House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity

freedom_india alerts us to news that the House of Representatives declined to bring the surveillance reform bill to vote, prompting House Republicans to walk out in the middle of a session. The bill, recently passed by the Senate, includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies who assisted with illegal domestic wiretaps. The walk-out comes after a proposal was shot down on Wednesday that would have extended the current legislation for another three weeks.

Comments

One can hope

[Kierthos]

that the House doesn't end up bending over AGAIN for that sockpuppet masquerading as a President.

The telecoms do not need immunity, and any existing wiretaps can continue for up to a year. But of course, President sockpuppet prefers not to mention that....

Re:One can hope

[CmdrGravy]

I'm surprised he isn't able to torture those members of the house who dissent until they bend to his will, it is the security of the United States which is at risk here and any reasonable person would understand that all available measures must be employed to maintain that security.

Re:One can hope

[Kierthos]

Well, he could always order them waterboarded. I mean, he's already determined that isn't torture.

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

What is sad is that tactic would not shock me if it were actually employed.

Re:One can hope

[Shining Celebi]

But of course, President sockpuppet prefers not to mention that....

The President himself doesn't feel the need to mention that. He was admonishing Congress yesterday, claiming that:

Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching. They said it themselves. They've had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act, and pass legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.

Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk.

Our government has no greater responsibility than getting this work done, and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire. I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail, and vote on the Senate bill before adjourning for their recess. , and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill.

Of course, as you said, all previously authorized wiretaps under the expiring act go on, and as the House Intelligence Chair put it:

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year - until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

In summary: There really doesn't seem to be a need for this law at all, let alone the provisions like telecom immunity.

Re:One can hope

[Kamineko]

You're suggesting that the President use Netherworld tactics?

Re:One can hope

[IdleTime]

The only threat to US security is the current administration which is comprised of a bunch of common criminals who should all be arrested and charged with a plethora of crimes. I'd like to see both Bush and Cheney hanged!

Re:One can hope

[mmalove]

I agree. If the telecoms have immunity, then they have no reason to maintain their records proving that our government mandated their cooperation - they can simply sit back and wave the immunity flag and sit smug.

For some reason I just can't see giving companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc immunity to prosecution for failure to take proper care of my privacy with information they collect. Maybe it's the completely dishonest PR I've seen out of Comcast recently with relation to P2P trafficing. Maybe it's the anti-competitive buyouts of AT&T. Maybe it's just a general mistrust of anyone worth over a million dollars.

So yea - if there are breaches of my privacy, someone should be held accountable. If it's the government mandating it unjustly, they need publicly defamed and removed from office. If there's no public official - then let the suing of large private information collecting giants like the telecom industries serve as a lesson that maybe, just maybe, they should stop tracking everytime I sneeze.

Re:One can hope

[WGFCrafty]

Correction, Mukasey "would feel" that it is torture... if it's done to him. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3A1luTdLaSs

Re:One can hope

[Thuktun]

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, was interviewed on NPR this morning.

Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, told Renee Montagne the main issue is liability protection for the private sector.

"We can't do this mission without their help," he said. "Currently there is no retroactive liability protection for them. They're being sued for billions of dollars."

He said the lawsuits are causing them to be less cooperative and that their actions are not illegal. If the actions are to comply with legal government activities, then why would they need immunity? IANAL, but shouldn't that be a slam-dunk against such a lawsuit?

Re:One can hope

[Actually, I do RTFA]

FTFA:

Republicans want the House to simply pass the Senate bill, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday his chamber is "not a lap dog of the president or the United States Senate any more than they are of us."

Re:One can hope

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

He is able to torture members of the house who dissent.

Re:One can hope

[moeinvt]

I heard Mike McConnell (Director of National Intelligence) on NPR this morning stating that the Senate had determined that the telecom companies hadn't done anything wrong . . .

Unfortunately the reporter didn't ask the obvious follow up question . . .

"If they've done nothing wrong, why do they need a law granting them immunity?"

Re:One can hope

[AnomaliesAndrew]

By giving the telecoms immunity, it effectively makes them the scape goat and will eliminate any further investigation... protecting the people who really violated our rights... like the politicians who ordered the operation.

That's not to say these telecom's should get off, either. Those involved should be fired and investigated.

It's not just foreign terrorists we need to protect ourselves from, but the fascist government ours relentlessly attempts to become when unchecked. By allowing our government to violate our privacy in such a crass way, I see it as no different than housing a terrorist or providing secrets to the enemy.

TREASON. "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

Any time you diminish The Constitution, you are doing just that.

There is no accountability in this world anymore.

Re:One can hope

[Fjandr]

Yes, it should be. Either they acted legally, or at least in good faith, or they did not. This is a matter that should be easily resolvable to find whether they are culpable or not, but that would require the release of information that the Bush administration does not want to release in their defense. He'd rather axe the legitimate method of determining the truth of the matter with legislation than to actually give up any information on his secret programs.

Re:One can hope

[iminplaya]

Unfortunately the reporter didn't ask the obvious follow up question . . .

"If they've done nothing wrong, why do they need a law granting them immunity?"

That's because NPR is really no better than the rest of mass media. They're on a leash also. For example they could have hosted the debates and included ALL the candidates. Or they could have skipped the Monica Show to give us real news at the time. But they just follow along delivering all the fluffy headlines that everybody else produces. The hard hitting stuff is far and few between.

Re:One can hope

[TheWizardTim]

The companies don't need immunity, Bush needs it. The second that a lawsuit gets approved, then the depositions start. The first thing that the companies will say is, "Bush made us do it. Our lawyers said this was breaking the law, and we did not want to, but Bush held a gun to our heads." That puts Bush and staff in the court room, then in jail.

It's funny, but the job of president only has one task:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's his/her only job. It's not a lot to ask for. So breaking that oath is a big deal, and should come with some jail time.

Re:One can hope

[newgalactic]

Sorry, water boarding is not currently approved or legal. However, it was not to long ago...and could be again, if the mood is right. Glad we have a transparent legal system that doesn't change month to month. IMPEACH for crimes against the American people.

Re:One can hope

[newgalactic]

I agree with everything but the "hanging". I'd prefer "general population", or Guantanamo Bay.

Re:One can hope

[dgatwood]

Hanging's too good for him. He should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Hague.

Re:One can hope

[TallDarkMan]

Thanks, Celebi, for posting this... what I find interesting is this part:

Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. [emphasis mine]

Yet, this whole thing is setup to monitor EVERYONE, you, me, the sheeple, all of it. At this point, I'd pose the question: How many of those seeking to harm our people are they currently monitoring? One? A dozen? A hundred? Is any number worth having our expectations of privacy and freedom annihilated?

I think not.

Re:One can hope

[durdur]

It's not a capital crime, but why isn't conspiracy to break a federal law (FISA) an impeachable offense?

Re:One can hope

[dgatwood]

It's not that they're on a leash. The problem is that we've really lost touch with our journalistic roots. With the death of print media, TV has utterly failed to take its place, effectively substituting infotainment where we once had news. And, of course, this was predictable. I made a comment to this effect in front of a gathering of educators, network producers, etc. almost a decade ago, pointing out that the fundamental problem is that local TV pays dirt, and as long as this is true, most of the best and brightest will take jobs in other professions.

So basically folks are only willing to work local news if they are either A. really dedicated to journalism or B. an "I wanna be on camera" talking head with a pretty face. In newspapers, you can't get away with being a talking head, as the written word has to stand on its own... but guess which one of these two is more common on the TV side of the house? Now, realizing that these people in local news are the people who eventually bubble up and cover national and international news, the problem suddenly becomes abundantly clear.

So I'll say it again, since apparently nobody listened the first time. As long as local media continues to pay people barely above minimum wage for jobs in broadcast TV, the quality of the applicant pool will continue to decline, and thus the quality of journalism will continue to degrade until it becomes nothing more than a circus. Some would say this has already happened.

Since I don't expect local TV to treat employees well enough to turn this mess around any time soon, the best alternative is to simply ignore mass media and get on with our lives. Better yet, start more web sites like Slashdot that aggregate news coverage and discuss it. You're far more likely to get both accurate reporting and intelligent questions from a bunch of rank amateurs with intelligence than from most of the people dragging around a microphone and a $30,000 studio camera. I know it's sad, but that's the world we live in, so we might as well accept it and start trying to find workarounds.

Re:One can hope

[nospam007]

Yes, it should be. Either they acted legally, or at least in good faith, or they did not....

Mmm, I always smoke my joints in good faith, so ...

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

If the actions are to comply with legal government activities, then why would they need immunity? IANAL, but shouldn't that be a slam-dunk against such a lawsuit? That's the point. There's nothing legal about it. The telecom companies should be sued by every single American for their actions. Sue them out of business and let's start legitimate companies. Furthermore, it's illegal for Congress to make a law giving telecom companies retroactive immunity.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on now... who's going to impeach? Have you noticed that the legislative branch for all it's huffing and puffing has been towing the administrations line for the past 7 years? 100-0 vote for Real ID in the senate. Patriot Act. So on and so forth... There is only 1 party with 2 faces and it's getting exactly what it wants.

Re:One can hope

[24-bit Voxel]

IANAL, however I believe you are wrong about this. The ex post facto condition is making something ILLEGAL and then prosecuting people for violation from before when the law was passed. For example if we outlawed beer today and I came to arrest you for the beer you drank yesterday.

This is entirely different, this is giving a pardon basically to an entire industry today for breaking a law already in place yesterday. There is a subtle yet important difference. I sincerely hope that the board of directors for these telco companies are shitting their pants at the moment, because there has never been a 300 million person class action lawsuit, and it would absolutely destroy them. Just as a private citizen doing this sort of thing would absolutely destroy you or I.

It's still a crock of shit, but it isn't illegal. Unethical? You betcha but this is government we are talking about here. The same people who claim god talks to them and then starts killing innocents.

Re:One can hope

[Midnight Thunder]

The only threat to US security is the current administration which is comprised of a bunch of common criminals who should all be arrested and charged with a plethora of crimes. I'd like to see both Bush and Cheney hanged!

Is it criminal yet to "behave in a incompetent manner while assuming presidential leadership"? If not, I am sure "allowing an administration to ruin a country" (US and Iraq) should be.

Re:One can hope

[neil-ngc]

The trouble isn't that it's not impeachable - it is - it's that impeachment is a political process, and even after the Democratic takeover, there has not been the political will in congress to impeach. (Also, IIRC successfully impeaching a president requires a 2/3 majority of the senate, which would be clearly impossible with all the Republicans goosestepping behind Bush).

Re:One can hope

[pugugly]

Yet this is a President that reportedly exploded at people yelling 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'.

Which, as much as I consider Capital Hill Blue an untrustworthy resource (Call it a left-wing Drudge Report. At one time they were known to single source things, though they told you when they did.), they've had way too much of a tendency to be ahead of the curve on stuff for me to assume they're wrong on anything.

Pug

Re:One can hope

[pugugly]

It's the Son of Sam defense. The voices in their heads keep telling them to kill, kill, kill . . .

Pug

Re:One can hope

[iminplaya]

...the best alternative is to simply ignore mass media and get on with our lives...

Yes, well, that's easy for me to say and do. But the mass majority is under its influence voting our rights away. I really don't care what the media does. The audience is the problem. And on a wild tangent, I would also say that considering the influence the media has on adults, it's very easy to understand its even more powerful influence on children. We're supposed to teach them how to resist, as opposed to censorship, but we don't set a very good example.

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

"Impeachment is off the table!" -- Nancy Pelosi (D), Speaker of the House of Representives.

Re:One can hope

[durdur]

Actually, a vote against amnesty is implicitly a vote for impeachment, because if you care about upholding the law, and don't want to offer amnesty, the next step is to impeach and remove those lawbreakers who are in office, and refer to prosecution those who are outside the government. And maybe part of the reason for the vote was that the majority of the Senate didn't want to go there. But 1/3 or so them did.

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a slight tangent, but "bipartisan"? Blech. In a uselessly literal sense, yes, members of both big parties and one independent voted for it. But if we look at the actual roll call there ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020 ) we can see for ourselves that EVERY Republican present voted Yea, and EVERY Nay vote was from a Democrat plus one independent. Not exactly a shining happy universal endorsement.

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a +5 "Scary" modifier?

Re:One can hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless of course you don't have a legit reason to wiretap someone. What he wants is unlimited and unchecked power to wiretap anyone he wants to, which seems to me to be against the very spirit this country was founded on.

Wow

[AKAImBatman]

That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress. The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege. They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.

Re:Wow

[dreamt]

Ok, so the article didn't mention the important part that the House wants to hold the president accountable for his actions. Its not one-sided, its taking it easy on idiot-boy's insistence that his people have to follow the law. Stating both of these actions make the House look even better!

Now, its just up to the House to enforce the contempt of Congress charges themselves, as the Justice Department isn't going to do its job in enforcing them (I read _somewhere_ that Congress does have some sort of enforcement capabilities for cases like this when Justice won't do their job).

Re:Wow

[AKAImBatman]

No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass. In fact, the immunity bill may have had nothing to do with the events at the Capital. Spinning the story like that is simply irresponsible.

As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.

IMHO, start the impeachment process or don't. All this pussyfooting around is 100% impotent and accomplishes nothing more than a lot of publicity to make voters feel warm and fuzzy.

Re:Wow

[TripMaster Monkey]

Yes, the House can enforce the contempt citation without the aid of the Justice Department. Under the rules for inherent contempt, after the citation is passed, the cited party would be arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House and brought to the floor to answer charges. However, the statutory procedure, which is the one that involves the Justice Department, has been used more often since its inception in 1857, and the inherent procedure hasn't been used since 1934.

Re:Wow

[AKAImBatman]

FYI, the report has been updated to point out the missing information.

Re:Wow

[JediN8]

Contempt of Congress...WTF! I hold nothing but contempt for Congress, guess i better start packing.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is one sides. It puts a completely different spin on the report, effectively providing the reader with no option but to believe that the Republicans all were pissed off that the Telecom immunity bill didn't pass.

You're right. If it were written properly it would show that the Republicans got all pissy when the House Democrats made it a point to show that the executive branch is not above the law. Although something tells me you wouldn't be pleased with that either. Somehow you need to pin it all on the Democrats because the Angelic Republicans can never do any wrong.

Re:Wow

[Shining Celebi]

As for the charges, it's just political maneuvering. According to the news report, the President invoked executive powers to keep his aides from talking. Congress can hold those aides in contempt all they want, but the Judicial Branch is unlikely to enforce the contempt charge. As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.

I'm curious why you think the judicial branch would uphold his claims of executive privilege. That's not a Constitutional privilege. If Presidential aides break the law, should they be immune from investigation as long as the President invokes executive privilege? The real issue is that the Justice Department has said they won't investigate and bring charges, meaning it wouldn't go to court in the first place -- seems a bit of an odd choice if the court wouldn't do something about it. But Congress still has its own power to enforce the citation. And how can you impeach if you don't have any evidence to go on? That's the entire point of calling the aids to TESTIFY, which they refused to do.

And this is related to the FISA bill. Boehner was mad they weren't going to get straight to the spy bill like the President wanted.

Re:Wow

[somersault]

This makes me think.. has anyone ever done 'democrats' vs 'republican' skins for CS? With all the inane political banter that goes on about both sides (and I severely doubt that just because someone is a member of some political party means you can stereotype them in the way that seems to go on allllllllll the freaking time), I think that all you pseudo-political nutjobs would get a real kick out of it! :)

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the immunity bill may have had nothing to do with the events at the Capital.

Well, let's consider just how much telecom immunity had to do with the walk-out. Before walking out, Boehner and the Republicans claimed they were doing so because the all important revision to the Protect America Act (which includes telecom immunity) was not being considered. The Republicans walked out, and the Democrats proceeded with and passed the contempt resolution. Then they went on with several mostly symbolic and fairly inconsequential matters, such as a Black History Month resolution honoring African American scientists and mathematicians. The Republicans immediately returned from their walk-out, even though the all important PAA and telecom immunity were still not being considered. Hmmmmmm....

Re:Wow

[Hatta]

What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress.

I agree, the democrats should stop wasting time and hold Bush officials in contempt of congress already.

Re:Wow

[Asylumn]

No, that's not it at all. It's about accuracy, not pinning blame. Supporting inaccurate reporting just because it puts a positive light on the people you support is just as unacceptable as spinning things to put a negative light on those you don't support.

Spin is spin is spin. It doesn't matter who it makes look good or bad, it's misleading. That should not be acceptable, ever.

Re:Wow

[Nimey]

Patriotism is akin to racism. Fix yer sig. s/Patriotism/Nationalism/

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

So you look to Slashdot for accuracy? Hate to break it to you, but that's something you rarely, if ever, see here.

Re:Wow

[The Redster!]

Most good skins are ones where you can tell one side from the other.

Re:Wow

[Applekid]

Exactly. The part I find amusing about the whole thing is that the walk out reeks of the politics and red v blue, but the net effect is, amazingly enough, that the surveilance immunity didn't get to happen. Net effect: good?

It's like me being an ass and cutting off someone in traffic who's going really slow, but it turns out they were falling asleep at the wheel and my assholery jolted them awake and made them pull over after recognizing how sleepy they are.

Re:Wow

[websitebroke]

Blowing up politicians in a risk-free virtual world? I'm sure most folks would have a great time with this, nutjob or not. Especially if the skins corresponded with real politicians. Specter and Casey just rubber stamped this bill. I'd love a few pot shots at them.

Of course, that player who doesn't seem to be shooting back is really a spook. He's too busy with: "68.119.347.28 just bazookaed the president 117 times in a row - get me a wiretap on that guy"

Re:Wow

[torkus]

Haha. That'll be the day. No one would do such a thing because then the roles are reversend and someone else "storms out" they don't want the chance of being arrested in retailiation.

Sad, sad, sad. I remember when i was 10 years old i would walk off if i didn't like something. These are, in theory, grown men with the capability and responsibility for running our country.

I'm still kind of dismayed how we're even considering passing laws in obvious contradiction to our constitution and bill of rights. I'm also confused how we can have secret laws that no one is allowed to KNOW about. Worst of all, people seem to be using the wrong kind of box at this point.

Anyone want to lend me a few billion to go start (or buy) my own country?

Re:Wow

[UconnGuy]

The problem is that the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. The Judicial Branch can't/won't enforce the contempt charge unless it is brought to them by either the executive branch (Justice Dept) or by however Congress can do it. IIRC, Congress must pass the charges onto the DOJ and they are the ones that decide whether to prosecute or not (since the Executive branch is in charge of enforcing the law). Of course, since the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, chances are they will ignore the contempt citation - which is completely allowed, although may not be right.

Re:Wow

[SoulRider]

Hmm, I wonder if we now have the short list of republicans that have something to hide. If Bush is as innocent as he his claiming then he should have no problem with these people testifying in front of congress.

Re:Wow

[Mister Whirly]

"it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something

So it's just politics as usual then.

"start the impeachment process or don't. All this pussyfooting around is 100% impotent and accomplishes nothing more than a lot of publicity to make voters feel warm and fuzzy."

Oh the nerve. Why should a president be held accountable for his own actions? I mean, it isn't like he lied about a blowjob or anything serious like that...

Re:Wow

[RingDev]

Now Batman, I'm usually well aligned with your views. And even in this I can see your point, but I think it is a bit naive to claim that the reason for the walk out was not related to the tel-com vote. Pitching a fit over the contempt charges was just a scape goat.

By walking out at that point they achieve 3 political goals:
1) They prevent the contempt issue from being settled.
2) They spare themselves the popular heat of voting for immunity.
3) They continue the perception that the democratically lead congress is unable to take action.

Many congressmen are behind impeachment, but unfortunately the majority leader has taken it off the table and quashes any movements for it. So they are taking what actions they can. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to maintain the balance of power with the Executive and Judicial branch. If the option of impeachment is not available, they must use what ever powers they do have to attempt to do so. If that means censures and contempt charges, so be it.

Sure, it may be grandstanding, but it is grandstanding that the people, the congressmen's constituents are demanding. If the representatives are getting pressure from their State, from the people that they are there to represent, to pursue contempt charges, then their actions seem to be right on the mark.

And besides, I didn't hear any complaints from the Republican party (at least not on this scale) when the congress was wasting days on steroids in baseball hearings. Talk about a waste of tax payer resources. Who gives a flying f' if some sports star was juicing. Let the league handle it, and if there was a criminal act, let the judicial branch handle it. There is no reason for us to be paying these over-aged pasty white guys to sit around talking about baseball.

-Rick

Re:Wow

[funwithBSD]

The papers of any branch of government, Judicial, Executive or Legislative are considered protected if it is the sole responsiblity of that branch. That is implied by "Separation of Powers"

The first test case was Washington:

"In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents which were relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with Great Britain. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Therefore, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House."[2]

Also, here is the meat of the problem:

But as telecommunications--and especially the Internet--evolved, a communication between, say, Paris and Karachi, might actually be routed through the United States and thus become off-limits to government agents without a warrant.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171747

Neither end of the conversation is privileged as they are not US citizens on US soil, but because it routed through here it is covered by FISA. (you do realize any mail you send or receive across the border can be read, don't you? Your rights end at the border)

Quite frankly, I am all for it if it expires every few years. It is a power granted in extraordinary times and it should not be perminate.

Re:Wow

[sjames]

There's plenty of maneuvering going on. The House Democrats want the immunity bill dead, so they knowingly let it expire by debating a different issue. That upsets the Republicans, particularly since the debate is rather pointedly focusing on further wrongs of the Bush administration. It's kinda like when a friend invites you to an increadibly boring sounding party and you reply "Well, gee, I'd love to but I have to floss my cat" rather than "Thanks, but I've got a late meeting that night".

As for contempt charges and the DOJ, that roadblock only lasts as long as the DOJ continues to stonewall. Should the AG be replaced (say, by a newly elected Democratic president), everything changes. If the aides have two functioning neurons in their heads they will now be thinking long and hard about just how much protection Bush and his cronies will be providing them once he's out of office. A LOT of people in Bush's administration should be thinking about that now.

Re:Wow

[Brad Eleven]

I read _somewhere_ that Congress does have some sort of enforcement capabilities for cases like this when Justice won't do their job

I have, too, but all I find is the Department of Justice asserting in a 2005 opinion that they don't: IMPERMISSIBILITY OF DEPUTIZING THE HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS AS A SPECIAL DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL. Rather pre-emptive, isn't it?

IMHO, this is either going to turn out like Iran/Contra or Watergate. My guess is that it's not so much public opinion and approval ratings as it is media mogul opinion and Nielsen ratings.

Or it could turn out like the 2000 Presidential election, i.e., the Supreme Court rules, and that's that.

Is it just me, or does anyone else keep hearing this message that We the People don't really have any say?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but you haven't contempted congress yet, so no need to worry.

Re:Wow

[ROU Nuisance Value]

That's a completely disingenous take on both issues in the congress, as well as the constitutional powers involved, and the Washington case:
1. In addition to separation of powers, the constitution confers on Congress both the authority and the *duty* to conduct oversight on the operations of the executive. The executive has no comparable duty with respect to Congress. The powers conferred on congress by the constitution includes otherwise-judicial powers, including service of subpoenas and the right of enforcement of said subpoenas.
2. In the Washington case, Congress was exercising that authority. Washington *did* comply by providing the papers requested to the Congressional body with authority to oversee his actions: the Senate. He did not stonewall congress on this.
3. Congress is now attempting to exercise this same authority with respect to allegations of political manipulation of the Justice Department. The executive has denied access not only to papers and documents, but gagged witnesses Harriet Meirs and Josh Bolton, telling them that they may not testify to congress in any form. This is completely outside the scope of executive privilege, and congress has allowed the executive to get away with this stonewalling for over a year.
4. Congress has (finally) gotten around to voting on a contempt of congress resolution, which is the first step to enforcing those subpoenas. We will indeed have a court test of this, and fairly soon -- but the idea that the courts are "unlikely" to support congress' privileges in this is pretty silly.

Re:Wow

[Raven_black]

Appearently the problem is not that they weren't talking but that they didn't even show up to answer the questions with a "I can't say". They just blew the Congress off, thats why they are looking at Contempt charges. even if you can't say you are still required to show up...its like being subpoenaed.

Re:Wow

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

In addition to separation of powers, the constitution confers on Congress both the authority and the *duty* to conduct oversight on the operations of the executive. The executive has no comparable duty with respect to Congress.
*cough* Veto *cough*.

Re:Wow

[Actually, I do RTFA]

That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress. The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege. They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.

This doesn't makes sense. First, why do Republican senators influence the House? Second, why would the House move on two the next item on the agenda before deciding on the previous one. Which is to say, just because a bunch of Republicans don't want to vote for X, why would that mean that there shouldn't be a vote on X, and instead it get tabled.

To summarize: Republican (probably Representitives and not Senators) were pissed that the House was trying to hold Bush officials in contempt, but couldn't table or vote down the issue. So they walked out. Then they claimed that all the House should have been doing that day was sucking the President off.

Re:Wow

[ROU Nuisance Value]

Batman is, as usual, a completely biased right-wing idiot. FISA had almost nothing to do with the walkout yesterday. That there is such confusion about it on this site is just another demonstration of how really wonderful and effective the right wing are at obfuscating reality.

Ringdev, your reasons 1 and 3 are just plain wrong. Republicans didn't prevent the contempt issue from being "settled". Democrats had a quorum and passed the contempt of congress resolution yesterday.

Which leaves your reason 2, which is closer to the truth. The real reason these idiots walked out are:
1. To make a stink about not passing the telecom immunity act the way the President wanted.
2. To spare themselves the popular heat of voting against the contempt of congress resolution. Had they done so, they're going to look awfully phony once Miers and Bolton testify and the Justice Department scandal blows up again.

Re:Wow

[ROU Nuisance Value]

If veto=oversight, then a police arrest=investigation. Not.
BTW: You really should do something about that cold. It's starting to lower your IQ.

Re:Wow

[ROU Nuisance Value]

THANK YOU for finally injecting a little INFORMATION into this stupid discussion. I'm getting so tired of /. "political" threads that never rise above the level of a Limbaugh-hosted fact-free reactionary phone-in session. BAH.

Re:Wow

[Jesus_666]

I'm not a US American, but from what I've gathered the Democrats are essentially a cross-breed between hippies and communists while the Republicans are essentially nazis on Exxon Mobil's payroll. So just give the Dems flowerchild garments, furry hats and AK47s and the Reps brown shirts, flamethrowers and corporate logos as spray tags.

I think that reflects the political situation in the USA, as seen on Slashdot, quite well.

Re:Wow

[iminplaya]

As a result, it accomplishes nothing more than grandstanding to look like they're doing something about Bush's policies.

It's an election year. Seeing as that they are all corrupt, you won't see any real hard ball being played here. The whole system would collapse. What did you expect? The Inquisition?

Re:Wow

[bckrispi]

If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the law, there are two options.

1. A Judge can order the justice department to act
2. Congress can move forward with inherent contept proceedings. From Wikipedia:

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Re:Wow

[HTH NE1]

If Presidential aides break the law, should they be immune from investigation as long as the President invokes executive privilege? The real issue is that the Justice Department has said they won't investigate and bring charges, meaning it wouldn't go to court in the first place -- seems a bit of an odd choice if the court wouldn't do something about it. Going after his aides won't get the aides. The President will still Pardon or Commute sentences for them like he did for Libby. But he won't want Pardon them until he leaves office at the end of his term. To Pardon them now leaves them no recourse for refusing to testify. Claim privilege and he can keep them silent (or amnesiac) until his departure and avoid investigation, impeachment, and removal from office. Then he can resign at the very end, swear in Cheney, and have Cheney Pardon him (as Ford did Nixon).

That he can leverage Pardons and Commutations of his co-conspirators to get them all off scot free becomes the basis of the executive privilege he's asserting.

The one chink in the armor is the investigatory arm of a civil suit against the cooperating telecoms. Unless he can convince Justice that his power to Pardon can block a civil suit. It would be difficult argument to win without a better stacking of SCOTUS, which is why he'd rather get Congress to do it for him.

Re:Wow

[Attila Dimedici]

No, you got that wrong, the Democrats are a crossbreed between communists and nazis.

Re:Wow

[morcego]

Thank you for bringing this up.

This is something that always baffled me. How a whole country can get mad at a president for getting a blowjob, but say it is ok for another to do the kind of stuff Bush is doing (Gitmo, wiretaps etc).

Yes, I understand HOW it is done (tell the people it is for their safety blah blah blah). But I still can't understand how the people still fall for it these days.

Re:Wow

[maxume]

Ah, but remember, Congress doesn't care about you.

Re:Wow

[Hoi Polloi]

No one reported that when they marched out they all headed straight to their telecom lobbyist's office and proceeded to beg them not stop taking them on free trips, expensive dinners, "campaign contributions", etc.

Re:Wow

[Jesus_666]

So everyone is a nazi? In that case just take the nazi model and color one party red and the other blue. And never ever let anyone with the nickname of "Godwin" connect to the server. He'd just get a seizure.

Re:Wow

[Chris Burke]

Most good skins are ones where you can tell one side from the other.

The Q3 mod Navy Seals had skins that were fairly close to each other, because both sides would be wearing appropriate camouflage, like "light desert camo" vs "light with some darker spots desert camo", and failing to spot the small differences in the fraction of a second you'd have to decide to shoot resulted in a lot of team kills. Part of the charm of the game, imo.

Anyway, I can only see the problems this would result in. "Ooh, it's a congressman with a corporate lobbyist monkey on their back! Fire! Oh crap, that was a media monkey, not a defense monkey! I'm so sorry, forgive my teamkill!"

Re:Wow

[vux984]

That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress.

Since when is it "wasting time" when a large part of congress wants to vote on whether officials held CONGRESS in CONTEMPT?

And you think -your- version is -less- one sided?

Poor republiclans, just trying to get an honest days work done rubberstamping their presidents bills, but oh noooo the democrats wouldn't let them. They wanted to "waste time" on silly little trivialities like whether the executive branch can do whatever it wants without any oversight from congress.

So they did the only thing they could under the circumstances: Quit for the day in protest.

"If we're not going to rubberstamp this bill, there is just no point in being here." one was heard to say leaving the building.

The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege.

So apparently even the republicans have mixed views on it. For my part if those communications involved something illegal then no there should be no privilege. But lets discuss it and have a vote.

They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.

It seems particularly ironic that the bill they wanted to tackle involves surveillance. Maybe we should rubberstamp it and then use it to record the president and his advisors conversations without a warrant. Sidestep the whole issue of whether they are required to testify to congress if we can just record them directly... you know like they want to do to us.

Sure my post is sarcastic and mocking, but seriously... this is screwed up.

Re:Wow

[boyfaceddog]

And on and on and on. The odds against this thing being wrapped up before next January are so staggeringly huge that it makes one wonder exactly why Congress is even bothering. When the Dems first won the majority I was thrilled every time they did even one little thing to try and stop George. Now I just get this sinking feeling that this is all some sort of pathetic show cooked up between the Dems and the GOP to keep the citizens screaming for blood. I'm not really sure anyone cares whose blood it is anymore.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Because apparently, the only people in enough of a majority who give a care are MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN. Because the children of MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN aren't being harmed by wiretaps, incredibly expensive wars, ruined economies (offset by the cheaper gas from Iraq), etc, then no-one is passionate enough to give a care (apart from nerds, but apparently we have no power). A blowjob on the other hand, is "damaging" to children - because if children are introduced to the idea of "sex" before 35, their heads will explode.

Re:Wow

[frank_adrian314159]

By walking out at that point they achieve 3 political goals:
1) They prevent the contempt issue from being settled.

No. While the Senate needs a quorum, the House needs only a majority. The Democrats had a majority, they voted, and the motion to hold in contempt passed. Ms. Meiers and the others are now in contempt of Congress.

2) They spare themselves the popular heat of voting for immunity.

No. They just delay it. The immunity bill will again be taken up as soon as Congress re-adjourns week after next.

3) They continue the perception that the democratically lead congress is unable to take action.

No. They continue the perception that the Republicans are obstructionist to a degree unheard of in any Congress up to this time.

Re:Wow

[AKAImBatman]

"Wasting time" is their words*, not mine. From what I've heard on the issue, it's unlikely that the contempt charges will be successful in resulting in the prosecution of the aides, so from that perspective you could say that the proceedings are an ineffectual waste of time. Congress should be starting impeachment proceedings if they think their case is that strong.

That being said, maybe the House will manage to get something positive out of this. I mean, the failure to address the Telecom Immunity Act was probably a positive thing. :)

* Or at least, the Republican stance. My memory for precise wording has been known to be faulty. ;-)

Re:Wow

[RingDev]

No. While the Senate needs a quorum, the House needs only a majority. The Democrats had a majority, they voted, and the motion to hold in contempt passed. Ms. Meiers and the others are now in contempt of Congress. Good to hear. I car pooled yesterday and missed out on my usual dose of political news :(

No. They just delay it. The immunity bill will again be taken up as soon as Congress re-adjourns week after next. The population of the US is fickle. They'll get bored of hearing about the tele-com immunity and other scandals will push it to the back burner of America's attention. I think South Park summed up the tactic as the "look at the silly monkey" strategy.

No. They continue the perception that the Republicans are obstructionist to a degree unheard of in any Congress up to this time. Amongst people with working brain cells and the time and inclination to investigate what is happening beyond the stories that Faux News spoon feeds them. There are people who believe that Kerry is not a war hero, Obama is Muslim, and that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks. There are those that believe the failure of our congress to accomplish much of anything over the last year is the result of the democrats sitting on their asses.

That is part of the reason why it disgusts me that if the republicans even threaten to filibuster, the democrats table the bill. There is no media spotlight being shined on the Republicans for being obstructionists. And that fault goes straight to those spineless lackies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

-Rick

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always been that way, you just believed all the hype when you were young.

Re:Wow

[pugugly]

So, fundamentally, the GOP was upset that Democrats wanted to hold Administration officials responsible for breaking the law, when it was really so much more important to make sure telecomm companies weren't held responsible if they broke the law.

How exactly are these people the party of law and order again?

Pug

Re:Wow

[pugugly]

I confess - I mainly want them impeached because I want this whole "Unitary Executive" theory challenged and sent back to the bowels of hell from which it came.

I don't *want* Obama or Hillary to have this kind of power, and I certainly don't want McCain to have this kind of power.

The only reason I can come up with that the Republicans haven't bucked the White House on this is that, fundamentally, they don't think the Democrats will have the imagination to really abuse it the way they have. What the hell are they going to do if Obama get's elected, and turns out to be a charming, charismatic, and ruthless SOB?

I hate to say it - but 60% of the country hate's Bushes guts. What the hell are they going to do if we have a likable person with a 65% job approval rating doing unto them as they've done to us?

Pug

Re:Wow

[tengu1sd]

The Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same power hungry we know best fabric. Both groups want to impose their world view on the rest of nation. Both parties seek to eliminate the Bill of Right, the only difference is each party has opted to start with different amendments. Our only hope is to keep them at odds, if true cooperation breaks out, we'll be working in big corporations' org charts for healthcare and kibble, with 100 percent tax fully deducted.

Re:Wow

[funwithBSD]

Yes, but implicit in the case law is that the congress can still get the info if they can show probable cause. What they cannot do is go on a fishing expedition by demanding papers to "prove" something that they have no evidence for in the first place.

I am pretty sure you want that applied to the office, seeing how it is a fundamental right.
Rarely does it come to that. Usually the papers are released after judicial review anyhow and being redacted to some degree. It is rare for the President to hold them forever. Usually they are just "lost" by the staff, ala Hillary Clinton and her lawfirm billing records.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No one in the government should have right to privacy for officially actions. That's dangerously stupid and something the framers never intended.

Re:Wow

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Sorry but the veto is oversight on the operations of the legislative branch, since the legislative branch passes legislation which the executive can veto. BTW you should do something about that snark, It's starting to make you look like a dick.

Re:Wow

[ROU Nuisance Value]

Sorry, but a veto is a simple check on the power of congress, not oversight of its affairs and conduct. The oversight function goes a great deal farther than, for instance, overriding the executive's veto by a two-thirds majority, which is congress' *check* on -- not *oversight* of -- the executive. For instance, the executive has no inherent right to investigate the affairs and conduct of congress (although it can, under the function of law enforcement, investigate alleged criminal conduct on the part of individual congresspersons, which does not constitute oversight of *congress as a body*).

In short, the two are about as analogous as, say, your face and my ass. And as long as we're still prescribing for each other's conditions: Dictionaries. Very useful in helping you know what the fuck you're talking about. Find out about 'em.

Re:Wow

[ROU Nuisance Value]

Precisely my issue as well. Believe it or don't, but there are plenty of *Democrats* out here who are terrified of what Hil or Obama might do to the country with the powers Bush, Cheney and Addison have arrogated to themselves. That we actually have to fear such a possibility is the true measure of the very deep damage this pack of vile thugs who claim they are Republicans have done to the nation.

Re:Wow

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I did Bush vs Kerry 2fort flags last election, it was pretty fun but didnt make any real difference.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

haha

Bush's comments on the issue

[morgan_greywolf]

"The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill," Bush said, adding that not doing so would "put the American people at risk." *sigh* I'm soooo tired of these scare tactics and I'm sure the rest of America is, too. Look, we're no better off than we were before 9/11 with regards to 'safety' from terrorists, and in many ways, we're worse off.

Read my lips, Bush: We ain't skeered of no terrorists.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[Tibor the Hun]

*sigh* I'm soooo tired of these scare tactics and I'm sure the rest of America is, too

Don't be so sure, my sister in law once said that she is actually glad for all the checkpoints and inspections at public events, as it makes her feel safer.
For myself though, I put my faith in my safety-rock. We haven't been attacked ever since I started keeping it in my front yard.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[radja]

safety-rocks not only work against terrorism, they also keep you safe from tiger attacks and the re-entry from satellites in the athmosphere!

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[QuantumRiff]

and in many ways, we're worse off.
How can you say this? The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. We have systematically been eliminating their reasons for hating us! In just a few short years, I am sure they will love us again!

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[elrous0]

Don't forget the bear patrol. Sure, it cost us a lot of money, but there hasn't been a single bear attack in New York City since they started it!

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[elrous0]

I applaud Bush's simple solution to the problem

1. They hate us for our freedom
2. Remove freedom
3. Problem solved!

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[fishbowl]

The implication is that a mere law can change the "safety" of the people in a country in any meaningful way, and the frightening thing is that some of the people accept this premise.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[cayenne8]

"safety-rocks not only work against terrorism, they also keep you safe from tiger attacks and the re-entry from satellites in the athmosphere!"

Tell me...where can I buy one of these safety rocks? I'll give you $5 for yours!!!

:-D

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[greedyturtle]

Be warned though, while they are also strong against scissors, safety-rocks can, in fact, be defeated by paper. Be sure to keep all of your office supplies locked up. You might even want to look into going all electronic.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[morgan_greywolf]

For myself though, I put my faith in my safety-rock Whatever makes you feel better, man. I hear there's this kat named Linus that carries around a blanket.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[Poppa]

You can thank Bush that you don't have to be skeered of no terrorists.

Political posturing just to further your own power at the expense of our safety is irresponsible. Clinton policies brought us 9/11. Bush policies have prevented a recurrence. But, it wouldn't matter to you; the fact that he is a Republican means he gets blamed whether or not we get attacked.

The Democrats are so far out of reality to push their scare tactics of Global Warming being worse than Islamofascism.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[morgan_greywolf]

You can thank Bush that you don't have to be skeered of no terrorists. Pffft. My not being scared of terrorists has nothing to do with Bush. In case you hadn't noticed, acts of terrorism were already plenty illegal before Bush even got into the White House, let alone 9/11. Well before all of this, we've had law enforcement and military, working at the federal, state and local levels doing their job to stop terrorists and other illegal, hostile acts of aggression. They already knew something like 9/11 could happen before it ever happened. Nobody was surprised. Trust me.

Here's the thing, man: The terrorists aren't all that organized. They couldn't possibly pull off another 9/11. Besides, do you think terrorists actually did 9/11 in the first place? If so, do you think they did it by themselves, without any help? See my first statement in this paragraph. There is no "the terrorists". There are different varying factions who are extremely busy fighting amongst themselves and everyone else, never mind the United States. Sure, occasionally an IED blows up in Iraq, or there are suicide bombers, but these aren't the coordinated act of some mighty coordinated group all orchestrated by one man named Osama Bin Laden. If you really think that, then you probably deserve what the government is doing to you. But please, don't let your ignorance affect my freedom.

The Democrats are so far out of reality to push their scare tactics of Global Warming being worse than Islamofascism. Whoo boy. Do they have you brainwashed or what? Wake up, man! The Democrats and the Republicans use the same scare tactics to get whatever it is they want. Do I believe Global Warming is bad? Yes. Do I think the models that predict all the bad stuff that Al Gore and others told us would happen are right? Who knows? They don't know for sure. But here's the thing, man: Do you want this planet to be a good place to human race to live, now and in the future? Then raping the planet of natural resources and polluting the fsck out of it because we're too worried about a few billionaires not being able to buy a new yacht next year because their stock portfolio fell a few percentage points seems like a bad idea, now doesn't it?

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[TapeCutter]

Actually OBL stated that "US bombs raining on Lebannon during the 80's" was his initial motivation. Your troll does nothing but remind others why they want to attack you, here in Oz terror attacks on our nationals were unheard of until Bush got into the picture.

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[morgan_greywolf]

Oh, yeah. Thanks for mentioning that. I forgot to put it in my post above. :)

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[Poppa]

How convenient for you to forget that OBL ran the US out of Mogadishu, was behind the bombings of US Embassies and the USS Cole and Clinton did nothing? Hmmm?

Re:Bush's comments on the issue

[TapeCutter]

And you forget Clinton attacked OBL's camp with tomahawks and Bush bombed the wrong country. You also mistake me for a fan of Clinton's foriegn policy, donating $2B of attack choppers to Burma was not a good move. The biggest fear the rest the planet has is that all americans actually think like the myopic dribble that so freely flows from your keyboard.

Matters Instead

[techpawn]

Turned to contempt of congress charges against Bush aides who did not testify when subpoenas. This outraged some republicans because they thought that the FISA was more important...

A bill that would give the president more power is more important than maintaining checks and balances?

Re:Matters Instead

[morgan_greywolf]

A bill that would give the president more power is more important than maintaining checks and balances? Yes. It's much easier to build a theocratic state when you only have to control the President and you don't have to worry about any pesky liberals in the Legislature.

Re:Matters Instead

[techpawn]

It's much easier to build a theocratic state when you only have to control the President

Huh... I guess then we wouldn't want impeachment then. We'd need excommunication?

Re:Matters Instead

[AKAImBatman]

Trying to charge the White House aides is an interesting tactic, as it was Bush himself who invoked executive powers to keep them from testifying. Yet they know they can't charge the President himself (short of impeachment, they can't touch him) so the House chose to chase down the aides instead.

Re:Matters Instead

[Jaysyn]

"Ex" something & I'm not talking about talking...

Re:Matters Instead

[SoulShakeDown]

IMPEACH!!!

Re:Matters Instead

[elrous0]

You have to give it to Republicans. When it comes to matters of evil, those guys are remarkably disciplined. I just wish Democrats could learn to be equally disciplined in defense of good; instead of being wishy-washy, weak, and all over the map.

Re:Matters Instead

[raehl]

as it was Bush himself who invoked executive powers to keep them from testifying.

1) Bush doesn't have those powers. He's just pretending he does.
2) Following orders isn't an excuse. The aides are in contempt of Congress if they refuse to testify, whether someone else told them not to testify or not.

Separation of powers means the executive branch can't legislate and the legislative branch can't ... uh ... execute. It doesn't mean that the Executive branch isn't subject to the lawful acts of Congress.

Re:Matters Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody PLEASE mod this up.

Re:Matters Instead

[techpawn]

When it comes to matters of evil, those guys are remarkably disciplined.

True republicans exist only two at a time, with a master and an apprentice...

Re:Matters Instead

[abaddononion]

The Emperor and Vader were republicans?

How come Bush doesnt get a cool mask?

Re:Matters Instead

[techpawn]

How come Bush doesnt get a cool mask?

Because he didn't get to fight Ann Richards on a volcano so Karl Rove can find his charred remains for that to happen my young padawan...

Re:Matters Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

it should also be pointed out that they were found in contempt not because they refused to testify - they could have semi-legitimately claimed executive privilege and refused to answer questions. but what they cannot do is ignore a subpoena which is what they did. executive privilege as an excuse to not answer questions is a tenuous concept as it is, but it most certainly is not a "get out of subpoena free" card. congress and the executive are co-equal branches and if congress subpoenas someone from the executive and they just plain don't show up, that's a serious federal offense.

Re:Matters Instead

[morgan_greywolf]

Oooh. Truth little close to home wacko mods?

Take your mod point. Strike me down. Join me on the dark side! I got karma to burn.

Re:Matters Instead

[elrous0]

Even the Emperor finds Karl Rove and Dick Cheney distasteful.

Re:Matters Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

You are forgetting one branch the Judicial. Legislative branch's role is to create the laws. Judicial branch is to interpret the law. Powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. Where in the US Constitution does it say Congress can interpret it's own laws? It doesn't.

Re:Matters Instead

[Actually, I do RTFA]

2) Following orders isn't an excuse. The aides are in contempt of Congress if they refuse to testify, whether someone else told them not to testify or not.

Following orders can be an excuse. Personally, I would be fine with the aides saying "I have been ordered not to testify," getting off scotfree, and having the person who gave them the order take their place in the hotseat. Repeat as necessary until someone is responsible.

Re:Matters Instead

[ciggieposeur]

1) Bush doesn't have those powers. He's just pretending he does.

If he successfully uses those powers, then he does in fact have them, regardless of what anyone else says to the contrary.

Re:Matters Instead

[HiThere]

That is, indeed, the correct answer. Now convince Nancy Pelosi.

Re:Matters Instead

[Noburo23]

Impeach Cheney first!

Re:Matters Instead

[The Analog Kid]

The House should pull a lot of the funding the executive branch has in order to play ball. I mean, why does Dick Cheney really need an office and a staff? The Constitution gives the Vice President two jobs, a tie breaker in Congress and to succeed the President if he dies or is removed from office other than that he should have no more power. Though Ron Paul has no chance, I'm sure he'd put an end to the Dick Cheney type VPs.

I'm confused...

[TripMaster Monkey]

I thought the Republican walk-out was staged in response to the Dems daring to bring contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers.

Was this a different walk-out?

Re:I'm confused...

[AKAImBatman]

Same walkout, different spin on the story. To be honest, TFA is misleading and bordering on sensationalist. Not even once mentioning the contempt issue is just plain irresponsible journalism.

Re:I'm confused...

[MightyYar]

You heard right - the summary is complete and utter BS.

Re:I'm confused...

[Flavio]

Exactly. The Associated Press article gives more information.

Here's a part I specially liked:

On Thursday, three Republicans joined 220 Democrats to support the contempt resolution, including Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland, who was defeated this week in a primary.

Re:I'm confused...

[DigiShaman]

Not even once mentioning the contempt issue is just plain irresponsible journalism.

Nothing new.

Journalistic malpractice is the rule rather than the exception these days. It's about time we start holding their reputations accountable! You sir, are doing a great service for the Slashdot community by pointing this out. Thank you.

Re:I'm confused...

[The Angry Mick]

I thought the Republican walk-out was staged in response to the Dems daring to bring contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers

I thought it was about a group of children taking their toys from the playground when they didn't get their way.

Either way, it was infantile, and definitely not a demonstration of working for the people.

Walk out was not because of telecom vote

[funnyguy]

The republicans walked out in protest of a vote to cite two former white house officials (Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten) with contempt of Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner argued that the House should instead be voting on an extension of the FISA bill which expires Saturday.

The /. teaser seemed to indicate that the walk out was due to a refusal to vote on the FISA bill. That is not correct.

Re:Walk out was not because of telecom vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. It had nothing to do with the telecom vote. Doesn't anybody check these things anymore before they are posted?

Re:Walk out was not because of telecom vote

[dreamchaser]

You must be new here.

Better than passing it!

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone paying attention, the Democrats have just shown Bush to be the Lying Fascist he is.

How? Bush said that people would Die, the Tarrraaarrusts would win if the bill isn't signed.
However, he'd veto the bill without Telecom immunity

So, let's see. It's more important to protect the Telecoms than to "Stop the Tarraa"

Come on. Fascism isn't any clearer than that. We'll let terrorists kill people (if you believe
you need one a bill at all, which you don't) instead of passing one without support for
the Corporate Sponsors.

Got Fascism? Yup. Damn, now you've even got proof.

Re:Better than passing it!

[Kierthos]

You listened to Keith Olbermann last night, didn't you? :)

Re:Better than passing it!

[MightyYar]

I'm not denying that Bush has some fascist tendencies (as do most US politicians these days), but your example is plain-old CYA and has nothing to do with fascism.

(CYA = cover your ass)

Re:Better than passing it!

[Hatta]

Perhaps you're familiar with the line attributed to Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Could there be any more glaring example of how state and corporate power have merged in the US?

Re:Better than passing it!

[internetcommie]

It is more like a hostile takeover.

Re:Better than passing it!

[MightyYar]

Corporatism is an integral part of fascism, but you need more (otherwise the word fascism wouldn't need to exist). You need at a minimum IMHO extreme nationalism/patriotism, militarism, and some kind of autocratic rule. The only missing ingredient from many US politicians is the autocratic rule bit, though we aren't quite as militaristic as 1930's Japan or Germany, either - we can hardly stomach a single invasion of dubious merit, let alone some kind of campaign.

Re:Better than passing it!

[Stephen Ma]

Bush said that people would Die, the Tarrraaarrusts would win if the bill isn't signed. However, he'd veto the bill without Telecom immunity

Bush is counting on the major media channels to cover his back on this, as they have for the last 7 years. If the media never call out his lies, there is nothing to stop him from lying, and lying, and lying some more. And that is what he does -- and has been doing since he was governor of Texas.

In related news

[Sleeping Kirby]

In related news. Bush vows to hold his breath until his face turns blue in protest of the house not being bipartisan by giving him exactly what he wants.

I haven't been in American that long (only almost 20 years). Has there been a worse president than this guy?

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Re:In related news

[Kierthos]

I would have said Nixon, but I think Nixon actually had (slightly) higher approval ratings at the end there. .....

Just checked... Truman actually had a lower approval rating (during the Korean War) then Bush, but Bush's low (24%) is only 2% higher then Truman's low (22%), and Bush has most of a year to go.

But Truman didn't fuck as many things up as Bush has, so I'd have to say that Bush is the worst.

Re:In related news

[belthize]

Not yet but give us time; we've only been around for 200+ years.

    I'm sure that in another 100-200 years we can find somebody less
competent as President but more adept at demagoguery and hyperbole.

Belthize

Re:In related news

[Jaysyn]

Take your pick of angles & political philospohy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Re:In related news

[sethstorm]

Reagan the Enabler.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Bay Area ("Moscow West"), and saw a few cars with bumper sticker: "Bush makes me miss Nixon"

Re:In related news

[cayenne8]

"I haven't been in American that long (only almost 20 years). Has there been a worse president than this guy?"

I dunno...I think Bush is currently giving Carter a run for the money on the title tho.....

Re:In related news

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Let's just say that you should be happy you missed the Carter years.

Re:In related news

[sexybomber]

I haven't been in American that long (only almost 20 years). Has there been a worse president than this guy?

Uh, simply put, no. I've heard from people who where around in the 70s that Nixon was almost as bad, but no. The widespread sentiment is that Dubya is, in fact, the worst President ever.

Re:In related news

[ratbert6]

"I haven't been in American that long (only almost 20 years). Has there been a worse president than this guy?"

I've lived here my entire life and studied a little history. The answer is NO!

Re:In related news

[dghcasp]

I haven't been in American that long (only almost 20 years). Has there been a worse president than this guy?

Average American:

• Terrorists attacked again? no.
• Can gays marry? no.

Best president Ever!

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, his name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Not much worse than Bush mind you, but worse just the same.

Re:In related news

[gotpoetry]

John F Kennedy was worse than George Bush? JFK: Civil Rights legislation, defused Cuban Missile Crisis, "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in West Berlin, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Project Apollo, Peace Corps... and more. GWB: No Child left behind, Stem Cell research ban, sat in a classroom reading a children's story to the class while the twin towers were bombed, unprovoked preemptive war on iraq, Mission Accomplished, illegal spying on Americans, can't speak... and more. Good luck with your upcoming intelligence transplant.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a great one around my area too. It reads:

"George W. Bush, the President Quayle we never had."

I abhor bumper stickers on my car as a general rule, but this one was so clever and so damn spot on that I considered tracking it down and flying it myself. It's just that rich.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

No Immunity

[PaK_Phoenix]

There should be no retroactive immunity for the telcos. They broke the law, they knew they were breaking the law when they did it. They should now be open to civil litigation, now that their actions are out in the open.

To pass a bill granting retroactive immunity, would set a precedent I'm not comfortable with. The government(executive branch) violated citizens rights (wether or not they had a 'good' reason), and are now looking to protect their cohorts in crime.

What's next? Retroactive immunity for Microsoft, for installing a back door in windows, to help us catch terrorists?

I'm just afraid that immunity will send the message, that it's okay to violate civil rights, if the government asks you to. The government is the last people you should want violating your rights, it says so right in the constitution.

Re:No Immunity

[glindsey]

What's next? Retroactive immunity for Microsoft, for installing a back door in windows, to help us catch terrorists? YES.

But I'm waiting for the bill that grants retroactive immunity to assassins who take out anybody deemed to be anti-patriotic and/or subversive.

Re:No Immunity

[Xelios]

There should be no retroactive immunity for the telcos. They broke the law, they knew they were breaking the law when they did it. They should now be open to civil litigation, now that their actions are out in the open.

I agree with you 100%, but I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Bush: "Alright here's the deal telcos. We need wiretaps, lots of em. LOTS. Warrants would take too long, cause we just have so many phones to tap. We need you to go ahead without them."
Telco: "Hold up. You need a warrant for this, otherwise it's illegal bud. We don't want to take any heat for your illegal activity."
Bush: "Trust me, no one will know. And if word ever gets out I promise I'll get you immunity."
Telco: "Really? Would we have to win some sort of challenge before we get immunity?"
Bush: "Nope. I'll just use my executive powers and claim National Security again, it'll work trust me."
Telco: "Alright then, but only if you pay us for it."
Bush: "No problem! What's another few million in a $9 trillion debt?"

Re:No Immunity

[cciechad]

Congress doesn't even have the authority to give telco's retroactive immunity. Did they miss this part of the constitution? Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Re:No Immunity

[u-235-sentinel]

I'm just afraid that immunity will send the message, that it's okay to violate civil rights, if the government asks you to. The government is the last people you should want violating your rights, it says so right in the constitution.

But the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper! GWB said so ;-)

All kidding aside, it's unreal just how much these retards in Government seem to be acting out scene from Babylon5 Season 3. I'm serious. We were just watching it recently and it occurred to me that they use the same style wording to make it sound like they are doing a good thing.

Substitute Homeland Security for the 'Ministry of Peace' and groups Guarding events like the Seattle WTO meetings for 'Nightwatch'.

Sure looks the same and this stuff was filmed in the 90's.

Re:No Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

the bill would not hold up in court even if passed: Congress is forbidden to pass X post Facto laws in the constitution.

This would be an x post facto law.....

Of course what I have just said only applies if the constitution is still in force, and given how things have been going I'm not so sure anymore.

Re:No Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll point out, apparently Qwest did NOT violate the law. I mean, the NSA or whoever came up to them and asked for a system like AT&T etc. have; Qwest (based partially on advice of lawyers that they are open to huge liability) told them to take a hike and that this was illegal. Apparently at least one big contract was cancelled with them over this but they stood firm. I respect Qwest for this, they should be "rewarded" (in the form of other companies being fined and them not.)

          This is a GREAT reason for denying telecom immunity -- the liability didn't help MUCH but it did persuade at least one telecom to follow the law. If there's a law on the books, but no liability, what is the point of it? The right to privacy is inherent and important -- and warrants provide at least a check to make sure "they" are spying on who they are supposed to, not just random girlfriends, politicians they don't like, etc.

Re:No Immunity

[bckrispi]

^ This wouldn't be an ex post facto law. Immunity doesn't mean "a crime didn't occur". It means "there will be no prosecution or civil judgments for this crime".

Re:No Immunity

[cciechad]

By wikipedias defininition that would be ex post facto sisnc it changes the legal consequences retroactively. "An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law."

Re:No Immunity

[Quixote]

You're wrong. Read the whole thing. What it says is that you can't make something a crime post-facto. On the other hand, pardoning past misdeeds is indeed permissible.

Re:No Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Retroactive immunity isn't evil per se. There are unjust laws, and it isn't unreasonable to make something legal after it used to be illegal. It isn't even unreasonable to decline to prosecute people who broke an old law while it was in force after the law was withdrawn.

This case is an example where there was something inherently unethical - and probably unconstitutional - about what was done, regardless of what the law was at the time, in the past or in the future. That is why it should be pursued.

If someone was accused under the DMCA of circumventing copyright protections by converting media that they bought from one format to another, would you disagree with granting them freedom from prosecution on the basis that they knew they were breaking the law?

Re:No Immunity

[bckrispi]

But the statute itself doesn't change. The new law wouldn't change the penalty for the crime. It would alter how the law was enforced under certain conditions. Now, I agree that retroactive immunity to the Telcos is a horrible idea, I just don't see how a law like this, were it to pass, could be constitutionally challenged. The winning move is not to put it on the books in the first place.

Re:No Immunity

[Scudsucker]

Telco: "Alright then, but only if you pay us for it."

What's funny is that the FBI has had it's wiretaps disconnected because they weren't paying the bills. So much for the "patriotism" of the phone companies. So much so much for spying being a "life or death matter" for the Administration.

Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Most vocal Slashdot'ers, including myself, feel that in the balance between (effective counter-terrorism) and (personal freedom, open government), Bush and Congress err far too much in the (effective counter-terrorism) direction.

Are most private citizens like us in this regard, and it's an authoritarian-vs.-population issue? Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[PaK_Phoenix]

Because those who would surrender liberty for safety, deserve neither.

I believe the quote is attributed to Ben Franklin

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[blindd0t]

Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?

Voluntary Response is the answer to your question. Those who do care voluntarily voice their opinion in various ways, such as posting /. comments. ^_^ Many if not most citizens don't appear care enough to even follow what's going on with government. They're too preoccupied with their own little worlds, and until those bubbles are burst, they will continue living their lives in deliberate and blissful ignorance. Mod me as flamebait/troll for saying it for all I care, but when Britney Spears requiring medical treatment makes front page news, yet Russia resuming cold war patrol flights and threatening to point missiles at Ukraine (I'll refrain from writing a book of my opinions on that matter) is seemingly nowhere to be found (on the larger, more popular American news web sites), I'd say it's pretty difficult to deny this sad truth.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[ATMAvatar]

Or are we /.'ers different from most citizens, and if so, why?

Several reasons, actually:

• Many of us realize that the choice isn't between liberty and effective counter-terrorism. The choice is between liberty and a security illusion meant to make people feel safer.
• Knowing that we aren't actually becoming safer, it is much easier for us to realize how scary it is to be placing these kinds of powers in the hands of people who are already blatantly corrupt and whose interests clearly lie contrary to the public's.
• There is a fair amount of skepticism that anything beyond simply locking cockpit doors on airplanes is a necessary response to 9/11. Even if you could convince us that we are actually more secure, it could still be a hard sell that the additional security is worth the cost in liberty.
• There are many other causes of death in our country besides terrorism that vastly outweigh the losses suffered on 9/11... on a yearly basis. Why haven't we taken any steps to solve those? Why is a single event where 3,000 people died cause to go batshit insane protective give-up-our-liberties mode, when Heart Disease causes over 200 times that many deaths on a yearly basis, and we can't convince ourselves to hit up a gym?

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[Floritard]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[splutty]

Most vocal Slashdot'ers, including myself, feel that in the balance between (ineffective counter-terrorism) and (personal freedom, open government), Bush and Congress err far too much in the (ineffective counter-terrorism) direction.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[filterban]

Well, your question has a fundamental problem - you assume there must be a trade-off between safety and liberty.

For hundreds of years, we have seen the opposite in this country and throughout the world. Look at a few (admittedly extreme) examples:

• Prohibition. Did banning of alcoholic beverages make Americans safer or did it create a massive organized crime network?
• Slavery. Were African-Americans safer during slavery when they had no liberty than they are now?
• Women's Suffrage. Were women safer before they had the right to vote and when it was commonplace for men to commit domestic abuse?

Yes, those are extreme examples. However, it doesn't take away from my point - there does not have to be a trade-off between safety and liberty. The government's job is to protect us, yes. But part of protecting the United States is in protecting the liberty and freedom that American citizens have enjoyed for over two hundred years.

Too often our government has used excuses like 9/11 or communism to continually increase their control over the populace and to reduce the rights of the individual. Slashdotters are an intelligent group (overall), and generally speaking, they are more individualistic. They tend towards accomplishing goals on their own terms using their own minds... they are the type to not accept the status quo and instead commit significant resources to be free of the establishment (for example, look at the massive installed base of Linux users here.)

That's why I think you see more vocal proponents of liberty here than you would on, say, FoxNews.com or CNN.com.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[freedom_india]

Women's Suffrage. I will take it up. I have karma to burn and i know i will burn in women's hell too.

Women's suffrage is the root cause of all our present problems now.

The idea that women are equal to men came up during the 60s and the Pill just made it right for them to do so.
This created a great imbalance in the minds of men whom evolution for a million years had treated them superior to women.

Add to that mix, the force of law, lawsuits and jail time for discrimination, being called a backward village bumpkin, etc., made men say out loud that they too support women as equals.

But deep down each man, burns the desire, to return to the time of pre-WW2 era when women were more submissive and did not talk back.

Look into each of you and tell me if its true or not.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[filterban]

Uh, wow. Unintentionally, it appears you have successfully refuted my argument about the intelligence of Slashdotters.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[freedom_india]

intelligence of Slashdotters. In what way? Supporting women suffrage makes us more intelligent? And denying them makes us dumb?

If so, Einstein would be the dumbest guy.
Intelligence has got nothing to do with emotional maturity.

Slashdotters are emotionally as mature as a 7th grader and with an average IQ of 128.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[moeinvt]

I think it's a bit of both. I wouldn't say that "most" private citizens share this love of freedom, but the number is far from negligible.

I believe that one thing that differentiates the /. crowd is that we use the Internet for news instead of relying on the MSM. This telecom story got some coverage, but how many of the YRO stories we see here on a daily basis (spy satellites, real ID, confiscating electronics at the Border, etc. etc.) actually get coverage in the mainstream news?

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Most vocal Slashdot'ers, including myself, feel that in the balance between (effective counter-terrorism) and (personal freedom, open government), Bush and Congress err far too much in the (effective counter-terrorism) direction.

Wait, there's a choice of effective counter-terrorism? I thought the two choices were "make people 'feel safer' becuase they are spied on and there are obnoxious new rules while paying cronies hundreds of billions" and "personal freedom, open government". Effective counter-terrorism might be a useful choice. Who do I vote for that one?

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security
over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a
false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty
requires both security and privacy.

The famous quote attributed to
Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are
likely to end up with neither.

This is a paraphrase of material a friend sent to me today... I just thought I would share it with you all.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because idiots like you believe the whole "safety" argument that Bush and his cronies use as the arguments in favor of these things. Think about it, the ultimate safety would be to lock everyone in their homes and only grant people "excursion passes" to specific pre-approved destinations, and pre-approved durations and purposes. We could lock down the borders like they did in cold-war era USSR. (Show us your papers!). Bust into homes and drag people away for questioning because "something they said" over the wire-tapped phone lines triggered certain keywords. This would be ultimate safety wouldn't it?

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[deltacephei]

There are many other causes of death in our country besides terrorism that vastly outweigh the losses suffered on 9/11... on a yearly basis. Why haven't we taken any steps to solve those? Why is a single event where 3,000 people died cause to go batshit insane protective give-up-our-liberties mode, when Heart Disease causes over 200 times that many deaths on a yearly basis, and we can't convince ourselves to hit up a gym?

Because that solves a different problem and keeps healthcare costs like treating cancer and Alzheimer's disease in older people down. It's far cheaper just to promote the color coded ribbon body parts awareness club campaigns and do nothing. This makes the Healthcare Industrial Complex, not to mention the Mc-BigFarm-Corn-Chemical Complex, happy and profitable.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[StevisF]

The ACLU sponsored a poll asking this very question among other interesting ones. Check it out.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[jvkjvk]

I will take it up. I have karma to burn and i know i will burn in women's hell too.

Women's suffrage is the root cause of all our present problems now.

The idea that women are equal to men came up during the 60s and the Pill just made it right for them to do so.
This created a great imbalance in the minds of men whom evolution for a million years had treated them superior to women.

Add to that mix, the force of law, lawsuits and jail time for discrimination, being called a backward village bumpkin, etc., made men say out loud that they too support women as equals.

But deep down each man, burns the desire, to return to the time of pre-WW2 era when women were more submissive and did not talk back.

Look into each of you and tell me if its true or not. Ok, hmm, let me do that.

Nope, not true. I prefer to live in a society of equals. And don't start on about how nobody is "really equal" or other rubbish.

I would guess that you are at heart insecure in your own Power and need someone to be "below" you in station. Of course, many people are like that, men and women both - it's not a very new thing. Power hierarchies with power over others have been around a long time but it doesn't mean they aren't corruptions.

Maybe you should be asking yourself - "Why do I wish women were more submissive and did not talk back?"

Cause it's evoluuuution man!" just doesn't cut it.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[An ominous Cow art]

Look into each of you and tell me if its true or not. Done. It is not true.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[durdur]

All very good questions. The British (just for example) endured years of terrorism from the IRA and (more recently) Islamic extremists, who bombed London buses. But they didn't re-organize their entire government, launch a couple of wars, spend a trillion dollars, and revoke civil liberties to deal with it. Of course their government did go along for the ride with George Bush, but not nearly as far or completely.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[HappyEngineer]

Heart Disease [cdc.gov] causes over 200 times that many deaths on a yearly basis, and we can't convince ourselves to hit up a gym?

Douglas Adams died of a heart attack while exercising at a gym. Clearly most people took that to heart and won't go near those death traps. A better solution would be to install nuclear powered pace makers in everyone when they are babies.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[3D-nut]

This is a false dichotomy, cultivated by the plutocrats.

Re:Why do we /.'ers prefer liberty to safety?

[trmcdougle]

All very good questions. The British (just for example) endured years of terrorism from the IRA and (more recently) Islamic extremists, who bombed London buses. But they didn't re-organize their entire government, launch a couple of wars, spend a trillion dollars, and revoke civil liberties to deal with it. Of course their government did go along for the ride with George Bush, but not nearly as far or completely.

I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but in case you are not may I point out that pretty much describes what has happened here in the UK.... The home office has been split, the House of Lords have been "reformed" and most civil liberties have been reduced.

A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[usul294]

A Republican representative, I forget who, was giving a speech, and basically said: "I'm tired of the democrat's grandstanding, I call on my fellow Republicans, and any Democrats who wish to join me, I'm leaving." The idea behind doing this was to make a big fuss so that what was going on in Congress yesterday would be covered by the news. Essentially, they felt that by making sure they got on CNN saying the Democrat's were busy sticking their tongues out at the Bush administration, when there was an important bill to pass. The bill in question, on granting immunity to companies helping the federal government, has enough support to pass the House, but not enough to force a vote on it if Nancy Pelosi doesn't want there to be. I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals. That is the job of the executive and judicial branch. (Executive enforces laws, judicial makes sure the laws are fair, legislative writes them) . A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no. Even though a judge should have been involved.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[TripMaster Monkey]

The Repub you're referring to was John Boehner.

From the Raw Story article:

"We will not stand here and watch this floor be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national security. ... Let's just get up and leave," Republican Leader John Boehner advised his colleagues as they dramatically left the floor Thursday afternoon.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[TripMaster Monkey]

The idea behind doing this was to make a big fuss so that what was going on in Congress yesterday would be covered by the news.

Yes, that much becomes glaringly obvious when the ostensibly "spontaneous" walk-out ends in front of a bunch of microphones and cameras conveniently set up on the House steps.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

There was an important bill to *vote on*. Not to pass. I wish they had simply voted it down and gone on with the censure vote, giving the Neocons nothing to grandstand over.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[EllisDees]

>I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals.

But they are responsible for following the law, as Quest did by refusing their request. Fact is, the telecos broke the law by following those orders and should be held responsible just like anyone else.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[Asylumn]

A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no

That's the problem, really. There was not 'proper government authority'. Proper authority would have included things like warrants, court orders, judicial oversight, pesky little things like that. Had any of that been in place then yes, they would have been cooperating with 'proper government authority'. As it is, they just cooperated because someone asked them nicely, and they should be held accountable for it.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, how dare the Democrats do all the grandstanding. Lets do some grandstanding of our own.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[oldhack]

A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no. Even though a judge should have been involved.

Well, if it was proper, it wouldn't need this immunity crap, would it.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[goldspider]

I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals.

So would it be OK for me to murder someone in cold blood if the government told me to do it?

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[mrex]

I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals.

Yeah! I mean, it wouldn't be fair to blame them when they were just following orders, now would it?

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

And trial lawyers have been contributing heavily to pelosi et al, in anticipation of bringing multi-million dollar lawsuits against the telecoms.

The telecoms, and the Bush administration, did nothing wrong wrt FISA. It's another left-wing pipe dream.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[onemorechip]

A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no.

That's rather disingenuous. If the action is illegal then it can't have been "proper government authority". Just like it wasn't "proper government authority" that sold arms to Iran to fund the Contras, even though the executive branch was behind it.

Was a gun held against the telco's head or something?

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[freedom_india]

We will not stand here and watch this floor Sounds like a child's tantrum.
The Dems are in charge now.
If they give into every tantrum of the children, then the parents would be removed.

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[(H)elix1]

I think its fine, don't punish companies for doing what the NSA asks them to do, corporations are not responsible for upholding the rights of individuals.

"Befehl ist Befehl" does not alleviate the person (be it individual or cooperate entity)of responsibility for the crime. They should be dropping Thor's hammer on these folks, and then the folks who asked for the crime to be committed. I don't care what side of the political system you are on - the rule of law must be upheld at all levels!

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think that anyone who is in charge of information regarding private individuals should have some understanding of what kind of protection the data should have.

It isn't exactly uncommon for unreasonable information requests to be made. In my experience, the police and similar parties regularly ask for information that they aren't legally entitled to. A lot of parties receiving these requests aren't savvy enough to know when they should refuse. Personally, I've been lucky enough to be sufficiently knowledgeable myself or had people around me who were - the answer from myself and co-workers has very often been "no", except for the (sadly rare) occasions where the request has actually had a legal basis.

However, if you do decide that corporations and other parties who comply with illegal government requests aren't responsible for their actions, that should mean that the government agencies or representatives making those requests are responsible.

You can't have a system where two parties collaborating can bypass the law just by pretending that neither of them know what the law is, can you?

Re:A Conservative Voice on the Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

It is disturbing how many individuals are pulling their hair in fear of government wiretapping for terrorist communications. First, if you are not a terrorist, you are unlikely to be wiretapped. Second, it is not against the law for telecos to cooperate with the government, any more than it is for private citizens to cooperate with the police in search of a criminal. Third, what must these individuals who are in such fear of the government doing that they want to keep secret? Fourth, it is a twisted argument that government should be transparent, while your cell phone calls to terrorist hotspots should be held as sacred. WE, the people, have a vested interest in empowering our government to check our neighborhoods for people who would do us harm. That neighborhood is now electronic. And we don't want to punish our neighbors for cooperating with the government. Our neighbors include the telecos. Whoever has been arguing on this board for privacy, has not been arguing for privacy as much as rehashing their hatred for our current president. Our don't want to risk my country and my neighbors to satisfy some ugly grudge. God bless America.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes

[webword]

How did YOUR representative vote?

"To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government."

FIND OUT!

McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Not

Re:U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes

[elrous0]

A perfect illustration of why I am supporting Obama and despise Clinton. The though of another Republican in office makes me want to puke, but I also sure as Hell don't want another 8 years of an opportunistic Clinton selling out their party and blowing wherever the political winds of the moment take them. If that bitch sleazes her way into the nomination using superdelegates, Florida, and Michigan it will be the LAST victory she has this year.

WIsh I could walk out...

[Zuato]

I wish I could walk out of my job and still keep it AND get paid when I don't agree with something...Man, I could be at home asleep right now and getting paid for it if that were the case!

Partially Correct

[Ranger]

Yeah, as some other commenters have noted, the Republicans walked out because of the contempt vote. They were upset the House chose not to vote over telecom immunity. I'm pleased to see the Democrats finally showing they have a spine. It's only a baby step compared to what they should be doing, but after having let their spine atrophy for so long I guess it'll take a while before they actually do anything meaningful. I won't be holding my breath though.

If the Dems don't capitulate again, and that's a BIG IF, and Protect America Act expires tomorrow, we are still protected under the old FISA law. Not only that, had the Bush Administration used the old FISA law, the telecoms could have gotten immunity easily. So why didn't they? Oversight, which seems to be anathema to this administration.

Re:Partially Correct

[ThePlague]

If they had actually used the old law, they would have had warrants. There would have been nothing to give the telecoms immunity over, they would have been following a court order. Voluntarily cooperating with any outside organization, government or otherwise, almost certainly violates the privacy contract between them and their customers. All the ones I've seen specifically make mention of no third party sharing unless under certain conditions. One of those is a warrant. The gov didn't have a warrant, and as such, the telecoms are subject to civil action.

Re:Partially Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, had the Bush Administration used the old FISA law, the telecoms could have gotten immunity easily. So why didn't they? Oversight, which seems to be anathema to this administration.

Another possibility is that the Bush Administration wanted to spy on thousands of people and getting thousands of warrants was just too much paperwork and maybe it would alert potential terrorists to the extent of the wire tapping program.

Re:good

[Hellcom]

Come on mods, don't be so stingy. Mod him insightful.

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

Could the Democrats finally be getting some balls? I hope they locked the chamber doors after the Repubs walked out.

Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Doc Ruby]

I know, it's certainly not news that "Republicans Are Lying About FISA". But it's still important, because they're getting away with it. And as geeks (and probably as nerds), we're the most likely to have something we care about spied on.

The lie I'm talking about is "FISA will expire right away". That's a moronic lie:

Section 2 of the Protect America Act:

`ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States

Even the "sunset" provisions that Republicans are lying about making the PAA expire don't actually apply:
Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act:

(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The PAA that Republicans are clamoring to replace "because it sunsets" was passed late last Summer. It's got another six months left for spying, even if that spying is un-Constitutional.

Every single thing about this spying not only violates the Constitution, but it's being forced on us with the worst kinds of lies. (Hi, Dick!)

That's why you sould sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's your last chance to say something publicly to the government on a voluntary basis.

Re:Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation +3
    60% Insightful
    20% Troll
    20% Informative

TrollMods are exactly the lying Republicans I'm talking about.

Re:Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Anonymous Coward]

The real liar is you, because you always claim that anyone who mods you down must be a Republican. You know perfectly well that isn't true, yet you continue to persist in telling that lie anyway.

Re:Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Doc Ruby]

I customize my TrollMod accusations to whatever they're obviously targeting in what they TrollMod'ed. If some anonymous attack without explanation gets slammed, it's their problem if they can't argue back from their cowardly weak position.

Just like you, Anonymous Republican Coward. Now tell me you're really a "libertarian".

Re:Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only "obviously targeting" you because you want to believe that you're a noble martyr. The fact is, you earn each and every one of your downmods, and you know it.

And no, I am not a Republican. Each and every time you make that accusation without providing proof, you scream at the top of your lungs that it's a filthy lie from a craven loser who uses simplistic dichotomies as his security blanket.

Re:Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous fool Coward, of course they're "obviously targeting" me: they're replying specifically to my posts.

You're a Republican. And every complaint you make against it is just more proof that you're lying about it. Just like a Republican. QED.

Re:Republicans Are Lying About FISA

[Anonymous Coward]

Denying that I'm a Republican proves that I'm a Republican?

Even though I'm not registered as a Republican, have never voted for or supported a Republican candidate for any office, and do not agree with the GOP platform in general?

In what language does "QED" stand for "circular logic"?

I have faith

[EllisDees]

That our ever brave Democratic congresspeople will cave at some point today and give the Bush administration everything they want. Wouldn't want people to think you're "soft on terror", even if that means allowing anyone that has Bush's approval to break whatever laws he says are necessary.

Correction....

[raehl]

but felt that REPUBLICAN President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege.

Remember that the amount of executive authority the President should have is based on the political party of who you're asking.

Were it a Democratic President who was stomping all over our civil liberties, the situation in Congress would be reversed.

Re:Correction....

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Were it a Democratic President who was stomping all over our civil liberties, the situation in Congress would be reversed.

Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as a blowjob?

Re:Correction....

[Ranger96]

Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as lying under oath? Fixed that for you

Re:Correction....

[goldspider]

Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as a blowjob?

I'm not going to argue that Clinton's perjury impeachment was a good investment of our congresscritters' time and effort, but comon! As long as you are going to intentionally mischaracterize the basic premise of the impeachment, you aught to stay out of the discussion entirely.

Re:Correction....

[abaddononion]

I know this is an old thing, but it apparently still hasnt gone away, so...

Lying under oath isnt illegal. Perjury is.

As to the difference, Ill borrow from Wikipedia:
Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

Ill leave it at that, since getting into the full history would take way too long. That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than a media frenzy.

Re:Correction....

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that if the President was a Democrat, the republican congressmen would go so far as to impeach him for something as trivial as lying under oath about a blowjob ? Fixed that for you.

And fixed again.

The whole thing was trivial and turned the U.S. and its politicians into the world's laughing stock.

Re:Correction....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but they might impeach him for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Re:Correction....

[Ranger96]

making verifiably false statements on a material matter And we can argue all day on what constitutes "material".

That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than a media frenzy. Never said it wasn't. Just like an impeachment of Bush (however justified or not) would, at this point 8+ months from the election, be nothing more than a media frenzy.

Re:Correction....

[feed_me_cereal]

Why was he even under oath if republicans didn't feel a blowjob was more important than anything the Bush administration has done? Bush hasn't had to testify under oath over ANY of the insane shit his administration has pulled. If you don't think the republicans were just looking for a way to hang Clinton when they forced him into either: 1) lying under oath ...or 2) guaranteeing extreme embarrassment for himself, his family, his party and the entire country, then I really don't know what to say....

Re:Correction....

[torkus]

He skipped the hand-on-bible part but didn't bush get on national TV and directly address every citizen of the USA and then proceed to lie, cheat, steal, and mis-inform every single one?

Yes, he wasn't under oath but in a fair, legitimate court system one could probably make a case against bush for treason at this point. Oh what I wouldn't give to see that happen and a firing squad do their work.

Re:Correction....

[gmack]

Actually.. technically he was never proven to have lied. He just had the judge define sex as "the penis goes into the vagina" and then said he didn't do that.

The fact that they never asked him if he got a blowjob is the prosecutor's own incompetence. Asking to define "sex" should have been a dead giveaway that something near sex but not quite sex actually happened.

Kenneth Starr got outsmarted by Bill Clinton. End of story.

Re:Correction....

[abaddononion]

A material fact is an occurrence, event, or information that is sufficiently significant to influence an individual into acting in a certain way, such as entering into a contract. In formal court procedures, a material fact is anything needed to prove one party's case, or tending to establish a point that is crucial to a person's position.

Material matters have to be related to the events in question. If I kill you, and then someone asks, "Didnt you also kill Buddy Holly?", whether or not I killed Buddy Holly is NOT material to my trial over your murder. It sets up character, yes, but it is not legally material, and therefore lying about it cannot be perjury.

Clinton was under trial over Paula Jones when he lied about Lewinsky. He did lie under oath, of that I'm certain. But the question was not material, so he did not commit perjury.

We could argue about this all day, I'm sure, but I see no need for it when it's pretty simple.

Re:Correction....

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I'm not going to argue that Clinton's perjury impeachment was a good investment of our congresscritters' time and effort, but comon! As long as you are going to intentionally mischaracterize the basic premise of the impeachment, you aught to stay out of the discussion entire

I've haven't mischaracterized anything.

My point being that the republicans slowed legislation to a crawl and caused a media frenzy over the Clinton impeachment. It is these SAME republican congressmen that demanded the full respect of congress during the impeachment (over a blowjob) of Clinton, that are actively turning a blind eye toward the Bush administration. They are walking out protesting that congress is over-stepping their bounds when it comes to forcing the Bush administration to abide by our laws over REAL issues, but they are the ones that created the precedence during the previous administration.

We all know that the impeachment and the Kenneth Star investigation were nothing but a fishing expedition to take away executive privilege from President Clinton. Ironically, it is this same executive privilege that they are trying to reinforce in a attempt to keep President Bush in power.

Or did you mean that the impeachment was more about lying to congress than about an extra-marital affair? Hmmm. A funny thing happened during the Bush administration, when Libby lied under oath about the Valarie Plame leak. Let's look in Wikipedia about how the current administration handled it:

"On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. His sentence included a $250,000 fine, 30 months in prison and two years of probation. On July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, removing the jail term but leaving in place the fine and probation, calling the sentence "excessive."

So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?

Re:Correction....

[goldspider]

So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?

I don't recall saying any such thing.

Re:Correction....

[HTH NE1]

Yes, he wasn't under oath Well, apart from the one "...to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America...".

Re:Correction....

[Bill_the_Engineer]

No you did not, and I did not mean to imply that you did.

I was addressing the "mis-characterization" by assuming that you were implying that my one-liner was trivializing the issue at hand, and therefore expanded my line of thinking...

But the quote that you replied with:

So "lying to congress" is only bad when it's a democrat lying to a republican, but not the other way around?

does get to the heart of the matter. The grand-parent post to this discussions was:

That's a one-sided report. What I heard on the radio yesterday is that the Republicans were upset that the democrats were wasting time on the vote to hold Bush Officials in contempt of Congress. The Republican senators claimed that they were in support of the investigation, but felt that President and adviser communications should have some degree of privilege. They wanted to move on to the business for the day (which happened to be the surveillance bill) and called for a walk-out when the Democrats were insistent on worrying about the (probably impotent anyway) contempt vote.

So I assumed you where in the same line of thought as the grand parent.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re:Correction....

[dpilot]

Clinton was not under trial over Paula Jones, he was under investigation.

You know, the Special Prosecutor who was appointed to investigate a real estate deal called Whitewater that turned out to be nothing. ...which turned into investigating travel payments authorized by the White House that turned out to be nothing. ...which turned into sexual harassment issues with Jennifer Flowers which turned out to be nothing. ...which turned into sexual harassment issues with Paula Jones which turned out to be nothing. ...which turned into Monica Lewinski, which really should have been a private issue between Bill, Hillary, and Monica.

No, this wasn't a witch hunt, this was good, focused government investigation.

Now if you want a witch hunt... ...try investigating the Attorney General's office for turning the Justice (Just-Us) Department into a political wing of the White House. ...try investigating the authorization and use of torture by US officials. ...try investigating the authorization and use of domestic surveillance without warrants by US officials.

Those are diffuse, meandering witch hunts!

Re:Correction....

[torkus]

Ha, good point :) But i'm only up for impeaching bush if we can get his henchma^^^^^^^ VP along with him.

Re:Correction....

[HiThere]

I'll leave it at that, since getting into the full history would take way too long. That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than a n orchestrated media frenzy.

Re:Correction....

[timeOday]

And even after Clinton was summoned to testify under oath, why didn't he just stonewall and blow it off with a claim of executive privilege?

Re:Correction....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall saying any such thing.

Alberto! Is that you?

I'm confused....

[r_jensen11]

So basically, the Dem's (for the most part) are voting to give telecoms immunity, while the GOP is saying nay?

The corruption is confusing me here:
I want to know why the Republicans are voting against this, as in why the Republicans want to be able to hold the telecoms responsible (seeing as how it was their administration that is associated,) whereas the Dems are willing to grant immunity and basically sweep the incidents under the rug (instead of using them as an effigy and burning them in front of the White House?)

Re:I'm confused....

[Winders]

The vote was to remove the immunity clause. Democrats voted for the removal, Republicans for its retention.

Re:I'm confused....

[glindsey]

You have it backwards. The vote was to strike the part of the bill granting telecom immunity. Thus, Obama's vote was against granting immunity, McCain's was for granting immunity, and Clinton's was to cower in a corner and make sure she doesn't say anything that might upset anybody who potentially might be a voter.

Re:I'm confused....

[Kierthos]

You've sort of got that backwards. Many of the House Republicans want to pass the same bill that was passed in the Senate, which would grant the telecoms immunity. Whereas some of the Democrats are saying that they shouldn't just be lapdogs of the President (and others are saying that they want the telecom immunity to be stripped out).

For the record, Barack Obama voted to strip the immunity of the telecoms, Hillary Clinton abstained, and John McCain voted for telecom immunity.

Re:I'm confused....

[Dues]

If you read the above post in its entirety, you would know that it was a vote to strike the immunity provision.... not a vote in favor of the bill.

Re:I'm confused....

[djmurdoch]

No, you misread it. It's really very simple:

McCain voted to not disallow the inclusion of the clause that would not allow the telecoms to be charged.

Obama voted to disallow that clause.

Clinton did not vote to disallow that clause, but neither did she vote to not disallow it; she just did not vote at all.

Clear now?

Re:I'm confused....

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it backwards. The vote was to strike the immunity provisions from the proposed bill. Thus:

McCain - Nay: Do NOT strike immunity from the bill; telcos gain immunity.
Obama - Yea: STRIKE immunity from the bill; telcos do not get immunity.
Clinton - No: Too busy campaigning so VOTE FOR ME.

Re:I'm confused....

[Anonymous Coward]

She's disgusting... Deliberately staying out of it.

Re:I'm confused....

[Mex]

Read it again, and notice the first part: "To strike the provision..."

Meaning to remove their immunity.

John McCain, a Republican, voted to keep the telcos immune to illegal acts.
Obama, a Democrat, voted to strike this provision, thus removing the protection for telcos.

Hillary Clinton, a supposed Democrat, voted Nay, to keep the protection in place.

Very interesting vote. Let's see if the USA is paying attention to this.

Impeachment

[Phoenix666]

If Republicans are angry with Democrats for pursuing the matter of contempt citations against Bolton and Miers instead of voting to condone the telecom's crimes, then I'm angry with the Congress for holding hearing after hearing on steroids in baseball instead of holding hearings on impeaching Bush and Cheney for repeatedly breaking the law and violating the Constitution.

For those out there who oppose Constitutional checks and balances, and oppose impeachment of the Pres. and VP for running roughshod over our rights, consider what will happen if Hillary Clinton gets into office with that impunity and immunity and absolute power established by Bush's precedent. That should make you shudder. I know it does me.

our hero

[jt418-93]

Silvestre Reyes is the hero of this. here is a link to the letter he sent the bushenfurer, and the last paragraph (the best imho). we need more ppl like him that understand the constitution is not just a 'goddamn piece of paper'. personally, i think anyone dismissing the constitution like that is guilty of treason, and we know how to deal with that. (grandpa simpson voice)That's a hangin'
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intel_chair_to_Bush_on_FISA_0214.html

I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear. We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won. Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Spontaneous media coverage

[HangingChad]

If you were watching MSNBC last night Olbermann ripped Bush and the Republicans over telecomm immunity and this staged walk out. They were showing clips of the "spontaneous" walk out to a place where there just happened to be cameras and a podium rigged with microphones. As if there are podiums and broadcast crews stationed all over in case any of our Congress critters suddenly decide to storm out of chambers in protest.

He called Bush and incompetent liar and fascist...in so many words.

Telcos have been dealing with wiretap law for decades, they knew what they were doing was wrong. If they're so certain their behavior was so lofty and patriotic, then let them take their chances with a jury.

We want companies to think twice before cooperating with an illegal enterprise, regardless of the perceived threats. The FISA court is a joke, they've never turned down a request. So, how is that virtual rubber stamp impeding terrorist investigations? Or is it that they're really afraid the FISA court won't authorize wholesale spying on the American public?

Re:Spontaneous media coverage

[sholden]

He called Bush and incompetent liar and fascist...in so many words.

Wow, he's never done that before. Certainly not every 47 seconds or so.

Re:Spontaneous media coverage

[SeattleGameboy]

The truth must be repeated every chance we get.

Good source for FISA background info

[jrifkin]

If you want to learn more about this issue, Glen Greenwald has been covering it well for a long time.

Today he posted an item called FISA 101 which is a good place to start.

re: Bush's Comments

[KarmaOverDogma]

I, personally, agree with what you said, but please do not underestimate:

* the spin-doctors in Washington abilities to take a vote or a law and have people believe it's something completely different
* People's oftentimes unjustified faith in the Bush admin's efforts to keep us safe or uphold the constitution
* the gullibility of the general electorate.

I remind you to look at the 2004 general election as an example of these principles in action.
Please don't make the mistake of assuming everyone is as enlightened/informed/well-read as you; in the slashdot crowd you are (largely) preaching to the choir.

Correction #2

[remmelt]

... about a blowjob?

vs. ... about a war on a sovereign nation under false pretense?

Fixed that for you. Now you fix your country please.

Re:Correction #2

[goldspider]

So why wasn't the Democratic Congress' first action when they took over in 2007 to introduce articles of impeachment? If they had the evidence so many people thought they did, why hasn't that happened?

Re:Correction #2

[SCHecklerX]

Because they know they are likely to win the election, and they want all of that power for themselves?

Re:Correction #2

[Mister Whirly]

Pretty sad when we long for the day when the President's biggest problem was a crusty little stain on a black dress...

But thank God we all know what happens to liars now. I mean, it's not like anyone in the current administration has ever lied about anything!

Re:Correction #2

[Jesus_666]

Bush only lied about violence and killing people. Clinton lied about sex, which we all know is much worse...

Re:Correction #2

[dpilot]

Please get your fact straight. The dress was blue, not black.

You were wrong on this detail, therefore everything you say is wrong.

This is known as the "Michael Moore Effect". Clearly the fact that he messed up on a few minor facts, combined with the fact that his delivery can be a little heavy-handed, inexorably leads to the obvious conclusion that everything he says is wrong.

Re:Correction #2

[dpilot]

Because they saw how the impeachment attempt backfired on the Republicans a few years before.

Bush still has solid base support, or at least solid base resistance against attack by Democrats.

Re:Correction #2

[Bill_the_Engineer]

So why wasn't the Democratic Congress' first action when they took over in 2007 to introduce articles of impeachment? If they had the evidence so many people thought they did, why hasn't that happened?

Because everyone looked back and saw how the republicans did not accomplish any real legislative goals during the impeachment shenanigans, and probably felt that their interests would be better served by fulfilling their campaign promises during the first 100 days.

The republican grand standing during the Clinton years, did way more harm than good. It polarized all political thinking, generated grid lock in the legislative branch, and the federal government actually shut-down a couple of times due to a lack of a budget. Just because the republicans care more about their agenda than what's good for the country, doesn't mean the democrats should fall in that same trap...

Re:Correction #2

[goldspider]

...and probably felt that their interests would be better served by fulfilling their campaign promises during the first 100 days.

You mean like ending the war?

Re:Correction #2

[2short]

Partly because they are wusses.

Alternatively because they can count, and could thus determine that a conviction in the Senate would not occur, so impeachment would be pointless and they didn't want to waste of the countries time.

One could conclude that the relevant Republican Congress wanted to pointlessly waste the countries time. I like to be charitable though, so I remain open to the possibility that they were just too stupid to ever learn how to count.

Re:Correction #2

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You mean like ending the war?

True. That was a campaign promise that has yet to be fulfilled. To be fair, they tried multiple times and faced a presidential veto and filibustering from the republicans.

Personally, I feel that we need to stay until we have a good exit strategy. An unconditional pullout is stupid! Pulling out before a stable government has been established will create another rogue state that will further destabilize the region.

Re:Correction #2

[Anonymous Coward]

The impeachment of Clinton didn't stop the Republicans from taking "all that power" a few years later.

In order for your conspiracy theory to work, it would have to assume that Democrats wouldn't be so brazen as to do the same after an impeachment. However, since the fundamental premise of your theory is that the Democrats are sitting on their thumbs as part of a more elaborate power-grab, it stands to reason that you DO believe the Democrats would be bold enough to impeach and then do the same thing (the Republicans impeached, and then committed many more egregious assaults on our country).

In either case, the conspiracy is logically impossible. But up, up, up go the mods anyway...because hey, a crack at corrupt politicians is always worth at least a +2, right?

Re:Correction #2

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton (and his wife) still deserve to go to jail for all the people they fucked over in the Whitewater scandal.

And for selling our secrets to China.

And for bombing and continuing to occupy Iraq.

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has NO power to hold the President accountable for anything. Short of full empeachment, the President is the execution arm of the law.

The House and the PTA lady that runs it should spend as much energy on national security as it does on the President; Bin Laden wouldn't have a chance...

Re:Fucking Moron Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

One would think that with all the stupid shit Clinton did that actually MATTERS, kneejerkers like you would focus on that instead of penny-ante crap like Monica. But you don't, because you are 100% identical to the "moron Dems" you claim to despise. That's the REAL lie here; the one that Democrats are not Republicans. You know you're the same, and that uncomfortable truth drives you to the kind of frothing stupidity you display in the parent post.

Go on, keep lying by claiming you're not a Democrat. You'll never fool anyone with a functioning brain, but if you shriek loudly enough for long enough, you just might fool yourself for a time.

Of course, the reality is that you do not know ...

[WindBourne]

the truth. Neither do I. We have absolutely NO idea why they walked out. You also have NO idea of what the media was told. For all you know, the reporters heard exactly what they reported. Calling it spin makes you just as guilty of what you are accusing the media of doing. That is talking and making accusations before you have all the facts.

Normally, I have respect on your opinions, but on this, I do not. Bush has NO capabilities to invoke executive powers on them WRT this. The reason is that ALL have claimed that they had no dealings with Bush on the very matters that congress wants to see them on. If they had dealings, well, then maybe. But bush and the others have all claimed that they did not. Or are they all liars?

As to impeachment, there is zero doubt in my mind that W and his cronies belong in prison. But it will never happen. The reason is that dems do not control congress and I think that even if they get control of congress on the next go, they will give W and his entire staff a pass because they are afraid that it will come back to haunt them. I am not sure which is worse. The fact that so many of these GD pubs have been as illegal and corrupt as they have been or that the dems have appeared to join them in that they do not go after where the real evidence is; Sibel Edmunds. If the dems REALLY wanted to bring down bush, all that would have to happen is that they would ungag sib edmunds, which is in their powers. Yet, waxman and others who PROMISED her that they would do this, will not even take her calls.

There's something hidden that we don't know.

[Animats]

There has to be something really embarrassing for Bush that will come out unless "telecom immunity" passes. The political push for this from the White House doesn't make sense otherwise. Bush has limited political capital left, and he's spending it on the "telecom immunity" issue. Not the surveillance issue, which might actually have something to do with terrorism, but the immunity issue.

Re:There's something hidden that we don't know.

[rhizome]

There has to be something really embarrassing for Bush that will come out unless "telecom immunity" passes.

Yes indeed, but it's not hidden. It's been well-documented that the Bush Administration engaged in warrantless surveillance outside of the law, and the court cases that would be affected by immunity relate directly to this.

Depends

[WindBourne]

If this was a simple impeachment, then I agree, it is worthless. OTH, if W. and/or his cronies do jail time, then it is useful. At this time, ALL FUTURE presidents will point to the fact that Nixon, reagan, somewhat Clinton, and esp. W have been able to get off scotch free even when massively guilty. Unless we start enforcing our laws and Constitution against the presidents, future presidents will realize that they can get off free for any amount of abuse that they cause.

Re:Fucking Moron Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, in the Dems world, lying is just a way to do business. Are you even REMOTELY trying to imply that lying is something exclusive to Democrats? Given the last 7 years, you really come here and talk that shit with a straight face???

It's beyond believable that there are actually people in this world as totally fucking devoid of intelligent thought as your comments indicate you must be.

You sir, completely lose at life and there is no reset button this time. Get your special brand of retardation off my country please.

Repugnicant Walkout

[bratwiz]

Good riddance. The air smells better already. Okay, everybody can relax and loosen-up the grip on their valuables, the crooks have left the building.

And just think, all it took was the rest of the house to have some backbone to get it done.

Ah, stagnation. Where would we be without the good, old predictable Demoflats?

keep the Star Wars refrence rolling!

[techpawn]

Take your mod point. Strike me down.

Will you become more powerful then they could possibly imagine? The Taco is strong with this one...

And unnecessary to spin it that way...

[Lonewolf666]

I think the conflict about interrogating government aides or not makes a story that is worthwhile to report by itself. No need to suppress it in favor of something else ;-)

Now call your representatives

[dave562]

I'm going to call my representative right now and tell them how pleased that I am that the House sided against the Senate and with the American people. Give your Congress-critters some positive feedback people.

Can someone summarise for a non-American?

[swordgeek]

OK, the current anti-terrorism bill is set to expire. The Senate passed a replacement for it, and the House refused to vote on it today.

What I don't understand is why the Democrats tried to extend the current bill for three weeks, and the Republicans (along with the most liberal Democrats) were the ones to strike that one down. That seems counter-intuitive to me.

Also, Aside from the potential of a few days (or weeks) of not being able to get warrantless wiretaps, is there any significance to a new law being passed after the current one expires, rather than beforehand?

Re:Of course, the reality is that you do not know

[AKAImBatman]

We have absolutely NO idea why they walked out.

This is true. Which is why it's important for all the facts to be presented so that the reader can make up his own mind.

You also have NO idea of what the media was told.

This is untrue. The news program I was listening to had interviews with several of the Republicans who walked out. They explicitly pointed to the issue over contempt of Congress.

Calling it spin makes you just as guilty of what you are accusing the media of doing.

And this is just outright wrong. Can the argument be made that the Republicans were actually looking to get the bill passed? Sure. But withholding key information about the event to provide an inescapable conclusion is the worst kind of sensationalist reporting. And to be perfectly honest, I take offense at your accusation that I'm attempting the same thing.

When you can show that I was intentionally withholding information to make an accusation into an inescapable conclusion, then you may feel free to call me out on it. Otherwise I would ask you to keep your unfounded accusations to yourself.

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

An Anonymous Coward Flame Fest!

Well, give one concrete example where Bush put his hand on the bible, said I swear to tell the truth, and then lied through his teeth.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's not lying if you don't have your hand on the Bible when you say it.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the legal world it isn't. And that is what counts.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the legal world" isn't what the thread is about. The OP said Democrats are liars, the responses said Republicans lie too. Your "but not in court!" addendum is just an attempt to move the goalposts.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

When he swore to uphold the constituition.

Re:Of course, the reality is that you do not know

[WindBourne]

Are you CERTAIN that the other media HAD all the info? Or did they just simply report exactly what was given to them? They are reporters. They are suppose to pass on the information. You accuses them of "spin". That is you are saying that they are twisting the information. But if they did not have all the information, then it is not spin. And in your case, you do NOT know what they know. Yet, you accuse them of doing something without knowing if they had the information required. As such, you are guilty of the exact same thing, and it is totally founded.

Credo Mobile

[CardiganKiller]

Apparently they have flat out refused to cooperate with any agency requests for customer information, as well as consistently donating money to the ACLU. They use the Sprint network though. So would Sprint be able to hand over information on Credo Mobile customers? I'm not sure.

http://www.credomobile.com/

House...

[Anonymous Coward]

was too high on Vicodin to comment.

Kieth Olbermann's Excellent Review of this.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

A part of what I will say, was said here on January 31st.

Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now, than it was, then.

"Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: if the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"

You know, like The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Or Executive Order 90-66.

Or The Alien and Sedition Acts.

Or Slavery.

Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability! You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger!

This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act. You. By your own terms and your definitions -- you have just sided with the terrorists.

You got to have this law or we're all going to die.

But practically speaking, you vetoed this law.

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an Ex Post Facto law, which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail. But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed?

Don't you know?

Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you?

Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here?

If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business -- come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. Fascism.

You're a fascist -- get them to print you a t-shirt with "fascist" on it!

What else is this but fascism?

Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?

Mark Klein was the AT&T Whistleblower, the one who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all AT&T circuits -- everything -- carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your web browsing into a secure room, room number 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it. Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy -- a spy both patriotic and telepathic -- might able to divine had been sent or spoken by -- or to -- a terrorist. Everything!

Every time you looked at a naked picture.

Every time you bid on eBay.

Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat.

"My thought was," Mr. Klein told us last November, "George Orwell's 1984. And here I am, forced to connect the big brother machine."

And if there's one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, is that he is -- you are -- a liar.

"This Saturday at midnight," you said today, "legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning, will be compromised... You said that "the lives of countless Americans depend" on you getting your way.

This is crap.

And you sling it, with an audacity and a speed un

Re:Kieth Olbermann's Excellent Review of this.

[KKlaus]

Retroactive immunity is not fascism though. Here's a page you may find illuminating http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html. Aside from that, I agree with everything Olbermann says, although of course he insists on saying it in a way that will never convince any but the already faithful. But I guess I'm not looking to him to save the nation.

In any case, it should be intuitively obvious that corporatism is not Fascism. WWII sucked for business in all Axis countries. The minority that could convert to producing materiel of course benefited for a short time, but after their factories started getting hit by Lancasters it went entirely downhill from there. Fascism is about a particular merger between the citizenry and the state's agenda. And whereas it did keep free market competition as a system of production, fascism really had little of corporatism at it's core.

I'm not advocating for Bush in any way, I hate the guy, but what we're seeing here is simple crime and corruption. It's not Fascism.

When Bush starts asking for (and forming) citizen groups to contribute to terrorist monitoring and detection, that's the time to start shitting your pants. And leaving the country. Seriously on that last one.

Re:Kieth Olbermann's Excellent Review of this.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

KKlaus wrote:

In any case, it should be intuitively obvious that corporatism is not Fascism.

Well, let's GO ASK THE FASCISTS, EH?

How about, ummmm, I dunno - the guy who invented Fascism, MUSSOLINI himself. He said, and I quote (in translation):

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"

You don't know your history, and you have some words to eat. Dig in.

RS

what Bush said

[juan2074]

[Bush said,] "The House's failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens."

How does this bill jeopardize the security of any citizens? Is he serious?

Secrecy in his administration is a more serious threat to the citizens. Why doesn't his administration reveal its e-mail, telephone, and written communications to the people? Executive branch secrecy jeopardizes our security.

Why can't we have an open government? We pay the bills. Or stop using our taxes to pay for the executive branch.

Re:what Bush said

[magus_melchior]

Yes, if only the legislature had the guts to deny the huge Bush budget and instead muster a 2/3 majority to pass something that gives the President and VP zero money, then override his veto pen. Too bad most of the congressional Republicans (including McCain) are in the sway of the administration.

Re:Of course, the reality is that you do not know

[AKAImBatman]

Everyone spins. Whether intentionally or not. But when the information presented before the floor (yes, I got to hear the walk-out speech) and before the press discusses the matter of the contempt charges, NOT mentioning that when discussing the walkout is, at best, shoddy reporting. At worst, it's bald faced lying that could get the reporter brought up on defamation charges.

And in your case, you do NOT know what they know. Yet, you accuse them of doing something without knowing if they had the information required.

I have accused them of shoddy reporting which prevents the reader from coming to his own conclusions. If you can make a valid argument that this article was NOT shoddy reporting (good luck on that) then I'll be happy to back down.

Unfortunately, all you've been doing is defending a really sloppy piece of journalism with hand waving of "well, we don't know." BULLSHIT. We know what was said on the floor, and we know what the congressmen claimed. Ignoring that is either incompetence or malice.

The fact that you'd defend this piece of trash reporting is not exactly boosting my respect for your opinion. It's sloppy reporting, no matter what you feel about the Republicans or Democrats.

And for the record, the Gonzalas issue of firing prosecutors (which is what this is centered around) has me just as peeved off as everyone else. That anger does not give reporters a free hand to start misreporting events.

Ex Post Facto immunity is unconstitutional

[emil]

Congress cannot pass ex post facto laws.

Even if such a law is passed, it should be struck down by the court system. It certainly increases legal expenses, though.

Re:Ex Post Facto immunity is unconstitutional

[Copid]

I'm not so sure about that. Not all laws that have retroactive effects on perpetrators have been ruled unconstitutional. I believe that the point of that clause in the Constitution is to prevent the government from making something you did illegal retroactively and throwing you in prison--a nasty trick that works really well when you want to silence a law-abiding citizen who is a thorn in your side for whatever reason.

I don't see this as a violation any more than a law reducing sentences for people currently in prison, which I believe has been done without any trouble from the courts. This seems to be very much in the same vein, even though I regard it as an idiotic, irresponsible way of covering the asses of people who betrayed our trust.

Serious Question

[Bryansix]

The Administration seems to point to these wiretaps as being on known terrorists. Now the change here is that they continue with the wiretap when they call a person who happens to be a US citizen. In other words, no wiretaps on US citizens were initiated but terrorists who called citizens were the ones being tapped.

Is this correct or is somebody trying to decieve here? The reason I ask is because if it is just terrorists being tapped when they talk to citizens then I think the law was stupid to begin with. If US citizens are being tapped without a court order then it is wrong. Which is it? Provide links to prove your point.

Yay House of Representatives!

[realsilly]

It's about time a branch of our government got smart. I am actually impressed.

I am so not impressed with our Executive branch, and our Senators, they literally make me sick. They are the most ineffective bunch of people.

Tree stumps accomplish more good.

Kennedy

[kisak]

Ted Kennedy on FISA:

Think about what we've been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President's insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of his disrespect for honest dialogue and for the rule of law.

It's painfully clear what the President's request for retroactive immunity is really about. It's a self-serving attempt to avoid legal and political accountability and keep the American public in the dark about this whole shameful episode. Like the CIA's destruction of videotapes showing potentially criminal conduct, it's a desperate attempt to erase the past.

Kennedy on YouTube.

Re:Kennedy

[Sergeant Pepper]

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President's insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of his disrespect for honest dialogue Reminds me of last year (the year before? it all flows together) when Congress was putting benchmarks and things into the Iraq appropriations bills and the President was vetoing them. Then he went on to say that Congress didn't respect the troops because they wouldn't pass a bill.

write your senators and congresspersons

[codygo]

Go here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015/ Find out how your senators voted, then contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm/ You can also contact your Congressperson: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml/

Legal fees?

[GodInHell]

I'm not sympathetic to the interests of the phone companies... BUT

If they fear not losses at court but the expense of defending themselves in court - it makes sense to offer them immunity which is a straightforward defense. Any claim that can get past a summary judgement for failure to state a claim, or a jurisdictional challenge will have to go through the process of discovery. In discovery ATT etc, would need to complie and produce whatever relevant information the opposing attorneys request. They can either bear the costs of preparing those materials, or go before the court to challenge that cost - which involves paying teams of attorney to draft a brief and argue it before the court, also not cheap. Now, multiply that by the number of cases.

They can also challenge the opponents right to discovery of certain irrelevant material - but the standard on discovery is loose. If discovery is likely to lead to facts which will make the factual basis for the legal claims at issue more or less believable, then it's okay. That's a very broad standard. And of course, every motion to block discovery means another brief, another day in court, another bill from the lawyers.

Immunity on the other hand will allow them to hand-waive the entire case - no research into the facts, no questions of law outside of the limits of the immunity... a nice neat and tidy battleground that can be briefed once, and used against many cases.

As always - this should not be read as legal advice, merely opinion, your mileage may vary, check with your local lawyer.

-GiH

Re:Legal fees?

[pugugly]

(IA still NAL) Actually - I have wondered about this retroactive immunity from the perspective of the 1st amendment "Redress of Grievances" clause.

Typically, although Congress has retroactively immunized companies from lawsuits in the past, it has done so while creating an alternative route - i.e., creating a fund to compensate the families of those killed from the WTC while protecting the airlines, and I believe they did something similar to asbestos victims (or maybe that's been considered - not sure).

Historically (according to Jonathan Turley IIRC), they have *not* immunized a company against lawsuit while not allowing some other means of redress. Changing the law does not actually make it constitutional, and if you have a valid constitutional argument on the claim that it wasn't legal, this would be a valid argument that Congress can't keep you from suing.

As near as I can tell, the biggest problem is still establishing standing to sue, since SCOTUS has established that just because we know the Government did something illegal doesn't mean you can sue unless you can establish that you were actually a victim of the behavior.

I really think there should be some sort of special standing for generalized, constitutional lawsuits - If you know the Government is doing something unconstitutional, only citizenship should be required to establish standing or something.

Pug

Re:Legal fees?

[GodInHell]

You raise alot of issues that were on my last Civil Rights Law exam :).

The short answer is none of these questions have a clear answer. There are few solid lines in the law when it comes to suing government actors or those who are cooperating with government actors. I'll try to hammer through these with some thoughts on each - please don't read them as statements of a final position, just my thoughts in response to your questions.

(IA still NAL) Actually - I have wondered about this retroactive immunity from the perspective of the 1st amendment "Redress of Grievances" clause.

I am also not a lawyer, just a law student yet.

Congress shall make no law . . . and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

noted...

Typically, although Congress has retroactively immunized companies from lawsuits in the past, it has done so while creating an alternative route - i.e., creating a fund to compensate the families of those killed from the WTC while protecting the airlines, and I believe they did something similar to asbestos victims (or maybe that's been considered - not sure).

The first distinction I would make is that those are the results of unauthorized tortious acts by companies against private individuals. Government interaction with the companies granted immunity (grantees) was light, providing on the ground security, etc.

The U.S. Government does not fear granting total immunity under certain conditions - For instance sovereign immunity is regularly declared by the U.S. Navy and the United States against asbestos cases from naval facilities - they made a clear eyed choice to risk the health of sailors over time in order to save their lives at war (fire on ships is bad, asbestos helps stop and control fires) and there is no recourse at law to recover damages from the Navy for that harm. Likewise judges are immune from any tortious recovery stemming from their role as judges, even when they're clearly biased, wrong, and abusing their authority for any purpose, no matter how immoral. As far as the private manufacturers of asbestos go - as far as I know the FAIR act never got passed - so that program of setting up a trust to pay out benefits was never put in place. Similar programs are often set up at the resolution of class action suits - which may be what you're thinking of? I've never studied the history of asbestos cases closely, so it's possible there is a wide gulf I don't know about.

Back to my point though - what is sought here is to classify the cooperative act as a type of gov't action (at least that's what it looks like to me). In the same way that you cannot recover for harm caused to you by a police officer who was acting within a reasonable belief that the act was constitutional (a limited form of immunity for state actors) these telecoms were functioning as quasi-state actors (similar to privately controlled prison complexes). Quasi-governmental actors are usually subject to liability under the theory that they are motivated by a profit motive, whereas government actors are credited with a justice motive - a desire to act within the law (and to avoid termination).

I believe the idea is that since the gov't cannot wiretap without the cooperation of the phone companies - they are owed a special protection.

Historically (according to Jonathan Turley IIRC), they have *not* immunized a company against lawsuit while not allowing some other means of redress. Changing the law does not actually make it constitutional, and if you have a valid constitutional argument on the claim that it wasn't legal, this would be a valid argument that Congress can't keep you from suing.

I think that's muddying the water between revoking the court's jurisdiction (which congress cannot do when a constitutional question is at stake) vs. creating an affirmative defense. I know that when the court analyzes the constitutionality of executive

Re: Bush's Comments

[HiThere]

Why do you believe the reported election returns to be anything similar to how people voted?

I'll grant that if MIGHT be true. But given the wide distribution of easily corruptible voting machines I see no reason to believe it.

Misunderstanding the bar

[GodInHell]

The bar is against creating a law which causes a past act to become criminal, or creating civil liability for past (legal at the time) acts.

Retroactive immunity is pretty well tested law.

-GiH

Re:Misunderstanding the bar

[emil]

From what I can see, the act(s) were criminal at the time, and the carriers have civil liability to the victims of the eavesdropping.

Passing immunity changes the harmed party from the eavesdropping victims to the carriers. Can the law retroactively redefine the injured party? I certainly hope not.

While the law may be clear, if it allows this, the law is wrong. Correctly argued, SCOTUS may strike it.

Re:Misunderstanding the bar

[GodInHell]

Passing immunity changes the harmed party from the eavesdropping victims to the carriers. Can the law retroactively redefine the injured party? I certainly hope not.

The difference is that one (creating a criminal act) changes a past state - the act which was not criminal becomes criminal - while creating an immunity invests the accused with an affirmative defense that can be raised now. One has its effect in the past, the other in the present.

The goal of the senate legislation is to insulate companies that cooperated with gov't actors from civil liability for their acts. The goal of the lawsuits (idealist point of view) is to vindicate the rights of the individuals and to discourage future cooperation between the private and public actors in the future. Bear in mind that congress has acted to wrap the specific acts (wiretapping) in legislative protection already - currently wiretaps can be conducted through FISA (warantless for a fixed period of time) or the Protect America Act (warntless for a longer period). Wiretaps conducted under the Protect America Act are valid until 1 year after the expiration of the bill ... which was extend 15 days from January 29th - a.k.a. February 14th. Future wiretaps can be added to the list so long as the target can be associated with a known "terrorist group" (as defined by the act).

What the court will see is that congress has created a legitimate method to go about the behavior that is at issue in the civil trials. They will certainly look to the concept of the inherent power of the presidency (famously highlighted in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer in which President Truman tried to assert the inherent power to seize military supplies in preparation for Korea. ) The issue is rarely visited, although the acts of Bush 43 will probably lead to the development of a good deal of law here. Essentially - the court looks to the connection between the act and the enumerated powers of the president, and the acts of congress in relation to the questioned act. Where the president is acting in concert with the congress he is at the apex of his power - when acting in a manner opposed to the established law he is at the lowest point of his powers. When Bush's administration called for the wiretaps they were arguably against the FISA act, congress had established a method, Bush thought it was inefficient or insufficient and decided to create a new method under an inherent powers argument. Congress has since blessed the act. Since the congress hasn't explicitly rejected the method by enacting a law - but their silence and refusal to extend the act speaks loudly in its own way.

When it arrives at the supreme court - Bush 43 will probably be out of office. Unless something drastic happens in the meantime a Democrat will have inherited whatever power Bush has invested in the office of the president. It will make an interesting case I'm sure.

What I'm trying to highlight is that the Telcoms had room to reasonably believe that their acts were protected. The court when it evaluates the constitutionality of any congressional immunity will likely look both to the reasonableness of that belief, and whether or not those same acts would be illegal now. Policy wise they're going to want to balance the value of the constitutional right to privacy (an unenumerated right drawn from the protection against unlawful search and seizure) against the harm done by discouraging Telcoms from cooperating with government actors (their silent compliance is an essential element of the FISA law - it they challenged every warrantless wiretap that came from within the Gov't [still legal under FISA] then the secrecy of those wiretaps would be abrogated thus the purpose of FISA would be defeated). If the telecoms know that every warntless wiretap they assist in renders them liable for a court battle - they will be resistant to compliance without exercising eno

Re:Misunderstanding the bar

[emil]

Thanks for your long comment on this issue. I don't agree with the conclusions at all, but I can see your points. I didn't realize that the telcoms could be seen to be not so far in the wrong.

Still, when I see "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - I think that case law has taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Re:Misunderstanding the bar

[GodInHell]

I understand what you mean. There is a desire to strip down the system and make it work for the best result.

For better or for worse, the system is designed to move slowly from side to side, and to alter its motion only when it hits a seriously unconscionable result. (See the Chicago covenant cases.)

Personally, I'd like to see the telecoms lose their limited monopolies and get locked out of the wireless market as a result of their past behavior... but.. they're owned by people with rights too and the court is sympathetic to all comers.

-GiH

Original Text from Reyes

[dave562]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intel_chair_to_Bush_on_FISA_0214.html

See the link for the text of the letter from Congressman Reyes to the President. He sums up all of the information that those of us following the issue already know. It is a good primer if you're just learning about it. It is also a good read if you want to smile at a Congressman standing up for the American people and telling the President to go fuck himself... in a politically correct way.

Wack Priorities

[Tablizer]

Of all the things to walk out in a huff over, why the hell is wiretapping citizens and telecom company immunity the thing that riles the repubs? I can think of about 10 bigger events since 2002 that *should* have prompted such huffs.

Even scarier

[Stephen Ma]

An even scarier possibility is that Bush used the telecoms to spy on his political opponents. i.e. Watergate, part II. This may be why he is fighting so hard to keep the spy logs secret from Congress: his presidency is on the line.

Mitch McConnel has HIS Priorities straight though

[pugugly]

BUSH: Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could re-open dangerous gaps in our intelligence.

NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?

MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. Yeah - it's not about making sure we don't get hit - it's about making sure we don't get hit . . .

Amazing spin from Bush

[PAjamian]

I'm surprised he isn't able to torture those members of the house who dissent until they bend to his will, it is the security of the United States which is at risk here and any reasonable person would understand that all available measures must be employed to maintain that security.

He may not be able to torture them, but he can spin it to try to make it look like the house is blatantly putting Americans at risk for not passing the bill. He does such a great job of tieing the bill into the shooting too, almost as if the lack of such a bill is responsible for it.

Funny how he promises to veto the bill unless this immunity provision is in place, I don't see anything about that provision in his little speech.

Corporazioni

[KKlaus]

Was the actual word he used, and it does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean the modern legal structure you that we refer to as a "corporation." It means much more like "guilds." Here's an informative page discussing the issue http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html.

Fascism at it's core really has nothing to do with corporatism. Fascism is about absorbing everyone into the agenda of the all powerful state. Rights and restrictions evaporate as the distinction between public and private realms, between the state and the people, disappears. And despite the fact that Nazi Germany maintained a heavily free market oriented approach to production, and that the State operated in close coordination with business, corporatism is not fascist.

When Bush and Cheney give no bid contracts to Halliburton, it's corruption. Criminal corruption. It's not the second coming of the Third Reich.

He said What?

[EdIII]

From the Whitehouse Press http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-1.html:

I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail

the WILL of the AMERICAN PEOPLE

Pardon my french, but just who the FUCK is he talking about?

I challenge that idiot to find ANYBODY that is willing to state that they are willing to give immunity to those individuals and corporations that violate our privacy without going through the proper procedures. Meaning a COURT ORDER and the general checks and balances that the Judiciary provides us all. FISA may been seen as a rubber stamp by some, but at least it may have the pretense of providing oversight. Telco Immunity is a brazen attempt to shove all of our faces in the dirt and state quite clearly once and for all that the surveillance state is here and we have no recourse against it whatsoever.

That is the single most stupid and offensive statement I have ever heard. He does not speak for the American People. The polls alone show that. No American wants to give up the checks and balances that are supposed to protect from a government gone power crazed and give immunity to the corporations that participate in this outrage against the American Public. All done in the name of security. That is all fine and dandy, and I have no specific objections to them performing surveillance on certain citizens and foreign guests, but I will be damned if they are going to do it without proper oversight, checks and balances, and SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES when they fail.

That man does not speak for me, and I have yet to meet the person that says that he does speak for them. Nixon resigned for far less then what this man has committed in his 7 approx. years in office.

Re:He said What?

[freedom_india]

the WILL of the AMERICAN PEOPLE He refers to Cheney, Karl Rove and Himself as people.
Technically he is correct.
But then he wears a 19% approval as a badge of success!

Re: Serious ? - s/Tapping/Mining

[riondluz]

Can we stop calling it wiretapping and recognize it for the datamining it is; the resurection of TIA,Carnivore, and every other insidious State monitoring program birthed in the last 10years?

This is way beyond a communication between two endpoints (as we all are aware) and the phrase 'tapping' just softens the perception.
As others have suggested, having the govt filter and screen all domestic data/voice communication in some orwellian scheme that gives it control over its citizens is today a fact.

It is something most conservatives and corporations have endorsed since it's inception; so they have the backlash of their constituents and shareholders to fear while they wait for their reserved seats to take them to some fantasy land of golf courses and boat drinks.

The unprecedented seizure of private land by eminent domain and subsequent transfer of wealth into corporate hands; the plunging of its taxpayers into massive debt while forever bailing out Wall Street has destroyed the american monetary system.
This is Regan's legacy. La La Land for a few, sweatshops for the rest.

They know that 'We the People' wont remain asleep forever. If the full extent comes out there's going to be all hell to pay; and when that day comes those in whom we've blindly put our trust are going to need some 'crowd control' while they head for the exit doors.