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.

This is great news! I support the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

(In case anyone is watching)

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Rogerborg]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Game Over

[varmittang]

Game over man! Game over!

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.