Slashdot Mirror
Telecom Immunity Showdown in the Senate Today
CPeanutG writes "A make-or-break moment for telecom immunity has arrived — after months of back-room committee-meetings, the FISA bill will finally reach the Senate floor on Monday! Unfortunately, a previously-reported version of the bill that grants telecom immunity will be presented to the Senate on Monday morning. The clock is ticking. Write your Senators now."
One of my senators is the once-RINO, now 'Independent' Joe Lieberman. That little rat-faced turd is a cancer on my state, but he has perfected pandering to key groups and so continues to be elected.
Phaf!
Blar.
Fourth Amendment:
While the executive branch is more at fault for strong arming the telecos I don't think the public is well served by granting amnesty for ignoring the law.
While the executive branch is more at fault for strong arming the telecos I don't think the public is well served by granting amnesty for ignoring the law.
Also telling people "if we ask you to do something illegal that doesn't mean we won't punish you later" is a good way to make it harder for govt branches to get illegal help from private entities.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
If anyone thinks this bill is going to be modified to eliminate immunity for the telecom companies I have some beach side land in Arizona that you might be interested in.
The telecom industry pays well for the politicians that they hire. No amount of complaining by us or anyone else like us will modify the votes of those politicians. Unless you can provide more money than the telecom industry there is little chance of influencing this bill and getting it changed.
If the telecoms monitor everything you email and call about... What's to stop them from monitoring/blocking/listing you for contacting your senator in opposition to their immunity?
Not to scare anyone, just thinking... This is one time where pen and paper would have been the only way to go.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
This is just a gimmick used by those in government to push the issue away from the real issue: government's unnatural immunity against committing crimes against the People.
Seriously, I could care less about the telecoms. That's not my worry. When government tells you to jump, you jump. Gitmo is an ugly hotel for those who refuse. If the State forced me to release my logs, what can I do to fight it? Call the EFF or the IJ? That'll help, maybe 3 years down the road.
No, the real issue is the one most geeks and freedom-lovers ignore: that our elected candidates continue to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The President, the Senators, and almost all of the Congressional Representatives save 2 have violated this oath. The penalty should be the equivalent to the most extreme penalty available for the greatest crime that specific level of government can enforce.
Stop turning the issue to the telecoms, who are merely shills for the State. The true crime has been committed by every branch of government, and it is a crime that must be investigated. Unfortunately, the investigators are themselves, so the crime will be ignored, with the anger pointed at businesses who will likely get what they deserve.
This basically like your local police officer, lacking the basis for a warrant, asking a someone else to break into your home to plant cameras. Hey, government, you cannot pay someone else to break the law for you!!
Which is really what these bills are about: It is not giving teleco's amnesty so much as giving the executive branch amnesty for asking someone else to do an illegal thing on their behalf.
Qwest refused. Supposedly they were subsequently punished for it. Whether they were or not is the subject of a court case. However:
If they were punished, not punishing the complaint telcos for doing whatever the government says sends a message to the compliant telcos that subservience and submission to illegal government orders is in their best interests.
If they weren't punished, supposedly there is no reason why the compliant telcos should have obeyed the illegal government orders. In which case, where is the moral argument for not punishing a group of corporations who illegally helped the government subvert the constitution of the United States?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
oh okay. They didn't do anything illegal, we can drop the amnesty provisions, they don't need them. Right?
If we can't hold the executives responsible at least we can make sure noone will ever trust them again when they promise "don't worry, you won't be held responsible".
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The point is that the telecom companies more than likely violated their stated policies regarding the privacy of their customers. This amnesty provision is stating that the victims of said privacy violations cannot sue the telecom companies.
If theses companies and their employees did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide . . . right? Why should the government pass a law granting them amnesty?
When the Nazis came "asking" people for support those people weren't let off by the Allies afterwards. That established the rule: You must not follow illegal orders or you will be punished.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
And why are the neocons, the administration and some cowardly Democrats (Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller, specifically) fighting like their lives depended on it to make sure that language granting blanket retroactive amnesty (aka "ex post facto") gets included in this execrable "FISA" law?
Up until today, telecommunications companies would at least think twice before turning over phone records and allowing wide-ranging and unspecific wiretaps without warrants. After today, unless the very brave Senator Dodd from Connecticut is successful, any two-bit shitheel political operative will be able to get the private phone records of any American citizen without even asking a judge "mother may I".
It's really very simple. Our Constitution says that before the government (or an agency thereof, or some "contractor") can search your home, person, or effects, it has to convince a judge that there is a compelling legal reason to do so. It doesn't get much more reasonable (or simple) than that. There has long been a give-and-take between the government and the courts over this basic Constitutional requirement, where the government (Nixon) would go too far, then the Courts and the Congress would reel him in. The ultimate effect was a fairly robust protection of our rights. But in the last 7 years, there has been an effort to effect a permanent shredding of all limitations to what the government, particularly the executive branch (which means law enforcement, by the way), can do. The lasting effect of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of the rights of citizens.
Say, ArcherB, would you mind very much if someone who dislikes you were able to get recordings of every private phone call you've ever made?
If there's any group of people who understand this danger, it should be the readers of Slashdot. We also happen to be one of the groups that is best capable of putting up a fight to protect the Constitution.
Maybe if we put it this way: "The Bush Administration is trying to put a permanent root-kit on your system, and they will soon have superuser access." some of you might show a pulse on this issue. Or maybe: "The Bush Administration is running a cheat on the MMORPG that is your life. And it's a cheat that you will never be able to use." Now, does that spoil your fun, bubbie?
You are welcome on my lawn.