US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.

Comments

Stunned

[cmefford]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

Re:Stunned

[jo42]

I keep telling you guys to practice your "Heil Bush!". Yet I keep getting mocked and voted/modded down. One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!".

Re:Stunned

[Shining Celebi]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

It's not over yet. It goes back to the House and into conferencing. The House is adamantly against telecom immunity; last week, the House leadership sent a letter to the Senate condemning it. I believe there's a strong chance that telecom immunity won't be able to make it out of the House, but it might be a good thing to call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)

Re:Stunned

[veganboyjosh]

One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!".

That'll stop the downmodding, for certain.

Re:Stunned

[mea37]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about. Perhaps they could turn around and file a shareholder suit (on the grounds that AT&T worked against shareholder interests by cooperating with and being held liable for the wiretap program), though I'm told those types of suits aren't very common these days.

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself.

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?

What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Naturally those individuals would try to hide behind the shield of corporate liability; I would hope (though I can't remember if it's the case) that taking actions outside of -- and even contrary to -- the corporation's interests would make a case for PCV.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You Sir are a corporate shill.

At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it.

Absolutely not sir.

Both the government that asked them to commit something illegal and the people that actually commited the illegal act (this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal).

Its called a conspiracy sir.

All parties are at fault.

(sorry about spelling at work using IE yuck).

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

Well democracy erosion is being led by America. The greatest thing to happen to the greedy in the USA was 9/11. Lump everything together, try to make ya average american citizen paranoid, take away their freedoms to speak, and in the words fo Elvis 'Thank you very much'

I'm not saying that over the pond we are any better off. We have our fair share of lamed assed Politicians who's modus operandi if offered as evidence in a court of law would be considered fraud.

It all boils down to one great truth really...'we the powerfull/rich like money, we want more, we dont care how we get, we are damm sure its gonna be at your expense, but hey learn your level within the food chain'.

Now the Trend Micro attack on CLAMAV being included in another boarder gateway product, looks like it may be having a negative impact on potential future sales...god bless the enlightend.

There is one big hurdle to the use of 'voting with your credit card'..... apathy, we've got spades of it over here, god im guilty of it myself, but until people in large numbers get together and boycott companies/corporations aint nothing gonna change.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem pretty sure of yourself for someone who hasn't read the secret annexes to Directive 51.

Re:Stunned

[mea37]

"You Sir are a corporate shill."

Your personal opinion of me is fascinating. If you'd like to debate the substance of my arguments, you're welcome to try again.

"At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it."

I suggest no such thing. Why not debate my specific propositions instead of trying to water them down into over-generalized garbage of your own imagining?

I do suggest (1) that the government isn't just "somebody else" (but I'm sure if the government showed up at your doorstep to spy on your neighbor from your house, you'd put up one hell of a fight against them), and (2) that the corporate entity "AT&T" isn't the legally responsible party given these specific circumstances.

"Absolutely not sir."

Oooh, he called me "sir". That lends great credibility to his statements.

"this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal"

So if Bob refuses to do something because it's illegal, this proves that Joe knows it to be illegal? Interesting. Far from the truth, but interesting.

Doesn't matter, though; whether any party knew the action to be illegal is immaterial, as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Which is why none of my arguments have anything to do with whether those making the decisions believed they were acting legally or not.

Re:Stunned

[calebt3]

One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!" Just before the police want to have a friendly chat with you.

Re:Stunned

[vyrus128]

At the risk of downmodding, let me just reply with a hearty Sig Heil!

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

For the people who don't know, here's what directive 51 is about, and how bush can stop elections and control the entire USofA without any checks from congress in any form (in fact, he'd be able to control congress). So all he has to do is provoke a war enough for him to want to declare a catastrophic emergency.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.

Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.

As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.

Re:Stunned

[Sponge Bath]

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes

AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.

I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.

Re:Stunned

[Gravatron]

Sorry, but the telecom's had a legal and ethical duty to demand a warrent, and if one could not be presented, to decline to cooperate. Anyone who didn't knew they were breaking the law, and should have to face the results. They deserved to lose millions, as money seems to be the only thing corperations understand, and losing a ton of it would have caused the shareholders to demand future adheriance to the law.

Instead, one of the foundations of our nation is eroded, that is the citizen's protection from search without warrents, and a major crime will go unpunished. This tells the citizens that we are at the mercy of the executive branch, who has time and time again showed that they are above the law.

Re:Stunned

[Ucklak]

It's essentially the equivalent of 1 DNS server and 1 web server, just move it to a different location.

If all hell breaks loose, I
1) want the ability to defend myself first
2) want my state to be able to control the Natl Guard to defend it's state citizenry second.

I don't need some president to give the OK for my governor to give orders to shoot to kill in a time of crisis.

Re:Stunned

[mea37]

and losing a ton of it would have caused the shareholders to demand future adheriance to the law

What makes you think the shareholders had (or in future cases would have) any influence whatsoever over a situation like this? Do you imagine a proxy went out saying 'The board recommends you vote in favor of a proposal to comply with an illegal wiretapping program'?

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

Umm, no. President already controls military. This says "president can control all of congress" aka house, senate without their approval. Right now the only way president can declare war is with their approval. Do you understand the difference?

If all hell breaks lose, a: I don't trust the president
and B: maybe 550 people who are in the legislative body will have a better idea than our retarded president?
instead, we'd get A: president decides everything. aka its a method to have martial law without approval from any other branch of government.

Re:Stunned

[aztracker1]

For once I'm glad to be a Qwest customer... though without an alternative option (that's not worse)... They didn't succumb to the disclosure of records etc...

Re:Stunned

[Xaositecte]

Here's what it boils down to:

1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.

2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.

3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.

4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.

5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.

Therefore:

We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.

Re:Stunned

[Gideon Fubar]

Regardless of the ad hominem (yeah, i bet that makes me look all learned too) and the emotional argument, the GP is at least partially correct.

The telecos are bound by law to be neutral, 3rd party carriers. If, at any point they unduly monitor or tamper with the communications that they carry they are supposed to be subject to harsh penalties. They all know this. Ignorance is certainly no excuse, but in this case they were willfully complicit. They followed the instructions of the current party, instead of those written in to law, and should be held accountable for that.

So yeah, the telecos that participated in the monitoring program are legally responsible, and giving them immunity from this permanently reduces their accountability.

Re:Stunned

[n dot l]

The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens. AFAIK, power is supposed to be divided in the USA. There are supposed to be many players and they are supposed to check each other. This should extend beyond the government. It's supposed to include the people (and the corporations) questioning government orders and refusing to comply with illegal orders. The problem isn't that some branch of the US government is corrupt - the US system is designed to cope with that sort of situation, it's that 90% of the power holders in the USA are playing along and letting them get away with it, something which is not supposed to happen.

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself. That is (or should be) a topic for the courts to rule on. It is not for Congress to do the job of AT&T's legal team.

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government? Well, why would you expect anyone to protest the wars, the civil rights abuses, the attempts to legislate morality, the awful fiscal policy, the wasted effort on security theater, the lack of any real border security, the decaying infrastructure, etc when they might run afoul of their home country's government? Corporations are supposed to be private endeavors. They're supposed to behave like "the people" when it comes to the way they deal with government.

And yes, I know, big business has been in bed with big government (and against "the people") for decades now. The point is that it's not supposed to work like that, and that this legislation threatens to close an opportunity to reverse some small part that.

What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Really? And how, exactly, are you going to get their names? Suing their directors at random won't work for the same reason the RIAA's random law suits don't, ultimately, work (and you wouldn't even have the advantage of being the large legal entity picking on a smaller one). The only thing there is to sue right now are the telcos themselves; individuals may be named as part of the discovery that would take place during the court proceedings but if they're given immunity then there's no way to reach that stage.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Cowpat]

"as ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Actually, it is an excuse - you cannot reasonably expect someone to obey a law that they don't know - that's plain common sense.
It's not a defence useable in a court of law, because those who arbitrate on what counts as a defence would rather see injustice done to the few who genuinely are ignorant than throw the door open to those who aren't ignorant to claim that they are so as to get off scott-free.
It's potentially an incredibly dangerous principle (re: secret laws) but there's no forseeable time when it will be done away with (we'd need to read minds for that) - the solution is to do away with laws that a reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to not be ignorant of.

To some extent, we do accept that involuntary ignorance is a defence, which is why ex post facto laws aren't allowed - if you couldn't know that it was illegal that's normally a defence, it's not a large step to consider not knowing for some other reason to be a defence.

I'd like to hear your solution to the rock-and-a-hard-place problem where person (a) who has the ability to hassle you legally in the immediate term says that you must do X, and person (b) who has the ability to hassle you legally in the long term says don't do X (and often after you've already done X).

Whether it's an excuse is a matter of conscience for the individual to decide upon themselves - perhaps you should state why people should share your view, rather than stating your view as fact.
But feel free to go about saying that it's not a legal defence, that IS a fact.

Re:Stunned

[pugugly]

From lovely Cuba No doubt.

Pug

Re:Stunned

[frank_adrian314159]

I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?)

Well, by giving them immunity, you'll never know, will you?

In reality, the pressure was probably of the following form: If you cooperate with us , we'll give you lots of money; if you don't, you won't get another Government contract for the next 4-8 years (you do know that the taps started before 9-11, don't you?).

Re:Stunned

[NewAndFresh]

What makes you think the shareholders had (or in future cases would have) any influence whatsoever over a situation like this?

They probably had nothing to do with it. But what shareholders in their right minds wouldn't ban such behavior in the future? Are you really thinking this one out?

Re:Stunned

[deKernel]

May I ask how in the heck this is Bush's fault? Is not the whole Congress in Democratic party majority?

Re:Stunned

[jellie]

Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.

...is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. I would love to see the individuals who made the decision get punished for what they did! But tell me: do you think a low-level manager actually gave the "OK" to allow the NSA to build a secret room at AT&T? Similarly, do you think the receptionists at Enron participated in hiding its losses? Of course not. These things typically go all the way to the top of the ladder. I know that most of the cases are civil lawsuits, but these companies did violate agreements with its customers, as well as some privacy laws.

Furthermore, keep in mind that a company and its shareholders are liable for the actions of its employees, provided its employees are acting on its behalf. My employer earns money from my work; shouldn't they lose money if I break the law? Think of investments, like stocks. If the company beats expectations, the stock goes up and you earn money (usually). If the company performs poorly, we all lose. Did I have any say in their decision to hire employee X who then cost $7 billion in losses? No. But as a shareholder, I'll still lose money.

Re:Stunned

[Chris Burke]

AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.

I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.

Which just means that this AG's DoJ will not start any investigations or bring any charges, because that's the only power the AG has. The AG's opinions are nothing more than opinions, they aren't legally binding in any sense of the word, they only guide the actions of his department while he is head of it. The next AG who comes along is perfectly free to disagree and bring charges, at which case the only entity empowered to determine such things -- the courts -- will weigh in with a legally binding opinion.

And I have a strong feeling that the courts would weigh much more heavily towards the GP's stance that following orders is not a defense.

There's been a couple trends of what I can only call conditioning. The first, a fairly old one it seems, is that anything illegal is automatically immoral, which leads to the inverse that anything legal is automatically moral. Then there's what seems to be the more recent Bushian stance that as President he and his AG have the power to declare anything legal that they want.

Re:Stunned

[Ucklak]

It's basically what I said. A single point of failure. 1 DNS server and 1 web server.

I don't trust anyone except myself. If there is a threat coming my way, I think my state would have a better idea about how to defend itself rather than the feds.
The problem is that there are some weak governors (mine included) that would await federal approval for something they don't need approval for.

Re:Stunned

[Coward Anonymous]

Have you actually read the directive you linked to?

Where does it say anything about the president suspending congress?

Re:Stunned

[homer_ca]

The Democrats have a bare majority in the Senate which passed the bill *with* immunity. Many Democratic Senators offered amendments to strip immunity or add oversight, but they were all voted down.

The Democrats have a bigger majority in the House which already passed the bill *without* immunity.

Re:Stunned

[KevinKnSC]

That's just it, though. The directive refers to a number of classified or non-publicly available annexes that Congress, let alone the average citizen, haven't been able to see. For all we know, the directive gives control of the country to the CEO of Halliburton or King Abdullah. Probably it's nothing that outlandish, but the whole point is that we don't know.

To put it in familiar terms, this is an act of closed source government, where the directive in question may have catastrophic vulnerabilities that we can't protect ourselves from because we can't see the source of these annexes.

Re:Stunned

[Nicholas Evans]

Their bare majority didn't stop this from failing with filibuster-proof margins. Thanks, Democrats.

Themocrats (I couldn't help it...Look Around You, ok? :p)

Re:Stunned

[sgt_doom]

..and how bush can stop elections...

Word up, Good Citizen poetmatt, but there's no existing need anymore for Bushi Wooshie to do this. The four major election systems companies which will account for at least 100 million votes comes this 2008 presidential election are all controlled by some group or section within the Pentagon, utilizing the government contractor, S.A.I.C. as the controlling element in the operation. Those four: Premier Elections Systems (once called Diebold), Hart Civic (with strong ties to both SAIC and Northrop Grumman - last time I checked a considerable block of their ownership could be traced back to James Baker III, consigliore for the Bush familia), ES&S and Sequoia Voting Systems.

And keep your eye on VoteHere (Dategrity) an unofficial Pentagon-financed "voting system" company with quite a questionable past, present and future. Nope, good buddy, it be all over in Amerika! Sieg Heil, bushie wushie....

And why did the SEC stop publishing the Directory of Interlocking Corporate Directorships back during those Reagan years????

Re:Stunned

[sjames]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway.

Actually, it WILL do a lot. If the telcos get reamed for this, it will be a loooong time before they or any other business mindlessly help a government agency violate the constitution again.

I'm all for holding the relevant government offices responsable as well, but I've pretty well given up on that happening.

Re:Stunned

[WCLPeter]

Bush is not up for reelection, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. George W. Bush is obviously not up for re-election; that doesn't stop his brother Jeb from trying in 2012.

Re:Stunned

[Starcub]

Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.

Shareholders decide who the corporate executives are, so they hold a great deal of influence over the management of the company. Shareholders typically diversify their investments across entire industries and therefore their primary interest is not in the health of any particular company, but in the profitability of the company (which is the primary driver of stock price). Companies who's primary focus is on the bottom line is fine if all your concerned about is short term profits, but more often than not, companies that are managed in this way ultimately find themselves acting with the shareholders to give customers as little as possible while getting as much as possible from them. As a consumer this should concern you, though it is of no relevence to the topic of this thread.

The only reason the telco's have suits filed against them is because congress failed to extend the law in time to keep the wiretapping practice legal. This bill (whatever version ultimately gets sent to the executive) will renew the legality of the wiretapping. It would be quite strange to expect the govt. to fail to grant retroactive immunity and then blackmail its corporate partners, though Obama for his part did vote against retroactive immunity.

Re:Stunned

[Dr. Hellno]

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.

Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.

Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes bad ones?

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Custard]

What makes you think the shareholders had (or in future cases would have) any influence whatsoever over a situation like this?

They probably had nothing to do with it. But what shareholders in their right minds wouldn't ban such behavior in the future? Are you really thinking this one out? Shareholders aren't in any morally right mind. They are profit-minded. Unless this issue makes the companies look bad so the share price goes down, the shareholders would probably prefer this just blow over.

Re:Stunned

[symbolic]

This should spook everyone who considers themselves an American citizen. This is also a major disappointment, because throughout this election, I don't think ANY candidates have made any mention how they intend to restore the "constitutional" part of our constitutional democracy. This response from Obama is a steaming pile. We don't want someone who will FOLLOW it, we want someone who will FIX it.

Re:Stunned

[symbolic]

It can be made to change - all it takes is a few million patriots with a little bit of self-discipline. What's to stop a huge number of subscribers suddenly canceling their service? Remember - they're playing with OUR money.

Re:Stunned

[Anguirel]

Google is playing by China's rules by adhering to their laws (even if it isn't necessarily moral). The Telecoms colluded with government officials to break the law (which wasn't necessarily immoral). The difference here is that what Google is doing in China is legal (since China has made the law such that it can be) and what the Telecoms did was illegal.

Re:Stunned

[ViennaThornton]

Not true. He doesn't need their approval. He can "borrow" the military currently for 30 days before needing their approval. Though, this *obviously* fails to work out, since wars are *FAR* easier to start than they are to end (see the whole "We're stuck in Iraq" thing ;)). Also: See the Vietnam *CONFLICT* Congress never declared it as a war. Oh and if Bush stops the elections? What are the odds the nation ISN'T going to vote. Our country was founded on the basic principle that if the government fails to hold the citizens interest/rights at heart, the citizens have the right to revolt and overthrow the government. I'm personally hoping that will not happen. I'm petrified of the idea of having an anarchy. I've heard people who want to revolt against the RIAA/MPAA and their lawyers (and from what I perceived, they wanted to use guns to boot). Like launch anarachy on the country because they were against the RIAA/MPAA and their lawyers. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the people's right to revolt. That's an awesome right to have. However, I feel it should be used only has a LAST RESORT. Simply because it can wreak so much havoc and chaos. Not to mention, if we have an anarchy, because *so* much of our society relies upon control, technology we don't know how to manufacture (because China is doing it for us) and organization, I think anarchy would be rather Lord of the Flies-ish. I do inherently feel that everyone is good/has the capacity to be good/do good, even if I don't believe it at times, but I don't think in an anarchical situation we'd hurt other people simply because we don't manufacture enough things to support ourselves. Look at it this way: our common bartering tool is money. It's the thing everyone has in common and everyone needs. How is most money today made? It's not by manufacturing things. It's by shuffling around paperwork that companies need to do in order to comply with the government. If there is no government, people will lose their "shuffling paperwork" job. They will have no money. No money, so they can't afford food. How are they going to get the food with no money? Simple, steal. Since all of America has to consume food at some point in there lives, that could very well get ugly. Now, if we still manufactured goods, it wouldn't matter. For example, I'm a mechanic, and I need to eat (duh!). You are the owner of a chain of grocery stores. 3 of your trucks need to be repaired (parts need to be replaced and you need body work done). I can work on your trucks and you can give me food. Obviously on this model, this drives the value of manufactured goods WAAAAY down, or else (presumably, I'm pulling stuff outta' my ass here) we'd run out of food (considering that it would take a huge amount of food to equate the price of body work and replaced parts).

Re:Stunned

[khallow]

That's just it, though. The directive refers to a number of classified or non-publicly available annexes that Congress, let alone the average citizen, haven't been able to see. For all we know, the directive gives control of the country to the CEO of Halliburton or King Abdullah. Probably it's nothing that outlandish, but the whole point is that we don't know.

A directive doesn't have force of law nor does it override the Constitution. Further, if you read the order, you see that it applies to executive branch organizations.

Re:Stunned

[rohan972]

Wasn't that Ron Paul?

Re:Stunned

[JoelKatz]

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?

We don't expect better or worse, we expect them to follow the law in both cases.

Re:Stunned

[KDR_11k]

Great idea to have a law (i.e. something that dictates rules for the public) and not show it to the public. This is not just closed source, this is encrypted binaries with remotely-triggered execution.

I'd say if this isn't the case already the consitution needs an amendment that any law must be publicly known before it can take effect.

Re:Stunned

[KDR_11k]

but you don't even HAVE a sig!

Re:Stunned

[KDR_11k]

Punishing the Telcos would send the message "Just because we say we'll look the other way doesn't mean we'll do!" and make other corps more wary of cooperating with the govt when it's against the law.

Re:Stunned

[gr8scot]

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government? It is not rational to expect private entities to take a harder line with China than that taken by the government of the nation in which they're headquartered. The United States accepts preposterously imbalanced tariffs with China, and as far as I know so far, is not planning to boycott the upcoming Olympics, despite the UK gag order. Our government is not acting in a principled manners in its dealings with China in our name, and has not done so, for some time. The chorus that Google, a privately-owned entity, should be more principled in its dealings with China than the United States government is, amounts to holding it to higher standards as a "corporate citizen," a fallacious concept in the first place, than the real citizens are holding yourselves and your representatives. It is not Google's fault, and not its owners' personal responsibility, that access to the cheapest labor on Earth has been a higher political priority of our "representatives" than the interests of the general populace; that has been going on since before "Google" was so much as a Lego brick.

Re:Stunned

[esocid]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway.

I disagree with you on that point. If they are granted retroactive immunity to conducting illegal breaches of contract with their customers, and illegal activities, wouldn't that set some sort of precedent that basically allows any service provider (no matter what that service may be) to turn over private information/allow illegal wiretaps in cases of telecoms without having to worry about being dragged into court. The law applies to everyone, and should not be swept aside just because they are supposedly helping with this administration's "war on terror." I for one don't want to wonder every day whether or not someone out there has information about me that they shouldn't, that is the point here. Protection of privacy and our rights granted under the Bill of Rights shouldn't have an asterisk next to it that says "*Only if we say you can."

Re:Stunned

[khallow]

Except that they can't take over the government and suspend the Constitution on the strength of an executive order.

Re:Stunned

[leafblower]

yea true. thankfully he is in only for another year...bush screwed us over big time. the moronic people who voted for him can hopefully see the folly of their ways.

Re:Stunned

[khallow]

Oh yea, course they have to run a false flag first. In any case, they wouldn't announce it ahead of time in an executive order.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

You realize that you lost a lot of intelligence and creditability points by calling the president retarded don't you?

First, this president might not be the one in office when it is used. Next, Bush was a jet fighter pilot, this means he isn't stupid, it doesn't matter who he knows, the air forces does put stupid or retarded people behind the control of it's jets. It just doesn't happen. Finally, as inarticulate Bush is, and with all you have against him, why would you insist on demeaning actual retarded people by the association of Bush? I mean have you no heart?

And if I remember right, congress can vote control back at any given time under that directive. It is only meant to be in place when the government can't function for whatever reason. If congress feels it is capable of operating effectively, even in a limited capacity, all they have to do is vote and poof, all is back to normal. This is laid out in the congressional COG (Continuity of Government) plans and all that the directive operates within. To claim the use of this would be anything but temporary is dishonest. There is no at best or at worst on this, it is only intended to keep the government functioning when it can't because of some extraordinary event.

It's prime objectives including maintaining a functional government is 5(a)Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government; and 5(c)Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;. Anyone who thinks the military who sign up because of patriotism and not love for a president and take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution, would go along with this against the will of congress is a loon that deserves to live in fear. But their ignorance doesn't need to place others in fear.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

Except that isn't really what the annexes are. If you read the directive, you will find that the annexes are the plans coordinated and put in place by the three branches and the departments under them that ensure continued functional operation in the event of something happening. They even work a chain of succession in case the heads of the departments aren't able to run them. These plans are secrete because they are the weapon that keeps the government whole and constitutional as the directive notes as an objective. This is more of a national security issue then anything else ever claimed to be since bush has been in office. Public knowledge of these annexes would give any enemy a plan to disrupt effective government and the effective defense of the nation.

The GP is incorrect in claiming that congress doesn't have access to them, congress is creating at least one if not more of them. The type of catastrophe we are talking about is if Washington DC is hit with a nuke or wiped out by a tidal wave (tsunami). It designates how to find replacement representation, where to meet, how communications would be carried out, what to do if plan a isn't feasible, and so on. It does the same for the supreme courts too. And then every federal office that is essential for the continued operation of the federal government in it's constitutional form. I suspect that is Clinton had created such a plan, it would be herald as insightful and life saving to the country as we know it. The only reason this is negative is because Bush is involved and anything they think he touches is evil.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

You mean republic right? maybe the reason why it doesn't spook everyone is because they know what type of constitutional government we have. Of course you probably have read the consitution and found that it was a democracy which is probably why you have read this directive and don't understand what it does or that it is temporary.

Obama claiming to follow it if ever neccesary is probably the only admirable thing I have heard come from his mouth. And the only thing we need to fix is the wrong interpretations people like you have of it.

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

Having been someone who tried to get into the military but was denied on waiver due to a marginal hearing loss after being recommended to go straight to officer school, I can tell you firsthand both from myself and others in the military that serving active duty does not in any way associate with intelligence one way or the other.

In the good ole US of A, the prime directive for whether someone is eligible or not for military duty is not intelligence, but physical capability. You can be dumb as a rock but strong as an ox, and you would be able to get into any part of service on the front lines, including commanding vehicles and handling destructive weapons.

In contrast, in Israel only the best and brightest make it to the front lines. Those who do not, get the appropriate positions with increasingly more supervision and more towards backup support. An example backup support position over there is a network technician (via remote connection maintenance work/etc). Once again, speaking from first hand example from having been in military bases in Israel.

I don't like Bush. It's not that he's stupid, its the policies he chooses to endorse and deny that represent the lack of intellect. Also, I didn't see anywhere anything about what you said with the vote. Maybe I misread, but I didn't see any method of cancellation, just idealism. "Cancel as fast as you can, fix things up as fast as you can", yet if you read between the lines it says this must be for a minimum of 30 days. That I didn't miss.

Also, notice the domestic enemies part? Do you remember what has happened in the past when the states decided to declare citizens a domestic enemy? I believe there's a prison somewhere, maybe you can remember the name, where such a situation has occurred. Legal grey area? Not to judges. To the FICA court? Rubber stamp. Also, you looked too far down. Section 2(e) is the part that means the president has all control over all parts of the government, not by themselves, but via the Homeland Security Director who gets that priveledge and capacity to enforce it via this: "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations " (further down). Please, read further, I may have misread too, but last I checked it was pretty clear what was going on and that it was specifically vague at times.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

Having been someone who tried to get into the military but was denied on waiver due to a marginal hearing loss after being recommended to go straight to officer school, I can tell you firsthand both from myself and others in the military that serving active duty does not in any way associate with intelligence one way or the other.

I didn't say you had to be smart to serve, I said the air force doesn't put stupid and retarded people in control of multi million dollar aircraft. If bush was stupid or retarded, he would have had a job on the ground. Replacement fighter craft take too long to build and too much money to be given to ignorant sobs who will scratch the pain first chance the get. It just doesn't happen. He might have flown a transport craft or a spotter craft but not a fighter.

In the good ole US of A, the prime directive for whether someone is eligible or not for military duty is not intelligence, but physical capability. You can be dumb as a rock but strong as an ox, and you would be able to get into any part of service on the front lines, including commanding vehicles and handling destructive weapons.

Sure, but once that is satisfied, intelligence plays a lot in the jobs they perform. How many fighter pilots do you know that don't have a degree in something and hasn't passed officer school and achieved at least the rank of lieutenant? Less inteligent soldiers do other important but less involved tasks like water purification and getting shot after shooting as many of the enemy as possible first, or repairing the planes and so on.

In contrast, in Israel only the best and brightest make it to the front lines. Those who do not, get the appropriate positions with increasingly more supervision and more towards backup support. An example backup support position over there is a network technician (via remote connection maintenance work/etc). Once again, speaking from first hand example from having been in military bases in Israel.

I also remember a story about a US serviceman (retired of course) getting a chance to do a hi lo jump with an Israeli special ops unit. They told him how to judge the distance to the ground and flair the parachute in order to have a soft manageable landing that was still fast and effective. He said in the US, they tell you to cross your arms and close your eyes, the Israeli commander replied that they don't expect their people to be afraid of heights. It is just a difference in strategies. But it doesn't matter because we ar talking about giving control of expensive aircraft in limited supply to a person. This doesn't happen is they aren't competent, in Israel or the US.

I don't like Bush. It's not that he's stupid, its the policies he chooses to endorse and deny that represent the lack of intellect. Also, I didn't see anywhere anything about what you said with the vote. Maybe I misread, but I didn't see any method of cancellation, just idealism. "Cancel as fast as you can, fix things up as fast as you can", yet if you read between the lines it says this must be for a minimum of 30 days. That I didn't miss.

Bush isn't really stupid, he is inarticulate and experiences some severe problems in impersonal conversations like when asking questions from reporters or ad libbing speeched. If you read Nancy Pelosi's account of her one on one meeting with him, you will see what I mean, she came out telling reporters that she Bush wasn't at all like what she had been told or seen at press conferences and she was overwhelmed with how personal, intelligent and thoughtful he seemed. There were a few other choice words there too. It is probably why the dems and republicans all claim to stand in opposition with him but after meeting in person, they end up caving to his demands for the most part. I personally saw him in a town hall type setting back in 1999 and I was totally amazed at how differently he is speaking publicall

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

You sir, have posted the biggest reply I've ever seen due to a double post. I am not even going to try to reply to that much :P with that said I understand your viewpoint and we simply disagree, although I do appreciate well thought out replies.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

I don't know what the hell happened there. It might have been all the copy and pasting I did for the spell check. Sorry and I see your point.

Anyways, the meat of it was the section 2(e) is the definition. It doesn't do anything but explain what the abreviations and terms mean in the later sections titled policy and implementations. It does sound scary in and of itself, but when viewed within the rest of the directive's context, it isn't.

Re:Stunned

[MidnightBrewer]

Could you point out the specific context in the page you linked to? All I could find, over and over again, was in a similar vein as the following ("Implementation Actions", (5)(a)):

"Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government"

And from further up ("Definitions", (2)(e)):

""Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency"

So, yeah, if you ignore the actual literal wording and broad intent of the directive, which is to protect and maintain the separation of the three branches of government under the Constitution, then perhaps it could be otherwise interpreted to mean that Bush could declare an autonomous dictatorship overnight.

Re:Stunned

[symbolic]

Of course you probably have read the consitution and found that it was a democracy which is probably why you have read this directive and don't understand what it does or that it is temporary.

Our government is temporarily handed over to a non-elected entity...all it takes is a stroke of the pen to RADICALLY alter anything that can be altered. What, if anything, does it explicitly prevent this entity from doing while it's holding the reigns?

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

Problem 1:

Catastophe is not defined in any clear capacity. "(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;"

So tell me, is there anything you cannot fit under this? Lets take it apart phrase by phrase
1: any incident (wow, thats defined.)
2: regardless of location (outside the US, inside the US, doesn't matter huh?)
3: extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption (also, not specified. Mass casualties can be 2 people, damage can be 1 house, or disruption can be a town-wide power blackout. There is no clarification, and by the time this is advocated the president has 30 days to play war as he feels).
4: severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions (note: these things are not affected by options necessarily domestic. Do you understand why "homeland security" overseeing this might be a problem?)

So basically, for any reason, any where, we can declare this. Remember in the legal system things are word for word. I hate this but from a legal perspective there is absolutely nothing that cannot be claimed whether those sentences are linked or separate. Show me anything, anything at all that can't be labeled under those....oh wait, I've got a nice scapegoat for it. Guess what it might be? Terrorism maybe? . Name one way that you couldn't claim that because the sky is blue our economy is affected by anything, because truth is that everything worldwide affects our economy and the rest of the worlds. That is why it's a global economy, no matter how we look at it we do not only have "domestic economy".

Now, hmmm....want to continue? Before you get into any "what can be done", lets get into "what can trigger this directive", as clarified above. Definitions are far more important in a legal situation.

Or do you not remember about the appeal going on and the big issue with "making available". Sound familiar? Sound like legal dancing? I'm not saying RIAA = Bush, I'm saying the same legal strategy of careful wording applies. Law can only follow the rules it is created upon. Law does not define itself, which is why we have different branches of government to balance eachother out. If you are following the rules which they are forced to follow, they can't just say "I oppose on moral grounds, therefore you cannot do XYZ". That is why justice is supposed to be (ideally) impartial and fair. They could declare it unconstitutional, but then we get into the 30 days minimum issue and that DHS is allowed to ensure following of this presidential directive, and I'm sure you know that the department for homeland security has done a wonderful job lately.

No, I don't want nor do I wear a tinfoil hat. But sheesh, you know, this stuff's kinda important.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

You are just too delusional. I hope you get the help you need before you become dangerous and hurt someone.

Re:Stunned

[sumdumass]

Problem 1 isn't a problem. This is because the directive doesn't say what you think it does.

Catastophe is not defined in any clear capacity. "(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;"

Ok, so what happens once there is a catastrophe? Hmm.. Well lets see, Section 3 entitled "policy", says amung other things, Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions. so if nothing was disrupted, then nothing will happen.

So tell me, is there anything you cannot fit under this? Lets take it apart phrase by phrase
1: any incident (wow, thats defined.)
2: regardless of location (outside the US, inside the US, doesn't matter huh?)
3: extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption (also, not specified. Mass casualties can be 2 people, damage can be 1 house, or disruption can be a town-wide power blackout. There is no clarification, and by the time this is advocated the president has 30 days to play war as he feels).
4: severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions (note: these things are not affected by options necessarily domestic. Do you understand why "homeland security" overseeing this might be a problem?)

See Above, it isn't a problem.

So basically, for any reason, any where, we can declare this. Remember in the legal system things are word for word. I hate this but from a legal perspective there is absolutely nothing that cannot be claimed whether those sentences are linked or separate. Show me anything, anything at all that can't be labeled under those.

It doesn't matter if it is invoked. Read the entire thing, from a legal perspective, at it's heart is to preserve a functioning constitutional government. It lays out contingencies when that isn't available but those only come to effect when the government isn't functioning.

...oh wait, I've got a nice scapegoat for it. Guess what it might be? Terrorism maybe? . Name one way that you couldn't claim that because the sky is blue our economy is affected by anything, because truth is that everything worldwide affects our economy and the rest of the worlds. That is why it's a global economy, no matter how we look at it we do not only have "domestic economy".

All this is pointless because the document spells out it's intentions. I know people have told you that this means Bush or any president could take control, but that is only true as long as we don't have a functioning constitutional government. The appendixes are supposed to be the plans set forth by the government branches and departments to ensure a functioning constitutional government in the event of an emergency as you already described could cover anything. But the thing is, as long as the government is functioning in the constitutional form, the president doesn't get control. If he has control, when the government is able to function in a constitutional manner, he loses that control. This isn't some Bush can run free document like people claim it is. If you read it with as much vigor as you did the definition of catastrophe, you could easily see that.

Now, hmmm....want to continue? Before you get into any "what can be done", lets get into "what can trigger this directive", as clarified above. Definitions are far more important in a legal situation.

Who cares what can trigger it? It doesn't do what you think it does. It doesn't automagically exclude congress or any other branch of the governmen

Re:Stunned

[symbolic]

Sure I am. And Operation Northwood never existed. And President Bush is a great leader. And 9/11 was just a bad dream.

Re:Stunned

[riverat1]

The reason that the telco's have suit filed against them is that they were breaking the law by acceding to the governments request for wire taps without warrants *BEFORE* 9/11. That's before any bill was considered that would make the practice legal. And in my opinion the only way to make the wire tapping of US citizens without a warrant legal would be a constitutional amendment that supersedes the 4th amendment.

protest? chance of stopping this?

[notque]

Is there any chance the House will stop this? Anyone want to march to the Capitol?!

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Zidane-The-Dom]

in all honesty, i doubt even a big-ass protest march would work. if the government wants to get off scot free, they can, they make the rules. you can march and vote and do whatever you like, but in the end, i bet damn sure they can have this pushed through into law before it comes time to vote them out.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Shakrai]

Is there any chance the House will stop this?

Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.

Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

Last year, there was one big-ass march in D.C. protesting the war.

What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.

March all you like...it doesn't matter. We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[someone1234]

Who voted for Mr. Bush twice?
I doubt it was all done by Diebold machines :)

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Shakrai]

We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.

Don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that the media was ever independent to begin with. Ever hear about yellow journalism? Ever read about the origins of the Spanish-American war?

The media has never been independent. That shouldn't stop people from fighting for change.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Score Whore]

What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.

How about, instead of crying that everybody is lying about the number of people who believe in your personal pet projects, you just get those millions and millions of people to vote. The way the system works is, that basically, what the majority is least annoyed by happens. If your personal causes aren't important to everybody else, it doesn't matter how much protesting you do as protests are just a way of saying "we lost so we want to change the rules." Which violates one of the core principles of the country. Does the majority come up with stuff that may be considered (by some) bad? You bet it does. But guess what, that's how it's supposed to work. It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Good point. I guess I should have qualified that statement with the word "relatively".

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Ender77]

Perhaps they are marching at the wrong place, start having a huge protest right in front of fox/abc/cnn...news stations...let them ignore THAT!

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Captain Splendid]

civil liberties != personal pet projects

Thanks for playing, troll.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Red Flayer]

It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.

Poppycock.

The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.

It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TheCRAIGGERS]

Bullshit. Just because the majority wanted to own slaves didn't make it right.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Anonymous Coward]

We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media. No, we lost this country when we stopped being willing to die to prevent things like this happening. When we stopped being willing to die to not only defend our right for the future of our children, but even for the future of our fellow countrymen's children.

Are you willing to march, armed, on D.C. and fight, and die, to restore the idea that no man or company is above the law, and that things like retroactive immunity for the rich few are an abomination?

No? You're not willing?

Neither am I.

They know it. That's why we lose.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[UnknowingFool]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

That's why I like old school solutions. Marching with pitchforks and torches. Looting and pillaging every Starbucks on the way. Ah, I miss the old country.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[WilliamSChips]

Actually, if you look at the history of the United States from George Washington to now, you'll notice that the media is much more free now than it ever was. It's just that the illusions have been shattered.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TooMuchToDo]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

Democracy is the ability of the minority to keep the majority in check.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[DigitAl56K]

Anyone want to march to the Capitol?! No, people don't care to protest against the illegal acts of their government or to protect their rights. Protesting Scientology OTOH...

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Kjella]

The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny. What's important to understand is that there are two kinds of majority decisions, those that protect minorities and those that suppress minorities. To take an example, consider that we're making laws about the color of clothes. Now say 20% like red, 20% blue, 20% yellow and the other 40% a variety of colors.

1) A law that says "Everyone has the right to choose the color of their clothes" is probably something a majority can get behind and protects the minorities
2) A law that says "Everyone must wear red, blue or yellow" is probably also something a majority can get behind but supresses the minorities

In a system where everyone has an equal vote (I'll leave the details of voting age and felons etc. out of this now) I don't see how a "rule by the minority" could possibly function, it seems logically impossible. Rather, what the founders understood and that they tried to pass on is that we should try to look past our own position and reach majority agreement on greater principles. I don't have to agree with what you or anyone else says, but together we can agree on freedom of expression. I don't have to agree with what you or anyone else believes in, but together we cna agree on freedom of religion. This is where you build freedom, the ability for everyone to lead different lifes according to their own choices.

Unfortunately, it just isn't feasible to describe everything in terms of freedoms, there are also restrictions where the majority can't agree with the minority's viewpoints. If I want to drive at any speed I want, and you want speed limits there's no "greater consensus" to be reached. If you can't suppress a minority, then that's anarchy and i'd like to think there are more options than tyranny and anarchy. The question is if the suppression is legitimate - if I insist on going 200mph through a residential area then I'm endangering not only myself, but the passengers and everyone else on or near that road - that's probably legitimate. If I insist on going 200mph alone on a closed track on private property, then I would say it's not - you're just interfering for the sake of interfering. Unfortunately, I doubt you turn turn that "legitimacy" into a quantifiable measure.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[grassy_knoll]

I get the feeling you were making a joke, but your comment made me think of Seattles 1999 WTO protests

The situation was complicated around noon, when black-clad anarchists (in a formation known as a black bloc) began smashing windows and decorating storefronts, beginning with Fox's Gem Shop. This produced some of the most famous and controversial images of the protests. This set off a chain-reaction of sorts, with additional protesters pushing dumpsters into the middle of intersections and lighting them on fire, police vehicles turned-over, non-black-blockers joining in the property destruction, and a general disruption of all commercial activity in downtown Seattle.

Not sure how well that worked out, given this is later in the same article:

The long-term impacts on WTO policies remain decidedly unclear, and it is an open question whether the WTO's actions since that time have been influenced significantly by these events.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[aplusjimages]

The problem isn't the media or the government. The problem is the people. The citizens fight with each other instead of fighting the politicians. We stick up for politicians like we stick up for our favorite athletes. If you are really upset write a letter to your representatives and let them know you won't vote for them in the next election. I bet Americans are doing this less and less these days. Instead we come to forums and sites like this to complain about a problem we can fix. Let's stop hating on each other and get back to hating politicians.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[John3]

It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants. Democracy - Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[gallwapa]

You can't vote them out. They choose who will be on the final roster anyway. Even at local levels in some cases.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[pugugly]

Why would you want a middle ground. Impeach the SOB.

Pug

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's one reason why I personally don't respect parts of the constitution. If there's a majority in the future, then, well, there is a majority. If you do anything else, you will piss a majority of people off. It seems kinda funny because the constitution was designed with the people (read: the majority of people at the time) in mind. But their influence couldn't stay in their own times when it was relevant, it had to spread to times where their wants become increasingly irrelevant. There are new majorities now with new needs and wants, and they can speak for themselves if they want. The constitution should really just stick to making sure they can speak for themselves, and that those in power listen.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Score Whore]

The majority did not want slaves.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[JohnnyCannuk]

You guys have a second amendment, no? Right to bear arms?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Go ahead, march on DC. Just don't march empty-handed.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[RobertM1968]

Perhaps they are marching at the wrong place, start having a huge protest right in front of fox/abc/cnn...news stations...let them ignore THAT!

Hmmmmm... I didnt know that FOX, ABC or CNN had news stations... I know for a fact that FOX doesn't. Though FOX does have a pretty funny Comedy Channel with such talented comedians as O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes and Cavuto...

I guess since some people out there may think it's news, your plan does have merit.

:-P

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[CTachyon]

But that would put Cheney in charge.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TheCRAIGGERS]

Who are you counting here? I was talking about white males, since that is all that mattered back then.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[gr8scot]

Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment? Failing to impeach for lying about the cause of a war of aggression = being the White House's ... obsequious lackey. Remember, impeachment proceedings generally, and against Clinton specifically, begin when there is a charge, not only after there is incontrovertible proof, of "high crimes" or "misdemeanors" by the President, while in office. The debate about whether the falsified & outdated evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program presented to the Legislative Branch and the voters was presented to us in good faith, at the time by the Executive Branch, is therefore not a valid argument against beginning impeachment proceedings. That is merely a defense that the Executive Branch could be expected to offer, and they should be compelled to do defend themselves under oath for such a monumental blunder.

And the beat goes on.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Welcome to the Police State.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Welcome to the Police State. I know! I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today. Two of them searched my trunk... and I don't mean the hatch-back of my car, if you catch my drift. Don't even get me started about the "secret police" that searched my house this morning at 3:00am looking for Obama literature. Thank God I got rid of that! Oh, and I expect I'll get to meet you in the reeducation camp later this week. We all know that you are not allowed to post stuff like that in a police state. /sarc off

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[pipatron]

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

You mean that you think I as a normal European wouldn't have to answer the exact same questions if I tried to enter the US?

Oh right, you said police state. The police has rules and regulations to follow, that makes them different from the border control.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Shakrai]

I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back.

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen here.

Don't get me wrong, I think the GP is wrong to use the term "police state" so casually. Just don't kid yourself that the United States hasn't allowed police-state style encroachments on our civil liberties. I'd still rather live here though -- we at least retain the right to bitch about our shitty Government.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[TripMaster Monkey]

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

You really need to stop trying to be snarky long enough to open your eyes. Here's some reading for you:

Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
Milton Mayer: An excerpt from "They Thought They Were Free"

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately?

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Captain Splendid]

You know, a police state is not a binary thing. Your post is correct in not conflating the US with, say, Iran, but you could at least admit that the direction the US is heading towards isn't exactly anti-police state either.

Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[SterlingSylver]

Congratulations! Your line of reason has just declared every country on the planet that bothers to maintain its border a police state! Welcome to this new and terrifying millenium!

Re:And the beat goes on.

[WilliamSChips]

Walk from the US to Canada. Walk from Canada to the US. The borders of the United States are for all intents and purposes a police state.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[domino14]

Um, I've been asked questions about where I was going, why, etc. at routine traffic stops.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[nurb432]

Besides, its all shades of grey.. Its incremental.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Walk from the US to Canada. Walk from Canada to the US. The borders of the United States are for all intents and purposes a police state.

There are 20 Million mexicans who would argue with you.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[c_forq]

I live in Michigan, which borders Canada. Going to Canada I have had my car searched a dozen times, and have spent upwards of 30 minutes talking to the border guard. Coming back I have NEVER been questioned for more than 10 minutes, have never had my car searched, and have been let through after NO questions and a quick check of IDs. I have had a bit more questioning when entering New York though. I think the border really depends on problems that particular crossing may have, and your citizenship. Getting into Detroit or Sault Ste. Marie is not a problem at all if you are a Michigander.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Chris Burke]

Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.

If that. I can only imagine him passing through a checkpoint, having to show his papers, but ah-ha, the officer didn't ask when he'd be back! Not a police state yet!

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state. Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately? You're kidding, right? I tried to enter the Super Bowl, but some Gestapo Asshole was at the gate, blocking my way, asking to see my papers!

Strict border control does not make a police state. A state is deemed a police state by how it treats its law abiding CITIZENS, not foreign nationals who wish to enter the country. If border control and airport security is how you judge police states, can you show me a country that is NOT a police state? Is Canada a police state too? France? Japan?

Re:And the beat goes on.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Strict border control does not make a police state.

Perhaps you should have been clearer on what you consider a police state, then.

A state is deemed a police state by how it treats its law abiding CITIZENS, not foreign nationals who wish to enter the country.

I'm speaking as a citizen, not a "foreign national".

If border control and airport security is how you judge police states, can you show me a country that is NOT a police state? Is Canada a police state too? France? Japan?

Again, don't fault me for your specious logic. You're the one who said, "I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back.". Your definition, not mine.

Also, I noticed how you managed to completely sidestep the airport security issue. Don't think I didn't.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Zork the Almighty]

Welcome to the Police State.

I think you mean surveillance state. The U.S. government monitors all phone calls and internet traffic. A full police state may or may not follow, although the goverment has flirted with imprisoning people with no legal process (Jose Padilla, Yaser Hamdi). They also tortured Padilla. It will be interesting to see what happens. The government has already asserted its right to ignore laws, such as FISA, the anti-torture statutes, and the war crimes act of 1996, and it seems willing to interpret the constitution in such a narrow way as to render its fundamental protections meaningless. I hope you get your country back, but I don't have a lot of hope for the next decade or so.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Again, don't fault me for your specious logic. You're the one who said, "I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back.". Your definition, not mine. Right. I was speaking of armed checkpoint on freeways, stopping people on their way to work. You brought up border crossings for some reason.

Also, I noticed how you managed to completely sidestep the airport security issue. Don't think I didn't. Flying is not a right. You are free to take the bus, train or drive.

Still, every country secures their airports. Are all countries police states? I noticed how you managed to completely sidestep the airport security issue. Don't think I didn't.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Right. I was speaking of armed checkpoint on freeways, stopping people on their way to work. You brought up border crossings for some reason.

Perhaps you should have said so, then, instead of "I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back.". Again, don't blame me for your inability to express yourself.

Flying is not a right. You are free to take the bus, train or drive.

You're kidding, right? So, flying is not a right, but other forms of transport are? Please quote the relevant laws, if you would.

Still, every country secures their airports. Are all countries police states?

Still trying to make this into a all-or-nothing argument, aren't you? It was people like you, obstinately refusing to see what was happening right in front of them, that enabled the Nazis to develop their power unchecked. Nazi Germany wasn't built in a day, either.

(Yes, Godwin, I know, but when you talk about the Titanic long enough, the subject of icebergs is going to come up.)

Re:And the beat goes on.

[cayenne8]

"Walk from the US to Canada. Walk from Canada to the US. The borders of the United States are for all intents and purposes a police state."

Hmm...apparently our government ONLY seems to have it out for Canadians. At our southern boarder, we have no such police state tactics. This is evidenced by all the 'undocumented' people wandering around the US that have come in that way.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[cayenne8]

"Flying is not a right. You are free to take the bus, train or drive."

Well, I do believe freedom to travel unheeded within the US is a right. I believe you are indeed supposed to have the right and freedom to choose whatever mode you wish.

The RealID act, IS going to prevent you from traveling via the air without and compliant ID. That sounds like travelling papers to me. I'll lay you money to nothing that pretty soon you will need to present this for train and bus travel too...most any mass transit mode.

Remember, the Constitutions doesn't spell out your rights, the Govt. doesn't GIVE you any rights, you have them inherently to begin with. The Constitution is there to list the 'limited' powers the Federal govt. has. Any rights not specifically noted in the Bill of Rights, etc...are yours to have if not regulated by the states themselves.

So, in light of that....I'd argue that you *DO* have the right to fly on a plane.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[mikebelrose]

The US is *less of* a police state. Some parts of our government monitor your phone calls and hold foreigners without trial, some don't.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Flying is not a right. You are free to take the bus, train or drive. You're kidding, right? So, flying is not a right, but other forms of transport are? Please quote the relevant laws, if you would. There are no laws to quote. Flying is not mentioned in the Constitution. The only laws to quote would be the ones that mention airport security and those laws do no apply to you taking your car and driving wherever. For that matter, you can charter your own plane or hire a pilot to fly you wherever you want to go, no security to pass through, no questions about who packed you luggage, no free fondle by that uniformed guy named Hank. Hell, take a gun with you if you like. I've done it. We even had a layover in a public airport where I got to walk through an airport terminal with two firearms. (I was in the Army at the time. My unit was sent via chartered flight to the Mid East and we had a layover at an airport in Britain somewhere)

Do you suggest that we dump airport security less we become a police state? Should anyone just be able to walk right up to the plane, pay whatever price is charged for a seat and hop on board? (again, this can already be done, provided you charter your own plane, but then again, those aren't filled with other passengers who only share the same destination in common) Airport security is not just there to protect you, but everyone else. And again, all countries have airport security. Are the all obstinately refusing to see what was happening right in front of them, that enabled the Nazis to develop their power unchecked. Nazi Germany wasn't built in a day, either.

Still trying to make this into a all-or-nothing argument, aren't you? I'm not trying to make it all or nothing. You stated, Welcome to the Police State, I assume because of call monitoring. I mentioned that the US is not a police state. I've seen them, and this ain't it. Maybe we are headed that way. If that's the case, you should have said "Welcome to what may become the Police State someday if things continue to get worse" instead.

As to Godwin's law, not all police states are Fascist. Neither are we. When you see train-loads of a particular group getting carted off to the gas chambers, bring it back up. Until then, you really insult those who lived through that horror by claiming that the terrors of Nazi Germany are equal to what you see happening today in the US. Sorry, but tapping phones != holocaust.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[MadUndergrad]

Welcome to the police state!
We got guns 'n' chains
We know everything you do
Honey we know your names
We are the spooks that can find
Whatever you may hide
If you got the money honey
We got your immunity

Chorus:

In the police state
Welcome to the police state
Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees
We wanna watch you bleed

Welcome to the police state
We take it law by law
If you fight it you're gonna bleed
But it's the price you pay
And you're a fairly standard girl
That's not very hard to please
You can taste the bread 'n circ's
But you won't get them for free
In the police state
Welcome to the police state
Feel my, my, my fascist dream
I, I wanna hear you scream

Welcome to the police state
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn ta live like a prole
In the police state where we play
If you got a hunger to live your life free
We'll take it eventually
You can have anything you want
But you better not ask to be free

Chorus

And when you're high on power you never
Ever want to come down, so down, so down, so down YEAH!

You know where you are
You're in the police state baby
You're gonna die
In the police state
Welcome to the police state
Watch it bring you to your shu n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees
In the police state
Welcome to the police state
Feel my, my, my fascist dream
In the police state
Welcome to the police state
Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n.n, knees, knees
In the police state
Welcome to the police state
Watch it bring you to your
It's gonna keep you down!
Ha!

Re:And the beat goes on.

[roystgnr]

There are no laws to quote. Flying is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Yes, it is. It's in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it was in Soviet Russia that one was not allowed to travel without travel papers, and that had secret prisons, sanctioned torture, and had secret police and secret laws, and no habeas corpus.

Modern America, by contrast, only requires travel papers for travelling by automobile, ferry, train, or plane, or when crossing any checkpoints, has secret prisons (but gets embarrassed when they're discovered, and has to move them), sanctions using torture as long as weasel words are used in documents, has only semi-secret police, and has -- as far as we know - only a few secret laws so far (mostly involving DHS and TSA). Also, the US has habeas corpus, unless the someone on the police/army end of the operatoin is willing to say "terrorist", in which case it doesn't have habeas corpus any longer.

The difference is... I guess an exercise for the reader.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine I asked you if your life in the USA was perfect and you say no. I retort that "well you have it better than the chinese, or jews in the holocaust, so buck up." Would that magically make everything wrong with life in the states go away? This kindof "be thankful for what you have left" response is what will bring all the nations down to the lowest common denominator.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[arodland]

Flying is not a right. You are free to take the bus, train or drive. Bullshit. That's no argument. One, you understand nothing about rights whatsoever. Two, you have exactly as much right to fly as to walk, drive, or take a bus. You don't have the right to demand that transportation be provided you, but you should have the right to contract with a third party for carriage without mandated screenings, "no-fly lists", or identity documents. The carriers themselves are perfectly capable of providing for safety, and they would have an interest in actually getting it right that the government doesn't possess.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[meimeiriver]

Like it or not, you ARE living in a police state! Derision and scoffing on your part won't change that.

Truth is, your media is government controlled.

Truth is, illegal wire-taps are becoming institutionalized. Internet traffic, international phone-calls, you lost all your privacy over it.

Truth is, under the guise of a terrorist threat, you can be seized, held, and prosecuted completely outside the Court system.

Just because you can make a lot of money, or can go to McDonalds, doesn't mean you're not living in a police state. That's what makes your level of ignorance so obscene: you blind yourself to only wanting to see blatant, outward markings of the 'old-style' iron curtain kinda police state. And thus you fool yourself into believing that as long as you don't see it happen, or it doesn't immediately affect you, that therefore it isn't occurring.

You need to wake up, dude!

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Monsuco]

admit that the direction the US is heading towards isn't exactly anti-police state either.

The US was far closer to "police state" status during WWII, mail was censored, there was massive monitoring of civilians, secret spying on people, etc. Post WWII the rights returned. Then the Red Scare put us closer to police state with political witch hunts by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Then after that ended we saw the return of rights. 9/11 brought us closer, but notice how the PATRIOT Act and many of these other "police state" laws have expiration dates? Things will go back to normal as they always have.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[KKlaus]

One aspect of our border security, however, is unprecedented in recent history. As an entirely law abiding citizen, you could in theory say or do the wrong thing, and if it related to terrorism, be made to disappear. You could be sent to Guantanamo, which remains a legal black hole, and without being charged with anything or given the opportunity to speak with a lawyer (or anybody else), be removed from the U.S. and sent to a prison where you are almost entirely at the mercy of the Executive branch.

You're right to point out that the U.S. is still, when taken in it's entirety, about as far away from a police state as any nation on the planet. But the other commenter is right to point out (although he overstates his case) that in several specific areas of our nation buds of totalitarianism are growing. The disappearance of law abiding citizens for uncertain reasons seems to still exist almost entirely in the realm of the hypothetical, but the fact that the possibility exists at all is something to be extremely concerned about.

The startings of fascism, or any other type of totalitarian government, are not the sort of thing one wants to wait any length of time to stamp out. The existence of a place like Guantanamo is extremely dangerous, and it's a place that needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Starcom8826]

No, he's absolutely right, and you're absolutely wrong. I fly fairly regularly and last crossed the border two weeks ago. The only people asking me where I was going and when I planned on being back was the Canadian border control. Not that that's bad either, because nations do that at their border anyways. It's not a special trait of a police state. All I had to present on my way back was my passport, which again usually happens on international borders.

Believing in something that doesn't reflect reality is not 'opening your eyes.' It's being delusional.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Thanks a lot for those links. The second one is undoubtedly the best link I've ever clicked.

On the first link: I've only ever read The Beauty Myth by Wolf, which I thought was pretty good, and am now interested in what else she's written. There were some fairly profound insights in her article. It made me remember a line from some minor radical in the eighties (maybe an Earth First member): "The only reason they don't have martial law in this country is they don't think they need it yet." (I think that's the line, though ICBATG.)

Re:And the beat goes on.

[evought]

There are no laws to quote. Flying is not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is eating, sleeping, or playing music. The Constitution was based on a legal system where powers are explicitly granted to the State and rights are reserved to the People. This is made explicit in the 10th Amendment. If flying is not mentioned, it is a Right.

Are we as bad as Soviet era Russia? No. As Iraq? No. As any number of 3rd world countries? No. As Nazi Germany? No.

In some ways, though, we are worse than the Soviets. I heard an ex-Russian national (granted asylum some time ago) comment that visibly marking on a plane ticket that you are considered untrustworthy is something that was and would never have been done in Soviet Russia, for instance. Foreign nationals were generally treated with much greater respect under the Soviets (within certain bounds). He made several other similar comments, but I don't recall them off-hand. There are places where we are even more brazen about distrusting and categorizing our citizens than they were (and places where we are still much better).

Are we as bad as Germany in the (early) '30s? Yes. Reading, e.g. some of Bonhoeffer's writings is strikingly apt. The level of distrust in many places, the slow accretion of government power, all of the rhetoric about having to defend ourselves, defend our honor, get revenge, the hate of Muslims mirrors some of it quite closely. The backlash against non-mainstream political opinions is also heading there. I was physically attacked (someone in a car, I was on the sidewalk) this last year for daring to hold a campaign sign and one of the others in our group was as well some time later. Our group has also suffered theft, vandalism, and harassment. (This just locally.) Treatment by the media was nearly obscene at points. And this is no where near as radical politics as during the Civil Rights Era, for instance: this type of reaction is now for fairly small divergences from the mainstream. So your joke about being harassed for Obama literature is not far off. The problem with most descents into darkness is it is not *just* the government. It is a general change in society as well that makes it easier for the government to do what it does. That is the real enemy and needs to be stopped before it gains momentum.

"Free Speech Zones"? Being tazed for being annoying at political events? For not being able to produce ID at a library? Knock-less warrants with full SWAT teams to deliver a summons? Large-scale crowd suppression devices being developed/deployed with local law enforcement? Don't tell me we shouldn't be concerned. How long should we wait to worry? In the electronics age, a police state does not *need* to be as visible to be effective.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Atario]

I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today.

Sorry to hear that. I had to pass through an armed checkpoint on the way home from work last year. They were stopping every car and asking about alcohol.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[10Ghz]

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

So, your definition of a "police state" is one that has checkpoints where they keep tabs on the goingabouts of the citizens? If a country does not have those, then it's not a "police state"?

I would say that your definition is an extremely narrow definition. Maybe those checkpoints are no longer needed, because technology has replaced it? They could monitor people with surveillance-cameras, cell-phone triangulation, snooping of their emails and phone-calls... Technology has allowed them to retire jackboots and checkpoints, while maintaining control.

The thing with checkpoints is that for years we have been educated that those (among other things) are a sign of oppressive regime. So we are on the lookout for those. If se see them, we become suspicious and alert. So they got rid of them. you might be living in a police-state, and you do not know it. And even if you did, you might not care, since there's good entertainment on TV.

I would say that the fact that US Government illegally snooped on their own citizens with the help of the Telcos is one good indicator that you ARE living in a police-state. Seriously, that's something similar to what Stasi did in East-Germany!

Re:And the beat goes on.

[gr8scot]

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state. Because searches occur electronically, go undetected, and do not require you to stop what you're doing or have any clue that they occurred, does not imply that your rights are any less violated when they occur. They're just sneakier. The method of an illegal search or seizure does not diminish its illegality one bit. "Police state" is not an exaggeration. I hope Europeans will continue to not visit the United States. It should be boycotted until it begins to recognize that privacy is a human right, fully included in the rights to property and pursuit of happiness.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[illumin8]

I know! I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today. Two of them searched my trunk... and I don't mean the hatch-back of my car, if you catch my drift. Don't even get me started about the "secret police" that searched my house this morning at 3:00am looking for Obama literature. Thank God I got rid of that! Oh, and I expect I'll get to meet you in the reeducation camp later this week. We all know that you are not allowed to post stuff like that in a police state. /sarc off

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

No, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. We don't need to search your car or stop you at checkpoints any more because people telecommute to work and all of our data is being sniffed directly from the internet backbone.

Who needs to do a physical search any more when our lives are increasingly digital, and all of our personal data is online?

If you're not totally pissed off then you're just not paying attention to what is really going on.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[pimpimpim]

Yes, but they got back to normal because the people and their representatives kept accepting the bullshit some legislators where thinking out? Most likely not! "Good night and Good luck" is a nice movie in that perspective, and I actually think that the chance that one of the big television stations would support a revolt like that nowadays is much much smaller.

So every step against these corrupt laws should be taken. Yes this is pure corruption. As you say: it worked in the past, so it will work again.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[WilliamSChips]

My physics teacher, from Windsor, Ontario, has had pretty much the exact reverse of your experience.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Neither is eating, sleeping, or playing music. The Constitution was based on a legal system where powers are explicitly granted to the State and rights are reserved to the People. This is made explicit in the 10th Amendment. If flying is not mentioned, it is a Right. By that logic, drinking and driving is a right. So is wife beating and murder. Of course, let's not forget speeding, driving down the wrong side of the road and child molestation. We could do this for hours.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[evought]

Neither is eating, sleeping, or playing music. The Constitution was based on a legal system where powers are explicitly granted to the State and rights are reserved to the People. This is made explicit in the 10th Amendment. If flying is not mentioned, it is a Right. By that logic, drinking and driving is a right. So is wife beating and murder. Of course, let's not forget speeding, driving down the wrong side of the road and child molestation. We could do this for hours. The main point was that not being mentioned does not mean that it is not a right. Some of the things you mention are defined in terms of common law: murder directly deprives someone of their Right to life the State acts to protect the individual. In many cases, it *is* in fact, unconstitutional to regulate the things you mention: the federal government may not set a drinking age or speed limit, that is why they use federal highway funds as a bludgeon to make individual states set their own limits in sync with federal desires. Same with No Child Gets Ahead and federal education funds.

Who voted for it?

[Raul654]

I checked Thomas, the US Library of Congress's website (and possibly the most badly organized website on the internet), and I couldn't find who voted for it. Anyone have a link?

Re:Who voted for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Re:Who voted for it?

[bconway]

Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up.

Re:Who voted for it?

[10e6Steve]

Is this it

To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

Re:Who voted for it?

[dominator]

Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up

Which is kinda aggravating, considering that you'd think she'd be in the area doing last-minute campaigning for today's 3 "Potomac Primaries"...

Re:Who voted for it?

[Red Flayer]

To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

That's a little confusing, since the meaning of "it" changes during your sentence. Obama voted to strike the immunity measure, McCain voted to keep the immunity measure, and Clinton was too busy kissing babies to vote.

Re:Who voted for it?

[afidel]

I love my Senator, Sherrod Brown. He gets it much more than just about anyone on the Hill. When he was in the House he was on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and he consistently voted for what I believe most slashdot folks would consider the side of geeks and the consumer. I now understand why some Senators get elected so many times, they really are in sync with their constituents.

Re:Who voted for it?

[Belial6]

"Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up."

That is because she is the candidate with experience. This is just part of her "Comprehensive Government Reform" agenda. Clearly she abstained from the vote as a way to show how she is going to change government, since voting against the telco immunity simply wasn't on the table.

Re:Who voted for it?

[yuriyg]

I now understand why some Senators get elected so many times, they really are in sync with their constituents. And the idea of representative democracy lives on! Although with bills like this, the democracy part is vanishing...

Re:Who voted for it?

[Lost Engineer]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Use tags next time jeesh.

since voting against the telco immunity simply wasn't on the table. This is exactly what they voted on.

Re:Who voted for it?

[Belial6]

Yes. Sarcasm.

Just because there was a vote called does not means that voting against corporate immunity was ever on table for Hillary Clinton.

Re:Who voted for it?

[Javit]

Even that seems a little confusing in the context of this story, with senators voting for not granting immunity.

What it comes down to is McCain supports telco immunity, Obama opposes it and Hillary did not vote.

Re:Who voted for it?

[iamwahoo2]

Actually, she was able to vote on the other amendments to the bill today. She simply chose not to vote on this. If she had voted 'no' on this it would have hurt her in the primary races where an overwhelming number of democrats do not favor immunity for telecoms. But since she is in the pocket of the telecoms, she cannot vote 'yes'.

Re:Who voted for it?

[kelnos]

NAYs ---67 (Give the telecoms immunity) To be fair, a vote of 'nay' for this amendment doesn't necessarily equate to 'give the telecoms immunity'. There are (or at least have been) other amendments on the table that dealt with this in a different way (e.g., allowing the cases to be heard by a secret FISA court). A senator who voted 'nay' on this particular amendment may have just preferred a different amendment.

Having said that, I'm pissed that only one of my senators (CA) voted 'yea' on this one. (And yes, I did write to both of them about this issue.)

Re:Who voted for it?

[eNygma-x]

I knew it!!! Obama should slam her arse on this! Now more than ever he has my vote!

Re:Who voted for it?

[Chris Burke]

Well yeah! As this poster pointed out, Clinton was too busy kissing babies.

That just shows what kind of candidate for change she is! While McCain and Obama were on Capitol Hill mucking around with Politics As Usual(tm), Clinton was out on the streets dealing with our debilitating unkissed baby problem!

No Child Left Unkissed! Clinton for Pres!

Re:Who voted for it?

[HappyEngineer]

Well that damn well ensures who I'll vote for in the election. Hillary was at times enticing due to her possible fiscal conservatism. I was cautiously against her due to her being part of a dynasty, but if she's not going to bother to vote against immunity then I say fuck her and her corrupt ways. I will absolutely never vote for anyone so corrupt. All honest politicians should be up in arms over the very idea of telecom immunity. Anyone who isn't is corrupt and should be removed from office.

I was going to write some more stuff about how they should be deported to Syria with cartoons of Mohammed stapled to their foreheads, but I wouldn't want to go overboard. Simply removing them from office is sufficient.

Re:Who voted for it?

[durdur]

I now understand why some Senators get elected so many times, they really are in sync with their constituents. Well, my senator, Senator Feinstein, has been elected many times, and she doesn't get it. She voted against the amendment (hence, for immunity), while our other senator, Boxer, voted for it. I'd sure like to get someone in Feinstein's seat who had some principles and a spine.

Semantics

[Brett Buck]

You keep using the word "illegal". I do not think you know what it means.

        Brett

Re:Semantics

[Red Flayer]

You keep misquoting Vincini. I do not think he said what you think he said.

Re:Semantics

[peas_n_carrots]

"illegal" in the vernacular means against the law. The wiretaps *were* illegal. If the bill passes, it may not be illegal in the future. That doesn't diminish the fact that it was and currently still is illegal.

Perhaps the better question would be to ask yourself if you know what illegal means.

Re:Semantics

[plague3106]

As in against the law, you know, violating the 4th Amendment.

Re:Semantics

[fredrated]

I may not know what 'illegal' means, but I know that if you have to pass a law to make it legal, then it was illegal.

Re:Semantics

[riceboy50]

Vicini didn't say it. It was Inigo Montoya who says "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:Semantics

[Red Flayer]

Vicini didn't say it. It was Inigo Montoya who says "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Oh, come on, please help me out here. That was a perfect setup, and you missed it. :)

You were supposed to write:

You keep misattributing that quote. I do not think it was said by who think it was said by.

Re:Semantics

[JoelKatz]

They were not unconstitutional, they were illegal. They were prohibited by FISA. Otherwise, a reasonable argument could be made that the President has the authority to authorize the wiretaps.

Don't I feel suckered

[bconway]

I helped vote in this Democratic congress under the belief they would change things, and the best they could do was come up with 31 votes? Business as usual, I guess.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[ShinmaWa]

Our new fucking Missouri senator, McCaskill, whom I voted for so that there would be one fewer Bush lapdog in Congress, voted against telecom immunity. Such a pity that political assassinations are frowned upon. So you are for telecom immunity? I don't get it.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Workaphobia]

It's statements like that that give you the illusion of power (and thus responsibility) via voting. Don't let the mechanisms of the system confuse into thinking that your decision over a minuscule set of options (often representable with a single bit) would make or break any particular event in history. To do so encourages complacency with the system, or at least with your level of participation in it.

Translation: Look for other areas in which to make a difference, besides voting in very large elections.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[jez9999]

Don't let the mechanisms of the system confuse into thinking that your decision over a minuscule set of options (often representable with a single bit)

I think a bit might be overkill.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[magus_melchior]

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: What makes you think that a Democrat is any less likely to wiretap without warrants (among other abuses) as the current administration, given that they'll do as much as possible to put a Dem in the White House?

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[NMerriam]

What makes you think that a Democrat is any less likely to wiretap without warrants (among other abuses) as the current administration, given that they'll do as much as possible to put a Dem in the White House?

because the Dems are out of power right now, so letting the White House twist in the wind as court cases dig up dirty activities only makes them look better by comparison? It's not like it does the White House any good to veto a FISA bill, it only makes their own job harder (assuming they follow the law, which of course is a big assumption).

At least, that's the idea behind our adversarial system of court/government/markets -- that what is bad for my rival is good for me, and in the end all sides keep each other in check.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Lockejaw]

What makes you think that a Democrat is any less likely to wiretap without warrants

Probably the fact that less than 90% of the Democrats voted in favor this.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Bartab]

If your Senator switched from Republican to Democrat, then what you really did was vote in a "Blue Dog" Democrat. If your Senator didn't switch then you didn't help vote in change anyways.

There is one single distinguishing characteristic between a Blue Dog Democrat and a Centrist (non religious) Republican: One has a D in front of their state, and the other has a R. They're all anti-gun restrictions, all pro-abortion in limited quantities, and like every other politician on the planet more interested in who funds them than who votes for them.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Bartab]

because the Dems are out of power right now

Hi! Welcome to 2008! We understand you've been sleeping since 2004, so some level of confusion on your part is to be expected!

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Bartab]

Numbers.
Check.
Please.
Thanks.

There are 51 Democrats in the Senate. 17 voted against this amendment (meaning they voted for telecom immunity).

90% of what now didn't vote for what?

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[NMerriam]

Hi! Welcome to 2008! We understand you've been sleeping since 2004, so some level of confusion on your part is to be expected!

Are you under the impression that GW Bush is no longer the President? That doesn't happen until Jan 2009. The Dems may have a slim majority in Congress, but Congress has nothing to do with any of the FISA/eavesdropping/intelligence controversies, so they certainly don't get a black eye by letting bad news come out. All of the illegal activities in question were instigated and encouraged by the Executive branch.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Bartab]

Someday you'll attend high school and learn that Congress performs legislative functions, such as passing laws. Thus to claim that the single controller of both houses of Congress is powerless is to be in error.

For example, a Democratically controlled congress is about to give retroactive immunity to telecom companies.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[NMerriam]

Thanks for the lesson on something that has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.

Did you know that the fastest land animal is the cheetah?

Neither cheetahs nor a Democratically controlled Congress have anything to do with the Executive breaking the law, there's certainly no incentive for a Democratic Congress to want to support a rival party abusing the power of the Executive, which is, after all, the question I was answering.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Lockejaw]

There are 51 Democrats in the Senate. 17 voted against this amendment (meaning they voted for telecom immunity). 90% of what now didn't vote for what?

I said that less than 90% voted for telecom immunity. Since 17 is less than 45, it seems I am correct.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Omniskio]

Well then, next time around you can:

1. Vote Republican and get that warm and fuzzy feeling of triumphant complicity, or
2. Vote Tinypowerlessparty and get that sinking feeling of complete irrelevancy.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Dread_ed]

Its sad when my psychotic ramblings are proven true time and again. It's like everyone in the whole world has gone crazy. The greatest example being our representatives in our current congress.

Just observe and take notes. Over time patterns emerge that are hard to reconcile with the self-stated goals and ideals of the elected. Constant bickering and outright vituperation seems to dominate the relations between "our" two parties. Wedge issues are thrown around, stirring the masses and polarizing the people, aligning them behind their favorite flavor of politician. Yet, when civil rights are under seige or hanging in the balance you can rely on one thing and one thing only. BOTH parties will vote TOGETHER in a manner that betrays the people who elected them, their oath of office, and the constitution itself.

Re:Don't I feel suckered

[Magius_AR]

he Dems may have a slim majority in Congress, but Congress has nothing to do with any of the FISA/eavesdropping/intelligence controversies ... Neither cheetahs nor a Democratically controlled Congress have anything to do with the Executive breaking the law

Huh? What parallel universe do you live in? The Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (judges) branches act as checks on the Executive branch. By passing a law that gives retroactive immunity to telecoms, the Legislative branch (DEMOCRAT-led) is essentially saying they condone and approve of the illegal wiretapping acts of the Executive branch. That law could not have been passed by the Executive branch alone, and if it had not been passed, people would have been held liable. If the president is overstepping his bounds, it's the job of Congress to set him straight. You don't do this by blissfully rubbing stamping his oversteps of the law.

lets hope the house has a pair

[weopenlatest]

...cause we clearly cannot rely on our Senators to protect our constitutional rights, at least when there's good money pushing against those rights. It's not a law yet though, the house has to sign off too.

Which scum voted for this?

[KublaiKhan]

Where's the list, so I can see if my congresscritters were associated with this debacle?

Presidential Candidates Votes

[vitaflo]

In case you're curious of how the respective candidates for president voted on the amendment to block retroactive immunity:

McCain: No
Obama: Yes
Clinton: Did not vote

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[KublaiKhan]

Well, I guess I have to support Obama. Clinton doesn't have the stones, and McCain's actively antithetical to a free society.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[KublaiKhan]

If I read correctly, Obama voted for the amendment that would let people hold the telcos accountable. Clinton did not vote, and McCain voted to let the telcos get away scot-free.

So no, I do not support wiretapping without a warrant.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[evil agent]

Clinton: Did not vote

Hillary has been going on and on about the number of times Obama did not vote when he was in the Illinois Senate. Hopefully he'll use this as ammunition.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[kextyn]

I think you misunderstood. Try reading the GP again. Obama doesn't want them to have retroactive immunity.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[kithrup]

I think you're confused -- a "yes" vote was to amend the proposed bill to strip out retroactive immunity for the telcos. So Obama voted to uphold the rule of law, while McCain voted to allow the law to be broken without penalty. And Hillary didn't vote at all.

My apologies if I misunderstood your comment.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[dkleinsc]

You're reading the votes backwards. A Yes vote means that the immunity is removed from the bill, a No vote means it stays in.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[UdoKeir]

I suspect she did this deliberately. She can now still claim to be "tough" on terrorism and pro-freedom.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[ArcherB]

So let me get this straight, you think warrantless wiretapping is a good thing? I think that punishing the telco's for it is a BAD thing. It's not the jobs of the Telco's to protect your rights. That falls to the government. If the government fails, you call on your first amendment rights. If that fails, you move down to the second amendment. If you don't have the stones to do that, then you don't deserve any of your rights at all.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Telco's do not need to protect my rights. They only need to obey that law, which they didn't do and like everyone else, they should face the consequences of there actions.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Svartalf]

In a typical amount of political weasel-speak, they worded the motion in such a way you had to re-read it at least once to parse
precisely what they intended to do.

It was worded to STRIKE the immunity provision. A Yea vote was one where they were to hold the telcos accountable for
civil violations of the law with regards to FISA. A No vote was to give the telcos a get out of jail free card.

McCain voted to give them a free out.

Clinton didn't bother to vote.

Obama voted to keep them accountable for their illicit activities. (Which, unfortunately, would be an accurate appraisal of the telcos' position right now...)

I suspect Obama, even if he wanted to give them a way out, just bought himself quite a bit of street cred with
a LOT of people if there's something of a big deal made about this.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Jaysyn]

Hey, thanks for correcting me without being a dick!

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Jaysyn]

Doh, yeah, I read it wrong, alright. Go Obama.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[elrous0]

I've been a Democrat my whole life. But I would rather eat glass than vote for that fake, opportunist bitch in the Fall. If I can't have Obama, I'd rather have McCain.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Scudsucker]

I think that punishing the telco's for it is a BAD thing.

So, by necessity, you must also think that letting corporations get away with massive lawbreaking is a GOOD thing? AT&T's market cap is nearly 230 billion dollars! That a company that rich should get away with breaking the law is asinine, pure and simple.

The only thing worse than giving telecoms immunity over warrantless wiretapping is failing to impeach Bush and Cheney for starting it in the first place. Which they did before 911.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Lost Engineer]

Of course she did it deliberately. The only way you could make her any worse on civil liberties is if you changed her name to Bush.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[moeinvt]

"I think that punishing the telco's for it is a BAD thing. It's not the jobs of the Telco's to protect your rights."

No, but it's their job to abide by the terms of the privacy agreements they have with their customers.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[ArcherB]

Correct. Telco's do not need to protect my rights. They only need to obey that law, which they didn't do and like everyone else, they should face the consequences of there actions. What law did the Telco's break? Again, they are not legally obligated to protect your rights.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[evil agent]

If I can't have Obama, I'd rather have McCain.

I cringe every time I hear people say that. As much as I don't like Hillary, I'll still take her over any Republican.

Wait...that caused me to cringe, too.

*hopes for Obama nomination*

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Chris Burke]

Privacy and wiretap laws.

It is illegal for the telcos to tap phone lines, and the only exception is when the government shows them a warrant or has probable cause. Essentially, if the government did not have a legal warrant, or probable cause with which to attain a warrant after the fact, then the telcos tapping was also illegal.

TFA even specifies this, not that I would point fingers at anyone for not reading it. ;)

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[iamwahoo2]

They broke existing laws that say essentially that they cannot eavesdrop on their customers and they cannot allow anyone else to eavesdrop on their customers without a search warrant. The FCC is supposed to enforce this law. Under President Bush's supervision, they had chosen to ignore these laws.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[NMerriam]

What law did the Telco's break? Again, they are not legally obligated to protect your rights.

Nobody is suing them for not protecting their rights. They're suing them for actively violating their rights. There's a pretty big difference between just not stopping someone else from breaking the law, and you yourself engaging in a criminal conspiracy to violate numerous laws.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[nuzak]

> AT&T's market cap is nearly 230 billion dollars!

And thus they are everything that's Good And Right About America, and doing anything that might perturb such a big corporation simply Is Not Done.

I mean seriously, they don't even have to contribute campaign money, politicians simply genuflect in the direction of money. Anything at all that might uphold a particular value over the profits of a corporation "might hurt the economy" and is simply not even considered.

We may still be the richest nation on earth, but we are deeply deeply impoverished.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[kharchenko]

Not a single Republican senator voted for the amendment. Not A SIGNLE one. I swear it seems to me that these people would sell their mother before breaking away from the cabal. And nothing like passing an law that forgives your own fuckups. Way to go, esteemed senators!

I wonder .. can another congress just as well revoke the immunity in a subsequent vote? Or is that a no-no (as opposed to breaking the law in a first place) ?

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[jafac]

This should be a CLEAR example to anyone who is frustrated that there is no difference between the candidates:

Clinton will campaign on change, and then bow-out when it counts. Her record has shown this very consistently.

McCain will campaign on "straight talk" - and then go and do what he thinks is the right thing (Protect America!) for the wrong reasons (Telecom Money in his Pocket!).

Obama will fight on principle, even if he knows he will lose - even if it is likely that his opponents can use his vote to politically damage him (See?! He voted for TERRORISM!).

In the end: Which one gets elected President - I guarantee you, will not make one damn bit of difference.
Nobody can fix this busted-ass country.

But which one you vote for will make all the difference in the world.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Anonymous Coward]

What law did the Telco's break?

Nothing, so there's no need to give them immunity lol m i rite?

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[geminidomino]

Amen... if it ends up with the clown on the left and the joker on the right, I'm just staying home.
The last thing this country needs is another two-faced, power-hungry, evil old white man in charge.

And McCain's no better choice, either.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[gr8scot]

(Obama has missed more votes than Clinton, so I guess she has more "stones" than he does in Washington) That depends very much on which votes they missed, landslides or close calls. I suspect your analysis is flawed, but I am unaware of sources that report the data conveniently to refute you; my guess is based mostly on Clinton having a greasy, insincere look, and Obama looking more serious at the appropriate times. He seems like somebody who would show up and vote when it matters, and not bother unnecessarily with done-deals and lost causes. Hillary, on the other hand, wants her name attached to as many pieces of shit that "win" as possible.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[cuantar]

I'm pretty sure they're not even allowed to grant retroactive immunity in the first place. Citizens can't be tried for an infraction that was only made illegal after the fact. Why should telecoms be allowed to break the law and get away with it because the crime was made legal after the fact?

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[wilec]

Obama just made serious points with me.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Taxation without representation

[Captain Splendid]

Didn't the US just fight a big fucking war with the English a couple hundred years ago along the same lines?

I'm serious. I know all of you are paying taxes, and shit like this sure as hell means the common guys isn't represented. Time for a few tea parties, methinks.

Re:Taxation without representation

[StaticEngine]

We should all dump our cellphones in the nearest body of water?

That happens anyway every summer here in Seattle. We call it SeaFair.

Re:Taxation without representation

[Nimey]

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

Re:Taxation without representation

[bendodge]

No, you should elect Ron Paul.

Re:Taxation without representation

[WilliamSChips]

Isn't that the guy who voted to block the Supreme Court from hearing 1st Amendment Cases? (Before you give me bullshit about the states let me remind you that many of the cases that gave people free speech were against states...)

Re:Taxation without representation

[boyfaceddog]

Sir, please remain where you are. Officers will be along shortly to "question" you.

Are you not paying *ANY* attention to this story?

Re:Taxation without representation

[dbIII]

I know all of you are paying taxes

Hollywood and most of the media lobby isn't.

Re:Taxation without representation

[Deadplant]

1) Soap: Done.
2) ballot: Done. (we re-elected them? wtf?)
3) jury: Justice depertment refuses to prosecute, federal judges have been deemed not trustworthy enough to consider cases which involve national security (as defined by the suspects). They are now granting retroactive immunity to their contractors.

Re:Taxation without representation

[Fjandr]

We can only hope the implosion of the empire comes sooner rather than later.

Re:Taxation without representation

[Lost Engineer]

Good job mods. Anyone who says anything against Ron Paul is most definitely trolling.

Re:Taxation without representation

[Lost Engineer]

The original was illegal too. If John no-freedom-for-you McCain survives long enough to see common sense return to this country, I vote we banish him to the other side of his border fence.

Re:Taxation without representation

[frank_adrian314159]

No, you should elect Ron Paul.

Yes! I agree! All you Republicans go out and vote for Ron Paul! Especially in the general election! That will show the establishment that they can't kick you around any more!

Re:Taxation without representation

[evil_aar0n]

I'm thinking of starting a new club. I'm toying with the idea of calling it, "Sons of Liberty." Our motto will be, "Give me liberty, or give me death." And our rationale will go something like, "The Tree of Liberty, from time to time, must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

What? It's been done? Looks like we're just about on time for a reprisal.

So, who's with me? Or is this another one of those, "Oh, we're afraid to go with you, Bluto. We might get in trouble."

Re:Taxation without representation

[geminidomino]

Hmm. With this speed, I think they'll be catching on 20 years late. Well, six years to go. What was supposed to happen in 1994? Wasn't the whole Skynet thing 1996?

Re:Taxation without representation

[geminidomino]

This will also be an obvious ex post facto law... IANACA, but I think that the prohibition on ex post facto prosecution only works the other way around. If something wasn't a crime when you did it, but is now, then you can't be charged with it.

Just to be clear...

[Paladin144]

Votes in favor of the Rule of Law: 31

Votes in favor of Oligarchical Corporatism: 67

It's ironic that democracy can be voted away so quickly and easily.

Re:Just to be clear...

[bonkeydcow]

Ina democracy they can't, in a republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic they can.

Re:Just to be clear...

[Paladin144]

Actually, the idea behind representational constitutional republicanism was to make it harder for this sort of thing to happen. The idea was that the mob would be easier to manipulate than a few respected individuals. In practice, both groups are easily manipulated.

Re:Just to be clear...

[Shakrai]

The idea was that the mob would be easier to manipulate than a few respected individuals. In practice, both groups are easily manipulated.

It might have worked better if Senators weren't directly accountable to the "mob" as was originally intended before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Re:Just to be clear...

[Captain Splendid]

It might have worked better if Senators weren't directly accountable to the "mob" as was originally intended before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Fuck me that's funny. Are you saying Senators are actually accountable to their electorate now? You're not going to convince anyone here...

Re:Just to be clear...

[terrymr]

For Gods sake, how many times ?

A republic is not the opposite of a democracy. A republic is governed by the people rather than a monarch.

Re:Just to be clear...

[WilliamSChips]

The Seventeenth Amendment was passed because before it was the mafia-type families running the Senate.

Re:Just to be clear...

[geminidomino]

The Seventeenth Amendment was passed because before it was the mafia-type families running the Senate. Now they just run the white house

Re:Just to be clear...

[WilliamSChips]

Incidentially, the electoral college.

Glimmer of hope

[techpawn]

The provision was not in the house passed bill. So, it has to go to committee for compromise. If we're lucky this can be killed there, and the final bill will be vetoed. They're on the radar of everyone and know what they do shines on their candidate now more than ever. So, who knows they may do what their constituents want.

But, my pockets aren't as deep as brother bells... So, I'm not betting on it

According to the article

[91degrees]

Sen Bond said "permitting lawsuits against the companies would ... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."

Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*

*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"

Re:According to the article

[HangingChad]

"permitting lawsuits against the companies would ... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."

Damn right, that's the whole point. Telecoms have been doing wiretaps for decades, they know the law. They knew what they were doing at the time and they knew it was on shaky legal ground.

We want companies to be discouraged from cooperating with the government, particularly when the government is breaking the law. Right wingers make me sick. Why aren't Hannity, Coulter and WindBag tearing up the airwaves with indignation? Not a peep out of any of you hypocrites. This borders on a domestic crime against the Constitution and you just hum right along, no big deal. If we had any collective nads we'd hang anyone supporting this legislation.

Re:According to the article

[Lost Engineer]

Tapping communications that pass through USA routers/switches that originate and terminate outside the USA is not *illegal*. Then why do they need retroactive immunity?

They still have to get a rubber stamp for domestic tapping. There fixed it for ya.

Re:According to the article

[NMerriam]

They still have to get FISA approval for domestic tapping.

Yes, they do. And they didn't. That's the whole point of granting them immunity -- if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't need immunity. QED. I think the cake is all yours.

Re:According to the article

[ignavus]

'*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"'

I think you have understated the number of e's in that word.

Re:According to the article

[91degrees]

Ooops. Not sure what understatment would be. Perhaps sending a low level character on a raid with lots of high level characters in an MMO.

Fascism

[zakkie]

"... fascism begins to manifest itself at the point when corporate interests highjack [sic] the operations of the government."

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:klKPDRdc2jwJ:www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18890.htm+fascism+government+corporate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

Clearly here, correct lawmaking is taking a back seat to business interests. It's not the first, nor will it be the last, but it is certainly no less shocking for that.

info request

[Tom]

Why are retroactive laws even possible in the US system? I'm really wondering about that. Where I come from, the laws at the time of your action count, both for and against you.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Re:info request

[plague3106]

Not quite. If a law is rule unconstitutional, it is null and void. In the eyes of our Constitution, the law never existed to begin with.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.

More and more I think I may vote for Ron Paul, even if he's inconsistent.

Re:info request

[Shados]

Thats the question I have too. If you can make anything retroactive, then you have absolutely zero protection against any kind of government corruption.... they can always screw you over after the fact... that doesn't make any sense.

Can someone explain to me if this is a weird special case, or if its normal??

Re:info request

[91degrees]

Retroactive laws aren't always a bad thing in cases where they forgive crimes. It's possible that according to a strict interpretation of a law, someone is guilty, but according to any reasonable moral standards, they didn't actually do anything wrong. Jury nullification is a possibility, but there's no good reason to rely on a single mechanism.

Not that I'm saying that the Telcos did nothing wrong. Just that conceptually there's a good reason that such retroactive laws are possible.

Re:info request

[jollyreaper]

Why are retroactive laws even possible in the US system? I'm really wondering about that. Where I come from, the laws at the time of your action count, both for and against you.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it? Good question. Ex post facto laws are illegal. I can't pass a law on Monday that makes what you did on Sunday illegal and prosecute you for it on Tuesday. That goes against everything we stand for, rule of law and all that. So it would seem logical that I cannot pass a law to make something illegal you did legal. If the courts strike down a law, a sentence would be automatically commuted. Is this bill going to make spying legal for all perpetuity? If so, then I guess this is "legal," as in a criminal abuse of the law. How did rum runners doing time fare when Prohibition was repealed? Were they released or still held on related charges? "Good news, you're no longer in jail for bringing in booze. Now you're just in jail for whacking your competition."

Re:info request

[Grandiloquence]

No, retroactive prosecution is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Retroactive immunity, however, is not.

Re:info request

[gstoddart]

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

I expect to see that within the next 5-10 years, max.

The US really has started slipping into a hole, and won't be digging out of it any time soon.

Cheers

Re:info request

[erroneus]

Yes. Ron Paul. As far as I can tell, he's not in anyone's pocket. He may come across as a crack-pot, but the reality is that he's as sincere about his convictions as can be imagined. Even if he's elected (and while it would be wonderful, I doubt he will be) I doubt he would be able to make any effective changes... in fact, the best we could hope for is that he blocks as many corrupt, corporate-sponsored bills as possible... the best we could hope for would be for him to prevent too much further damage. What we need is a bunch more "Ron Pauls" in the house and senate and to clear house in the judiciary.

Re:info request

[krlynch]

Many types of laws can be made retroactive, but not all. The U.S. Constitution says (Article I, Section 9)

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply "only to penal and criminal legislation and not to civil laws that affect private rights adversely." (see next link) This prevents criminalizing activities that were not criminal when they occurred, or increasing the penalty after commission of the crime, or getting in through the back door by calling a change in punishment a change in "procedure". (Cornell has a good discussion here and here in their annotated Constitution).

But there isn't a restrictions against reducing or eliminating liability for criminal activity after the fact. For instance, if a criminal defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, and the Congress subsequently outlaws capital punishment, the death sentence is reduced in accordance with the new law. If they change their mind and reinstate the death penalty, the hypothetical criminal defendant is not eligible for an increase in his sentence. In particular, it is well established that Congress can pass laws in gray areas to clearly specify that something isn't criminal, even after convictions based on the old law, or to eliminate even very broad classes of liability after the commission of the offending action.

In this case, there is a claim of criminal activity that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute because it does not believe it was illegal. The plaintiffs have chosen to pursue civil cases on a theory of civil liability for those actions, based on Federal law. Congress may choose clarify (or eliminate, depending on your point of view) the law to state that the given behavior was not a crime. In this case, it clearly does not run afoul of Congressional power to do so. If that happens, there is no longer even a colorable argument that the plaintiffs have been been harmed, so the cases will be dismissed.

Re:info request

[sexybomber]

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

That would be an ex post facto law. The Constitution prohibits those pretty strongly and unambiguously.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Period.

Re:info request

[radtea]

Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.

The Constitution also expressly forbids making any law that limits Habeas Corpus except in time of insurrection or invasion, but that didn't stop the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in, but it is very clear that neither the legislative nor the executive branch of the government of the United States of America has any intention of letting the Constitution limit the rules they make. I can't call them laws, because only the Constitution authorizes federal law-making, and any government branch that no longer acknowledges the supreme authority of the Constitution has no authority to make laws. Ergo, what they make are not laws but rules, enforced by thugs.

Re:info request

[ZombieRoboNinja]

They're not. Ex-post-facto laws are explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. But the Supreme Court hasn't always held up this restriction, and since it's primarily intended to prevent after-the-fact punishment, after-the-fact immunity might be considered okay, especially by an extremely biased Supreme Court like the one we have now.

Re:info request

[mikebelrose]

Not quite. If a law is rule unconstitutional, it is null and void. In the eyes of our Constitution, the law never existed to begin with.

>What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.

The Constitution also forbids a lot of things, like Jim Crow laws and laws removing habeas corpus. Somehow they still make it onto the books.

Re:info request

[kelnos]

Retroactive laws aren't always a bad thing in cases where they forgive crimes. No, that's not the correct way of looking at this. If you want to create a law that makes something legal that was previously illegal, fine. That law itself does not affect the X number of people in jail for committing that illegal act in the past. If you want, then you can issue those X people pardons, but, depending on the circumstances, you may not want to.

Look at it the other way. Say you want to create a law that makes something illegal that was previously legal. Does that mean that everyone who had engaged in this previously-legal act (and, presumably, stopped once it was made illegal) should now be prosecuted for something they did, which, when they did it, was legal?

Retroactive laws are bad, mmkay? They're also expressly prohibited by the US Constitution, not that the current administration cares all that much about that.

Re:info request

[Dr. Donuts]

Making something legal retroactively isn't always a bad thing.

Sometimes the laws themselves are the crime, not the act itself. If there is a bad law on the books and someone is prosecuted for it, then if the law is changed retroactively those people who were wronged by such bad law can receive at least some measure of justice. The law itself may be legal and may pass judicial muster; however it may still be a bad law.

I don't think that is the case with the teleco immunity. The laws that existed before weren't bad; they were (at least in theory) protecting the rights of citizens to privacy from government intrusion. That's a good thing. Providing retroactive immunity for violating those laws clearly isn't in the best interest of society.

Corporations shouldn't be a backdoor for any government agency to do a run-around on the Constitution. Which is exactly what this is all about.

Ultimately, Congress and the President can pass any law they want but it still has to pass Judicial muster. Even if the law attempts to remove the ability of the Judicial branch to rule on the subject, the law itself still has to pass Constitutional muster. If a law grants immunity and seeks to block the Judicial branch from being able to rule on the law, the law itself still cannot violate the Constitution. For example, if Congress passed a law granting the government employees immunity from murder and saying the courts cannot rule on any such cases, the law would still be illegal.

Even if the law is passed, the law itself can still be challenged in court and stuck down if it is determined to be unconstitutional.

Re:info request

[Anonymous Cowpat]

what about retroactive revocation of retroactive immunity? It's not like your making something illegal that wasn't illegal when it happened, you're just taking away the get-out-of-jail-free-card which they weren't entitled to anyway.

Re:info request

[JustinKSU]

I was looking through the text of the bill and this was the closest thing I could find for "retroactive immunity"

(4) TRANSITION PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE TARGETING OF UNITED STATES PERSONS OVERSEAS- Any authorization in effect on the date of enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 under section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 to intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, to acquire the contents of a wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by that United States person, shall remain in effect, and shall constitute a sufficient basis for conducting such an acquisition of a United States person located outside the United States, until that authorization expires or 90 days after the date of enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, whichever is earlier.

The way I interpret was there was a way to request information but it might have gone beyond legal bounds in this case. However, this amendment would make it fall under the provisions of this bill and therefore be "OK".
I don't have a full understanding of the bill so don't quote me on this. It does, however, drive me crazy that things like citations don't matter in the news otherwise things like this would be easier to find and verify.

Link to section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110iwnvn6:e95348:

That comes later

[pkbarbiedoll]

We're enjoying the fruits of corptocracy today.

Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[RobBebop]

Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).

Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.

(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).

Re:Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[realsilly]

They would just yell Executive Priviledge and that would be the end of that too.

Re:Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[ScrewMaster]

Poor Ted Kennedy

I wouldn't call Ted Kennedy "poor", exactly.

Re:Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[RobBebop]

So, apparently my original post dealt with something called the "Protect America Act", which is different than the ongoing immunity for the telecoms due to illegal wiretapping. But it turns out that the "Protect America Act" is related (in the sense that it deals with the power of government to spy on people without court authority) and relevant (because they are currently talking about it in Congress to get it extended).

Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007
Dateline: August 7, 2007

The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas.

This Act of Congress made it legal to wiretap lines OUTSIDE of the US.

The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval.

Original vote of Aug 4, 2007

A recent vote extended the Protect America Act (originally intended to expire on Feb 1, 2008) to be good until the end of this current week.

Re:Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[wilec]

A lot of folks like to pick on Ted Kennedy. However if you care about issues of your civil rights and the living conditions of the poor and working folks you will find he has one the best voting records in the Senate. Of course his record is not perfect I for one would prefer he better support our 2nd amendment rights and quit doling out money to the storm troopers , excuse me I mean law enforcement. But he generally does not deserve the level of flack he gets. As for the State Of the Union propaganda, hell I gave my wife the remote about half way through Bush's bull and went off to read the stuff here on /. amazingly enough the bull here was no where as deep.

wabi-sabi
matthew

"You do have a conscience?" "No."

[jollyreaper]

I'm looking for video to confirm this quote. If it's real, this could be our "let them eat cake" moment here. (yeah, I know she never actually said it but the paresian mobs weren't into nitpicking at that point.)

Caught during the CSPAN coverage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2851202

  Microphone accidentally picks up two Senators joking:

"Let your conscience be your guide."

((laughter))

"You do have a conscience?"

((laughter))

"No."

((laughter))

Re:"You do have a conscience?" "No."

[nuzak]

No one cares any more. No one will care until we have 50% unemployment and people are burning dollars for fuel. And I'm not sure they'll care even then. Seriously. I think at long last we all deserve to just reap what we've sowed. I'm out of caring.

Re:"You do have a conscience?" "No."

[jollyreaper]

No one cares any more. No one will care until we have 50% unemployment and people are burning dollars for fuel. And I'm not sure they'll care even then. Seriously. I think at long last we all deserve to just reap what we've sowed. I'm out of caring. So, where are you planning on moving to avoid the fallout?

Nixon.

[headkase]

At least Nixon had the decency to deny he was a crook, these guys just grant themselves immunity. Of course, Bush has already redefined (CNN footage) the War Crimes act so he can't face a possible death penalty for the use of torture in the "war" (regret calling it that yet?) on terror.

What about the next president?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Even if the bill passes and becomes law, couldn't another bill be put through congress next year revoking the immunity?

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[Shakrai]

Also, how did Hillary "Yes, Tim, national security is more important than human rights" Clinton vote?

She didn't. Couldn't be bothered apparently. Interestingly enough both McCain and Obama found the time to vote. Here's the vote itself if you are wondering how your Senators voted on it.

At least my other Senator (Schemer) had the balls to vote against it. For all the good it did.

Re:does that really change your vote?

[drhamad]

Did you think /. was voting for Clinton in the first place?

Clinton abstained

[pkbarbiedoll]

She decided not to jeopardize her campaign and just didn't vote at all. Obama voted against immunity. Most "blue dog" democrats voted for immunity.

Re:Clinton abstained

[d34thm0nk3y]

She decided not to jeopardize her campaign and just didn't vote at all. Obama voted against immunity. Most "blue dog" democrats voted for immunity

Most Democrats (30/48=63%) voted against telecom immunity. Not that I am happy about the 18 who crossed the aisle but they aren't from my state.

Re:Clinton abstained

[kbielefe]

Oh, please. I hate Clinton as much as anyone, but making it to a vote is an exception rather than the rule when one is running for president. Missing a vote could be for any number of reasons, and you shouldn't read anything into it, especially on a vote that wasn't even close.

Re:just great

[MBGMorden]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

As linked in another post. Obama voted to strike the immunity clause from the bill.

NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.

Pardon me?

[HTH NE1]

Is the only reason why Bush cares so much that Congress grant this immunity instead of just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations?

Re:Pardon me?

[Shakrai]

just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.

Re:Pardon me?

[m.ducharme]

...that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws they themselves broke in the first place... There, fixed that for you.

Re:Pardon me?

[jellie]

I think you can't pardon a company, because a company would not go to jail or have a criminal record. The executives can receive criminal penalties, but as the sibling poster mentioned, many of the lawsuits are civil cases.

Furthermore, I think Bush's real reason is some sort of belief in his own infallibility. Though he makes a lot of grandiose statements about getting rid of lawmakers' earmarks or punishing members of his administration who have been convicted of a crime (see Libby), they are meaningless statements that go against everything he advocated. He never (intentionally) admits he made mistakes; you never hear him say anything about fabricating evidence for war, cutting funding for No Child Left Behind, etc. Bush knows he will never be prosecuted for telling telecoms to break the law, but he also does not want the public to know what he did do.

Re:Pardon me?

[gr8scot]

I think you can't pardon a company, because a company would not go to jail or have a criminal record. The executives can receive criminal penalties, but as the sibling poster mentioned, many of the lawsuits are civil cases. And they can never become criminal cases, if the evidence is can never be subpoenaed because the actions are covered by blanket immunity. Special legal protections for corporations are all terrible ideas.

Inaccurate Heading

[micahfk]

Once again, another /. mistake:

Senators voted 67 to 31 to shelve the amendment offered by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). They did not vote for the bill yet (that's to come soon though).

Re:Inaccurate Heading

[micahfk]

Something I forgot to mention:

Sometimes Congressmembers will vote for a bill in order to have it fail miserably later. Now, that may not be the case for this particular bill, but keep that in mind before various amendments fail, and keep the eye on the actual final vote for this awful bill.

Voting Record?

[nonsequitor]

Does anyone have the link for the results of the actual Senate vote? Since I wrote both my Senators about this issue, I would like to see whether or not my voice was actually heard for when I write a follow up letter.

Re:Voting Record?

[nonsequitor]

Found it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm
I guess someone posted it higher in the thread too. This link is to the index of all the recent votes.

Thats what happens...

[rezalas]

When the people you choose to represent your wishes only represent themselves. The rights of the people are easily lost when we ourselves become complacent over who we choose to protect them. I sat in my living room two weekends ago discussing a similar topic with my friends and I asked them "So, did you vote last year?" and the resounding reply was "No." Infact, the wife of my good friend David said she doesn't think it matters. This is the key problem really; everyone has an opinion but doesn't think it is worth voting over. Personally, I think if you don't vote then (sorry to be blunt) shut the hell up about it. Maybe if people who didn't vote were told to shut up or vote more often they would put in the time to earn the right to complain about what is done in the government.

You expected something different

[TXISDude]

From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that brings you MPAA/RIAA friendly legislation - whether college campuses need it or not. From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that has not been in an uproar over domestic spying in general. From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that has chosen not to get involved in electronic confiscation at our borders - warning to all, don't bring laptops, cell phones or PDAs into the US. The concept of getting corporate "cooperation" is more important than civil liberties or freedom. Remember that to those in power, freedom could be used to change things, and those in power do not want change. And speaking of change, is not the theme of the Obama campaign change? And yet, how did he vote . . . if this makes you wonder or surprises anyone, well I guess they have been sleeping for the last few decades.

Re:You expected something different

[dennypayne]

Obama voted to block the immunity, yet you seem to be implying otherwise...

Denny

Re:You expected something different

[TXISDude]

The key to a successful congressional career - vote one way on the amendment, the other way on the bill - that way you can say you were for all positions . . . The amendment to block immunity failed, and then the bill passed - if someone was against immunity, they could have voted no to the bill as well, bit then they couldn't have their cake and eat it too . . .

parsing our legal sytem

[d34thm0nk3y]

So let me get this straight, you think warrantless wiretapping is a good thing?

FYI: This amendment was to _block_ telecom immunity. Obama voted to block immunity, Clinton didn't vote and McCain (as well as every other republican) voted for immunity. This link was posted up the thread a bit. It lists who voted how.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jane Q. Public]

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

It doesn't get much clearer than that!

(For those of you who do not know legalese, "ex post facto" means "retroactive".

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jimithing DMB]

Right. Meaning that the this little retroactive immunity provision is a stupid political statement. The people with open suits now can simply appeal the dismissals (if they even occur at all) on these grounds and the cases will again proceed. Whether or not the cases are eventually ruled for or against the telecoms is another matter. My understanding of things is that the telecoms are claiming that they only actually spied on communications with at least one foreign endpoint even though the equipment necessarily has the ability to spy on any communications.

Remember that this is the Foreign Intelligence/Surveillance Act. If they did use it to spy on purely domestic communications without a warrant then they are probably guilty because they stepped outside the bounds of the law. Most of the cases though seem to be brought by people who were indeed having an international conversation so I think it may be difficult to win these cases against the telecoms.

Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Black Parrot]

It doesn't get much clearer than that! What makes you think one part of the Constitution would stop them when they're voting to ignore another part?

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Dachannien]

The Supreme Court has made a number of decisions regarding that clause that weaken it substantially. For example, sex offender registration for offenders whose offenses were committed before the registration law was passed are still required to register. Another situation involves misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, who can also be barred from possessing firearms even if their offense was committed before the law barring firearm possession was passed.

Additionally, civil matters are generally not protected by the ex post facto clause, as well as laws that decriminalize an offense.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Kjella]

While that's perfectly clear, the President by himself can grant a full pardon. So if Congress and the President sign a law that amounts to a pardon, I doubt you'll get very far in the court system. That's at least as far as criminal law is concerned, I don't know about civil law...

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[dominator]

Article 1, Section 9 really prohibits you from making something *illegal* and then prosecuting people for their past transgressions. It doesn't address the inverse.

Then there's Article 3, Section 2:

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

That is, Congress can prevent a case like this from ever being heard by the Federal Courts System. Which is precisely what they're attempting to do with this amendment.

Not that I like it, but them's the rules...

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Kjella]

Ok, so I'm double posting what should have been one comment, but I just found an earlier example:

Jimmy Carter

• Vietnam draft dodgers - amnesty issued in the form of a pardon

So it would hardly be the first time amnesty was granted that way either.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[dbIII]

Puts on a stong fake Texan accent - "It's just a goddam piece of paper!"

At least next year it should be back to being a constitutional Republic instead of some attempt at an absolute Monarchy.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[ShinmaWa]

The President can only pardon a criminal action. What we are talking about here is immunity from civil lawsuits.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Chris Burke]

Remember that this is the Foreign Intelligence/Surveillance Act. If they did use it to spy on purely domestic communications without a warrant then they are probably guilty because they stepped outside the bounds of the law.

I thought it was only purely foreign communications that were exempt from warrants, since otherwise there is at least one party in the U.S. who must be afforded their Constitutional rights. If there's a guy in Yemen talking to a guy in Topeka, you can't say that you're only spying on the guy from Yemen because you're necessarily listening to the guy from Topeka too.

That's the whole reason there's a FISA Court whose purpose is to issue warrants that fall under the auspices of the Act.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[NMerriam]

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

That is, Congress can prevent a case like this from ever being heard by the Federal Courts System.

That's not at all what the clause you're quoting means. The clause is only discussing whether the Supreme Court is an originating court or only a court of appeals for a given case. Congress cannot (short of amending the Constitution) say that the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever to review a case. They can decide which courts hear which cases to begin with, and only to a certain degree.

This was, ultimately, what Marbury v Madison was all about -- the SC said "we can't rule on this case, it has to go to a lower court first and then be appealed to us, we only have appellate jurisdiction".

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[krlynch]

Meaning that the this little retroactive immunity provision is a stupid political statement.

No, it isn't; as a number of people have noted, the "ex post facto" restriction does not apply in this case. It only applies when some activity is made criminally illegal that wasn't, or penalties are increased after a defendant committed a crime ... in the latter case, the defendant must be sentenced under the earlier, more lenient statute. It doesn't forbid lowering penalties (if a sentence exceeds the new, lower threshold, your sentence would be reduced), or to eliminating crimes (you would be freed if a crime you were convicted for was wiped off the books), or to civil cases of any kind.

This change to FISA would have the very real effect of barring any and all current and future suits for these particular activities (depending on the language of the act, of course), unless Congress later chooses to explicitly undo all these changes. The lawsuits being discussed here were brought under provisions of federal law that permit private actors to sue other private actors for being complicit with the government's violation of those laws (and I believe there are a bunch of caveats like "knowingly violated" and such that would have to be proven by the plaintiffs, but I don't know the details for sure). Congress can, if it so chooses, eliminate the language that allows these suits to proceed, or explicitly forbid these suits from proceeding. If the plaintiffs don't have statutory authority to sue, that's the ballgame, and the suits are over (well, it will drag on for a few weeks as the motions to dismiss are filed and responded to and ruled on, but basically the clock will run out quickly).

Contrary to popular belief in our litigious society, you really can't just sue anyone for anything you want and get to a trial, even if what you allege the defendant did was illegal ... there has to be justiciable issue, there has to be some sort of active conflict, you have to have standing and statutory authority to bring the case, etc. etc. etc. With clear language from Congress to the contrary, there's not much a court could do to sustain a suit brought under the updated FISA statute.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jimithing DMB]

If there's a guy in Yemen talking to a guy in Topeka, you can't say that you're only spying on the guy from Yemen because you're necessarily listening to the guy from Topeka too.

Indeed you cannot. You are necessarily spying on both parties for that one conversation. The argument is that one endpoint being foreign makes it a foreign conversation. This is basically in line with past foreign surveillance (e.g. during WWII before FISA existed at all) so the argument cannot be discounted outright.

Besides that, imagine the case of some mob front group getting their phones tapped. For the sake of argument, say they run a dry cleaning business or something. If I call to see if my clothes are ready I am necessarily being spied on without a warrant even though a warrant exists for the tap on the dry cleaning business's phone. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion means that no eavesdropping could ever occur because they would not only have to have a warrant to spy on the mob-run business but also for every person who ever called in to it.

There are other protections for the party who was spied on indirectly. Namely, that law enforcement cannot use those recordings in court unless they can show that you were part of the conspiracy to begin with in which case the warrant applied to you as well, they just didn't specifically know it at the time. But if you were talking about some unrelated activity, even a criminal one, they'd have a hard time doing this. They'd even have a hard time getting a warrant to tap your phone based on this conversation. What are they going to do? Go to a judge and say "Your honor, we inadvertently stumbled upon John Doe having a conversation about unrelated criminal activity because we were tapping John Q. Public's phone?" Even if the judge grants their tap on your phone, a halfway decent lawyer can get that tossed.

It's no different for warrantless wiretaps. They have a wiretap on the foreigner. They cannot use this wiretap against you. And actually it's even more stringent because even if you did involve yourself in it there is no way that they can come back and retroactively apply the warrant to you due to conspiracy because no warrant existed. So in that respect, it's really in their best interest to get that warrant especially if they think non-foreigners are involved in the conspiracy.

Reality is that the situation is not as dire as some would have you believe. One of these cases in particular was brought by a lawyer who was conversing with his client overseas. Someone in the government inadvertently leaked the document that detailed a wiretap was in place for his client. He's brought the case to the court making the legal argument that he was tapped but the reality is that he's being paid by his client and he's not trying to do some noble thing he's just trying to keep his client off the hook. It's standard operating procedure for a lawyer to use every means potentially possible to help his client.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jimithing DMB]

I stand corrected then. I probably should have phrased it as "If this is true, then that means ..."

Despite being fairly conservative I am against this retroactive immunity. Or perhaps it's because I'm fairly conservative that I'm against this retroactive immunity. GWB is not exactly a model conservative by any means.

If the wiretaps weren't illegal (and I am inclined to think they were legal) then there is no case. If the wiretaps were illegal then as you point out the phone companies still had to know it was illegal. Whether or not they are is still sort of up in the air. The President's lawyers are saying they are and were legal. So there are a lot of hurdles that these plaintiffs have to overcome already in order to successfully win their case.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Chris Burke]

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion means that no eavesdropping could ever occur because they would not only have to have a warrant to spy on the mob-run business but also for every person who ever called in to it.

No, because my argument is specifically about when Constitutional protections apply, and when wiretap is legal. When a judge issues a warrant for a wiretap on a business, they are fully aware of the other parties who may be tapped and have ruled that this is legal because they have taken into account all the protections you discuss.

I take it as given that when there is a court-issued warrant for a wiretap, that wiretap is legal. There are even laws about it that I don't agree with -- the roving wiretap law Clinton signed being a big one -- but nevertheless these are legal taps, at least by the minimal standards specified in the U.S. Constitution.

And when law enforcement doesn't comply with the law regarding a wiretap, there's more at stake than simply losing a conviction. They will be sued, sometimes even prosecuted. Because they broke the law.

It's no different for warrantless wiretaps.

Yes, it is, because there's no judicial review. And the law is quite clear that the only time a wiretap can be performed without a court order is when there is no substantial chance of listening in on a US person (meaning a citizen or alien lawfully in the country). Since the administration has admitted to listening in on U.S. citizens, and admitted that they did not acquire warrants to do so, where exactly is the wiggle room here?

So they can't use the information in a court case. So what? They weren't going to try to anyway, and we've seen they have other ways of acting on such information. It's still illegal spying in any case.

One of these cases in particular was brought by a lawyer who was conversing with his client overseas. Someone in the government inadvertently leaked the document that detailed a wiretap was in place for his client. He's brought the case to the court making the legal argument that he was tapped but the reality is that he's being paid by his client and he's not trying to do some noble thing he's just trying to keep his client off the hook.

So the one leaked case happened to be for an actual alleged bad guy? I won't call that a convenient coincidence, I'll just say "who cares?" I hope that if you are ever arrested and read your Miranda Rights you appreciate those rights even though the eponymous Miranda was a rather bad guy too (allegedly).

If the government truly had reason to believe this client was a bad guy, then they should have been able to get a warrant from the FISA court. If he truly is a bad guy, and because of the warrantless tap he gets off, well then that should teach the government to obey the law. Besides, FISA is widely know to rubber-stamp anything that comes before them, rejecting only a few of the thousands of warrants put before them. The fact that the government didn't even try to get a warrant tells me all I need to know about the quality of their "intelligence".

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[dominator]

"Article 3, Section 1: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Nothing in Article 3 (or anywhere else in the US Constitution) affirmatively creates a federal court system inferior to the Supreme Court. The U.S. federal courts system only exists if Congress says it does. Further, the federal courts are only capable of hearing cases "arising under this Constitution [and] the laws of the United States". If congress changes a "law of the United States" (say, to give telcos immunity from violating their contractual obligations to you, their customers), presumably, that act strips the federal court of any jurisdiction to hear a case regarding the telcos' improper behavior. Remember, the telcos didn't violate the 5th Amendment - only the State can do that. The telcos violated your terms of service.

The recourse is to sue the feds, arguing that the law Congress just passed is unconstitutional (which it isn't). Or, just skip the middle-man and sue the Feds for telling the telcos to violate your 5th Amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure. Which is who you really want to be angry at anyway.

Not to say that I support this immunity - both the Feds and the Telcos deserve to be reamed for violating the 5th Amendment and their contractual obligations, respectively.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[NMerriam]

Nothing in Article 3 (or anywhere else in the US Constitution) affirmatively creates a federal court system inferior to the Supreme Court. The U.S. federal courts system only exists if Congress says it does. Further, the federal courts are only capable of hearing cases "arising under this Constitution [and] the laws of the United States". If congress changes a "law of the United States" (say, to give telcos immunity from violating their contractual obligations to you, their customers), presumably, that act strips the federal court of any jurisdiction to hear a case regarding the telcos' improper behavior.

You're completely correct, if they make it not illegal, then there's nothing for the courts to hear. That has nothing to do with Article 3 section 2, or jurisdiction, which is what your earlier statement and quote were both about. The Congress cannot remove the Supreme Court's ability to hear a case, but they can make an action legal so that there's no point for any court anywhere to hear it.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Kelz]

After the fact laws mean that if you are doing something, and then a law is passed making it an offense to do that something, you can't be charged with doing it before the law is passed. Doesn't sound like you know your legalese.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Kelz]

Edit: You're looking for an Amnesty Law.

What I'd like to see

[causality]

Punish them once for helping the government spy on us.

Punish them 2x that amount for seeking immunity and generally trying to excuse it. Don't just fine the company (but by all means, do that too). Seize the personal assets of every executive who supported this and put them up for auction; disperse the proceeds to a variety of charities.

Impeach and imprison for life, on the basis of treason, every politician who supported what they knew to be an unconstitutional law. Isn't it funny how someone who assists our enemies is prosecuted for treason, but the far worse threat of elected officials who knowingly erode civil liberties is generally not even recognized to be a crime? Remember that politicians are generally also lawyers; they know very well what the 4th Amendment says.


I'd like to see all of the above happen in a court of law. Yes, I can keep dreaming. None of this will ever happen. I know that. But I'd like my country back, please.

Maybe when we're all marching the goose step we will have some insight and will collectively decide "hmm, maybe a free country IS worth a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack." The politicians of course are happy to increase their power for any reason or no reason at all, but it is DISGUSTING how the public is so cowardly that they always allow this to happen whenever a little more safety is promised to them. This is such a disgrace to anyone familiar with how and why the USA became a nation.

I'm very upset about this

[kithrup]

I called Feinstein's office yesterday; I asked what I needed to do to get my Senator to vote to give me retroactive immunity from breaking the law. They wouldn't answer.

I've called all my lawmakers. I've called the current top-three Presidential candidates. I've given money to the ACLU. (I've told Feinstein, Boxer, and Lofgren that I will not be giving any money to the California Democratic Party as long as Feinstein is in office.)

I don't know what else I can do. I don't know what else I have the energy to do -- time after time, any attempt to prevent this country from turning into a police state or an autocracy is beaten aside. And too often simply by elected officials simply giving up.

What else should I do be doing?

Re:I'm very upset about this

[Nimey]

Firearms training.

Re:I'm very upset about this

[Workaphobia]

Honestly, I don't know; I generally use frustrations like yours to justify my own apathy, so it's a non-issue for me. I might recommend giving to the EFF over the ACLU though. I never hear of the ACLU bringing any interesting cases these days, and it's the EFF that's fighting for us in the current telecom Bush-administration scandal.

Nah.

[jd]

I'd trust Sting long before I'd trust a politician.

Re:Nah.

[TripMaster Monkey]

I don't want to spend the rest of my life
Looking at the barrel of an Armalite
I don't want to spend the rest of my days
Keeping out of trouble like the soldiers say

I don't want to spend my time in Hell
Looking at the walls of a prison cell
I don't ever wanna play the part
Of a statistic on a government chart

How much will we abide?

[DreamingReal]

... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our executive branch acts like a dictator, our legislative branch legitimizes the most egregious and illegal activities of the executive, and our judicial branch is stacked with partisan hacks who use the most specious legal reasoning to uphold the values of their administration rather than the rule of law. This government is broken. How much more will Americans suffer before they demand change? Does anyone still think the 2nd Amendment is not important? I'm ready to stop writing letters and start firing weapons.

Re:How much will we abide?

[rezalas]

Perhaps everyone should start voting first before we start assuming the government is broken? Last I checked we were still having trouble getting off our butts and away from the TV long enough to vote. That makes it very hard to want to shoot someone when they were voted in by the minority of people actually willing to get off their ass and do something.

Re:How much will we abide?

[DreamingReal]

Perhaps everyone should start voting first before we start assuming the government is broken?

Voting is irrelevant. Rule of Law is not upheld by voting, it is upheld by bringing criminals to justice. When criminals control the dispensing of justice you have a broken system. Our forefathers rightly divided the government to institute checks and balances but what happens when all three refuse to maintain balance? You have the "nuclear option", clearly defined in our Declaration of Indepence; the governed must throw off their leaders.

Re:How much will we abide?

[rezalas]

We throw off our leaders by voting, not by murderous descent. That is why people come up for re-election, and people not choosing to vote instead of complain is why they get elected over and over again. What you suggest is like shooting a cashier who is stealing from the register when you chose to not fire him for it the first 8 years he worked for you despite knowing that he was doing it. Don't let the sin of indifference draw your judgement cloud you with belief that the people are not of equal fault in this.

Constitutional?

[bloodstar]

This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

Does that not mean that passing a law to validate such violations, even after the fact, is still a violation of the 4th amendment?

Now, of course since there's no one liable, good luck getting standing. Though I suppose anyone with a lawsuit pending would still have standing.

Re:Constitutional?

[krlynch]

Does that not mean that passing a law to validate such violations, even after the fact, is still a violation of the 4th amendment?

Assuming this is a 4th Amendment Violation (there are lots of tricky issues, and anyway, that's not the authority these suits were brought under, so it's not really relevant to the fate of these suits), the right question is "What's the remedy for the people whose rights were violated?" The Courts can fashion a remedy that undoes the violation (typically "evidence suppression": forbidding the government from using the information it illegally obtained in any criminal case against you), but absent statutory authority, a court can't fashion punitive responses. If there is no law that says "you can sue telecoms for complicity and get money damages", then you don't have the option of suing for money damages. Congress can't validate violations, per se, but they can withdraw or eliminate statutory languages allowing civil suits. Without that, these suits dry up overnight, with no recourse short of Congress reinstating the old language in yet another new law.

Re:Constitutional?

[bloodstar]

I understand what you're saying. But would not a valid remedy be throwing out the provisions that grant retroactive immunity. Thus permitting the lawsuits to go forward. Granting immunity for an act that is later determined to be unconstitutional would also invalidate the act of granting immunity.

It'd be no different than a police force shutting down a news paper for a trumped up reason, then is sued. Even if congress were to grant retroactive immunity to the police, it is effectively permitting a violation of the constitution. The supreme court would toss the law out on its ear and let the suit go on, if congress tried to pass another law like it, the supreme court should jump on it and grant and expedited hearing and slap it down quickly.

The situation isn't exactly the same I know, but the remedy should be similar. it's the only realistic way to make the injured party whole.

Obama voted to stop immunity; Clinton absent.

[aussersterne]

On the Democratic side, both are in the middle of an intense campaign, but one of them took time out to turn up and vote against the grain to stop this travesty. The other (read: Clinton) couldn't be bothered.

Re:Obama voted to stop immunity; Clinton absent.

[iamwahoo2]

Clinton simply chose not to vote. She was able to vote on the immediately proceeding amendmendts today.

Re:Obama voted to stop immunity; Clinton absent.

[Swampash]

That's it. I was undecided until now. Screw you, Clinton, and all the other craven whores who didn't have the balls to stand up for the American people on this.

Obama for nomination. Obama for President.

Re:Obama voted to stop immunity; Clinton absent.

[James in PDX]

I beg to differ with you. According to the records, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm Clinton did not vote on anything that day. I do not support her, but need to have the correct facts posted.

Re:Obama voted to stop immunity; Clinton absent.

[iamwahoo2]

I stand corrected. I was listening to it on C-SPAN and swore that I heard them tally a vote for "Clinton".

The Prez Says

[WillRobinson]

President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs. It is not what your "constituents" can do for the government, its what the government can do for its "constituents".

This does not include anal probing, monitoring etc, thank you. BTW: Texas does not claim him as our own.

Re:The Prez Says

[pak9rabid]

BTW: Texas does not claim him as our own. Seconded (I'm from Texas)

This is not the will of the people

[soren100]

This is totally unconstitutional. And I can guarantee you that there are extremely few citizens out there thinking that telecommunications companies should not be held accountable for breaking the law and helping our government subvert the Constitution. Senator Chris Dodd has to filibuster his own party to try to prevent this from happening, and he said he did it because there was so much concern from his constituents.

Amendment IV of our Constitution:

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. I would make a joke here about not welcoming our corpo-government overlords, but I wish I could find more of a sense of humor about this type of thing. The founders of our country knew this was going to happen, and worked extremely hard to avoid it, and the citizens of our country are sleep-walking right into it.

Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity :

The President has no right to secretly eavesdrop on the conversations and activities of law abiding American citizens and anyone who has aided and abetted him in these illegal activities should be held accountable, said Dodd. It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the President is the perpetrator. I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this Presidents agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness.

Re:This is not the will of the people

[MasterC]

Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity

:The President ... should be held accountable. I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this Presidents agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness.

I've heard something similar out of Dodd before. Here's the catch: he is one of the few (umm, Congress) that can impeach the president. Has he done it? Not to my knowledge.

Basic political BS at its finest. It's like a cop standing by his car eating a donut, watching someone beat the piss out of another, and saying "boy, someone should do something about that."

Maybe he missed that whole impeachment thing at orientation...

Re:This is not the will of the people

[Twanfox]

One senator cannot bring impeachment to the President. He needs support for it, and I'm willing to bet money that he doesn't have it. Somehow, people (senators, representatives, and the people) are blind to it.

Re:This is not the will of the people

[krlynch]

The Senate tries impeachment proceedings, but the House has to vote Articles of Impeachment (like a grand jury) first ... the Senate can't impeach anyone by itself.

Re:This is not the will of the people

[hacker]

Maybe he missed that whole impeachment thing at orientation...

Impeachment would be pointless and irrelevant at this point anyway. It would be FAR too costly (to already over-burdoned Americans living in squalor and strife due to the horrible economic status), and it would take a lot longer for them to appoint a committee, schedule hearings and so on.

By the time that happens, President Bush's term will have already expired (that is, unless he suspends the elections in 2008 due to the "War in Iran" that we're building now; nobody with THIS much unchecked power just gets up and walks away at the end of their term).

Point is, impeachment would waste a lot more time and money than just letting Bush's term expire of its own accord.

The finest government money can buy

[stox]

I hope to be able to afford some for myself someday.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[KevinKnSC]

I think you mistyped that. In your link, a "yea" is a vote to strike the provisions granting immunity.

Who do these senators represent again?

[BirdDoggy]

Yet another indication that our government does not represent its people.

Americans tend not to want to be wiretapped without warrants or to give immunity to telecoms.

Here's a survey that shows Americans are against Warrantless Wiretaps, Blanket Warrants, And Immunity For
Telecom Companies.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf

Re:Well, well!

[halivar]

And thus does rabid ad hominem turn what should have been a (+5, Insightful) second sentence into a (-1, Troll) rant. If you can't be civil, no one hears you.

Ex Post Facto = Not allowed

[corsec67]

How can any Ex post facto law be passed at all when Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."?

There aren't any clauses in there that could be interpreted as "unless it legalizes an act", so ANY law that changes the legal ramifications of an act that occurred before that law was passed is unconstitutional.

Of course, the Constitution is an optional, irrelevant document, so none of it really matters. Just look at (Amendments 1,2,9):

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
• A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
• The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Ex Post Facto = Not allowed

[shentino]

Wait a sec, ex post facto means "thou shalt not retroactively incriminate anyone"

But you can let someone off the hook constitutionally.

It's sorta like a legislative pardon.

What you CAN'T do is make it illegal to have a gun today, and then prosecute someone for having a gun yesterday.

Re:Ex Post Facto = Not allowed

[Actually, I do RTFA]

There aren't any clauses in there that could be interpreted as "unless it legalizes an act", so ANY law that changes the legal ramifications of an act that occurred before that law was passed is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled back in 1798 that Article 1, Section 9 only applies to criminal laws, not civil cases (see also, Shivo, Teri).

Re:Ex Post Facto = Not allowed

[corsec67]

No, "ex post facto" in English is "from a thing done afterward."

Changing the definition of "ex post facto" refer only to laws that make consequences for past actions worse is changing the meaning of the law. In Black's Law Dictionary, the definition of "ex post facto" is as follows:

An ex post facto law is defined as "a law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act which retroactively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or deed. Black's Law Dictionary 662 (4th ed. 1968).

(From here, #27. Could someone that has a version of Black's Law Dictionary correct that if it is in err, please?)

Thus you can't make the consequences more or less, and you can't let someone off the hook for something they did before the law was passed.

IANAL, but I do know how to use google, and I have a bias (of course).

Incorrect

[Raul654]

This point has already been mentioned on Slashdot before. As I said then, it is incorrect. The prohibition on ex-post facto laws means something cannot be retroactively made illegal; it can, however, be made retroactively legal.

Re:Incorrect

[Chris Burke]

The classic example being the crime of helping escaped slaves (or being an escaped slave), which retroactively became not a crime.

However if I'm not mistaken, this bill wouldn't actually make it retroactively legal for the telcos to conduct warrantless wiretaps whenever the government asks, it would only prevent any civil lawsuits from being brought against them for violating the relevant laws.

Re:Incorrect

[chihowa]

The prohibition on ex-post facto laws means something cannot be retroactively made illegal; it can, however, be made retroactively legal. That interpretation doesn't come directly from the constitution, though. It comes from Calder v. Bull. The findings of past Supreme Courts can be overturned. I don't see how restricting the definition of ex post facto to criminal cases and claiming that it only applies to punishing past actions (not granting retroactive immunity) makes sense. If the consequences of an action can be retroactively changed then nobody can predict the legal consequences of an action. That doesn't lead to any sort of stable society.

Re:Incorrect

[thewiz]

You are both right; check Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto).

From Wikipedia:

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retrospective 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 reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retrospectively.

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retrospective legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made law is retrospective as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

Re:Incorrect

[elpapacito]

A prohibition of ex post fact extends to any interpretation , as long as it involves preparing a retroactive law. Generally speaking one shouldn't be punishable NOW for an act that was NOT illegal in the past ; therefore, no law should be made to punish (now) people for doing something that wasn't illegal (in the past) , because they didn't act against law.

But, there is no expression mentioning the possibility of making illegal actions, commited against the law in the past, as if they were done NOT against the law. At best, one could consider not punishing the behavior today , but I don't see any reason to deny the fact something was done against the law in the past and to recognize the criminals as such and to notice how and why and who decided today that these actions are not to be punished ; simply wiping out the crime doesn't allow any constructive discussion on what was illegally done and why it is not to be considered illegal today.

In other words, it's a cover up.

Re:Incorrect

[Jane Q. Public]

Dude, I will take the standard disclaimer: IANAL. But you know what? Even if you are or were, I could eat you for lunch in court.
Precedent is only worth the soundness of its legality. The fact that unsound decisions have been made in the past is NOT grounds -- legally, ethically, morally, or socially -- for making further unsound decisions. That would be like a teenager saying "My sister had unprotected sex with a partner who had AIDS! So I can too!"
Even lawyers -- or at least those who have worked their way up to judge AND have not been bought -- know that your argument is akin to that from a 2-year-old.

Re:Incorrect

[Chris Burke]

Even if you are or were, I could eat you for lunch in court.

What, you mean in some hypothetical case where you were challenging the principle of the prohibition against post-fact laws only applying to ones that make something illegal which used to be legal, as opposed to making something legal which used to be illegal?

No, you'd get your sorry ass handed to you on a platter with decorative springs of parsley around it.

There's a reason behind the many precedents, and it isn't the 2-year old argument that "well it's been done before". Real lawyers and judges know this. You only understand the 2-year-old argument, so that's all you can argue against. Thusly, a chimpanzee in a suit could defeat you in court. Or if they couldn't find a chimpanzee, I could. You might want to check up on the actual case history, that thing real lawyers and judges do.

Awesome

[spottedkangaroo]

Do they even pretend the represent the people of the united states anymore? or do they express frankly that they're for sale to the highest corporate bidder?

Limitations

[Rinisari]

Yet another reason why there should either a limit on the number of congressional terms a person can serve, or a complete dissolving every so many years like in parliamentary systems. The former would be more fitting with American politics.

Senators should serve no more than three terms (18 years) and congresspersons should serve no more than six terms (12 years). If a person wants to remain in congrees, he or she should run for the other half of congress. A person doing that would have served 30 years in congress, perhaps after serving graduating from law school at 25 or 26 years of age and working in a private practice or local government for six years, until 32. 30 years of congressional service puts the person at 62, and they can happily retire (or run for president or serve as a cabinet member or such).

Re:Limitations

[night_flyer]

Its not always the congressmen, its the machine behind them in the form of unelected politicos (PACs, Aids, lobbyists) who end up "helping" the elected official to their way of thinking. If he is thrown out of office, they just start with the next one that comes into the office.

Re:Limitations

[s!lat]

So get draconian back...: One term in each house and no lobbying. For anyone. Also, remove the insurance for the lizards and pay them 10,000 USD/year. That would make it so that only people who really want to make a change run for office.

Re:Limitations

[kelnos]

When you consider private sector salaries, and compare with the apparent prestige and "importance" of being a Congressperson, Senators and Representatives don't get paid all that much (just $169,300 for 2008). If you lower their salary, you'll attract the following kinds of people to Congress: a) incredibly stupid people who can't hold a decent job (hmmm... no, that joke's too easy), and b) independently-wealthy people who won't care about the low salary, and likely have in mind the interests of similarly-rich people. Your average American who "just wants to make a difference" won't be able to afford being in Congress.

I don't know that increasing the salary would be a great choice, either, but it would likely attract many of the great minds who currently do much better for themselves working in the private sector. That's something, at least.

Legalese ...

[Bob-taro]

Okay, so congress TURNED DOWN an amendment to a law that would REMOVE RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY for telcos who did something (at the government's request) that would be legal under this law, but was ARGUABLY ILLEGAL under current law. Okay, so they won't not not prosecute the telcos for not not wiretapping domestic calls with no warrant. There, now it's worded more like a ballot initiative.

I like the idea of the other amendment they mentioned - holding the government responsible instead of the companies. I mean, you're in a pretty bad spot when you have to choose between obeying the executive branch and obeying the legislative branch of government. It may even be a gray area legally - can't the president override some things by executive order?

Re:Legalese ...

[stinerman]

Executive orders are simply orders given to an executive department in furtherance of enforcing a law already on the books. Because they come from the top dog, they are effectively law if you work in an executive department.

In my opinion, if any executive order conflicts with a law, the order must be disobeyed. If a president consistently fails to enforce laws or issues executive orders that have the effect of repealing a law, he should be impeached and removed from office.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[yincrash]

The vote you linked to is actually a vote to invoke cloture, meaning that the bill can no longer be filibustered.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[Shakrai]

Yeah, why did we elect her last time? We knew full well she was going to be spending more time campaigning than doing her job.

Because the New York State Republican party is so dysfunctional that they couldn't find a better candidate then a little known ex-mayor of Yonkers who didn't even have the money to campaign?

That's ok though, Hillary can cite her victory over John Spencer as proof that she is ready to "take on" the Republicans. After all, she's already fought them and won. It's not as if New York slants Democratic or anything.....

Congressional Pipe Dream

[monxrtr]

Passing a law granting retroactive immunity doesn't mean the law passed is Constitutional. The telecoms (or the taxpayers) will just spend more on legal fees overturning any immunity bill before eventually the telecoms seek out a financial settlement, exactly as the tobacco companies did, exactly as Microsoft did. Don't believe for a second, a tobacco immunity law would've been worth the paper it was written on either.

It might not matter.

[jd]

Bush has set the precedent that both a Presidential Executive Order and a signing letter can bypass or negate anything in law, so any future President can retroactively re-enable liability for those things being retroactively protected. For that matter, so can Congress, as it now clearly recognizes retroactive laws. Mind you, another future President or Congress can then re-legalize it. As soon as you can alter the frame of reference of the past, so can everyone else. That's why it's a really bad idea. Nothing is stable, liability becomes indeterminate and things paralyze. Even corrupt logic has logic you can follow, but when reality can be retcon'd at will, you don't even get that.

Game over

[Deadplant]

It is all over folks.
The rule of law has now been abandoned completely.

The US government no longer even pretends to obey the law.

Your government just dropped its drawers and shat on your constitution.

Retroactive immunity for violations of the constitution.
I'd call that high treason.

Only 26 Senators voted against this

[WillAffleckUW]

Only 26 US Senators stood up and voted to put a hold on this legislation, including both of Washington State's US Senators and Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Clinton was ... not present.

Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.

Re:Only 26 Senators voted against this

[iamwahoo2]

Once again, Clinton chose not to vote on this amendment. That does not mean that she was not present. She was able to vote on the immediately preceeding amendments. She backed out of this one because she lacks integrity and backbone.

Florida

[Jaysyn]

I'm absolutely shocked that both of my Reps voted nay on this.

I'm going to have to send them some kudos.

Re:Florida

[Jaysyn]

Scratch that last comment. Go Obama.

Who's on the conferencing committee?

[Dr. Manhattan]

call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)

I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?

Re:Who's on the conferencing committee?

[Red Flayer]

I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?

Both. The Senate and House must pass identical versions. E.g., there is no final bill until both Houses pass the same bill.

At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.

More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.

In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.

Re:Who's on the conferencing committee?

[The Analog Kid]

In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.

Let's hope the House has some ounce of morale fiber left not to give in and pass this bill with immunity.

Re:Don't agree with the move.. but..

[UdoKeir]

The government and corporations should not be "friends", and should not be in the habit of "helping" one another out.

Force the records open?

[kmahan]

So if this passes and the teleco's get their immunity can they be forced to show what they did? A lot of grants of immunity seem to be so that the immunized party can testify to the actions they took (legal or illegal). So with the immunity they shouldn't have any reason to protest releasing the records showing just how big this was/is.

Re:Force the records open?

[Zork the Almighty]

So if this passes and the teleco's get their immunity can they be forced to show what they did?

No. The point of this legislation is to stop people from finding out what they did. The government broke the law by ordering mass surveillance of the public. The telephone companies broke the law by helping them to do it. This legislation is about shutting down civil suits filed by the public against the phone companies for alleged criminal acts. It is the only venue left for finding out what happened. The law also grants retroactive criminal immunity so that future governments can't prosecute anybody involved.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[terrymr]

That's a pretty stupid argument ... all of the republicans voted for immunity while about two thirds of the democrats voted against it.

Re:Who voted for it? [Totally Misleading]

[divisionbyzero]

Let's be clear: Obama voted to strike the amendment that would provide immunity. In other words, he voted against telco. immunity. McCain, sadly, voted for immunity.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[TripMaster Monkey]

But enough of the dems voted for it to pass it, while enough voted against it to maintain the fiction of the false dichotomy.

Only work stoppages or wide scale boycotts work

[leftie]

The only method of protest that works is one that nails the powers that be where they can be hurt. The wallet.

Work stoppages work. Wide scale boycotts work.

Why. Because the only thing these greedy right wingers notice is someone threatening their money.

Did You Write Your Senator?

[Skjellifetti]

Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 )
Vote Number: 15 Vote Date: February 12, 2008, 11:03 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3907 to S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.
Vote Counts: YEAs 31, NAYs 67, Not Voting 2

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

• Akaka (D-HI), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Alexander (R-TN), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Allard (R-CO), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Barrasso (R-WY), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Baucus (D-MT), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Bayh (D-IN), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Bennett (R-UT), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Biden (D-DE), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
• Bond (R-MO), Nay
• Boxer (D-CA), Yea
• Brown (D-OH), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Brownback (R-KS), Nay
• Bunning (R-KY), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Burr (R-NC), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Byrd (D-WV), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Cantwell (D-WA), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Cardin (D-MD), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Carper (D-DE), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Casey (D-PA), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Chambliss (R-GA), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Coburn (R-OK), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Cochran (R-MS), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Coleman (R-MN), Nay
• Collins (R-ME), Nay
• Conrad (D-ND), Nay
• Corker (R-TN), Nay
• Cornyn (R-TX), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Craig (R-ID), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Crapo (R-ID), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• DeMint (R-SC), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Dodd (D-CT), Yea (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Dole (R-NC), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Domenici (R-NM), Nay (/. says "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.2)", this'll fool em.)
• Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

Re:Did You Write Your Senator?

[bn0p]

Actually I did - at least to the one that I thought might vote against giving the telecomms immunity (Salazar-D) - my other senator (Allard-R) is a lost cause. Now I get to write to Salazar again to express my extreme displeasure with his vote. I recommend that anyone else upset with their senator's vote do the same.


Never let reality temper imagination

Stunned ?

[mpapet]

I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government

You probably think the domestic surveilence was initiated because of Bush & Co's "War on Terror." Government doesn't act that quickly.

What basement have you been living in for the last 30 years? Seriously! I expect a bit more out of a ./er. Clearly I set my expectations too high.

Re:Stunned ?

[mea37]

I'm not sure which makes less sense to me --

1) why you believe you know what I think (beyond what I actually wrote), or

2) why you think it matters whether the program was connected to the war on terror or whether it dates back to a 30-year-old government conspiracy ...

Perhaps those points would be clearer if you were actually to make an argument instead of just karma-whoring by making vague disagreement with anyone who posts an unpopular view.

I am OK with letting telcos 'off the hook'.....

[RudeIota]

It's OK with me if telcos are let off the hook, as long as the government is held responsible for violating the U.S. Consitution.

Now realistically, I know this isn't going to happen, but honestly, you can't hold the telcos fully responsible when it is government agencies forcing them to violate basic principles of privacy. The thumb of the government is a big, heavy one.

We don't need no steenkin' media.

[leftie]

We don't need no corporate media. We've got the best political organizing tools in the history of mankind... the internet and cell phones.

Re:We don't need no steenkin' media.

[Shakrai]

We've got the best political organizing tools in the history of mankind... the internet and cell phones.

They are both good organizing tools but they don't replace the media. The internet in of itself wouldn't have broken Watergate. Neither would cell phones. Good ole fashioned journalism broke Watergate. The kind we are sorely lacking these days....

Consitutional Loop hole?

[Roger W Moore]

Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.

So why are they passing this law then? I thought the US constitution forbade retroactively applying laws...but I'm not American. So surely this vote doesn't matter one jot: the constitution overrules it? Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.

Re:Consitutional Loop hole?

[Compholio]

So why are they passing this law then? I thought the US constitution forbade retroactively applying laws...but I'm not American. So surely this vote doesn't matter one jot: the constitution overrules it? Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.

It matters as long as our justice department is sitting on its laurels. Our system requires action from our judicial branch in order to say that something is violating our constitution and is therefore an "invalid" law.

Re:Consitutional Loop hole?

[NMerriam]

Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.

That is correct. You cannot retroactively put someone in danger for choices that were perfectly okay when made, but you can retroactively say that what was done was okay. And while in this circumstance, it's an unconscionable choice to do so, it really wouldn't make any sense to prohibit universally.

Unless we are able to predict every possible action and place it on the correct side of the legal/illegal line, we have to make allowances that sometimes people will find themselves in a set of circumstances that we hadn't anticipated where we find otherwise bad behavior to be completely acceptable or even desirable.

Re:Consitutional Loop hole?

[Roger W Moore]

Unless we are able to predict every possible action and place it on the correct side of the legal/illegal line, we have to make allowances that sometimes people will find themselves in a set of circumstances that we hadn't anticipated where we find otherwise bad behavior to be completely acceptable or even desirable.

I always thought that was what the power to pardon someone was for.

Re:Consitutional Loop hole?

[NMerriam]

I always thought that was what the power to pardon someone was for.

Among other tools, yes. But pardons don't change the fact that someone may have been found guilty of breaking the law, nor do they affect civil liability in the same way. The point of making something legal after it has been done is to say "oops, we were wrong, we're changing the law and telling the world that the unfortunate people who got caught up in it earlier never really did anything wrong, the law was messed up".

All a pardon does is say "whatever you did, we won't impose criminal penalties".

It's the difference between being a criminal and getting away with it, and never having been a criminal in the first place.

Re:Consitutional Loop hole?

[plague3106]

Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.

Yes, that's how its setup. Technically is not "retroactively legal," an unconstitutional law can be thought of as never having existed to begin with. Its unconsitutional from the moment it is signed into law, not from when it is simply declared unconsitutional.

Re:Consitutional Loop hole?

[plague3106]

No, pardons apply only to an individual for a punishment already being served. It doesn't change the status of the law though, nor would it prevent that person from being tried and convicted for breaking the same law again.

I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters

[Tanman]

when I ask, "Do you think the constitution is an outdated, unimportant document now?"

It amazes me all of his detractors that call him an extremist who is blindly supporting some outdated, irrelevant document -- people who then complain about this stuff being passed. Don't you realize that this is the kind of thing Ron Paul would stop?

Re:I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters

[rastoboy29]

Ron Paul is the wrong spokesman for freedom--he doesn't come across as credible.

I'd vote for him--but joe sixpack never, ever will.

My second choice (for liberty) seems to be Obama.

McCain = For Immunity, Obama = Against

[ClarkEvans]

and Clinton was silent on the issue

McCain = For Immunity, Obama = Against

[ClarkEvans]

and Clinton did not vote.

The problem with the ideal...

[C10H14N2]

Is that we have 50 state governments each with bureaucracies the size of national governments, each already the final executors of the federal government's policies. You could burn every Executive branch department to the ground save the DoD, send all the bureaucrats home and demolish the IRS with the result that people's lives would endure at least as much if not more government complexity and intrusion into their lives.

The whole platform is little more than a sweet-smelling red herring designed to attract people's unfocused angst and lack of understanding of federalism while simultaneously claiming to be the embodiment thereof.

It is, frankly, embarrassing.

Re:The problem with the ideal...

[plague3106]

Is that we have 50 state governments each with bureaucracies the size of national governments

Wrong. They are the size required for the size of the state. Any anyway, who cares? Each "bureacracy" is limited to a single state, of which you are a residient of only one, and you have much more control at teh state leve.

each already the final executors of the federal government's policies

A problem with the system as is; the feds dictate something must be done, and force the states to do it, usually without funding. Of course if this were eliminated, states could decide if they even wanted to continue, and if they did, lack of most Federal taxes means the states could tax more. If the people in the state choose to do so.

The whole platform is little more than a sweet-smelling red herring designed to attract people's unfocused angst and lack of understanding of federalism while simultaneously claiming to be the embodiment thereof.

Your lack of understanding of the issue is pretty embarrasing. But go ahead, delude yourself into thinking that you're one out of 250 million votes matters in the slightest. In the mean time, everyone will continue to be raped finacially and we have no say over how much they are going to take and where they will spend it. Personally, I'd like my vote to matter more by being one of 624,000, instead of one of 300,000,000.

Info on how the Senators voted?

[macdaddy]

Could someone please post info or a link to info on how each senator voted? I'm in the mood for sending a few flaming emails.

Re:Info on how the Senators voted?

[Dracos]

Ask and ye shall receive.

Re:Info on how the Senators voted?

[macdaddy]

Muchas gracias.

Moderators, please mod up the parent and not my post. He's the guy who provided the needed info. I just asked the question.

Old news

[Lost Engineer]

Reason had an article about this in April of last year.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

This was not a vote on an amendment. This was a vote on cloture. Obama voted nay, same as did Dodd and Feingold.

United States of America, R.I.P. 2/12/2008

[sizzzzlerz]

Congratulations, bin Laden, you've won.

Re:Don't agree with the move.. but..

[PPH]

I don't agree with the immunity but the Gov't almost has to do it... Look at it this way, let's your best friend asked you to do something that wasn't 100% legal, and being a good friend decided to help out. If you got caught and your friend sold you out, would you ever help them again? You are responsible for your own actions. Society has an overarching interest in encouraging people to comply with the law. Your motivation to 'help your buddy' is of no concern to us.

The FBI/NSA or any other arm of the Administration has no right or expectation that telecoms will assist them when not accompanied by a proper warrant.

There are (supposedly) about 40 lawsuits over the telecoms release of information to the gov't. One proposal is that the telecoms be granted immunity if these lawsuits are modified to make the gov't the defendant. I'm against that, since it gets them off the hook with no responsibility or explanation of their actions. What I'd like to see is the telecoms join the plaintiffs in these suits based on their being forced to comply with government officials. That would be like you claiming your friend put a gun to your head to compel you to help with his/her plan. You can't be held responsible for that, but you will have to provide testimony to back up your position. That's what I want from the telecoms. And that's what I think the government fears the most by not granting them immunity.

Won't hold up

[Tony]

Signing statements will probably not hold up, if it ever came to a legal battle. There's nothing nowhere nohow that grants the President the ability to create legislation. His sole legislative power is the veto.

With a bit of luck, our congress or court system will grow a pair (and maybe a spine) and take on that stupid fucker and his signing statements.

Re:Won't hold up

[Nimey]

That depends on who's on the Supreme Court. Stack it with enough fascists and Bob's yer uncle.

Fingerprints? Photos?

[Roger W Moore]

So far the US is the only place I have been where I have had to have my fingerprints taken as well as my picture....and then they charge me a $6 entrance fee (plane passengers don't see this because it is included in the fare). While the guards are generally polite and friendly the whole procedure makes me feel like I'm being treated like a criminal. It certainly does not make me feel like a welcome visitor more like they are grudgingly letting me in.

Re:Fingerprints? Photos?

[snowful]

I guess you have to be a U.S. citizen to get the REAL treatment at the border. I always sweat driving back into the U.S. even though my papers are in order, I have nothing to hide, and I carry no federal demons from my past. Most of the guards have been surly. Almost all have been highly suspicious of my activities. I suppose a little R&R across the border will soon be subject to surveillance.

The obvious thing is to look at the votes.

[aussersterne]

Only one of the current top three defended the law in this case and tried to hold telecoms responsible for their actions. I'd suggest that if you support this, you

(1) Contact the other campaigns and tell them you won't vote for them and why
(2) Donate to this candidate and support them in primary and general election
(3) Tell your family and friends about (1) and (2) and the reasoning behind it

Re:Don't agree with the move.. but..

[Ogive17]

You missed the point. The gov't is doing this to hope they get what they want later on. If they throw the telecoms under the bus no-one will help them in the future.

You speak of some sort of Utopia where gov't and big business isn't in bed with each other. I speak of real life where the gov't wants access to everything.. and they want it now.

If my goal was to spy on as many people as possible, I'd be granting the telocoms immunity as well. That is why I said the gov't really didn't have many options. Two wrongs don't make a right.. I'm not arguing it's the right thing to do. I'm a huge believer is being responsible for your own actions.. but it's politics which is about doing what you want and giving the finger to the rules.

I tried

[kilodelta]

I had an email exchange with the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse regarding this issue. He comes down on the fence in this but I suspect he voted yes which really disappoints me. But then I know which side his bread is buttered on and whose pocket he's in so it comes as no surprise.

Worst part is I used to work for the guy.

Re:I tried

[Sabriel]

Actually, he did vote yes - *against* the immunity provisions. Here's the voting record on the amendment. Note the wording of the "Statement of Purpose". To vote "yes" was to say, "telcos should be held accountable for their actions".

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 )
Vote Number: 15 Vote Date: February 12, 2008, 11:03 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3907 to S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

31 YEAs:

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Tester (D-MT), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR).

67 NAYs:

Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bayh (D-IN), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Feinstein (D-CA), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Inouye (D-HI), Isakson (R-GA), Johnson (D-SD), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McCaskill (D-MO), McConnell (R-KY), Mikulski (D-MD), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA), Webb (D-VA), Wicker (R-MS).

2 Not Voting:

Clinton (D-NY), Graham (R-SC).

Police State done the smart (and subtle) way

[Jaazaniah]

Legal has been the biggest threat in the US to any individual for some time. When previous protections of the worker ants' individuality get litigated away, suddenly it's ok to get the police to nab. Violators and cripple them under huge charges. It's the finesse version of police state - most "law abiding" citizens looking to stay that way simply go along.

Now here's the situation, after government access to networks in which we're basically entrenched is litigated in, policy regarding that access is left solely in the gov't hands under the guise of classification and executive privledge. With access to our streams of existance, trends can be identified and then publically litigated away, in effect coecing social change while the news deseminates. Then the targetting starts. Sure, back in the day when information was either written, oral or visual (being followed for instance), the gov't seeking total control needed those check-points with force-backed interrogators. With the explosion of blogging, social networking, and even things like twitter, most people in the generation growing up right now are giving that information across these gov't networks by necessity to get it posted. My 50 something co-workers aren't as exposed directly, but the kids that blog about their parents open that door somewhat.

So now the police state gov't doesn't need the many checkpoints, they are by proxy now in nearly every home and on nearly all desks in business. Monitoring becomes brain-dead easy under this kind of access. Then patterns can be harrassed by executive order. So no, it's not your classic police state, but when this clears the house, it will be a mere single step to become the first virtual police state of the 21st century.

Please do explain

[NewAndFresh]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway.

How can you say that? Why wouldn't it?
Please explain how punishing a person (or corporation in this case) would not have the effect of discouraging the bad behavior?

Re:Please do explain

[mea37]

A number of reasons, but I'll stick with the simplest:

You're expecting that punishment creates negative feedback which will change behavior. Whose behavior? "The corporation's behavior?" If you think that, you've bought way too far into the idea of "corporation as an entity". A corporation doesn't act with one will. It also doesn't spend time in prison, and it doesn't pay judgements -- it merely collects them from real entities, like customers or shareholders.

Will the individual(s) who authorized these activities suffer if judgements are leveled against the company? No. It's not coming out of their paycheck. In general if the lawsuit is brought against the corporation the individual actors are shielded from liability. That's a big part of what a corporation (as a legal structure) is for -- it's a liability shield.

Will the government officials who actually initiated the program suffer? No. They're the ones whose behavior you really have to worry about, by the way. Resistance from the telecoms would only have bought time.

Re:Please do explain

[NewAndFresh]

Will the individual(s) who authorized these activities suffer if judgements are leveled against the company? No. It's not coming out of their paycheck.

How do you know this? Why wouldn't heads role? Especially if this ends up costing the shareholders millions or even billions. It would seem only natural that the individuals who made the important calls on this would get fired.

Re:Please do explain

[Xaositecte]

Yes, financial penalties for telcos who participated in illegal wiretapping programs will affect their willingness to participate in such programs in the future.

If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.

If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.

If harsh penalties are ascribed, the same risk\benefit calculations will occur, but corporate leaders will be much less likely to approve cooperation with the government as far as illegal wiretapping is concerned.

Brwon Paper Bags

[EEPROMS]

Recent research has shown a massive shortage of brown paper bags in Washington this week.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[CheshireCatCO]

It must also be borne in mind that they were told that the bill would be dead on arrival if it did *not* grant telecoms immunity. (The president has made it very, very clear that he'll veto it.) As a politician, one has to weigh that into the decision. I'm not saying that I agree with the outcome, but this wasn't a simple vote about a single issue. (Would that there were an easy way to make it so every congressional bill covered a single item so each could be voted up or down separately without this kind of crap.)

Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

The House of Reps passed their version of this bill without amnesty. When the two bills go into "conference", wherein the two chambers negotiate how to change their versions to come up with the single version that will be voted on in each chamber, the House can insist on no amnesty. Which, since amnesty did not pass in the Senate by an overwhelming (just a large) majority, the House might succeed in getting.

So sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's the last chance you have to keep some privacy rights when on the phone (hi, Dick!).

Re:Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[geminidomino]

When the two bills go into "conference", wherein the two chambers negotiate how to change their versions to come up with the single version that will be voted on in each chamber, the House can insist on no amnesty. Which, since amnesty did not pass in the Senate by an overwhelming (just a large) majority, the House might succeed in getting. Assuming they want it. I personally can't scrape up that much faith in any single politician, much less the majority vote in the clusterfuck that is congress.

Re:Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

The House has already indicated that it wants amnesty rejected, by passing their version of the bill without it, even as amnesty faced very vocal (though ultimately failed) opposition in the Senate. And John Conyers (D-MI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to head White House lawyer Fred Fielding insisting that there's no basis for amnesty. The House Intelligence Committee also rejected amnesty in approving the House bill. The Senate counterpart to Conyers' committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the one that produced a Senate bill rejecting amnesty (that failed to pass the Senate); the Senate committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) denounced amnesty as his bill was defeated, in solidarity with the House provisions. House Speaker Pelosi helped rescue the House bill from an October attempt by Republicans to stop it. So I think the House version of this "RESTORE Act" is a serious attempt by the House (its Republican minority notwithstanding) to stop amnesty.

But you're right not to have "faith" in politicians. Faith is a way of knowing something that can't be proven, and no one can know what these liars will do until after the check has cleared. But hope is different. It's a way of wanting something that hasn't been proven, fuel for doing something to get it. Which is why signing the petition to pressure the House to stand by its partial progress against amnesty is worth doing. Because giving up hope means being defeated, and that's how you help the forces against you win. Signing the petition is another small but useful blow against them.

Re:Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[gr8scot]

Assuming they want it. They only want what they're told to want. If voters don't speak up, they hear only the voices of the lobbyists, whom we already know are all pure evil.

I personally can't scrape up that much faith in any single politician, much less the majority vote in the clusterfuck that is congress. It isn't your "faith" that is needed to write to your Congresscritter to oppose the bill; it would be an act of faith to imply assent by not voicing your objections to statutory classification of telcos as above the law.

Re:Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Redundant
    50% Interesting

TrollMods will resort to any sleazy trick, no matter how obvious, to help your government spy on you. Hi Dick!

The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.

Yes and these lawsuits are in fact the point of the spear aimed at the root of the problem.

Punishing the telcos and getting damages isn't the important part. It's something that should be done, but it is really just a means to an end. The ultimate point is to find out through discovery what exactly the government did. The aim is to get evidence out into the open, in the public record, of the government's malfeasance.

Once the spear point has pierced the government's veil of secrecy, then we can drive it deeper into the government itself. With the information revealed in the suits, it may be possible to sue the government, get court rulings about the legality of the administration's practices, and ultimately set up the possibility of future prosecution. If it can create enough of a scandal to cost politicians and bureaucrats their careers, while not optimal, that can still serve as a check to keep the government in line for a while.

This is also, ultimately, what the immunity provisions are about. It's nothing to do with protecting telcos from having to pay damages, that's just the means to an end. It's all about preventing anyone from discovering what the government really did -- they even admit it when talking about why the provision is necessary, though of course they couch it in "national security secrets" terms. Bush and team are trying to cover their own ass, and cowardly Congress is going along with it.

By the way, you raise a good point about Google and China. Personally I don't forgive Google, but at the same time I recognize the realities of working with a government like China's, one such reality being that censoring the people is not illegal. At the same time our government is not China's, our government is supposed to respect human rights, and more importantly it is illegal for them not to just as it is illegal for AT&T. And also because our government is not China's, we the people should be able to discover when our government or corporations break the law and demand redress. Which, coming full circle, is exactly what these lawsuits are about.

Re:The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

So sue the government. Filing a lawsuit with the aim of outing information about a third party -- or indeed with any aim other than solely to impose just sanctions agains the defense -- is an abuse of the court system.

No it isn't an abuse. The lawsuits are just, because the telcos broke the law, and they should be punished for that.

I thought your complaint was that this wasn't addressing the true problem of the government breaking the law. I'm explaining how the lawsuits also address that. And just so you know, it is extremely common and not considered an abuse at all for an otherwise just and proper suit to have other strategic purposes, whether that be establishing a precedent, creating situations ripe for appeal and perhaps judicial review, to yes in fact exposing other crimes which leads to other lawsuits.

The problem with suing the government is that until we actually know for certain what they did any lawsuit isn't even going to get off the ground, its doubtful anyone would even have standing to do so until we know more. If you really think the government should be sued, the telco lawsuits are the best first step in doing so.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[clem.dickey]

I think you mistyped that. Indeed I did. Let's hope no one bothers to mod it up.

Re:Who voted for it? [Totally Misleading]

[snl2587]

McCain, sadly, voted for immunity.

This among other things has marked the complete transition of McCain from a moderate conservative to a full republican. I used to like him when he was still on the good side (even if his pin said "Republican" he really was never one until recently), but now there' no way in hell he's getting my vote.

Roll Call.

[pyrr]

Source: http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/12/fisa-vote-tallies-part-ii/

"Voting with the Republicans were the following eighteen Democrats (again, rough count):

Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Joe Lieberman also voted against stripping retroactive immunity.

Not present and voting was Senator Hillary Clinton, the only presidential candidate serving in the Senate to miss the vote."

There you have it, Republicans in lockstep, and those Democrats mentioned are traitors. Including Sen. Clinton, in her silence, she consented. The roll call for Sen. Dodd's attempts to strip the immunity provision out read much the same. I would like to believe that all those listed have no political future (and this of course includes "all Senate Republicans who weren't mentioned by name"). Sadly, I'm probably wrong on that.

As a wise man once said....

[Stanislav_J]

"It is always easier to obtain forgiveness than permission."

Presidential Candidates Votes +Lobbyist $$$

[mojoNYC]

Is it a coincidence that Obama is the only one not accepting Lobbyist $$$$ ? I think not... This is what is meant by Clinton's 'pragmatism'--she obviously is trying to triangulate her way through this, giving herself an out, while still keeping her fingers in the telecom honey pot. I was undecided up to this point, however, today I made my decision, and gave money to Obama. I hope others do the same.

Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

The House of Reps passed their version of this bill without amnesty. When the two bills go into "conference", wherein the two chambers negotiate how to change their versions to come up with the single version that will be voted on in each chamber, the House can insist on no amnesty. Which, since amnesty did not pass in the Senate by an overwhelming (just a large) majority, the House might succeed in getting.

So sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's the last chance you have to keep some privacy rights when on the phone (hi, Dick!).

who shot who in the what now?

[BitterAndDrunk]

McCain? Border fence?

The same guy who sponsored the McCain-Feingold immigration bill that was almost (maybe is) political suicide for a conservative?

Call him a hawk. Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran, 100 years in Iraq, etc etc are all valid criticisms.

But his stance on borders and immigration is the most progressive his party has seen in years. And he's paying a political price for it - Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, many other wonks are saying "vote Hillary!" instead of McCain. . .

*shrug* I'm not a big fan of the guy but his stances on immigration and torture are two I can get behind.

Re:who shot who in the what now?

[Lost Engineer]

I said his because he's from Arizona, where there will presumably be a fence. I didn't mean it to be taken as a criticism of his immigration policy.

Re:who shot who in the what now?

[Zordak]

McCain? Border fence?

The same guy who sponsored the McCain-Feingold immigration bill that was almost (maybe is) political suicide for a conservative?

Wrong act. McCain-Feingold was the Wipe-Our-Butts-with-the-First-Amendment It's-Now-Illegal-to-Criticize-the-Incumbent-The-Month-Before-The-Election You'll-Never-Kick-Us-Out-Of-Office-Now-Suckers! "Campaign Finance Reform" Act (informally called the "Bite Me James Madison!" Act). It's one of the reasons I absolutely will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.

You get another chance

[Sloppy]

Fine. Now you know. Fortunately, there's Yet Another election coming up (damn, when will these things end?!). You know to vote against Republicans and Democrats. Hopefully, you still know that you need to vote for someone, or else you lose by default. Find them and vote for them.

The purpose of the lawsuits

[Kenrod]

For those who think they know something about this dispute, quick...answer these questions:

1. Which telecoms get immunity?
2. What are the telecoms accused of doing EXACTLY? What actual actions did they take?
3. Who wants to sue the telecoms? What are their motives?
4. What is the purpose of the lawsuits? Money, or something else? Remember these are civil lawsuits (you knew that, right?), so no one is going to jail.

The real purpose of bringing civil lawsuits against the telecoms is to get them to fully reveal what information the government asked them for, and to reveal what was given. Revealing this information publicly would be a great boon to enemies of the US and will help them adjust their operations to elude the authorities.

It's too bad so many well-meaning libertarians are ignorant of the real dangers in the world, and the dangers brought by technology, and are so quickly willing to be stooges. And not the funny kind.

Re:The purpose of the lawsuits

[Felix Da Rat]

You know, I didn't think I could answer your questions, and I know I don't have all the details, but I was surprised at how much I have gleaned from this ongoing frakas...

1: AT&T is the one that gets all the Press, Qwest I think is out of it, with a boned CEO, but I'm sketchy on who all the players are.
2: Again, sketchy on this, but I believe it goes along the lines of: copying the communications of innocent, law abiding American citizens too government agencies for their perusal/review, with no clearly defined limits on retention or use (see 4th amendment in the bill of rights).
3: I know the EFF is big on this, pretty sure the ACLU is also participating. Probably others.
4: To hold those who have broken the law accountable via fiscal penalty? Yeah, I think that sounds about right.

Oddly enough, the only questions you asked that matter are 2 and 4. Who the players are is moot really.

Speaking as a well-meaning (or mean spirited, can never remember) libritarian, I can tell you that no one who has any interest in the goings on of government is 'ignorant of the real dangers in the world'. We all accept danger ever day in real life, from driving to work, to soap in the shower, to fat in our diets. All of those have killed a lot more of us than any enemy of the US ever has, or will. Especially if the government does not serve the will of the people, because at that point, there really is no US. There will just be a body of people living on the same land mass in a state of fear; and those real threats will have won.

Remember, terrorism only works if your fear keeps you from living life. So get out of your bubble, use your spine, and accept the risk and knowledge that bad things will happen.

Re:The purpose of the lawsuits

[JoelKatz]

The real purpose of bringing civil lawsuits against the telecoms is to get them to fully reveal what information the government asked them for, and to reveal what was given. Revealing this information publicly would be a great boon to enemies of the US and will help them adjust their operations to elude the authorities.

Huh?!

We already know what information the government asked them for and what was given. That's why the government was unable to stop these cases on national security grounds. Nothing that was sought wasn't already publically available. At least, we know as much as the telcos do. The telcos don't know what the data miners were looking for or what they found, but they know what they were searching through. We'll never know what they were looking for or what they found -- that's clearly protected for reasons of national security

The only real question is whether or not the government got a warrant.

Re:The purpose of the lawsuits

[SoulRider]

Its too bad so many well-meaning conservatives are so paranoid and fearful that they are willing to take the rest of us down their delusional filled fantasies.

Re:The purpose of the lawsuits

[evil_aar0n]

It's funny you mention "stooge." Do you type one-handed while simultaneously drinking the fear-mongering Republican kool-aid?

In case you're not aware of your history, the Founding Fathers did not expect to create a world, or even a country, where everyone was "safe" from each other. T'aint possible - unless you a) lock everyone up, or b) get rid of all people. There are risks inherent in freedom - such as the fact that someone may try to hurt you in various ways - but they thought it better to be dangerously free than a safe slave to the state. Those of us who think likewise may be "stooges," but we're in good company.

So, what do Bush's boots taste like?

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[nomadic]

That's ok though, Hillary can cite her victory over John Spencer as proof that she is ready to "take on" the Republicans. After all, she's already fought them and won. It's not as if New York slants Democratic or anything.....

She also took on Giuliani and went from polling way behind at the beginning of the campaign to beating him so badly he actually withdrew from the race rather than see his reputation among Republicans be tarnished. Also keep in mind that New York doesn't slant as Democratic as you seem to think, recently it had a fairly conservative Republican Senator in the form of that jackass Al D'Amato for 18 years, a Republican governor for 11 years, and Republican mayors of NYC for 15 years. Hillary would have a good chance of beating any Republican in the field, though I think Obama would have a better one.

hand write or fax, emails get routinely ignored

[StandardDeviant]

Just an FYI, the common advice for getting a Congress member to pay any modicum of attention to criticism is to send it via some tangible form: physical mail or fax transmission. Emails and online petitions and so forth appear to be generally ignored or held in much lighter regard. You can get the appropriate contact information for your senators via looking them up here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (the equivalent for the House would be https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml). As for voting histories, those are likely available with more digging on either senate.gov or house.gov. I think this is the relevant roll-call record for this issue: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00019

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[dlim]

Please keep in mind that it's not a party that votes, it is individual people. While those individuals may claim to share a common ideology, a Senator's individual actions (or lack of action) should speak louder than his or her party affiliation. My senator, Ken Salazar (D - CO), also supported telecom immunity. While I do not know his reasoning for this decision, I do know his vote does not represent me or my interests. I have informed him of this and will consider it when his office is up for re-election.

I would argue that issues like this demonstrate that it matters now, more than ever, who you vote for. Party affiliation aside, I will vote at every opportunity to ensure that those persons who actually represent me are elected to office.

Apathy will not solve our country's problems.

Telecom Immunity

[iviagnus]

I sent several letters to my Representative(s), Senator(s) and Congress person(s) expressing concisely my feelings regarding why the telecom companies should NOT be granted retroactive immunity. The most important of these was the fact that no-one, person or corporation, should do anything based on the assumption of good faith. Corporations the size of AT&T retain hundreds of lawyers to advise them as to whether or not just such an action is or is not legal based on current United States law. Presently, those actions were and are illegal. But they did it anyway. I must therefore conclude that they were either threatened into complying with government demand, or they are simply "in bed with" the dark and seedy forces of our government that condone these illegal actions (read Bush administration). All I've yet to receive (of those that replied) were the usual standardized reply letters basically explaining why my opinion was opposite that of my government representatives, and that they were currently working hard to see that these corporations were given the immunity they deserved because they did what they did in good faith. Well excuse me . . . I thought our representatives in Washington worked for us, and aren't supposed to have their own oppinion unless We The People give them one. Boy, was I wrong. So much for getting involved in government affairs. The New World Order is here now. We have no names. We are nameless.

big picture

[NewAndFresh]

While there might be some merit to what you've said, the incredible importance of outing this information would seem to dwarf your concern. It's the "abuses of the court system" at a much more serious level that we want to stop.
Your original post seemed to say "Look at the bigger picture here," but now you have suddenly turned away from it.

Its only legal one way....

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why are retroactive laws even possible in the US system? I'm really wondering about that. Where I come from, the laws at the time of your action count, both for and against you.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Retroactive laws are allowed when the allow something that used to be disallowed. However, they are expressly forbidden when they disallow something that used to be allowed. For instance, if they legalized cocaine use, they could choose to make past use of cocaine no longer a crime (releasing those people from prison) or not. But they could not outlaw alcohol and throw everyone who used to drink in jail. In fact, I believe if they made alcohol illegal, you could have whatever alcohol you already owned grandfathered into legality.

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[Shakrai]

Also keep in mind that New York doesn't slant as Democratic as you seem to think

Yeah, I live here and you are completely wrong. It used to be the case but it isn't any longer. The New York State Republican Party is three State Senate seats away from irreverence.

he actually withdrew from the race rather than see his reputation among Republicans be tarnished

Uhh, that's not how I remember it. I remember the two of them polling roughly the same and Giuliani dropping out due to prostate cancer and his impending divorce. It would have been a very interesting race if he had stayed in though. I honestly don't know who would have won -- if Giuliani could draw enough support from NYC (he was/is very popular there) then I don't see how Hillary would have overcome him. Win or lose though he would have been better then that jackass Lazio.

recently it had a fairly conservative Republican Senator in the form of that jackass Al D'Amato for 18 years

And he was defeated. He didn't retire.

a Republican governor for 11 years

Pataki won because people got disillusioned with Cuomo. Albany tends to do that to even the most popular of Governors after awhile -- you need look no further then Spitzer's approval ratings if you doubt this. And he's only been in for two years!

and Republican mayors of NYC for 15 years

One of whom is an ex-Democrat turned Republican to avoid a primary fight and whom later switched to being unaffiliated. The other one wasn't exactly very Republican.... pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc, etc. I really don't mean to diminish her successes here. Just pointing out that she really doesn't get to lay claim to much electoral success against the Republicans -- unless she's counting that hard-fought campaign against Barbara Bush in 92 ;)

Incidentally, Spitzer and Schemer have both managed to win by larger margins then she has -- no small feat for unapologetic downstate liberals who have historically had problems winning upstate.

wait, what?

[poetmatt]

wait a minute. Whats up with this post then?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8UOTR1G0

Only sign of intelligence

[toddhisattva]

Hooray Jimithing yours is the only contribution that actually contributes.

The rest have fallen for the al-Qaeda interpretation.

the telecoms are claiming that they only actually spied on communications with at least one foreign endpoint

Exactly correct.

If you cross the border, you can be searched. If your communications cross the border, they can be monitored.

All of this "spying on U.S. citizens" is a crock of shit from imbeciles.

Re:Only sign of intelligence

[Jimithing DMB]

Don't be too quick to judge though. With one foreign endpoint and one domestic endpoint you necessarily effectively spy on the domestic for those conversations. But the communication did cross our border and obviously the intention of the wiretap was not to spy on the domestic. Nor can any information gleaned from that spying ever be used in court. So the domestic is already protected. The suits against the phone companies are not to protect the domestics even though they claim they are.

It's sort of important to understand that these provisions against unwarranted search are in some ways intended to allow you to privately discuss the possibility of overthrowing the government, although certainly not by attacking it. But once you start talking about attacking it and particularly when you start involving foreigners in your plans it's clearly treason which is not at all protected. There's a fine line between the two. And often the decision as to which was which comes after the fact. Consider the failed second revolutionary war that people refer to as the civil war. Although it should be noted that none of the prominent people involved in that were convicted of treason, probably because it was not the Confederacy who attacked the U.S. but actually the other way around.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[shentino]

I voted for it before I voted against it.

IV Amendment

[JustinKSU]

I know it means nothing, but in the bill as part of the certification process for the enactment of using FISA it states the following:

(ii) the procedures referred to in clause (i) are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and do not permit the intentional targeting of any person who is known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;


Full text can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2248:

Re:quiting the democrats

[causality]

I hear things like this all of the time, and I have one question. What were you hoping for, from the Democrats, that a Libertarian would not do for you? It should be obvious by now that both of the major parties want the police state that we are headed towards and that their duopoly control of all political power has not proven to be a good idea. Typically, "independent" means "sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes I vote Republican" which won't solve this problem. I haven't heard anyone in the Green Party espousing a strict view of the Constitution or call for a reduction of the size and power of government, which is what is needed now (perhaps some of their policies would imply this, but I have never heard of it being one of their primary goals).

So, I honestly wonder: if you are going to support a minor party, why not Libertarian?

Parent is a shill, mod down

[Bored MPA]

Both clinton AND obama abstained from voting on the final bill. And Clinton didn't vote on ANY of the other votes today--possible because she wasn't there.

They are both politicians, but it is clear from the record that Obama was there. It is unclear if Clinton was there. And it is clear that Obama abstained from the final vote.

You should be honest

[Bored MPA]

Politics are complicated, as are sound bites.

Obama abstained from the final vote instead of voting against the overall bill. And given the margin, calling out Clinton seems pointless (since positions are usually known ahead of time).

Re:You should be honest

[WillAffleckUW]

I never said they weren't complicated.

But, once again, when it mattered, Obama voted correctly at the key point, and Clinton didn't and then tried to find excuses for it.

It's not THAT complicated.

I used to get the bill list for fun and draw up amendments for my State Senators (I had 2 for a while, redistricting) and Reps to shove thru.

After a few years of that, and knowing what happens in committees (Rules R001Z!), you know how it flows.

Parent is NOT correct and is biased

[Bored MPA]

Obama abstained from voting on the final bill. So playing up Obama is misleading. And dissing Clinton is just as bad because politicians usually know the score ahead of time (esp. when their party controls the senate)

Your post and/or your link are biased toward Obama and don't contribute to an informed debate. Obama and Clinton both made what seems like less than perfect choices today--and that's why they are politicians.

You are very wrong

[Bored MPA]

Clinton was a cosponsor of the original amendment (S.AMDT.3907) and clearly cared about this issue. However, she knew the vote was going to be above 60 for both the bill and the amendment, and decided she had better things to do.

"too busy kissing babies" really isn't appropriate when Clinton was a co-sponsor of the initial bill. And for the record, Obama didn't vote on the final bill. Political decisions are complicated, but the truth is that both Obama and Clinton supported Dodd's amendment.

Gah

[/dev/trash]

It's only illegal if they SAY it's illegal. And clearly it is not.

Cuts both ways.

[jd]

If the current President were found not to have the power to use signing statements to create legislation to circumvent rational laws, then no future President could use signing statements to create legislation to circumvent irrational laws. Especially as it'd be hard to find two people to decide what was rational.

Re:So intelligence means ignorance of the law?

[Chris Burke]

If you cross the border, you can be searched. If your communications cross the border, they can be monitored.

The law disagrees. It is quite explicit that the only time a court order is not required is when there is no substantial chance of acquiring the contents of communication by a U.S. citizen or alien legally within the U.S., regardless of whether the other end of the communication is foreign or not.

It's pretty hilarious hearing you call that the "al Qaeda interpretation". And by hilarious I mean extremely sad. Sad that people would abandon their rights and allow their government to break the law simply because TEH BOOGIEMANS are out to get you.

Well she lost my vote for it

[TheAxeMaster]

And I'll try to convince others of the same. Mrs. "Change Change Change" doesn't vote on something that actually changes the status quo. I'm not surprised. Not that her single vote would have tipped the scales, with so many Democrats voting against it, but if she's not willing to stand up to them now, how is it going to be as President?
 
I checked the site and both of the senators in my state voted for it so they picked up some "cred" with me. Check on your senators people!

Re:just great

[azakem]

NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.
I concur with your intuition, Graham is a good man. I often wonder why he remains a Republican when his party has so clearly swung away from his political preferences.

Senate Voting History!!!

[newgalactic]

Here's a link to the recent senate voting records including the FISA bill. Go there regularly, monitor your senator. It's WAY more important then anything else on this site. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

no problem

[frankenheinz]

If Congress wants to grant them immunity from prosecution under federal law then let the states (and state law) do the punishing. (AFAIK, Congress and the federal executive lack power to grant immunity for violation of [otherwise applicable and enforceable] state laws.)

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[Shakrai]

but enough to make an egomaniac like Giuliani look for an out

*shrug*, I don't think he arranged to get prostate cancer as an excuse to drop out ;) In the final analysis he probably would have lost -- but I think it would have been a better campaign then the one that Lazio put on. Lazio was a fucking moron who couldn't even tell the difference between Owego and Oswego and whose platform consisted of "I'm not Hillary Clinton"

As a New Yorker seeing D'Amato's face while he was walking away from the podium after conceding the election was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

I don't remember D'Amato that much. I do remember Moynihan though. I don't think Hillary has filled his shoes very well. Neither has Schemer (though Schumer is light-years ahead of D'Amato) for that matter. Moynihan was a statesman. Neither Hillary or Schemer can make that claim, IMHO.

Has the bill actually passed?

[internic]

Has the bill itself actually passed? I can't find any mention of the bill actually having passed the Senate, only that this amendment (the Dodd-Feingold amendment) was rejected. I'm not that adept at reading THOMAS, so did I miss something?

Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea

[kd5ujz]

She did not vote, she was busy trying to get the hispanic vote here in South Texas at 1pm today( Robstown, Tx actually, about 25 miles from here).

It makes perfect sense

[LandruBek]

It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam.

It makes perfect sense because there were no orders and there is no Uncle Sam. "Orders" arise in a military context, and even soldiers are not required to obey illegal orders. AT&T is not subject to the "orders" of the NSA; they can consider requests -- but they have to obey the LAWS of the nation, such as the Telecom. Act of 1934 which makes unwarranted wiretapping criminal. No one is more aware of telecommunications law than the telecom companies, so they have no plea of ignorance, even if that were any defense. And a plea of "I was following orders" is moot.

There is no Uncle Sam, no single voice that embodies the authority of the federal government, and that's a good thing. No individual person gets to dictate laws, or their implementation, or their interpretation -- a weakness that is actually a strength, and surely the reason why the federal government has more or less worked for 200+ years. So the president, or McConnell, or whoever, has but limited power to say what ought to be done and what is legal. In particular, even the president cannot set aside the law. At least, that's what the federal constitution asserts.

The Constitution and resistance to change

[evought]

That's one reason why I personally don't respect parts of the constitution. If there's a majority in the future, then, well, there is a majority. If you do anything else, you will piss a majority of people off. It seems kinda funny because the constitution was designed with the people (read: the majority of people at the time) in mind. But their influence couldn't stay in their own times when it was relevant, it had to spread to times where their wants become increasingly irrelevant. There are new majorities now with new needs and wants, and they can speak for themselves if they want. The constitution should really just stick to making sure they can speak for themselves, and that those in power listen. To some extent, the system was designed purposely to slow down the process of change, to balance toward conservative decision making (dictionary definition of "conservative"). This is, in general, a very good thing. You don't want to change your government according to the latest fad, you want slow change where you can get an idea of how things work as you go forward. A conservative government structure also tries to prevent thrashing (shifting majorities just changing the same things back and forth as Congress changes hands) and to try to encourage more rational decision making in times of crisis.

You should never make any long term decisions in a crisis. People are horrible at it and tend to be highly irrational at such times. Look how badly we have done after 9/11. How much worse would we have done with a more fluid government system? That is why we have checks and balances (among other reasons), why Supreme Court appointments are for life, and many other things. At the same time, the system does allow slow change, through new laws, amendments, new appointments to the judiciary over time, and so forth. Our system has changes a good bit since the Founders' day (some to the good, at this precise moment, much to the bad). Our government and Constitution is not perfect, certainly, but the Founder's did a pretty good job, if you think about it, of anticipating a lot of potential problems, quite a few of which warnings we have ignored. Sure, it can use touching up in places (I can think of several off hand), but if you think about the number of popular revolutions which ended in total chaos and bloodbaths (e.g. France, Russia, China), we didn't do badly at all.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There's a difference between retarding rate of change and blocking certain changes. Fast-changing governments are inefficient and unstable, but so are governments literally incapable of listening to their people. We're fine for now, because we are running into problems (that need to be overcome) that were predicted by the founding fathers, but it's inevitable that things will change whether our society likes it or not.

As an example, the second amendment protects every citizen's right to bear arms. That was a fair call back in the late 16th century, when power was unstable, and people were more accountable for their votes. It was a necessary protection to ensure that people felt secure in using their due influence on the government. Nowadays, there's very little need for it, now that the country is large and its people largely anonymous parts of a huge crowd. Politicians and zealots alike are no longer capable of threatening the public, and most of the people live in the cities, where there isn't much call for a gun, except for protection against other guns. The right to bear arms is only relevant today because it has continued to be granted for so long, that now any potential criminal can get their hands on one. Any attempts to institute gun control are now not only futile (because pro-gun spokesmen can claim it as a constitutional right), but detrimental as well, despite what it does for the murder rate.

You should never make any long term decisions in a crisis. People are horrible at it and tend to be highly irrational at such times. Look how badly we have done after 9/11. How much worse would we have done with a more fluid government system?

We never meant to make any long term decisions, just to institute some temporary measures to destroy the roots of terrorism. The fact that their term lengthened should really be covered under the "keep democracy running smoothly" part that I said the constitution should stick to.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[evought]

There's a difference between retarding rate of change and blocking certain changes. Fast-changing governments are inefficient and unstable, but so are governments literally incapable of listening to their people. We're fine for now, because we are running into problems (that need to be overcome) that were predicted by the founding fathers, but it's inevitable that things will change whether our society likes it or not. Sure and they do, they have, and they will continue to. How many amendments do we have?

As an example, the second amendment protects every citizen's right to bear arms. That was a fair call back in the late 16th century, when power was unstable, and people were more accountable for their votes. It was a necessary protection to ensure that people felt secure in using their due influence on the government. Nowadays, there's very little need for it, now that the country is large and its people largely anonymous parts of a huge crowd. Politicians and zealots alike are no longer capable of threatening the public, and most of the people live in the cities, where there isn't much call for a gun, except for protection against other guns. The right to bear arms is only relevant today because it has continued to be granted for so long, that now any potential criminal can get their hands on one. Any attempts to institute gun control are now not only futile (because pro-gun spokesmen can claim it as a constitutional right), but detrimental as well, despite what it does for the murder rate.

I cannot disagree with this strongly enough, especially the idea that governments are somehow harmless today. The right to life is one of the most fundamental. If I do not have the ability to defend my life, I have no other rights. The police rarely get to the scene of violence in time to prevent anything. Also, many people still live outside of cities where guns are as much tools as weapons (e.g. protecting my sheep from coy dogs).

Lastly, I think the UK has amply demonstrated that taking away guns cannot be done successfully enough to change the equation. In urban areas where they have had success seizing weapons, thugs *rent* weapons out for crimes, plus the fact that knife and other kinds of muggings, convenience store robberies have gone up because they know people are defenseless. Police often refuse to go after the criminals because no one was hurt, so violent crimes take priority (apparently some corners/stores are robbed pretty much on a regular schedule). Yes, their gun crime went down some, but it simply displaced a lot of the crime, and it did not go down enough that I would be comfortable giving up my right to defend myself when I know (and have experienced) that the police will not and physically can not defend me. An attorney locally in a city council meeting was reduced to throwing chairs at a shooter to try to defend himself after the attacker killed two police officers guarding the room *and took their guns* for use against the room's occupants. One of the council members actually had a carry permit but did not have his weapon with him. Bad mistake: carrying the thing for a hundred years without needing it is better than needing it once and not having it.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sure and they do, they have, and they will continue to. How many amendments do we have?

So what's the point? Why can't we just rely on the legal system? It takes time to pass laws, and it sufficiently retards change. Why do we need a constitution telling us what laws to pass, unless the laws are (and always will be) essential for the running of a democracy?

If I do not have the ability to defend my life, I have no other rights.

Sure you can, you just need a license to carry. The gun would become your responsibility and your right to use your gun would be revoked if you were malicious or negligent in your usage and care of your gun. The process would hopefully be trouble enough to weed out those who are less committed to defending themselves, to reduce the number of guns out there (so eventually there would be less demand for them), but to allow for people who fear for their safety, or who could use it as a tool, to put the effort in and get their own gun. Unfortunately, it simply won't work because of the volume of arms floating around if applied with any realistic time-frame.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[tbannist]

An attorney locally in a city council meeting was reduced to throwing chairs at a shooter to try to defend himself after the attacker killed two police officers guarding the room *and took their guns* for use against the room's occupants.

And Dick Cheney legally shot a man, and then got him to apologize for standing in the way of Dick's shotgun. Anecdotes are fun.

An interesting idea to think about when people say "Arming everyone would make everyone safer because the criminals would be scared". Well, who wouldn't be? The Surgeon General estimates that at any point in time 20% of Americans are suffering from a diagnosable mental condition. Do you really want 60 million people with mental problems armed and ready to kill at the drop of a hat?

If you say no, then you're going against the intent of the constitution, if you say yes, well it's a blood bath waiting to happen.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[IndustrialComplex]

Following my job, I unfortunately have moved into a county where it is not possible for an average person to get a license to carry. I still have the license to carry from my previous residence, but this county will not grant one.

I easily passed the background check for my concealed carry permit in my last state, yet here even though I pass, they don't like my rationale (self defense is not justified in their eyes)

So the license is denied because they don't grant licenses. Now what?

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[evought]

An interesting idea to think about when people say "Arming everyone would make everyone safer because the criminals would be scared". Well, who wouldn't be? The Surgeon General estimates that at any point in time 20% of Americans are suffering from a diagnosable mental condition. Do you really want 60 million people with mental problems armed and ready to kill at the drop of a hat?

If you say no, then you're going against the intent of the constitution, if you say yes, well it's a blood bath waiting to happen.

There are almost no questions worth deciding that are rigidly yes or no, though some lean pretty hard to one side or the other. First, arming "everyone" is not the intent. Not everyone wants to carry a gun, even among those who support the right. I, myself, wouldn't touch the things for almost ten years because of something I went through, but I still was able to recognize that that was my problem and it did not affect other peoples' rights. I don't carry now, but that may change at some point. Secondly, it is not necessary to have everyone armed to change situations, any more than it is necessary to have everyone be a First Responder or otherwise Red Cross trained, although I think that in both cases the number of conscientious people who have opted to go through training and practice for these skills is less than it should be. One person at this council meeting with a concealed weapon would have been enough to change the odds and save lives. Unlike the police, the armed citizen is not a visible and obvious target. Attackers can plan for police/security. They cannot plan for a random citizen who is carrying and been trained to shoot well getting a bead on them while they are concentrating on whatever their objective is.

As for the mental illness question, of course people with (serious) mental illness should not have weapons, or chainsaws, or kitchen knives. If someone is declared a danger to themselves or others by a mental health professional and a judge of competent jurisdiction, then of course we should take that into account. On the other hand, the idea that a veteran who had PTSD five years ago and is no longer in treatment cannot carry a firearm is absurd. The same with the idea that someone is a danger to society because they said in public hearing at one point that one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was a check against the government. As one of the Uncle Posts mentioned, licensing can sometimes be a great vehicle for prejudice. You also don't mention that we do not allow violent criminals to carry.

We also simply do not have a bloodbath in the places where ownership is very permissive. Even the recent incident here is rather rare and gun violence is much lower here than in the cities even though it is more permissive and the guns-per-capita is quite high. People focus on it because it is spectacular, not because it is common. The whole "Wild West" analogy is a red herring: the West was a problem because of a lack of Law and because the Law that existed was as corrupt as the criminals. People were not punished or were not punished consistently for their crimes and had to defend themselves against the local gendarmes as often as anyone else. That's a problem, and it has nothing to do with guns. It occurred in the Orient in different times and places after all weapons were outlawed.

Re:The Constitution and resistance to change

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Fight. Preferably not physically, but campaign to make firearms legal to the general population. I'd personally prefer if they weren't, and would hope that within a generation or two the fear would quiet down to a dull roar, but if that's what you need to feel safe (even potentially at others' expense), then that'd be an acceptable compromise.

Re:

[daaku]

Isn't this just a back handed way for the government to grant itself unquestioned, unsupervised access to the communication network? Possibly including large parts of the Internet.

please.

[Bored MPA]

Clinton AND Obama sponsored that amendment, and they both have supported it verbally. So your comments about excuses and "tech friendly" candidates remain misleading. After all, obama abstained from the final bill so he could avoid people taking it out of context--just like you're doing with Clinton. Democracy is better served if you inform people instead of misleading them.

And the reality of voting is that either one of them can sabotage any piece of legislation behind the scenes and then vote for it, knowing it will still die due to lack of votes on the floor or in conference.

besides...instead of dissing clinton, you should try convincing ron paul voters that he doesn't believe in a free internet, it's a lot more difficult and more rewarding.

Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Jane Q. Public]

Does it need to be clearer than that?

Re:Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Chris Burke]

Well it could be, your pronouns are a little confusing. Who is 'they'? And for that matter 'you'? I'm the one who knows what the law says.

Re:Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Jane Q. Public]

Quote: "Well it could be, your pronouns are a little confusing. Who is 'they'? And for that matter 'you'? I'm the one who knows what the law says."

Don't get your knickers in a twist, I was just having a little fun with words. But since you brought it up, who the hell are YOU, and what makes you think you are the only one who knows the law? The only reference I have seen so far is [cornell.edu], which really is not a reference at all. It is about as specific as [chicagopubliclibrary.org].

I really had no intention of challenging your expertise in such matters, because you do seem to know a little something. But you are the one making the claims, not me.

Re:Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Chris Burke]

The only reference I have seen so far is [cornell.edu], which really is not a reference at all. It is about as specific as [chicagopubliclibrary.org]. The underlined and colored text preceding "[cornell.edu]" was what is called a "hyper-link", or just a "link". You click it with your left mouse button (or only mouse button if you are using a Mac), and it takes you to another web page. In this case, a web page at Cornell Law School containing the exact text of the portion of FISA which provides for warrantless wire taps. You read this web page, and then you too can have the amazing power of knowing what the law says. An amazing trick, I know. Here, I'll do it again: Click me and learn!.

Re:Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Jane Q. Public]

Sorry, but whether due to the color or the small text on the screen I was using, I did not see that the text before [cornell.edu] constituted links.

Even so, there is no need to be such a self-important, condescending snot. Even if what you said were completely correct, I would probably not pay attention because your asshole quotient has been far too high.

Hint: sometimes the WAY you say something is as important (or even more so) than WHAT you say. That is unfortunate sometimes, but it is the way most real people work.

Re:Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Chris Burke]

Even if what you said were completely correct, I would probably not pay attention because your asshole quotient has been far too high.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? And after "Your ignorance is their bliss" and "who the hell are YOU?" why the fuck do you think I should care what you say or think? Like you're an authority on polite discourse. I hate hypocrites who think their shit don't stink, who think they can be rude, and then get all offended when someone is rude back.

The only difference is that I AM completely correct, not because I'm a genius but because I actually bothered to look up the law. Whereas you seem happy to use me being rude to justify your own continued ignorance. Whatever works for you, buddy.

Re:Translation: Your ignorance is their bliss.

[Jane Q. Public]

What makes you think I was being ignorant? Where -- just exactly where -- did you refute anything that *I* wrote? Jeez, guy... read your own conversations.

"Your ignorance is their bliss" is a COMMON WHIMSICAL SAYING. Sorry if you never heard of it before, but just about everybody else in this world I have met has. It is not intended to be taken literally, AND I already told you that I meant it in fun. But, somehow, in your "infinite wisdom", you can just overlook that, eh?

Go get a life, dude, rather than being rude to people for saying things you obviously did not understand. Apparently, you are incapable of understanding when people are actually being rude, and when they are not. All the legal knowledge in the world will not fix that little problem.

Can you say "incomplete socialization"? Sure. I knew you could.

WHAT PART OF "NO" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

[Jane Q. Public]

You are over-analyzing. Let's try this again:

"NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED."

You are really trying to claim that this is some kind of debate over semantics?

If you are, you might actually find some kind of career as a divorce lawyer or something... not the kind I would hire.

You mean you are not voting Republican?

[Jane Q. Public]

Horrors! Then maybe Billary? Or Mr. "No, really, I only smoke when the public is not looking, and I'm really not black, and I don't associate with minorities" Obama?

Funny. I never thought that American people were so self-destructively self-conscious. Ron Paul is the one the majority REALLY wants, but they are afraid that the leaders of that "majority" will be pissed off at them if they vote the way they really want to (i.e., vote honestly). Sure, Paul has lost points over his abortion stance, but in just about every other way he makes his opponents look like fools. No wonder they have consistently refused to debate him. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt.

Re:You mean you are not voting Republican?

[dbIII]

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt.

I do not get to vote for any of them but at least can make snide comments from a constitutional Monarchy that used to be a far flung corner of Empire elsewhere. Personally I think whoever wins of the three frontrunners will to restore the USA to something where people will think that voting will make more of a difference than outright bribery of a temporary King, which is the way it is sliding now under Bush IMHO. I also can't look at pictures of Obama without thinking of the actor Jim Carey so am not qualified to comment in any way other than silly jokes.

First I thought...

[Yvanhoe]

... this was ISPs getting immunity in case of copyright violations from their clients. Silly me.

WRONG

[Jane Q. Public]

See the other reply. You are simply incorrect about that. First, "ex post facto" and "rectroactive" ARE the same thing. Second, it is not necessary to go through all those gyrations to figure out what it "means".

IT IS SIMPLE FUCKING ENGLISH!!!!!

"NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED."

It says "NO!!"

None. Okay? No means no. Not "only laws that mean something convenient to me", or "only laws I do not like", or "only laws that exonerate the guilty", or (even worse) "only laws that criminalize the formerly innocent" (which is rather the point)!

NO. NONE. NIL. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. PROHIBITED! ILLEGAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NOT 'MAYBE', BUT DEFINITELY. PLAIN ENGLISH.

that's not what this is about, though

[Trepidity]

The purpose of the bill is not to keep the telecomms from paying damages. That could be done by having the government agree to cover the damages, or capping the damages at something small, or various other means.

Rather, the purpose of the bill is to keep this from coming to trial at all. Why? Because a trial, and the subpoenas and revelations it would bring, would embarrass a lot of people. Probably mainly Republicans, especially in the administration, but probably also some Democrats who knew about this but didn't say anything, and who knows what other Washington types.

From the perspective of Washington insiders in both parties, this is a big mess that's better swept under the rug and never aired in open court.

ex post facto

[tinkerghost]

After the fact.

The US constitution prohibits people from being prosecuted for actions that were legal at the time, but have subsequently become illegal - you couldn't be charged with selling alcohol prior to prohibition. However the government has always held the right to not prosecute people under either a repealed/updated/active law.

I'm not sure how this law could grant the telco's immunity anyway - you can't legislate away the 4th amendment. The law can be construed to prohibit criminal prosecution (the government asking for an illegal act then prosecuting under it would be entrapment anyway), but I don't see how they can prohibit civil prosecution.

My big hope is that the 60' court case codifying the 'national security' defense comes back to bite the Shrub. In that case, which the AG is parading around, the govt refused to be sued for a plane crash - claiming that the crash report reveled information about classified electronics etc .... - when the report was de-classified later, the only secret was that the Air Force hadn't done proper maintenance on the plane. The whole defense was a fraud. To me that seems to be an important reason to not accept the defense without an in camera review of the reasoning and supporting documentation.

wrong-think

[gr8scot]

When censorship = The Law and freedom of speech is classed as a historical example of un-good ideas, you're going to do what?

I keep telling you guys to practice your "Heil Bush!". Yet I keep getting mocked and voted/modded down. One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!". Sure -- to your cell wall, say "I told you so!" all you want. You'll no longer have the right to speech complaining of censorship. I wish I was joking.

There goes our rights and privacy online...

[Doug52392]

Amazing how much dirty politics can destroy our civil liberties. I watched the Senate talk about the FISA act on C-SPAN, and when Sen. Dodd's speech got them to pause the voting, I thought that would push the bill far behind to the point that it couldn't be voted on.

I was wrong...

So now every thing we do online and everything we say on the telephone will be recorded by the NSA, and, if we say 1 thing wrong, could find the FBI at our door...

What will this do to the Internet? The government now has the power to spy on the Internet, so who's to say they can't censor the Internet like China does?

I'm amazed the United States continues to go downhill, closer and closer to a communist country where the government controls everything...

qwerty

[Sithgunner]

qwerty

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[geminidomino]

It must also be borne in mind that they were told that the bill would be dead on arrival if it did *not* grant telecoms immunity. (The president has made it very, very clear that he'll veto it.) If something in the bill is important enough to sell us out for, then I would think that same something would be important enough to, I don't know, override the veto? It is possible, you know.

Sorry, that excuse gets them no free passes.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[CheshireCatCO]

They didn't have the votes to override the veto.

There's a delicate political game that is played with legislation. I'm not saying I approve of the vote, because I don't. But when the screaming in some quarters shows a profound lack of understanding of what is actually going on, it pretty well guarantees that the protests will be ignored from the get-go.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[geminidomino]

No, I'm pretty sure that whether the protests are ignored has little to do with the understanding of those protesting, and more to do with the size of the check paperclipped to the protest.

The point is that the claim that "We don't WANT to give amnesty, but mean old Bush will kill our bill otherwise" is a cop-out. Just more of the same "Blame the other side" bullshit that too many people seem to accept as a good excuse for doing the Wrong Thing.

If they can't get enough votes to overturn the veto, then the damn bill doesn't need to be a law.

What happened to the Constitution?

[Muad'Dave]

From The Constitution of the United States

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Obama did NOT vote by NYT - 2/13 article

[Tungbo]

"Among the presidential contenders, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, voted in favor of the final measure, while the two Democrats, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, did not vote. Mr. Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure."

Obama did vote against immunity in an amendment previously, but DID NOT vote on the final bill.

Most important of all, McCain is IN FAVOR of immunity. Just remember that this November.

solutions

[ProfBooty]

Raise the size of congress 10 to 100 fold.
Eliminate television advertising for politics and any mention of any candidate in a paid political commercial. Reduces the costs of running a campaign so you don't beholden oneself to lobbyists etc. Likewise the advertisements are highly inaccurate and don't provide much detail on their stances.
2 term limits. There should be no career house/senate members.

The first two will reduce the costs of running a campaign, and bring candidates/members of congress much closer to their constituents. The later should reduce corruption.

Now this would play havoc with seniority in congress etc.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[cuantar]

Exactly. If they can't get enough votes to overturn the veto, isn't the absence of any statement about immunity better than just handing them what they want? Goddamn it, let the courts decide.

Re:Two Sides of the Same Coin

[terrymr]

The ammendment was to strip the immunity provision from the bill ... you have it exactly backwards.

What?

[NewAndFresh]

Shareholders aren't in any morally right mind. They are profit-minded.

I'm going to assume you read this comment without reading the rest of the discussion going on at the time between me and mea37.
See comment #22399160
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=451310&cid=22399160

Credo Mobile... any thoughts?

[CardiganKiller]

http://www.credomobile.com/ "Or you can join CREDO Mobile -- which is fighting to expose the administration's illegal spying program and bring all those responsible to justice -- including Bush himself. CREDO Mobile is brought to you by your friends at Working Assets. It's the same great wireless service we've offered for years, with a new name to reflect our commitment to causes we believe in."

You're right...

[C10H14N2]

Personally, I'd like my vote to matter more by being one of 624,000, instead of one of 300,000,000.

If you're a resident of North Dakota, you'd probably come out better. For the rest of us whose cities out populate your state, probably not so much.

Yes, I DO understand it. Unfortunately, most people in this country don't live in states as small as yours and the end result will not be much different than the status quo.

the right of self determination determination

[wilec]

Right, despite what many seem to believe the Constitution is not simply some "god damned piece of paper" that was thrown together by a bunch of people to avoid paying taxes to the King. The Constitution is the result of millennium of human co-survival strategy called civilization. It has its roots in the Code of Hammurabi, The Torah, the Greeks, the Romans, the Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta, and even Native American influences.

My understanding of it is that at its heart it is about establishing a social structure (a democratically elected republic) that supports the right of free existence and self determination for the individual and the right of individuals to collectively take measures to enable and defend such rights for themselves.

That an oligarchic kleptocracy has perverted its meaning and intent to the point that so many people have such basic mis-perceptions about its purpose is a testament to how bad things have become.

wabi-sabi
matthew