Slashdot Mirror
Telco Immunity Goes To Full Debate
Dr. Eggman notes an Ars Technica analysis of the firefight that is the current Congressional debate over granting retrospective immunity to telecoms that helped the NSA spy on citizens without warrants. A Republican cloture motion, which would have blocked any further attempts to remove the retroactive immunity provision, has failed. This controversial portion of the Senate intelligence committee surveillance bill may now be examined in full debate. At the same time, a second cloture motion — filed by Congressional Democrats in an effort to force immediate vote on a 30 day extension to the Protect America Act — also failed to pass. The Protect America Act has been criticized for broadly expanding federal surveillance powers while diminishing judicial oversight. While the failure of this second cloture motion means the Protect America Act might expire, a vote tomorrow on a similar motion in the House will likely bring the issue back into the Senate in time. It seems, according to the article, that both parties feel that imminent expiration of the Protect America Act is a disaster for intelligence gathering, and each side blames the other as progress grinds to a halt."
Hmm, well, since your family hasn't been consumed by the white-hot aftermath of an Islamic terrorist's suitcase nuke, I'd say it has accomplished quite a bit, wouldn't you?
Bottom line is: there needs to be a way to be able to monitor terrorist activity, criminal actvity... ANY KIND OF THREAT BEING PLANNED.
I'm as much a freedom-loving, flag-waving, baseball-hot-dogs-and-apple-pie loving American as the next Yankee here, but ya know... it's kinda hard to have a debate about civil liberties if you've been blown to smithereens by a nuclear suitcase, or had your crops poisoned by a stolen airplane dusting all your corn with Lord Knows What.
We've been damned fortunate and thwarted every single planned attack since 9/11... we've batted 1.000 so far. At some point, we're going to be nailed again unless a way is found to MONITOR future plans.
I'm not suggesting we totally roll over to the authorities and have Big Brother watch every single thing every American does. But Common Sense dictates that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
There should be a way - there MUST be a way - to safeguard our security, while safeguarding everyday civil liberties. I don't buy the argument that they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think Uncle Sam gives a rodent's rear end about when my wife's parents are coming to visit us, and when we have to pick them up from the airport... but you can bet if someone there wants to fly that plane into the Sears Tower, I damn well want Uncle Sam to be able to find out and know about it.
Make the tools available, for crying out loud.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Is your idea of debating a legitimate issue - intervening and interdicting terrorism - launching a straw man attack against politicians and "evil" big corportations... or private citizens who don't happen to agree with you?
This is why those on the left don't manage to get anything done. Their whole strategy is to bash others who propose solutions and come up with no solutions on their own.
Why not come up with an ACTUAL WORKING SOLUTION to the problem terrorism, as was the original topic of this discussion?
Other lawbreaking (such as the allegations against telcos and whatnot) can still be dealt with - that is a separate issue. Leave out there, don't sweep it under the rug... but don't use it as a means of obstructing our national defense, either.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click....
(sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?'
Son: 'You got him, Pop! Can I shoot the next one?'
Wife: 'You are not taking that to the taxidermist.'
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
so that they can hide how inffective this whole boondogle has been - except for the war profiteers which have made hundreds of billions of dollars off it.
On behalf of Missouri, I apologize for that douchebag and say that I have never voted for him. At least we got rid of our other Republican senator and Bush lickspittle in 2006.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I never said deal with immunity "later". I said deal with them as separate issues.
You may claim I don't have my facts straight (which is nonsense), but putting words into my mouth is not helpful either.
And all these ideas of let's set aside security and worry about civil liberties first is a very dangerous road. BOTH MUST BE HANDLED WITH THE SAME HIGH PRIORITY AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
How is anyone at liberty under the threat of being bombed anywhere at any time?
Likewise, how is anyone at liberty if Uncle Sam listens to ALL phone calls, including my 97-year old grandmother? I never suggested the government DO that!
I NEVER SAID GIVE UP ONE OR THE OTHER. I said BOTH must be handled AT THE SAME TIME.
Yet all the loonies come out and say - "ooohh, he has some dangerous ideas and must be silenced" (or at least modded down on slashdot - not much different, just not carried out to the same extreme).
Look at what you people are writing.
Do you ever wonder that you would really, truly do... if you ever had the reins of power in your own hands?
Last time I checked, I was an American Citizen with First Amendment rights, the same as all of you.
Wow, folks...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher