. It is as undoubted as the right of breathing the air or walking on the earth. Belonging- to private life as a right, it belongs to public life as a duty, and it is the last duty which those whose representatives we are shall find us to abandon. Aiming at all times to be courteous and temperate in its use, except when the right itself is questioned, we shall place ourselves on the extreme boundary of our own right and bid defiance to any arm that would move us from our ground. "This high constitutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living, we shall assert it ; and should we leave no other inheritance to our children, by the blessing of God we will leave them the inheritance of free principles and the example of a manly, independent, and constitutional defence of them."
PBS has a GREAT GREAT documentary about the Bush's Administration...errrr...Cheney's Administration abuse of Executive power. "For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power" PBS Frontline News. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
Could the argument be made that the threat of terrorism (especially nuclear terrorism) compares to the threat Lincoln faced? What do you think about that argument?
What the framers are telling us here is to pay attention to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, not just the letter. There is no right of privacy explicitly recognized in the Bill of Rights, but the SCOTUS has found it in the "penumbra" of various provisions of the Constitution. This kind of language makes a strict constructionist spit, but you have to restrain the government from attacking the underlying interests protected by the Bill of Rights, otherwise the Ninth Amendment means nothing.
With respect to the idea that "If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it," that makes things seem more simple than they are. It is true that the government only has powers granted to it by the Constitution, but the Constitution is not a strict enumeration of government powers. The government has powers which are reasonably derived from the responsibilties it has been given. "Reasonable" is a big problem, I agree. If we were writing it today, we'd probably write it differently.
I think one kind of situation the tenth applies to is the gay marriage debate. This is precisely the kind of thing that is up to the states and to individuals living in them. If Massachusetts wants to mary gays, and the gays themselves want it, then it's none of the other states' business. They don't have to recognize the marriage, but they have no business trying to undermine Mass laws. I think, however, the Federal Government is obliged to recognize Mass marriage law.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Start doing your jobs.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States
That might have worked fifteen years ago, when the NSA was only using hundreds of thousands of 15 nm CMOS processors in their surveillance super clusters (a super cluster is a cluster placed above another cluster).
Now that they have their trillion-node quantum computer cluster with Strong AI they can easily detect sarcasm and insincerity, and you have surely been marked as a dissident.
The enemies of Democracy are
The latter was a very real threat, as several states had seceded from the Union and amassed a standing army. The former is, at best, speculation and appeals to fear; so far, the most touted reason for us to enter Iraq (the threat of WMDs like nuclear weapons) has been at the very least, a haphazard intelligence fiasco-- and at worst, a blatant lie.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans,
Actually, that's more like extending our laws beyond American soil. The Constitution can't even be extended past the executive branch these days, much less beyond our borders.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
This is what you get when you over-reach.
The more-liberal members tried to make the requirements so onerous that even more-moderate members of the Democratic party could not support it. Their efforts were turning warfare into courtroom drama. We have never before required court orders to approve of spying upon enemies overseas; had we done so, FDR would have had a lot of trouble fighting WWII. If the left wants to use this sort of legislation to score cheap political points and/or undercut spying efforts against foreign enemies, it should expect blowback and a re-bound. Adults would get together and seek intelligent solutions, but there are not enough adults on Capitol Hill and with the elections looming things are only going to get worse.
The nation is at war. The people in "fly-over country" get that. As long as one party sticks its fingers in its ears, closes its eyes, stomps a lot and whines in an effort to convince everyone to hand the whole effort over to their lawyer friends, they cannot get the traction they want on some of this stuff. If they get serious about the war, then perhaps they will get more cooperation in defining the limits. Denying reality is not the best way to get the masses to support you in your paranoia. The public will be more-likely to listen to your concerns about the dangers of our own government once you admit that there is a war and the enemy is actually more dangerous. Seriousness on the war gains credibility on the rest.
I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
No, it seems like it's business as usual for the rubber stamp Congress. Just another obvious sign that we're really under single party rule.
The Republicans and Democrats create a good illusion of opposition by criticizing each other verbally, and staging a few bitter debates about BS issues like flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion. When it comes to important issues like civil liberties, imperialistic military crusades, out of control government spending, immigration and globalization however, they happily work together in the noble spirit of bipartisanship to screw over the average U.S. citizen.
The only wasted vote is one cast for Republicans or Democrats. It's a vote against civil liberties, a vote to endorse the wars, and a vote to continue all of the other disastrous policies that our government is pursuing.
And they can even have one team do the surveillance and a DIFFERENT team file the paperwork and handle the FISA court stuff.
You know, I'd have a BIT more regard for their cause if they had a trailer parked in front of the FISA Court's office, packed with people busily filing the paperwork that they claim cannot be done in time.
If they were demanding more people to handle the workload
If they were demanding secure offices closer to the court
I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.
It seems unlikely, though. Considering how big a deal they make out of every "foiled terrorist plot" they uncover that turns out to be a bunch of wankers who live in a warehouse and talk about blowing up buildings but are too busy passing the pipe to get around to learning how to actually make working explosives, you would think that if they had any actual successes from a controversial program they would be trotting it out all over the place.
Of course, if they did, then you'd still have people like me asking how come they couldn't follow the Constitution and get a warrant before wiretapping, and keep track of who they were wiretapping and what they used the information for.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
What?
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.
Oh great! Now to terrorize Americans al Qaida can just cold-call random numbers in the US from a tapped foreign number to have random families hauled off to Guantánamo for association with a terrorist group. Checking the Caller-ID won't save you either.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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).
I always liked Ashcroft- he was (and probably still is) a just and honest man, who actually believed in minor details like upholding the constitution and following laws. (Now, he also believed in passing laws most slashdotters disliked, but he waited until he had the legal authority before doing something questionable, and was open about what he was doing). I always felt that he resigned because he disagreed with the administration about how the 'War on Terror' should be handled. Certainly he seemed to think we had gone far enough, when he resigned, he wrote "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
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