House of Representatives To Discuss Wiretapping In Closed Session

Nimey brings word that for the first time in 25 years, the US House of Representatives will use a closed-door session to discuss proposed wiretapping legislation. The old legislation expired last month when government officials could not agree on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications providers who assisted with the wiretaps. The most recent version of the bill, proposed by House democrats, does not include telecom immunity. Because of that, President Bush has stated his willingness to veto the bill. The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices."

Comments

Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[twitter]

They are also going to decide to prosecute or not. This is not nearly good enough and it stinks of cover up. Check out what the Wall Street Journal and ACLU have to say about this.

I wonder if they consider cell phones a listening device.

Interesting proposition

[iknowcss]

They wouldn't possibly oppose someone bugging the session room while they discuss, would they?

Re:Interesting proposition

[jollyreaper]

They wouldn't possibly oppose someone bugging the session room while they discuss, would they? Someone should tell Alanis she can add another verse to her song.

Re:Interesting proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

ixnay on the iretapway, migoay

Re:Interesting proposition

[ClickOnThis]

Someone should tell Alanis she can add another verse to her song. Someone should tell Alanis what the word ironic actually means. Oh wait, someone has -- comedian Ed Byrne:

        "There's nothing ironic about being stuck in a traffic jam when you're late for something. Unless you're a town planner. If you were a town planner and you were on your way to a seminar of town planners at which you were giving a talk on how you solved the problem of traffic congestion in your area, couldn't get to it because you were stuck in a traffic jam, that'd be well ironic."

        "Rain on your wedding day is ironic only if marrying a weatherman and he set the date."

        "A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break, that's inconsiderate office management. A no-smoking sign in a cigarette factory - irony."

        "Ten thousand spoons? How big is your sink, Alanis? What do you need this knife for - to stab the bloke who keeps leaving spoons all over your house?"

[Thanks to wikipedia for the quotes.]

Re:Interesting proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't possibly oppose someone bugging the session room while they discuss, would they? People trying to listen to their conversations without permission? What indignity! Perhaps they should build a Faraday cage around the chamber (similar things have been done in secure rooms in various embassies).

Re:Interesting proposition

[AuMatar]

Aha, but a song about Irony with no irony in it- now that's ironic.

Re:Interesting proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should tell Alanis what the word ironic actually means

Ironic: relating to, containing, or constituting irony
Irony: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

Normally, the streets are not jammed with traffic. Today they are. That's a "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal ... result".

Normally, people expect it to be nice for their weddind day. If the weather is nasty, that's "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the ...expected result"

If you're takign a cigarette break, you expect to be able to smoke. If you cannot, due to a no-smokign sign, then that's "
incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result"

Need I continue??

/Non-pedantry in a slashdotter- now that's ironic.

Re:Interesting proposition

[Stephen Samuel]

Like any other proposed violation of people's rights -- this is only a good idea when it's somebody else who's affected. That's exactly why racism and prejudice is able to take hold... It's really easy to verify that you're not a member of the 'them' that is being negatively impacted by it.

Re:Interesting proposition

[AshenFalls]

As someone else already pointed out, it's ironic because it isn't ironic. Now whether that was her intention or not is entirely up for debate, but as far as I'm concerned it's pretty much genius.

Re:Interesting proposition

[vigmeister]

Ten thousand spoons Steel *is* around 70% ironic you know....

Cheers!
--
Vig

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

Irony: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

How ironic that a dictionary would fail to define irony properly. :)

Seriously? Incongruity between the actual and the normal/expected result?

That is NOT really irony. For something to be ironic there has to significant force behind the expectation, and the result can't merely be incongrouous it has to be more a contradiction.

If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be ironic.

If I pick up a pen I expect it to work not be dried out, but if its dried out that's not irony. If I specifically chose to pick up the pen with the sticker 'gauranteed never to dry up' and carried it around precisely to avoid the hassle of a dried up pen ... and then it was dried up... that would be irony.

Dictionaries often fail to accurately capture the complete meaning of a word, because words are inherently difficult to concisely define with other words. That's no surprise -- the entire point of adding a word to a language is often that other words fail to accurately capture its meaning.

Another example is "underwhelm"; which is defined in one dictionary at least as: "To fail to excite, stimulate, or impress." Again, that doesn't really capture it quite right. If one eats a bagel for breakfast and is not excited stimulated or impressed that doesn't mean one was underwhelmed by it. Its a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

To be underwhelmed is not merely to fail to be impressed, but to becognizant of the fact that you have failed to have been impressed. If you ate a bagel and it made no impression on you, if someone asked you about your breakfast, you'd absently say 'it was fine' without 2nd thought; you haven't been underwhelmed. But if you'd sat there eating your bagel and came to the realization that it really wasn't particularly good, that its taste and texture really did nothing for you, then you might come to say that you found it underwhelming.

Re:Interesting proposition

[NevermindPhreak]

I have to disagree. Everyone knows that a more proper example of irony is like rain on your wedding day...

Re:Interesting proposition

[mcrbids]

To be underwhelmed is not merely to fail to be impressed, but to becognizant of the fact that you have failed to have been impressed. If you ate a bagel and it made no impression on you, if someone asked you about your breakfast, you'd absently say 'it was fine' without 2nd thought; you haven't been underwhelmed. But if you'd sat there eating your bagel and came to the realization that it really wasn't particularly good, that its taste and texture really did nothing for you, then you might come to say that you found it underwhelming.

To your definition, I would refine the definition of underwhel to be "fail to impress while expecting otherwise". I wouldn't say that your example bagel is underwhelming, merely mediocre. But if I was expecting that the bagel was going to be fabulous, but it wasn't, it would THEN be underwhelming. If it was a fancy, imported Italian bagel that I paid extra for, and it wasn't much different that the local grocery bagel, it would be underwhelming.

It could also have the (ahem) ironic definition of specifically characterizing the non-impressiveness of something as a back-handled insult. EG: "Well, his technical skills are, eh, underwhelming." In this case, the unimpressiveness of the result is carried to its extreme. Like saying that it's impressively unimpressive.

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

To your definition, I would refine the definition of underwhelm to be "fail to impress while expecting otherwise". I wouldn't say that your example bagel is underwhelming, merely mediocre. But if I was expecting that the bagel was going to be fabulous, but it wasn't, it would THEN be underwhelming. If it was a fancy, imported Italian bagel that I paid extra for, and it wasn't much different that the local grocery bagel, it would be underwhelming.

I think at that point, you've really defined 'disappoint' not 'underwhelm'. I don't think underwhelm necessarily reaches that far. I think it can be used to express disappointment, but I don't think disappointment can always be inferred from underwhelmed.

If you were to eat the cheap bagel with the expectation that it would be dull and uninspired I think you could still call the experience underwhelming, even though you really didn't expect more.

I think the dictionary definition of 'failing to excite/stimulate/etc' is about right, but it leaves out the part where you have to realize you feel this way. To be underwhelmed is a state of mind, a 'feeling' we experience, not an objective fact...if you aren't actually aware that something didn't excite you, you can't be underwhelmed by it. You've got to feel it.

Consider the definition of 'disappointed' which says 'depressed or discouraged by the failure of one's hopes or expectations' - it recognizes that its a feeling. If there is a failure to realize your hopes or expectations and you don't -feel- despressed or discouraged by it then you aren't 'disappointed'. Its not enough that something you expected failed to come to pass.

If I hope and expect to get assigned to a project and my boss comes and tells me that I've been given a raise and a transfer to a dream job I'm far to busy being elated to feel disappointment that I wasn't assigned to the project, even though that hope and expectation won't come to pass. If someone were to ask me, are you disappointed, my answer would be 'hell no' - even though the 'failure to realize a hope or expectation' clause has been satisfied, my 'feeling discouraged or depressed about it' has not been.

'underwhelmed' is similiar; its a 'feeling' you get when something has failed to excite/stimulate/impress. And like disappointment if something 'fails to excite you' but you don't feel it, its not accurate to say it underwhelmed you. I spend most of my day being 'failed to be excited' by the mundanities of life. But I'm neither disappointed nor underwhelmed by this.

It could also have the (ahem) ironic definition of specifically characterizing the non-impressiveness of something as a back-handled insult. EG: "Well, his technical skills are, eh, underwhelming." In this case, the unimpressiveness of the result is carried to its extreme. Like saying that it's impressively unimpressive.

Absolutely, but that's not using 'underwhelming' in its natural state; you're using sarcasm/irony and understatement to really twist it around on itself, to 'intensify' its meaning, to become in your words 'impressively unimpressive'.

Re:Interesting proposition

[Marco Leal]

How ironic that you fail to understand the difference between sarcasm and irony. :)

If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be ironic.

No, that would be sarcasm.

If I pick up a pen I expect it to work not be dried out, but if its dried out that's not irony. If I specifically chose to pick up the pen with the sticker 'gauranteed never to dry up' and carried it around precisely to avoid the hassle of a dried up pen ... and then it was dried up... that would be irony.

Now that's irony!

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

I have to disagree. Everyone knows that a more proper example of irony is like rain on your wedding day...

I can't tell if your serious are sarcastic. I suspect sarcastic...

But in case your serious... how exactly is that ironic?

Ottawa, where Alanis is from, averages 10+ days of rain per month from April to November. And 14+ days of precipitation in December-Mar (but many of them are snow not rain)*. You'd have to be a complete twit to think you can pick a day at random 6-18 months away and not anticipate rain nor have rain contingency plans in place.

Here on the west coast its even more absurd, one plans weddings assuming that it will rain, with contingency plans to take advantage of the sun if its out.

(*source: http://www.livingin-canada.com/climate-ottawa.html)

The only real irony in Alanis' song is that she didn't actually come up with any.

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

> How ironic that you fail to understand the difference between sarcasm and irony. :)

How ironic that I'm being corrected by someone who doesn't realize that sarcasm is itself defined in terms of being ironic.

>> If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch
>> chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be
>> ironic.

> No, that would be sarcasm.

It would, in fact, be both 'sarcasm' and an 'ironic statement' because they are in fact one and the same. The above is a textbook example of an 'ironic expression'.

The Merriam Website defines sarcasm as:

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

Both defs define sarcasm in terms of irony. This isn't an accident. :)

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

BAD dictionaries may, but certainly not good ones like Merriam-Websters or the OED.

No. Def 2 is explicitly referring to ironic statements... ie sarcasm, and sardonic humour.

But def 3, incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

is both a poor definition, and the relevant one. If I'm playing craps and I bet red and it comes up black that isn't irony. If my laces come untied unexpectedly and I have to tie them back up that's not irony. Every day a 1000 things happen that are 'incongruous' with what I expect or what normally happens... most of them are not ironic.

Re:Interesting proposition

[aproposofwhat]

Sarcasm: the lowest form of wit.

Slashdot pedants: they're like really clever, man - it's all "my linguistic dick is bigger than thine, and I can look up shit on the Internet."

Nothing ironic in my statement - pure sarcasm needs no irony, merely a scathing contradiction expressed negatively.

Oh, and I'm old enough not to need dictionaries any more :P

Re:Interesting proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn...META-irony!

Well played, Alanis. Well played.

Re:Interesting proposition

[MightyYar]

Language is dynamic, and "irony" now has an additional meaning - don't let it bug you :)

Re:Interesting proposition

[aproposofwhat]

In the better houses in the UK, we use silver spoons, and thus have no sense of irony whatsoever :P

Re:Interesting proposition

[IndustrialComplex]

You may have the perfect grasp of irony, but your sense of humor could use a guide dog.

Re:Interesting proposition

[attributed insanity]

Hence the once-popular, now slightly outdated expression "Born with no sense of irony in his mouth."

Re:Interesting proposition

[zehaeva]

The only real irony in Alanis' song is that she didn't actually come up with any.

Assuming Alanis was always going for a deeper meaning you just may have figured it all out.

Re:Interesting proposition

[MttJocy]

I would have to tend to agree, unless for instance you have specifically traveled to an area to get married precisely because the target location has few days of rainfall in the season in question then it's ironic because precisely what you planned to avoid happened. The same applies if you pick a holiday location due to the high incidence of good weather and it ends up with an unseasonal storm just when you happen to be there. Of course you could site examples all day.

Re:Interesting proposition

[agbinfo]

Could it be that she meant that it's ironic that people's expectations are so high when logic would dictate otherwise?

You had rain on your wedding day. That's not ironic.

You can't smoke on your cigarette break. That's a bit ironic.

The fact that you expected that it would be sunny and that you'd be able to smoke well that's ironic given that "life has a funny way of sneaking up on you when you think everything's okay and everything's going right."

People shouldn't be surprised about things going wrong; Don't you think?

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

Jesus Christ! Are you a nimrod or what?

Why am I not surprised that you resort to yet more misdirected pedantry to try to cover your ass? You claim the dictionary isn't precise enough, but then you want to throw out the definitions that give it the necessary precision. No irony here, its just another bullshit slashdot dickwaving contest.

Gracefully accepting you were wrong evidently isn't your strong point.

Hint, if 2b - the part of def 2 that explicitly mentions sardonic humor was the full definition of 2 then 2a would never have been included in the first place.

Hint: Def 2 is irrelevant because it only applies to uses where the choice of words is what forms the irony. 2a says its 'ironic' if I say 'its a beautiful day' during a thunderstorm.

But if I say, 'the gun safety expert unexpectedly shot himself' only definition 3 applies. There is nothing ironic about the choice of words. But def 3 sucks because it would also define 'a unexpectedly shot himself' as ironic, despite the fact that its not particularly ironic at all.

Re:Interesting proposition

[jaeson]

I think "connotation" is the word you are looking for.

Re:Interesting proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the 4th definition? Of or being completely made up of iron. Wouldn't that be ironic?

Let Freedom Reign

[b4upoo]

It's time to drop the idea of the government being somehow separate from the people and grant all citizens access to all governmental information. We do not need big brother operating with rules and laws that are in any way different than they are for any citizen. Nothing is more basic than the right to know.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[milsoRgen]

I totally agree with you. I used to think of the government as people just like you and I, but time and time again they have demonstrated they are in fact not 'for the people, by the people'. It seems to me connections and money pull far to much weight in higher elected offices. No simple solutions, but I think something needs to be done to remind them they are in fact citizens/people just like the rest of us. And just be held to the same standards and ideals as anyone else.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[belmolis]

While I agree that there is way too much secrecy and that it is used far too often to protect wrongdoing by government officials, eliminating secret government information would be a disaster. Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons? What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized? How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program? If you make use of government health care, do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records?

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[ScentCone]

grant all citizens access to all governmental information

Oh, well, as long as you're only going to make it available to citizens. There shouldn't be any problem at all with foreign hackers, people who want to blow up one of our ambassadors, or anyone who might want to know when President Obama will be crossing a certain intersection at a certain time of day on his way to attending some event. As long as it's only citizens with access to all government information, we should be fine. There aren't any citizens that would make inappropriate use of police communications, or air traffic systems, or anything like that.

Or is it possible that your comment being modded as 'insightful' is perhaps a big ol' troll, just like your comment?

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[ScentCone]

do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records

No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[ArcherB]

No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know. Actually, many politicians release their medical records. I do agree with you though that mine should remain private. That's one of the reasons I'm against the government paying for my health care. Once they are the ones paying for it, they are the ones controlling it.

OK, now can you answer the rest of the questions? Here they are as the GP stated them:

Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons?
What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized?
How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program? Should all that stuff be public knowledge as well? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to know all the secrets the government has. Unfortunately, the government can't tell me without telling the people that they are trying to hide the stuff from in the first place, so I accept the fact that government needs secrets.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[CannonballHead]

Wish I had mod points. :)

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[mysidia]

Pretty weak examples.

• Nuclear weapon locations have to be secret, b/c their intended use as weapons would be in danger of being compromised by an enemy.
• An arming code is a type of digital lock, whose specific purpose is to secure against unauthorized use. A digital lock has no function if you publish its key.
• Publishing the name of an undercover agent would make them no longer "under cover".
• Your health care information is related to a service that is personal and private in nature, and noone except you and those involved in administering personal services to you have any business having your information.

  You should have a right to access your own medical records, no? As it stands now, the government could decide something in one of your personal health records is a threat to national security and block you from accessing your own records.

Matters of government action in terms of public policy (decisions that will be made effecting things outside military property, government property, and private personal affais) have no basis for secrecy.

This would include things like general policy on whether wiretaps are allowed or not.

If the very existence of a wiretapping program were to be secret, then of _course_ it's illegal! After all, if the program were perfectly legitimate, then they'd have nothing to hide. You don't hide information, unless you're doing something illegal, right!?

A legal wiretapping program of any sort would have details published the fact that a program was operating by special rules (though of course, not the very personal details about exactly which specific individuals were being targeted for tapping).

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[ScentCone]

You don't hide information, unless you're doing something illegal, right!?

Maybe that's why YOU hide things you do. But a technology or method used to intercept communications between people planning your death or the ruin of the economy in which you live, or looking to do another London or a Madrid in San Fransisco or Seattle do NOT need to know the nature of - or the policy particulars surrounding - the means by which we'd stop them. Not if we intend to actually stop them.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[jonberling]

Good point. We have the technology now to have every government meeting that contains non-sensitive information open for anyone to view online. I also think that discussions about legislation can never be considered sensitive information. Otherwise there's too much room for abuse.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Wait, are you for or against the illegal spying on US citizens for unspecified purposes, with the cover of ZOM!! Terrorism!

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[dedalus2000]

Tom Clancy is not used as the FBI training manual for a reason.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[deblau]

It's time to drop the idea of the government being somehow separate from the people and grant all citizens access to all governmental information.

Although it's cliche, unlike all the drummed-up BS that the Bush administration and the media like to feed you, opening up all government information really would benefit terrorists and others who wish us harm. Names and assignments of undercover agents and their contacts, methods for gathering intelligence, crypto we've broken, crypto we haven't, nuclear weapons locations and quantities, military equipment budgets, troop movement plans... these are not things you want just anyone to know. If they do, people die. Sorry, but some information really, really doesn't want to be free.

Of course, United States citizens talking on the phone (usually) doesn't come anywhere close to posing these kinds of dangers. If there really is a threat, well, that's the whole point of having a FISA court with the power to grant warrants (even after the fact). But this mass wiretapping program is domestic spying, pure and simple. Bush and his supporters should be punished severely for running this program.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[SethJohnson]

If you make use of government health care, do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records?

As it stands, one of the first things Bush / Cheney did when they took control was to pass the Medical Privacy Act. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this law is that it opens patients' private medical records for scrutiny by ALL insurance companies.

Seth

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[mpe]

It's time to drop the idea of the government being somehow separate from the people and grant all citizens access to all governmental information.

Or maybe make it very difficult for people to be career politicans, thus preventing the creation of a patrician class.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[mpe]

As it stands, one of the first things Bush / Cheney did when they took control was to pass the Medical Privacy Act. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this law is that it opens patients' private medical records for scrutiny by ALL insurance companies.

So does that mean that if you start an insurance company in the US you can look at Bush and Cheney's medical records? (Even if what you create is an entirely "paper" company without any employees or customers.)

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[belmolis]

Since you agree with me that these are all examples of government information that should not be made public, why do you think that they are "weak examples"? The post to which I was responding proposed allowing all citizens access to "all governmental information". My point was precisely that we need to distinguish between information such as this that is legitimately secret and information that should be public.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[rastoboy29]

I think you're failing to realize the enormous amount of unnecessary secrecy in the US government, and the public's discontent with such a state of affairs.

Of course no one wants information of the type you describe made public, but we have a serious problem in this country and the modding of that comment (currently at +4, still), demonstrates that the slashdotter, at least, is aware of it and deeply frustrated with it.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[erroneus]

Which is exactly why they are just like you and me. (It is you and -me- not to be a grammar whatever, but think of it in pseudo-programming logic terms where (you and me) are a compound test. If you can say "...just like you" and "...just like me" then it works. If you can't say "...just like I" then it doesn't work. That's the only test I can use to keep that stuff straight.) ...anyway...

The general populace of the US are concerned only about their immediate interests. Often this is about basic operational needs such as income, job, bills, food, traffic, taxes, whatever. The elite politicians are doing the exact same thing, but they operate in a different scope of concerns. One might argue that their scope of concerns is supposed to be "you and me" and you'd be right. But how often are we concerned about others even when it's our job to do so? As a society, not too often.

In the following expression, we are *ALL* 'niggers.' I'm using the term for dramatic effect and not to implicate a group of people of having a character flaw.

"You can take the nigger out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the nigger."

Meaning, you can change a person's circumstances, but you can't expect to change their values or ways of thinking and operating. It's a societal and human condition. Further, I argue that corruption is a problem not one of character, but of opportunity. So ultimately, it is not the elite politicians that need to be reminded that they are just like the rest of us. It is all of us that should recognize that we are not so different from them.

And truly, what we *need* are individuals who are exceptions to the human rule that genuinely think more of others than of themselves. These people exist, but we typically relegate those people to more menial tasks in life as they are also extremely humble in nature.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[v1]

While most of us can agree with you that there must be a line drawn somewhere, I believe also that most would agree that the line has been drawn in the wrong place. Your examples are all in one of two categories: personal privacy and safety. Generally speaking, those are the two primary scare factors that the government uses to herd the people around like sheep. Ignoring that for the moment, neither of those angles apply in this particular closed session. The purpose of this being a closed session is primarily to prevent the public (the US citizens) from learning what their government is really doing and wants to continue to do. (and to help continue the cooperation of other agencies and groups like AT&T in their efforts by immunizing them) I personally believe that these should not be acceptable grounds for a closed session.

So, the latter is being lumped in with the former, so they can get what they want, by threatening what we want. And that's just wrong.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[aproposofwhat]

Here in the UK, there's currently a debate over whether to allow wiretap evidence in the trials of 'terrorists' for precisely that reason - if the evidence were to be introduced, details of how it was gathered would have to be released to the defence, and the worry is that those details might allow a determined adversary to circumvent the evidence gathering.

How much of this argument is total hooey is left as an exercise for the reader - the fact remains that wiretapping is widespread in the UK, every well organised group knows this and takes appropriate countermeasures, and the only people likely to be incriminated by wiretap evidence are rank amateurs whose chances of a successful attack are minimal.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[aproposofwhat]

Names and assignments of undercover agents...

Unless of course the name is Valerie Plame, and the 'national interest' is defined narrowly as 'Cheney's vindictiveness'.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[mysidia]

A strong example would be a desirable exception that a rational legislature would not be likely to think about or would refuse to make, that would still represent secret information harmful if made public.

They're weak examples, because they are highly exceptional, exceptions like these can be directly written into the disclosure law -- with hardly any work. Any law mandating disclosure by the government would clearly be ammended to exclude these specific pieces of information that represent direct, quantifiable injury to government protection of its citizens, quantifiable assistance of its enemies, or breach of a trust with a third party that causes direct injury to the third party (in the case of releasing personal health records).

I suppose there's a good chance arming codes aren't actually written down in any government publication. So requiring the government to release documents they've made wouldn't even hit that info.

Codes and passwords should be known only by individuals authorized to use them -- the most secure way of ensuring this may be not to write them down, or to write the code down only once and seal it away. In that case, the burden of release would be too high, and the code could easily be changed by the time it were released.

But the proper course would be for the military to make a request in open coucil "We would like to keep arming codes secret." And with public comment involved, a decision would be reached.. "Ok, this piece of information is highly exceptional, you can keep it secret."

No doubt any law requiring government full-disclosure that would have a chance to be passed would exclude keys and passwords.

And would exclude release of case details for an ongoing investigation, in which no-one has yet been charged of any crime, or of undercover agents, whose life will be quantifiably in danger if the info is released.

As for locations of weapons and certain military resources, the exceptional need for secrecy is well-understood. As is the need for secrecy of new weapons technology under development (The secrecy gives the new technologies a better tactical advantage, makes it harder for an enemy to duplicate the advance, and provides psychological drain of the enemy (they'll know that the weapons used against them may be much more powerful than anything they know about)).

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[WindBourne]

You are correct, but this is being used to often. For example, Sibel Edmunds has shown that a number of top ranking republicans have been on the take from turkey. That has impacted our laws. Worse, a number of top republicans SOLD our bomb making ability to Turkey and Pakistan. Pakistan did not figure it out. They bought it from ppl like Richard Pearle. But W. and other top republicans are keeping Ms. Edmunds under a gag order, while the feds are also destroying information about this. So, why have the dems not interviewed Ms. Edmunds? Why have they not pushed to have her knowledge brought at least to the house and senate? In fact, it would be a good time for them to hear what she has to say during this closed door session. Let them all hear it and decide what to do with at least a few of the traitors that we have in gov. Ppl, like Richard Pearle, Dennis Hastert, and Dick Cheney. While I doubt it, it would be nice to see lifetime housing provided for them at leavenworth.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[MttJocy]

Yeah sure, except do you honestly think there probably won't be other protections on their records I would assume something along the lines of state secret, national security etc etc

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[PONA-Boy]

All I can hear now is: ZOMBO.COM

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[The Angry Mick]

Names and assignments of undercover agents and their contacts... these are not things you want just anyone to know. If they do, people die.

Names like "Valerie Plame"?

Since the president likes to speak in absolutes, he can answer this one question:

Which is more important, America's security, or telecom immunity?

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to add a disclaimer about one of the words you're using, you probably should have just picked a different word. I've heard that same saying used without invoking a racial slur. Just a thought.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[Em Adespoton]

So basically, the US is "for the people, by the people" but has certain functions sandboxed from processes at large because the USA platform can't be trusted as a whole.

Better option than Citizens' Rights Management where the entire country is locked down. Probably better than an Open Access system where everyone is free to tinker with all parts of the system as well.

Hmm... maybe there's an Open Source/Linux parallel that could be implemented here? How would Unix priveleges map to citizens' rights?

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[WindowlessView]

Bush / Cheney ... Medical Privacy Act. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this law is that it opens patients' private medical records for scrutiny by ALL insurance companies

That's not irony, that's a strategy employed throughout their tenure - title any legislation as the exact opposite of what it does. See Clear Skies Act and Patriot Act among many others.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[rkanodia]

Don't forget the No Child Left Behind Act, which takes away funding from public schools which show poor performance on standardized tests.

Re: Let Freedom Reign

[gr8scot]

Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons? All but the arming codes: yes. They should be protected by guns, not by secrecy. I certainly pay enough for the guns to be confident we have more than enough of them to protect ... the frigging guns.

What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized? How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program? Maybe we shouldn't screw around in foreign countries so much. The witness protection program, and citizen data generally, are obvious exceptions to the rule that the citizens have a right to know what a representative government does. That does not include nor imply any right to know what other citizens do. The right to free speech of every citizen includes, without exception other than a warrant, the right to tell as much or as little about oneself as we choose. Information about citizens and information about the government are totally different topics. Attempting to conflate them is disingenuous and puts you on the wrong side of the American traditions of personal liberty and personal, not collective responsibility.

Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Yep that's right. America needs a second party.

I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.

If more people would refuse to vote for more of the same, then we might actually get politicians with integrity that follow and uphold the rule of law.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Ron Paul is not a racist. I don't know why you think he is. That has been refuted MANY times over. Do some research.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Yes, because following the Constitution is SUCH a bad idea?!?!? *rolling eyes*

Would you care to elaborate on your point?

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Anonymous Coward]

or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.

Ron Paul the Republican? Yeah, great way to oppose the Republican/Democrat duopoly. What's next on your agenda, fucking for virginity?

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because following the Constitution is SUCH a bad idea?!?!? *rolling eyes*

Where did you get the idea that the constitution is so fantastic? The founders didn't intend for it to last. And it hasn't lasted - you do understand what amendments are, right?

Stop holding the constitution up as unassailable perfection and a goal that eclipses all else. I know Americans have this weird quasi-religion when it comes to the founding fathers and the constitution, but please try to snap out of it and judge it on its own terms and in perspective.

Quite frankly, I don't know how you've managed to keep this fiction going for so long. The "living document" died years ago. The politicians started ignoring it. The judges reinterpreted it. The people let them get away with it. What the constitution says no longer applies and nobody really cares. And Ron Paul can't change that.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Ron Paul is a DIFFERENT kind of Republican. If you had ever researched anything he had to say you would quickly realize there. Here is a good starting point: http://ronpaullibrary.org/

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

I don't pretend to be an economist so I honestly don't understand all of the ramifications of the gold standard. However one thing it WILL do is to help keep the inflation tax under control.

And yes there are some parts of the Constitution that should be changed I agree. But that's what the amendment process is for.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Captain Splendid]

Ron Paul is a DIFFERENT kind of Republican.

You are correct! We would have also accepted:

• The check is in the mail
• I won't come in your mouth

Bob, tell him what's he won!

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Obviously you are an ignorant troll and have NOT research Ron Paul's position or voting record. See my signature for a start.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Oddster]

If more people would refuse to vote for more of the same, then we might actually get politicians with integrity that follow and uphold the rule of law. You cannot get politicians, third party or not, with "integrity" as long as there are silly criminal laws on the books. And by silly, I mean laws that may evoke some sense of morality or social norm emotionally, but that really should not be codified in the legal system (the American one, anyway). Gambling, drugs, and prostitution come immediately to mind - threatening people with jail is not a significant deterrent to these vices, so it ends up just making a whole lot of people so-far-uncaught criminals - including way more politicians than have been caught.

No, you'll never get a politician with integrity as long as you have silly laws, because making laws that man can not and will not obey serves to bring all laws into contempt [elizabeth cady stanton]. Once consenting adults can do as they wish in their own privacy without fear of breaking the law, then we will all get quite a bit of integrity back, and so will our politicians.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[evanbd]

Where did you get the idea that the constitution is so fantastic?

Several reasons. Firstly, I agree with many of the ideas in the Constitution. I won't go into details.

Secondly, I agree with the methodology -- that there should be an overarching "meta-law" that covers what sorts of things can and cannot be legislated, and that furthermore it should be significantly more difficult to change this meta-law than to change regular laws, though not impossible (the amendment procedure).

And last but certainly not least, every Congressman and President took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Failing in that oath is an important indicator of that person's true priorities; many times, when people complain about lawmakers ignoring the Constitution, the real complaint is less about the Constitution and more about how that person is failing to carry out the job they swore to do. If we cannot trust these people to uphold the law they swore to place above all others, why exactly are we trusting them to make any laws at all?

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[NevermindPhreak]

It'll never work until we get something other than first-past-the-post elections, unfortunately. :(

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[ZiakII]

No offense by do you read Digg often?

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, lets dig up Ronald Reagon and let him run again. He would be a better president then power hungry hillary who will do anything to get her way including murder. Oh wait, all those deaths and suicides that happened at convenient times for Hillary were ALL just one big coincidence.

And the fact that Bill lied under oath and never got prosecuted for it? Great presidential team there....I do think I would rather have Good ole skeleton Ronny up in the oval office then Hillary.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[smashin234]

I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul

Correction:

I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; Either throw my vote away on a lost cause because people do not want what these people offer, or I'll write in some random Republican who sprouts off ideas that sound good on paper but when you annalyze them actually don't work.

Oh and that random Republican also votes against the party a lot, so he really isn't a Republican even though he calls himself one and ran on the party ticket. Excuse me, I just like confusing issues when the real issue in politics is always going to be the lesser of two evils in the end, and for now still the lesser of three evils. Thats why Ron Paul excites me because he is one confused little puppy.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul is a DIFFERENT kind of Republican.

You previously said:

I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above.

I could just as easily say "Obama is a DIFFERENT kind of Democrat". The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to fix the duopoly in American politics, you can't do it by strengthening one of the main parties. It's exactly the opposite of what you want.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[attributed insanity]

fucking for virginity?

Do you know a better way of generating more virgins?

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Nimey]

People who are willing to violate the Constitution never believed in it anyway.

As Franklin said to a passer-by, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Captain Splendid]

Obviously you've had a humour bypass and have NOT understood that if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Oh I agree.

The duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans have ballot access laws (and yes even the media) stacked in their favor. Ross Perot with his BILLIONS of dollars could not gain ballot access in all 50 states.

And even members of those two parties who do not tow the party line are completely blacklisted as evidenced by the recent primary elections.

I will be working within the GOP to return it back to more of a libertarian organization, however I will not be voting for any Republicans more than likely at least for a very very very long time.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Good point, but Ron Paul has a 20+ year voting record of NOT towing the GOP party line. He is principled and does not change his mind pending the political winds. In fact he even broke from the GOP in 1989. Obama at this point has no such record.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Yes what I am doing is a protest vote, but I am also REFUSING to support 'more of the same'. Why should YOU support more of the same if you don't like it?

And Ron Paul is more of a traditional Republican, the party left him. He is a Goldwater Republican, and politics does NOT have to be lesser of 2 evils if YOU WORK TO CHANGE IT.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

No I don't read Digg very often but I hear there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters on there.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[BrianGKUAC]

Ron Paul's great and all.. whatever. But there are 2 things I notice about his supporters...

1) They seem to be extremely obsessive.

2) They seem to have forgotten what a sense of humor is right around the time Dr. Paul stepped up for candidacy. GP is having a laugh, not being an ignorant troll.

Sometimes it helps to take a breather.. step back and take a fresh look at the good things in the world, and try to notice that they don't all have the initials R.P.

The other thing I'd like to add is the simple fact that when a corrupt organization is in power, they will do what they can to maintain that power. Ron Paul will not win any presidency, not because he's 'unelectable', or 'fringe', but because the current government doesn't bloody want him there.

If you're looking for change, I hate to tell you this, but it's going to take more than writing a name on a piece of paper. See MY signature for a start on that.

Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's toeing the line.

I'm so proud to be an American when...

[Anonymous Coward]

the future of our nation's policy on personal privacy is determined by a 500p3r-53kr!+ panel of crooked politicians.

Systems Normal, All Fscked Up!

-AC

*sig removed by NSA content filter*

Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[OMNIpotusCOM]

Before we get too many more posts with the basic idea of "I'm going to enact change by not voting/voting for Ron Paul", involving the words "big" and "brother", or just having some kind of sentiment about our rights being tampled on, let me give you this little gem.

The Constitution that most of you tout so highly gives you very specific ways to enact change on a government that has become too powerful. Until you are willing to do what it says with that regard, please don't waste the bandwidth.

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[Tanman]

Yes, you are right. The constitution does give us specific capabilities to deal with a government that has become too big and powerful to be corrected. It involves the right for you and I to have a gun.

However, I would much rather try to swing popular support to someone like Ron Paul, who espouses personal freedom and constitutional values, than begin a second civil war in this country. I mean, at the end of the day, we all live pretty good lives here in the USA -- the battle being fought is for the future. We are trying to reverse a decline, not pull the country out of the gutter.

So, I will continue to support people like Ron Paul who voice a pure and respectable ideology rather than sleezy politicians who are concerned with being caught doing something crooked rather than trying to do The Right Thing.

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution does give us specific capabilities to deal with a government that has become too big and powerful to be corrected. It involves the right for you and I to have a gun.

And that only works when the government has weapons that are of equal size to those that the civilians have. Oops.

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, with most of the military in Iraq, it won't matter.

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[yamamushi]

Yes, but if corporate media has taught us anything, it's that regardless of popular vote, the people have no control over who gets into office or not. For the past 100 years, this entire system of beauracracy has been built up to allow things like this to happen. You want to fight the system from the inside? Well good luck spending years in court battles only to have this whole "state secrets" bullshit imposed on you. Americans are so convinced that we live in the greatest country on earth, so that things aren't as bad as they could be, so there's no point in complaining about them now. But things didn't get this bad overnight, and things aren't going to get nazi-esque for years to come, the only real question is how bad do things have to get for people to really get pissed and start to follow the doctrine: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.", note that DUTY part, it's not a choice to fight off government which fails to protect our liberties, it's our DUTY.

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[Rampantbaboon]

Like the Iraqi insurgency, or Viet-Cong?

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[MttJocy]

That is not perfectly true unless you assume the government is willing to pull out the really big weapons and kill their very source of control and power in mass (note power is useless if there are no people left you have power over) so it then becomes likely that we would be talking infantry perhaps some tanks sure, maybe a few missiles in an attempt to scare the rebellion out of existence but when it boils down to it a thousand armed mob with rifles and handguns against every 20 or so soldiers or a tank and their higher power weapons may kill more but they still can't win.

It also assumes that in the event of a rebellion so large as to actually cause people to engage in direct violence against the government all the military will actually stay on the government side and not defect (with their assault rifles with them) hell, even assumes that there are not enough people in the private sector that if they were involved in such a rebellion they could not arm an army on their own.

Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts

[OMNIpotusCOM]

So, in essence, you'd rather do something that actually doesn't make a difference? Thank you for proving my point.

Just one question ...

[tomhudson]

... will it be bugged?

Result of Hearing Depends on what door is closed

[LM741N]

The one to the public, the one to the lobbyists, or the one to the 3 letter agencies.

Not sure Bush realizes he's on the losing end here

[Dachannien]

Bush has a lot less leverage than he seems to think. The Democrats are at the very least torn morally about wiretapping, with the more leftward-leaning quite happy not to permit it at all. That's essentially the situation we have right now, with the previous legislation expired and with no immunity for telecoms. Bush can veto any related legislation he wants, but it won't force Congress's hand, because there will always be enough of his opponents willing to just not send anything to his desk.

What will end up happening here (they should put me on the McLaughlin Group!) is that Congress will either sit on its thumbs or send legislation to Bush that he'll just veto again, and January 2009 will roll around. There's a greater than 50% chance that the next President will be a Democrat (to my personal chagrin, but I'm being realistic here), and the telecoms, FBI, CIA, DoJ, etc. will have things much worse when it comes to wiretapping at that point.

Misattribution

[Makaristos]

This news piece is an Associated Press item posted by Yahoo on their site; it is not by Yahoo.

Re:Misattribution

[Nimey]

Don't blame me; Soulskill edited my submission pretty heavily.

ZOMGBBQ, an editor who edits. Kind of.

Attention: "security personel"

[Anonymous Coward]

We would absolutely love it if you would get a tape and give it to wikileaks. Or Youtube. Or John Stewart.

Re:Attention: "security personel"

[jollyreaper]

We would absolutely love it if you would get a tape and give it to wikileaks. Or Youtube. Or John Stewart. Mod down? No, mod parent up. This would be fucking awesome. Bush did a little song and dance at the Washington Press Whores dinner last week, closed to the public. He was yucking it up about obstructing justice, talking about going back to the ranch and saying hi to Cheney whose standing there with all the documents he's withholding. This is the same asshole who joked about not being able to find WMD's, miming looking under the podium "no wmd's here", the same asshole who said "You are the haves and the have more's; some call you the moneyed elite, I call you my base."

We need to damn these fuckers with their own words. People have been deservedly killed for less; I think we can all agree that voting them out of office is a peaceable compromise.

Re:Attention: "security personel"

[BAM0027]

Nah, you can't vote them out or impeach them. You have to wait for them to do something _really_ heinous, something that would impact a whole bunch of people.

Something worse than the 4,000 military personnel and the thousands of citizens that've died in Iraq.

Something worse than the civil liberties that've been compromised.

Something worse than the trillions of dollars that've been borrowed against future generations for a baseless war.

Something worse than the loss of funds to pay for education.

Nah, just wait for them to do something _really_ awful, like pay for sex.

Re:Attention: "security personel"

[Fear the Clam]

We need to damn these fuckers with their own words.

Absolutely. And while I think its unlikely that we'll get a Scooby Do/The Closer confession on video, I'm willing to settle for a macaca moment.

Re:Attention: "security personel"

[timeOday]

Bush would just use it as an excuse to never tell Congress anything again.

Re:Attention: "security personel"

[JM78]

Our society has become self-complacent. We, as a society, will do nothing to fight against injustice unless we feel it in our homes. It makes no difference if the media says we are being spied upon or if some guys on TV go and die for a war that doesn't affect me directly (I personally don't know anyone in the military, sure I'm not the only one where the war exists only on TV). It matters only if we feel it. Society, as a whole, must feel violated in order to force a drastic change within itself.

The kicker, of course, is that because we have to feel it we are wholly susceptible to manipulation of our feelings. There simply aren't enough insightful, intelligent people in our national community to counter the massive manipulation the Bush administration has mastered through the media and political double-speak (e.g. It's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation methods!); they just give us each $600 bucks and say everything's groovy.

It's really pathetic how materialism and self-riotous we have become (as a whole, mind you). Fortunately we are starting to get a taste of why Barak Obama has done so well in our current democratic primary - he helps people remember what it feels like to have national pride; why it feels good to be an American. The media vultures may pick it apart but his wife spoke truth when she said, "this is the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American;" perhaps not the first time, but certainly one of the very few for me (I'm 30 so most of my adult-life has been spent watching Bush destroy many great things I learned about this country in school as a kid).

Not an Obama fanboi, but I do hope we have more people like him start to speak about unity, hope and peace cause it just makes me sad to think I'm nationally-related to men like G. W. Bush.

Just my 2-cents as a currently-free American

The Facts

[ewhac]

The law that permits surveillance of foreign communications -- FISA -- did not expire last month, and remains in force. What actually expired was the Orwellian-named "Protect America Act," a temporary amendment to FISA which removed the requirement for any kind of warrant for certain surveillance targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States.

Surveillance of foreign targets may still be conducted under the auspices of FISA -- you'll just need to get a warrant. Up to three days after the fact. From the special secret FISA court. Which has never said no. Such hardship.

Schwab

Re:The Facts

[ekgringo]

But just think of all that awful paperwork they'd have to fill out. They wouldn't have time to wiretap everyone and the terrists will win. Oh, the humanity!

Re:The Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

you'll just need to get a warrant. Up to three days after the fact. From the special secret FISA court. Which has never said no.

Dude, they have said no as many as five times! Four of those had to be resubmitted before they were partially granted. Aside from that nearly 200 applications had to be modified before they were accepted. How can the government be expected to get anything done with these kinds of hardships?

Re:The Facts

[stupidpuppy]

So, if US intelligence services determine, exactly, the location of Osama Bin Laden, we can either ...

1. Kill Him
2. Listen in on his phone conversations (requires warrant)

The "Protect America Act" only restores the status quo. It was created in response to a recent ruling -- a judge on the FISA court suddenly decided that warrants were needed to domestically eavesdrop on foreign targets. It was a bizarre ruling with zero precedent and clearly flies in the face of congressional intent. The Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations never ever needed a warrant in the same situation.

Re:The Facts

[MMC Monster]

It's not as if getting a FISA-approved warrant is that difficult. They've turned down warrants only a handful of times since FISA was created.

Fear

[Heshler]

"Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war." Would the "War on Drugs" in this case be grounds for the President determining his own powers? While I believe that no one such have such uncheck spying powers, I think the real issue is that the Bush administration has proven, in so many cases, to be inept and untrustworthy, especially with Americans' privacy. How can we trust him when he says (or rather, directly implies) that the result of the bill not passing WILL be a terrorist attack on the US? This is a blatant fear mongering technique; he has not clarified how the program helps fight terrorists, yet he expects everyone to be afraid enough to give him anything he wants. Lately, Republicans have made it sound like the House Democrats are responsible for a coming wave of destruction on America. This emotional play is unacceptable: we need evidence that the wiretapping is actually doing some good, not more fear.

Re:Fear

[KORfan]

Remember, warrantless wiretapping isn't enough to keep us safe. Only telecom immunity can keep us safe. Warrantless wiretapping without telecom immunity means buildings exploding when the terrorists attack.

Re:Fear

[threc]

I wonder if the Whitehouse really thought the following quote through: "Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war."

It begs the question, if the President enacted a war of aggression without approval from congress - does he still get a blank check?

But it is a matter of principle

[wasted]

Whether or not I agree with the wiretaps, the idea of NOT granting immunity to those who cooperated with the government sets a bad precedent, undermining the credibility of the U.S. government. It doesn't favor any political party or the country in the long run.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[The Analog Kid]

the idea of NOT granting immunity to those who cooperated with the government sets a bad precedent, undermining the credibility of the U.S. government.

They had a choice not to cooperate, Qwest acted in this manner. I can't imagine the legal departments in these companies never mentioned that this possibly an illegal action. As far as undermining the credibility of the U.S. government, it was undermined when Bush Administration authorized this program.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[bersl2]

Whether or not I agree with the wiretaps, the idea of NOT granting immunity to those who cooperated with the government sets a bad precedent, undermining the credibility of the U.S. government. Maybe, just maybe, that's because the US Government deserves, in part, loss of credibility.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Cadallin]

Sorry, I'm going to have to pull Godwin's law here. I hope that I will articulate why it is justified.

The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. They have advocated, and used, torture in the interrogation of prisoners. This is not legal. They have lied, and used said lies as an excuse to wage aggressive war. This is not legal. They have conspired to hide their actions behind a cloak of shadows, lies, and secrecy. They have refused to disclose the the extent of their actions to the duly elected agents of the People of The United States of America while under oath. This is not Legal. International Law applies whether one agrees to it or not. As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not.

No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.

If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[wasted]

I believe that most would assume that when the government asks something that isn't obviously illegal, one would reasonably assume that act to be protected. Sort of like the U.S. military - members are expected to follow orders unless obviously unlawful, and in return, are not prosecuted for following orders.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[The Analog Kid]

I believe that most would assume that when the government asks something that isn't obviously illegal

Tapping phones without a warrant is obviously illegal (the except is FISA where you can apply for a warrant after the fact up to 72 hours). These companies are subject to these requests all the time, they know what the requirements are for legal wiretapping, do you honestly think they had no idea that a warrantless wiretapping program would be on shaky ground?

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[wasted]

Tapping phones without a warrant is obviously illegal (the except is FISA where you can apply for a warrant after the fact up to 72 hours). These companies are subject to these requests all the time, they know what the requirements are for legal wiretapping, do you honestly think they had no idea that a warrantless wiretapping program would be on shaky ground?
I don't think the companies equated shaky ground (waiting for the legislation to make it legal,) with nearly illegal. I'm not saying this oversight was a good idea, just that one shouldn't attribute to malice that which would probably be better attributed to ignorance, and if we set a precident for prosecuting ignorance, the courts will be backed up for eons.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[wasted]

I was SURE I put the end blockquote after the question mark. Bummer on the error.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[wasted]

Sorry, I'm going to have to pull Godwin's law here. I hope that I will articulate why it is justified.

Nope, failed miserably. No matter how badly you disagree with Bush's policies and actions, he doesn't compare to the Nazis.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Duhavid]

Befehl ist befehl?

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[QuasiEvil]

the idea of NOT granting immunity to those who cooperated with the government sets a bad precedent No, it upholds the precident that this is a nation of laws (at least in principle), and that we believe in the principle that not even the government is above following them.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[jonberling]

I don't think it was ignorance. I use to be an intelligence analyst for the US Army. When I first heard about the wire tapping program (I'd had only been out for about a year) the first thing that came to my mind is "Holy crap, that must have been illegal!" We were clearly briefed about what we could and couldn't listen to. Domestic calls were 100% off limit. US Citizens, in the US, calling someone in a foreign country were also protected. The reason: the US military isn't used against US citizens (unless martial law is declared). We have law enforcement separate from the military for a reason. If it were the FBI instead of the NSA doing the wiretaps, I think it wouldn't have been as big a issue (At lease at the time I though that, I'm not sure if I think that now.)

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Foobar of Borg]

Befehl ist befehl?

Aber daß war ein Führerbefehl und Qwest ist ein Verräter! Seriously, though, I think the Bush family is still pissed off that their side lost the Second World War. All this economic destruction of the American economy and destruction of basic civil liberties is simply a bit of revenge for which they have waited so patiently.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[jonberling]

I think what he's referring to is the rumors circling the internet stating that several prominent Nazis were charged with war crimes for using waterboarding as as an interrogation technique. Now I have no idea if there were really Nazis charged with war crimes for using waterboarding. But if there were, then in at least that respect, Bush could be compared to Nazis. BTW, if someone knows a reference proving or disproving the war crimes charges, I'd like to know it.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Stephen Ma]

I'm not saying this oversight was a good idea, just that one shouldn't attribute to malice that which would probably be better attributed to ignorance, ...

As everyone knows, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

... and if we set a precident for prosecuting ignorance, the courts will be backed up for eons.

So we will have more courts for however long it will take to punish the criminals.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[NevermindPhreak]

It's not so much that people want to go after the Telecoms because they want tons of cash. It's the fact that if we ever want to see the extent of the illegal wiretaps, we have to bring them to court. If they have immunity, this isn't possible.

It's more important that we find out who abused this power, than it is for us to get money from it. And judging by how so many in this administration are scared shitless about this, I'm going to make a guess that they were abusing this power.

Also, the Telecoms, who have had to deal with the legality of wiretaps for decades, should know that this was unconstitunal. If the government asks me to start raping babies "so we can find the terrorists", odds are good that I'd refuse. Kudos to Quest.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[smashin234]

" The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. "

      Hate to disagree, I agree its wrong, but everything Bush did was using loopholes that exist in the laws (US Congress), Constitution, and in the Geneva Convention. I agree with you about the in spirit part, but as long as no one stands up to him and closes the loopholes (Hello geneva convention, congress, Supreme court) He has every right to continue doing this. The fact that this was allowed for so long should not reflect on him, but on others who refused to buck the trend. This is THE reason the top Nazi brass on down to the common soldier were later condemned. The soldiers may have been following their orders, but they could have disobeyed at any time.

" As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not."

For one, you compare him to the top Nazi brass, why? According to you he broke the Geneva convention, so that must make him just like the Top Nazi brass who baked Jews in ovens for fun? Give me a break, stop pulling out the Nazi card whenever someone does something that vaguely resembles them. I know how to make my model trains run on time, and Hitler did the same, does that make me anything like Hitler?

And two, if he is like the Top Nazi brass, those who allowed it to continue (Congress, supreme court, military, CIA, even other nations who didn't stop him all deserve to be punished as well). Even you as a civilian deserve some of the punishment for not doing the right thing and swimming to Cuba and start breaking the prisoners out. If this is bad as the Nazi brass as you claim, then you should have done something big to make a point. Your own life is nothing compared to the lives of those whose liberty have been violated, or did I misread your post, only other people's lives should be sacrificed, and that you should be able to just post rhetoric. That would make you a coward.

"No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.

If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm."

Since I just proved how you were a coward, I agree, no immunity for you. Let justice commence with an old-fashioned stoning.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[LaskoVortex]

No matter how badly you disagree with Bush's policies and actions, he doesn't compare to the Nazis.

What is your metric? Dead people? Deceit? Number of people tortured? You can always compare, using < =, or >. If you don't mind providing numbers, you would be doing us all a favor. Maybe a table: dead people Bush v. Nazis. Tortured Bush v. Nazis. Lies Bush v. Nazis. Heck, you could get creative. Try to be fair, though. I mean, if you break down types of killing, make sure you have a summary row for all dead people. Something like dead from bombs Bush v. Nazis, etc. I just thought of one: maimed Bush v. Nazis. Oh yes, then their is Monetary Cost of War Bush v. Nazis (don't forget to adjust for inflation!). I'm not saying you are right or wrong or making any predictions about the numbers, I'm just asking you to provide some concrete evidence for what you are saying--otherwise you just look ignorant and opinionated and need to STFU.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[ecbpro]

The Japanese were using this techniques on US captives in WWII and were convicted for this by the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[DrLang21]

While comparing Bush to Nazis may be a little extreme, it does call for some serious examination of how the Nazi party operated early on. Hitler did everything he could to undermine the German legislature when he was still just Vice Chancellor. He also enacted warrentless domestic spying that included wire taps, warrentless searches, and brute force watching people. All of this was done with an extreme air of secrecy. Behind closed doors citizens were held indefinitely without trial and subjected to torture. They were not given access to a lawyer (not that it would soon make a difference since after Hindenburg died, lawyers were required to be NSDAP members).

Now to say that Bush is comparable to Nazi's is far fetched unless you can show a true intent for National Socialism (Hitler's variety of it at least) and a maximally aggressive effort against those who don't fit the Nationalist bill. He would probably need plans to invade Canada, and many professions would legally require membership in the GOP.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[ravnous]

If the government came to me and asked me to do something, I would pretty reasonably assume that they wouldn't then come back and prosecute me for it.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Duhavid]

Ich sprechen venik (sp) Deutch.

I can follow some of it, but not quite well enough to know what exactly you wrote. Sorry.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Cadallin]

Ding Ding! You first paragraph is precise the stuff I meant, although waging aggressive war also applies. Were the Nazis "OK" while they were merely undermining the legislature, and using fear, intimidation, and violence to spread their ideology? Were they "A-OK" right up to the day they invaded Poland?

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[DrLang21]

although waging aggressive war also applies

I purposely left that out since there are many who may consider this already fulfilled by the administration.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Absimiliard]

Dim example.

Did you ever serve in the military, or are you making assumptions you shouldn't?

I've served in two branches myself. I've been through both Army and Navy training, and given years of my life to each service. I can assure you we were trained about illegal orders. We were trained to recognize what an illegal order was and what to do about it in Basic Training. First two weeks of Basic no less.

(and FYI, what you do about an illegal order is not obey it. and if you do, you are taught you can expect prosecution and jail time.)

I think Nuremberg set the standard for how "I was just following orders" stands as a defense in court.

-abs

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[WindowlessView]

one shouldn't attribute to malice that which would probably be better attributed to ignorance

I think most people have a really hard time accepting the notion that some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, with the best legal resources available to them 24/7, are ignorant of laws directly related to their industry for 25 years.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Cadallin]

The comparison with the Nazi's is most apt is one accepts the (in my opinion, very reasonable) proposition that Hitler and the Nazi party didn't cross the line the day Poland was invaded in 1938, or the day the first gas chamber killed its first victim. They crossed the line, much, much earlier, with their concerted campaigns of fear, violence, and destruction of legal and civil rights. Perhaps I should have used Bonito Mussolini as an example instead, as he was arguably a closer match.

There are also degrees of complicity. Why is the average Jane or Joe on the street just as culpable as the Telecom executive who agrees, often eagerly, to aid the illegal actions of administration? Just as there are differing degrees of power involved, so are there different degrees of agency and culpability. Everyone bears some guilt, the leaders of Business and Industry with their greater power and influence bear far more.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Foobar of Borg]

Oh, sorry. It was just "But that was a Führer-order and Qwest is a traitor!" German's not my first language, either, so I may be laughed at by some of the Germans on /.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Duhavid]

Cool, I thought that was about it. Wasn't positive.

Thanks!

It's all good if this gets rejected.

[fireman sam]

Oh, wiretapping a phone is immoral and illegal to get information, but waterboarding is ok.

Hillarious

[dissy]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it extremely hillarious to see the comment

The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices." related to a debate about how OK it is to spy on people?

I'm sure its standard procedure in stuff like that, but I can't help but LOL

Re:Hillarious

[redcaboodle]

related to a debate about how OK it is to spy on people?

It's not ok to spy on people.

However, politicians have their own definition of people. You and I are not in it.

At least someone...

[Lordfly]

...in this country still has privacy! Where do I go to have a secret session room?

Re:At least someone...

[PPH]

Where do I go to have a secret session room?

Gitmo.

No one will every hear from you again.

Re:At least someone...

[Myrcutio]

So if i yell FIRE in the middle of their crowded secret session room, can they prosecute without evidence?

mod parent up

[Travoltus]

There's not a high enough /. score to do that one justice.

Lying Republican Scammers

[Doc Ruby]

This stunt is the first time in 25 years that the House has gone into secret session. John Conyers (D-MI), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, skeptically agreed with the move:

The more my colleagues know, the less they believe this Administration's rhetoric. As someone who has chaired classified hearings and reviewed classified materials on this subject, I believe the more information Members receive about this Administration's actions in the area of warrantless surveillance, the more likely they are to reject the Administration's scare tactics and threats. My colleagues who joined me in the hearings and reviewed the Administration's documents have walked away with an inescapable conclusion: the Administration has not made the case for unprecedented spying powers and blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies.

Whether this is a worthwhile exercise or mere grandstanding depends on whether Republicans have groundbreaking new information that would affect the legislative process. There must be a very high bar to urge the House into a secret session for the first time in 25 years. I eagerly await their presentation to see if it clears this threshold. As someone who has seen and heard an enormous amount of information already, I have my doubts.

Leave it to the Republicans. You have to, because they refused to let Democrats call a secret session last year, when Democrats wanted to review classified FISA evidence to decide how to revise FISA as Republicans have demanded (but didn't while they owned the majority):

[House Minority Leader] Boehner's spokesman, Kevin Smith, derided the secret session proposal as a stalling tactic.

"There are clear rules and procedures for how Congress handles classified information," Smith said. "This nonsense is nothing more than another stalling tactic from a bunch of liberals who don't want to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe."

That kind of severe contradiction should disqualify anyone from participation in either "Intelligence" or "Judiciary" decisions.

Re:Lying Republican Scammers

[chitokutai]

Apparently, this is only the third time a secret session has been held since 1830!

Not to mention that the last time it happened in 1983 it was concerning the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. What in the world is going on in our government?!

Re:Lying Republican Scammers

[rastoboy29]

hey! that quote from Conyers isn't in the article!

Re:Lying Republican Scammers

[Doc Ruby]

We are at war. As usual, the war is by the government against the people. Just look at how this secret session protocol has been used since 1825, following heavy use during the 1812 War:

Reason / Date(s)
Electronic Surveillance of Terror Suspects / March 13, 2008 (10:11pm-11:09pm)[1]
U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua / July 19, 1983
Involvement of Cuba and communist countries in Nicaragua / February 25, 1980
Implementing the Panama Canal Act of 1979 / June 20, 1979
Trade between the U.S. and Great Britain / May 27, 1830
Relations with Indian tribes / December 27, 1825

The earliest one, in 1825, covered the most treacherous dealings our government ever had, the genocide of the American tribes. The next one wrapped up America's 60 year conflict with Britain. Then it was a century and a half, out of two centuries available, until a flurry 1979-80, half the total secret sessions, starting as Republicans took over the White House. Which covered the Iran/Contra secret war in Nicaragua / Panama / Honduras / El Salvador. Now those Iran/Contra secret warriors have been running the government for 7-13 years, finally on their way out of power, and they're wrapping it up again.

Secret government. Covert wars. Your Republican Congress in action. OK, it's not yours, it's not the Republicans' Congress anymore. But they'll abuse their minority privileges at least as much as they just spent the past 13 years abusing their majority privileges.

Re:Lying Republican Scammers

[ffflala]

Just FYI -- according to your article:

"In May 2007, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tried to get the House to go into closed session to discuss earmarks in the Intelligence authorization bill. His motion failed 207-217."

So when you say

Republicans... refused to let Democrats call a secret session last year ...You've got it backwards. By May 2007 Congress had a Dem majority, and that secret session was proposed by a Republican. I share your frustration, but overlooking important details of the situation can undermine an otherwise effective argument.

Re:Lying Republican Scammers

[Doc Ruby]

You're right. What actually happened was that minority Republicans tried to call a rare secret session last year, and it was voted down. This week's session was asked by Democrats, not Republicans.

But the reality is that the secret info the Republicans claimed justifying telco amnesty was in fact just a stunt - that nevertheless required that rare interruption that the Republicans bitched about. They went through with it past 11PM last night. Today it changed no one's mind, and the House refused to go along with telco amnesty.

So it's largely the same argument. I did flip the events. But that's why I link to their supporting documentation: so people can help me get it right. Thanks.

Closed...?

[Aegis Runestone]

What if they're wiretapping the session? ;P

Re:Nader\Paul 2008

[SonicSpike]

I am not saying Ron Paul will win. In fact I know he won't.

My point is that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result. There is barely any difference between the Demirubs and Republicrats.

As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer

[Phoenix666]

I'm furious that Pelosi and the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives would agree to a secret session. The FISA bill represents the greatest threat to our freedom, the rule of law, and the Constitution of the United States, and I demand to know every word that every Congressman says on the subject so we'll know exactly whose ass to kick if they grant immunity to the telcos for committing crimes.

Those fuckers are supposed to work for us, and I for one have lost patience waiting for them to remember that.

A secret session on this topic, especially this topic, is nothing but a big Fuck You to the American public.

Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer

[bersl2]

They could be discussing this behind the scenes instead of in an official session. (This is official, isn't it?) Would you prefer that?

Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer

[tgd]

They're talking about things that are classified.

The alternative, according to existing law, is to not talk about it outside of closed committee meetings.

This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Well, as good as you can hope based on how the law is written (law that goes back decades, not years).

Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer

[BlowHole666]

You do know they are talking about classified stuff. Also when it goes into law (if it goes into law) it will be a matter of public record. If it is against the law someone will take it to the supreme court. You do know we still have some form of checks and balances. You do know how that works right? Congress makes a dumb law, the Executive branch enforces the dumb law, the Judicial branch tells them hey this law is dumb and they get rid of it. In most cases the Supreme court goes by the constitution I have not heard too many reports of Tellcos paying off judges. So I think you will be ok ;)

Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer

[Jeremi]

Congress makes a dumb law, the Executive branch enforces the dumb law, the Judicial branch tells them hey this law is dumb and they get rid of it.

No, that was the old system. The new system is: [...], the Judicial branch is packed with yes men who believe that the "Unitary Executive" has the right to do whatever he damn well pleases, and rules accordingly.

Alanis Morissette suggests that President Hillary Clinton could make broad use of these new Presidential powers to unilaterally outlaw all private health care and replace it with a centralized, government-run system.

It's a closed session because...

[number1scatterbrain]

...they've got Eliot Spitzer's lady friend "Kristen" appearing before a "select" committee. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!

WTF?

[Whuffo]

Let's see now: House of Representatives and secret session. If they have to keep it a secret from us, then who is it they're representing?

Don't answer, the truth of the situation has already become painfully clear. We've got two political parties who offer the candidates that best represent their party values. Those party values include greed, graft, corruption, etc, etc. You can't vote the rascals out of office because the only choices you have to vote on are the ones the parties select for you.

And while we're hyperventilating about our elected representatives, the real dirty work is done by career bureaucrats - you didn't vote for them, you don't know them, they'll be there until they retire and they'll do what they want to regardless of which party is in power.

Here's my bet: the House and the telecom companies will kiss and hold hands and when it's over nothing will be different. Same old stuff.

Re:WTF?

[freedom_india]

the House and the telecom companies will kiss and hold hands and when it's over nothing will be different True. Very true.
As Bush is so fond of saying, if you nothing to hide, then why worry?
Why doesn't the same apply to people who are elected officials swallowing our money and time to elect them.
There should be a law preventing secret sessions.
If the government can't be open to its people, then the people don't have to open to the government.

As you said, i bet a secret bill will be passed bypassing constitution granting immunity, provided the telcos say "sorry" and pay a $500 fine to court.

If democrats agreed to this, then they deserve to lose this november election, and i, surely will vote for McCain.

Re:WTF?

[NevermindPhreak]

Sorry, but government officials have had more access to classified stuff than civilians for a long long time now. I'm against immunity too, but I trust John Conyers enough to believe that he and most of the House Dems would call the GOP on bullshit if it turns out to be the case. If they couldn't be trusted to do so, immunity would have been granted a long time ago, and the press would have barely had a chance to notice.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

and i, surely will vote for McCain

LOL! That will teach "them" a lesson...

Re:WTF?

[freedom_india]

No. That will teach us a lesson to go with the party which is atleast consistent.
The republicans may be phenomenally wrong, but atleast they are consistent in that. So if at all they change in future, the whole party will change enmasse.
Dems are chameleons who don't know where there own as$es are.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jane Q. Public]

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

It really doesn't get much clearer than that. "Ex post facto" means "retroactive". It does not say "maybe", or "if...". It says NO.

Bush can bitch all he wants, but he is demanding that the Democrats pass a measure that would be blatantly unconstitutional... as clearly unconstitutional as something can be! "No (whatever) shall be passed" is perfectly clear English, hardly subject to debate. And in this case, "whatever" is retroactive laws.

If the Democrats even considered doing such, they would be traitors to the Constitution, to the same extent as Bush.

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

[Jane Q. Public]

I know exactly what I am talking about, but YOU refer to something completely different.

"Pardoning" someone for a past crime is permissible. But that is NOT a "retroactive" law. A pardon acknowledges that a crime has been committed, but says "Society is forgiving you."

On the other hand, what they have actually been proposing is a retroactive law, stating that "it is not illegal to do such". That is a completely different species of animal from what you described, and is NOT permitted by the constitution.

I was referring to something like dogs, but you were talking about giraffes. Or apples and oranges, if you prefer. In any case, considering that I am not the one who was confusing the two, I doubt very much that it is I who is demonstrating ignorance. I admit to being ignorant about some things; however, this is not one of them.

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

[FleaPlus]

Sorry, but ex post facto only applies when criminalizing a previously legal activity, not the other way around. Otherwise it would also be unconstitutional to do things like grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

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

[2short]

Actually, if they pass immunity, any illegal things that occurred will still have been illegal. It will just be illegal to prosecute anyone for them.

Not that I disagree with the general premise that this particular immunity is a bad idea and should not be granted. But it's well within the powers of Congress.

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

[Jane Q. Public]

That is essentially, which is within the power of Congress. It all depends on how they do it. They have been making noises, though, about passing "retroactive" immunity, which is NOT within their constitutional powers.

If they do, it would not be the first "retroactive" law that they have passed... which of course have been challenged and subsequently thrown out. They should know better... and probably do.

In any case, we will have to wait and see what they do. If it turns out to be an attempt at a retroactive law, that might be a good thing. Someone can challenge it and get it tossed.

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

[Jane Q. Public]

You are not correct. A pardon (amnesty) is not "retroactive"!!! It says, in essence, "We acknowledge that a crime has been committed, but we will pardon those who committed it."

Doing it "retroactively", on the other hand, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT matter! To pass "retroactive" immunity, a law is passed that says something like, "We declare this activity to be NOT ILLEGAL, and we make this ruling effective as of two years ago." This has an effect similar to a pardon, but it is not the same thing.

Do you understand the distinction? It is subtle but it is a real and very important difference. It is permissible to pardon for a crime that has been committed, but it is NOT permissible to pass a retroactive law. Contrary to what you state, retroactive laws ARE unconstitutional, no matter what they are doing... criminalizing or de-criminalizing.

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

[keineobachtubersie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

"In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws."

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action."

"2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed."

"3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed."

"4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."

THOSE are the tests. You'll notice that nowhere in there is anything that makes a law which legalizes a previously illegal activity unconstitutional.

More importantly, just because it's an ex post facto law does not make it unconstitutional. Again, from Wiki.

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."

"Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."

Now, you say "retroactive laws ARE unconstitutional, no matter what they are doing... criminalizing or de-criminalizing." but give NO evidence to support your claim.

And please don't reply with "that may be what the court says, but the Constitution says...", that's a cheap cop out.

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

[gr8scot]

More importantly, just because it's an ex post facto law does not make it unconstitutional. Again, from Wiki.

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006." Those are bad laws, and should be invalidated, by the Supreme Court if John Kerry doesn't have the courage to do so himself, and of course he does not. It would not be the first time the Supreme Court struck down legislation, and as long as people remain fallible, that is as it should be. Hopefully, we gradually make better and better precedents through overturning more bad than good laws and rulings, but it is hubris to imply, as you have, that because the Legislature has passed or the Supreme Court has ruled, the precedent is now beyond question. Furthermore, I easily found evidence that where the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on a case prosecuted under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, some of it has already been ruled un-constitutional for even more egregious faults than the ex post facto problem under discussion here.

Judge Britt found that this idea violated the division of legislative authority between Congress and the state governments. The Supreme Court has upheld state civil commitment laws similar in their broad outlines to this federal provision, and clearly the states have legislative authority to address threats to the welfare of their citizens. Britt could find no anchor for this law in the Article I enumerated powers of Congress. It is a criminal statute, pure and simple, with no real anchor in the Commerce Clause, even though it masquerades as a "civil commitment" statute. It basically imposes incarceration for propensity (which should raise other serious issues for people, issues the judge felt unnecessary to address given the outcome of his analysis). A reasonable conclusion to draw from this is not that ex post facto laws are sometimes Consitutional, but that they are featured in the worst of all statutes, so heinous the Supreme Court cannot take the time to enumerate each violation contained within. The real, honest solution to legitimate concerns about pedophilia is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, in maximum security facilities, not freedom with surveillance, and other nonsense so easily used against innocent citizens for your political motives. As easy as it has been to prove your first example to be totally without merit, I shall not expend more of my time discussing this Lautenberg law, nor anything else in all likelihood, with you, ever.

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

[keineobachtubersie]

"A reasonable conclusion to draw from this is..."

That you're not intelligent enough to understand the discussion you're replying to?

I agree, that is the only reasonable conclusion.

"Those are bad laws"

That's your opinion, and I don't care about your opinion.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[dpninerSLASH]

Good the The House Democrats. Like many other U.S. citizens I've had it up to my chin with Bush's arrogant, irresponsible, and unintelligent deconstruction of our country. I hope they give him the fight of a lifetime on this that keeps him awake at night.

To argue that Bush has done anything whatsoever to fend off terrorism is a joke. I couldn't care less about the immigration system, but his blatant failings to secure our southern borders stands in direct conflict with the GOP's assertions that we are better off today than we were a few years ago is fodder for comedians. If the terrorists decide they want to get us, they'll find a away. The only thing (thank God) that is keeping the U.S. safe today was the worldwide embrace of the U.S. after 9/11, which hurt the terrorists from an ideological point of view.

Re:Result of Hearing Depends on what door is close

[Petrushka]

or the one to the 3 letter agencies. Well, I presume it'll be the three-letter agencies sweeping the place for bugs. So I guess that answers that part of your question.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, only counts if it's up to your eyeballs. Chin ain't high enough.

Bugging that would be the ultimate ironic hack..

[cheros]

I can't help but smile at the thought of bugging a wiretapping debate. The irony, oh, the irony.

On a more serious note, why are they not allowing scrutiny? What's there to hide, isn't that a law everyone needs to know about? Afraid someone might object?

Just curious.

---

Two questions for those who don't have anything to hide: why do you close your curtains in the evening, and how much do you earn?

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[LaskoVortex]

The reason for secrecy here could be to review Bush administration actions without risk of revealing those actions to the public. Of course we would all like to know who as been spied on and why, but it may not be legal for congress to reveal those things in an open session. However, congress's being properly informed about any wrongdoing may supersede our desire (or right, if you insist) to observe their their session. So, in terms of their future decisions concerning FISA, a closed session may be the best option considering that many legislators would not become properly informed of wrongdoing otherwise.

Re:Not sure Bush realizes he's on the losing end h

[MadMidnightBomber]

There's a greater than 50% chance that the next President will be a Democrat (to my personal chagrin, but I'm being realistic here), and the telecoms, FBI, CIA, DoJ, etc. will have things much worse when it comes to wiretapping at that point.

You mean that they will have to go through FISA, which they can do a day or two AFTER they start tapping, and which almost never says no? Cry me a river.

Of course, they do have to make one application per tap, so that means they couldn't listen to millions... but I see that as a feature, not a bug.

OT

[TapeCutter]

"That's one of the reasons I'm against the government paying for my health care. Once they are the ones paying for it, they are the ones controlling it."

Sorry but that's BS. Unlike private insurance companies UHC does not need to keep (or even see) your record to pay your bill - a reciept exchangable for cash is sufficient, bulk billing is less hassle and cheaper. In many countries that have UHC the records belong either to the patient or the doctor (who is under oath/regulation not allowed to reveal it).

Premptive reply: Yeah, it's your money/health and your overpriced/under-performing system.

As for the rest of your post, I agree - civilization exists because of trust that those in charge know what they are doing. The problem is most recent politicians in the US appear to be clueless and/or corrupt to the casual observer. Taking a closer look doesn't improve matters either.

Re:Bugging that would be the ultimate ironic hack.

[mr100percent]

The claim is that there is secret classified evidence they could show and prove that warrantless wiretaps are necessary. So they can't show it to the public. We'll have to see.

ARGH! Read it first, then comment about relevancy.

[kiddailey]

Fiction? Last time I looked, we still have nearly all of what is outlined in the constitution.

• Senate and House of Representatives? Check.
  
• President? Check.
  
• The whole legislative process and presidential veto? Check.
  
• State of the Union addresses? Check.
  
• One Supreme Court? Check.
  
• We're still a republic and not a democracy? Check.
  
• Still got those basic freedoms? Check.

The list goes on.

Amendments don't nullify or shorten the lasting power of the Constitution - they are entirely part of the design. Not to mention that most of them don't change the heart of what is outlined in the document. In fact, the first 10 are the Bill of Rights, written specifically just to be clear.

The Constitution IS as relevant today as it was when it was written, and aside from the trend towards ignoring the limitation of powers bit and treading on our basic freedoms, it has lasted quite well.

If you think that what the Constitution says no longer applies, then you clearly have no idea what is contained within it, nor do you have any understanding why straying away from it will be an immense detriment to the well being of our country.

Please, take a moment to enlighten us all with what you think is no longer relevant.

AT&T *doesn't* want to pay you $146,000.00

[mikelieman]

And that's what they're on the hook for, spying unlawfully on you.

Multiply that by everyone with a phone or internet connection, and you have a statutory fine which exceeds AT&T market valuation.

Re:ARGH! Read it first, then comment about relevan

[Anonymous Coward]

Amendments don't nullify or shorten the lasting power of the Constitution

You missed my point. The grandparent was talking as if the Constitution was this perfect thing that must be protected at all costs. It's imperfect, and the fact that amendments exist are inarguable evidence of that. I'm not saying that amendments make the constitution worse, I'm saying that the constitution isn't something pristine that must be preserved.

The Constitution IS as relevant today as it was when it was written

You are, quite simply, delusional. Back then, it was normal for people to consider what was right and wrong about the constitution. These days it's normal for people to consider anything that's in the constitution is automatically right and anything that disagrees is wrong. Back then, people were willing to die to protect it. These days, people would rather watch American Idol than even talk about the constitution.

If you think that what the Constitution says no longer applies, then you clearly have no idea what is contained within it

It no longer applies because the people of America have collectively stopped caring about it beyond a religious icon that they think makes them better than other nations. It's just a piece of paper. Without the people's support, it has no power.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[Anonymous Coward]

While i agree with the general sentiment of your post, I see two problems with your argument:

1) America didn't really receive any 'embrace' after 9/11. The rest of the world either suspected it was an inside job, or felt you had it coming.. There were very few people who truly believed the official version of events.. Which leads into..
2) You've been lied to about the 'terrorist threat'. Your assertion that there is something 'keeping America safe' relies on the idea that there are enough terrorists to make some kind of nation wide strike against a land mass the size of America, and that's simply not the case.

In support of my (harsh, and perhaps unfair) argument, i'd like you to run randomly through news broadcasts for the last 15 years, and pick out the language shift. Note the number of times the word 'terrorist' was used in the mid 90s, compared to today.

I'm not saying that there's a bunch of guys in a room somewhere controlling the media, but hysteria runs deep.. Deep enough that you seem to believe that America needs protecting from a force that doesn't actually exist...

Remember the Constitution?

[crovira]

Before Bush wiped his ass with it? (And he was elected to uphold it, not hold it up ... skewered onto the end of a pike!)

The cynic in me says "Look for Osama to resurface ... just before election time."

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[Jedi Alec]

The only thing (thank God) that is keeping the U.S. safe today was the worldwide embrace of the U.S. after 9/11, which hurt the terrorists from an ideological point of view.

Could you elaborate on that? Perhaps there was a short period in which folks in other countries felt terribly sorry for what was done to you, but in recent years this has mostly changed into a feeling of pity for what you're doing to ourselves.

But don't worry, our own leaders, and thus by extension we ourselves, are doing the exact same thing, so I guess it's ok.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[Nimey]

The congressweasels'd have to be stupid or naive to believe anything the Bush Administration says. How long have they been lying to us again, and how long since they Decided that they were above the law?

Impeach. Convict. Hang.

Better Link

[Doc Ruby]

That's because it's secret ;).

Seriously, though, I just made a small mistake linking to one better article about the session that included only part of the quote, but not to another article that included the whole quote.

The Wired article I linked to has the fragment starting

There must be a very high bar to urge the House into a secret session for the first time in 25 years

Another report quotes more of the message, the full excerpts that I quoted, and mentions that Conyers' response was by email (and posted only in these kinds of reports, not an original source).

Thanks for clicking my link, and giving me the opportunity to clarify

Explain why.

[RealProgrammer]

Why is immunity for complying with government requests bad? What possible harm could it do?

Re:Explain why.

[Jeremi]

Why is immunity for complying with government requests bad? What possible harm could it do?

If the government requests that you break the law, and you comply, and then you are given immunity for your crimes, then effectively there is no law. The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it.

In a civilized society, nobody is above the law, especially the government. Societies where the government is above the law are properly called dictatorships.

Re:Explain why.

[RealProgrammer]

That makes no sense at all, and is contrary to the discussion. The question is whether the companies can be sued. They already have immunity from criminal prosecution, the same as you do when you comply with a police investigation. They cannot be compelled to cooperate; the proposal is that they be held harmless from civil litigation if they do cooperate. If you cooperate with a police investigation and someone sues you because of it, do you want to pay a lawyer to defend you?

Re:Explain why.

[DavidTC]

If you cooperate in a way that is specifically illegal, um, yeah, you should expect to be sued.

Re:Explain why.

[RealProgrammer]

That's Begging the Question. It's illegal because it's illegal.

Isn't the debate about changing the law? Arguing against making something legal solely because it's illegal seems to me to lack much force.

Re:Explain why.

[Jeremi]

If you cooperate with a police investigation and someone sues you because of it, do you want to pay a lawyer to defend you?

That's an interesting example. The salient point here is that in this case, what the government requested the telephone companies to do was almost certainly illegal, and both the government and the phone companies knew it.... hence the clamoring for immunity.

So to make the parallel more exact: say a corrupt police officer asks me to "cooperate with his investigation" by kidnapping a witness's daughter and holding her hostage in order to get the witness to talk. Say that I actually do kidnap the girl and threaten to kill her unless the witness talks. The question, then, is: should I be arrested and charged with kidnapping and extortion? In my opinion, hell yes. Just because a government official asks you to break the law doesn't mean it's legal to break the law.

Re:Explain why.

[spun]

We are a constitutional republic. The government performing wiretapping is arguably unconstitutional. Private companies should not be granted immunity for things that are unconstitutional, because this lets the government sidestep the constitution. Legal and constitutional are two different things, and our system of law rests on the constitution. If something is nominally legal, but the supreme court declares it unconstitutional, then it is illegal. That argument is about the most forceful one can make in our legal system.

Re:Explain why.

[NormalVisual]

If you cooperate with a police investigation and someone sues you because of it, do you want to pay a lawyer to defend you?

Blanket immunity is hardly ever a good idea. Let's say I cooperate with the police and give them incorrect information that leads to them busting into your family's house and killing a couple of family members in the process. Sorry, you can't sue me - I have immunity, even though I did you a grievous wrong.

Similarly, giving the government free reign to listen in on my phone traffic gives the government unwarranted and unprecedented power over me. I occasionally discuss firearms with a few friends of mine - while being completely legal, it's entirely possible the content of that traffic could end up getting me put on a watchlist that significantly impairs my ability to move about the country. In this case, the phone company's voluntary and unwarranted cooperation with the government will have cost me something tangible, and that's something I should be able to go to court to recover. More importantly, the mere threat of being able to sue will help keep the phone company from doing that in the first place, which is the preferred outcome.

As a previous poster indicated, the phone companies are acting as a proxy for the government when they do this - why would you think it's a good idea to remove any kind of judicial restraint and allow the executive to operate unfettered?

Re:Explain why.

[Sloppy]

If you cooperate with a police investigation and someone sues you because of it, do you want to pay a lawyer to defend you?

If I do? Hell no. If I kidnap a hundred babies and then put them into a blender, I don't want anyone suing or arresting me. ;-)

If someone else does? It depends on how they cooperated. If they broke the law, then yes, I want them to get sued (at a minimum). If they made sure they obeyed the law (and getting "this is legal" assurances from the executive branch doesn't count) then no, I don't think they should be harassed. But if they did that, then they don't need immunity anyway. Remember that the current law, without this new immunity section, already protects them from civil liability if they make a reasonable effort to obey the law. The new immunity clause is to protect them even if they don't try to obey the law. The current situation is that it's not about whether they obey the law or not -- it's whether or not they try. The tyrants in Washington want to eliminate the requirement that the telecom tries to obey the law.

Follow that above cornell.edu link and read. That, in itself, is pretty fucking amazing. And it's not good enough for these assholes? Dude, this is FUCKED UP.

Re:Explain why.

[RealProgrammer]

(d) Defense.-- A good faith reliance on--
(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;
(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2518 (7) of this title; or
(3) a good faith determination that section 2511 (3) or 2511 (2)(i) of this title permitted the conduct complained of;
is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.

Wow. I don't understand what the fuss is all about. I suspect that people are playing politics and only pretending not to know what's what, demagoguing, in other words.

That, or it's as you say.

Re:Explain why.

[zombiecat]

I watched C-Span when the AT&T hearings were going on. I've forgotten many details but I remember a couple things and I'll close with why IMO this is important.

1. If you have an iPhone and use AT&T and think you're cool...YOU'RE NOT.

2. AT&T was basically giving the CIA/NSA a pipeline of raw info that far exceeded any "warrant" or current "virtual warrants" (my term...no I'm not a lawyer).

If the police come to me in an investigation seeking information, I DO NOT have to give them more than they need but I can if I want. EX: If they ask "have you seen this man around here today (picture)" and I truthfully say "No", unless I am called to court and so fourth I don't have to elaborate and perhaps say that I saw him a month ago.

When a company has access to information regarding certain online habits of my own and the government DOESN'T have a warrant and those habits DO NOT indicate criminal action, then a privacy conscious company should tell Johnny Spook to take a hike.

But AT&T opened the barn doors for the Feds and exposed private information of customers without any legal reason to compell them to, in some cases.

So, government spooks aren't concerned with the rights of the individuals that they trampled on and they aren't going to prosecute AT&T for working with them. This is why it is important to put some responsibility on the individual companies to require that the government properly have gone through the right channels to demand the information.

If the cops come to my aparment building and lie to my landlord saying they have a warrant to search my apartment and they DO NOT have a warrant and my landlord lets them in, then I've got a beef with my landlord...especially if he knew that he didn't have to let the cops in and I was found to not be a suspect.

It's called "calling the cops' (Feds') bluff and not revealing information that should remain private." These companies, whom the customers pay for their services, have corporate lawyers that damn well know when they are complying with the law and when they are getting down on their hands and kneew for a draconian "request".

Re:Explain why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said; good example. $

Re:Explain why.

[gr8scot]

2. AT&T was basically giving the CIA/NSA a pipeline of raw info that far exceeded any "warrant" or current "virtual warrants" (my term...no I'm not a lawyer). Do you mean that the data provided far exceeded even the broadest possible interpretation of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and crime? I am not a lawyer either, but I do know that my rights are not dependent on having nor being one. And by the way, the prolific disclaimers of not being lawyers appear to me to be artifacts of shady lawyers who are too stupid to make a buck while respecting the spirit of the law. I plan to offer my opinions even on matters of law, without any such disclaimers, on the premise that any need for professional representation is tantamount to infringement on equal protection.

Typo

[Jane Q. Public]

Something is wrong with Slashdot today. It has been messing up my replies.

That should have read, "That is essentially a pardon..."

A pardon is happens today. It is not "retroactive". The difference might be subtle, but it is real.

Because you've shown you DON'T know anything

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they do, it would not be the first "retroactive" law that they have passed... which of course have been challenged and subsequently thrown out."

If you really did know what you were talking about, you'd know this is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. "

"Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."

As to your other point, making a new law that, ex post facto, legalizes a previously illegal activity IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Saying it is repeatedly doesn't make you right, it makes you an asshole.

You obviously do not have any idea what the fuck you're talking about, and are trying to pretend the smidgen of knowledge you've gained from getting shouted at on Slashdot makes your opinion worth listening to.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[sumdumass]

Congress has no other choice then to believe what Bush says. All and any information they can get is cleared through his offices first. Now I don't mean they go through the president's office, but all inteligence agencies including the military are under indirect control of Bush by the nature of him being president. And congress knows that if they want to do anything, they will need Bush to sign something into law or have to gut and word everything in a way that gains enough support to bypass the president's veto.

They also won't impeach him because there is a good change that Bush might have been justified after all. I know people are going to say there is a law blah blah blah. But congress can only pass a law that limits the powers of the president outside the scope of the constitution which means that a law that is valid in most circumstances can become invalid when we declare war and he assumes another position like commander in chief. That was the original excuse given. Congress will not push this issue because even the democrats know how much percieved power it will take away from congress. That is why they made it a law, the senate renewed that law, the house is a little more stupid on the matter but in the end, they won't even bother. Instead they will just use this as a political tool to get people to vote for them.

So don't take it too personal when they sit on their hands and don't do what you want them to do.

Wrong.

[RealProgrammer]

They want immunity from civil litigation. That's different from criminal prosecution. They don't want to get sued for doing what they think is the right thing.

The other options are for the telecoms never to divulge any information, or only when they think it's justified, or when they think its not an undue burden. Would you like to be in the terrorist protection business? They aren't equipped to judge whether it's justified or not -- that's what the cop/intel/court system is for.

Re:Wrong.

[Jeremi]

They want immunity from civil litigation. That's different from criminal prosecution.

I don't think that's a relevant distinction, though. If our legal system was working properly, they would have been both criminally and civilly liable for their illegal actions. For political reasons, however (the foxes are guarding the henhouse), the criminal liability isn't being enforced. That does not and should not make a difference on the civil liability side.

They don't want to get sued for doing what they think is the right thing.

It doesn't matter what "they think is the right thing". It matters what the law says. I may personally think that giving away free copies of Microsoft Windows is the right thing to do, but I'd get laughed out of court if I tried to use that as a legal defense.

The other options are for the telecoms never to divulge any information, or only when they think it's justified, or when they think its not an undue burden

They, like everyone else, are required to follow the law to the best of their ability. That's why they have lawyers, to decide what is legal and what is illegal for them to do. If those lawyers gave them bad legal advice, that is their problem, but it's not a justification for granting them legal immunity from the consequences of their own actions.

They aren't equipped to judge whether it's justified or not -- that's what the cop/intel/court system is for.

They have lawyers whose express purpose is to help them make those decisions... but on the whole you're right: in the end, it comes down to what the court system says. Which is exactly why the court system should be allowed to do its job and process the lawsuits.

Re:Wrong.

[sjames]

The other options are for the telecoms never to divulge any information, or only when they think it's justified, or when they think its not an undue burden.

You are correct that the courts are equipped to determine when divulging private information to law enforcement is justified. In fact, we already have a well established legal procedure for this. If they divulge such information only when presented with a warrant signed by a judge, they are already immune to civil liability. Perhaps they should have taken advantage of that well established procedure.

Various laws passed in paniced haste after 9/11 bend over backwards to cut through any and all red tape associated with getting a warrant and even allow them to be obtained secretly. They do everything but hand blank signed warrants to the FBI. Apparently even with that, they just couldn't be bothered with obeying the law (that or their activities couldn't withstand even the increadibly small remaining oversight).

The potential for civil liability was so increadibly obvious before the first bit of information was handed over that they would almost have to have knowingly bought into a clearly illegal scheme to keep things under wraps in order to agree to it. If they are, in fact, innocent victims of law enforcement gone out of control, then they will be cleared in court. They might even potentially recover damages if they file suit themselves.

Bush wants immunity for them solely to keep the illegal dealings and abuses out of the public record that would be created by a civil trial. It is in the best interests of the U.S. citizens to have all of this aired out in public.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[immcintosh]

1) America didn't really receive any 'embrace' after 9/11. The rest of the world either suspected it was an inside job, or felt you had it coming.. There were very few people who truly believed the official version of events.. Which leads into..

I'm sorry, but that's not even remotely true. Once we started flinging bombs around, sure the rest of the world wasn't feeling so sorry for us anymore, but immediately after 9/11 we certainly DID see a lot of support coming from around the world before Bush squandered it. Do a little research and maybe you won't come off as quite such an ass?

Even WIKIPEDIA could have saved you from looking a fool:

France's Le Monde newspaper summing up the international mood of sympathy: "We Are All Americans" (Nous sommes tous Américains)

Look more for further evidence if you want. The only "rest of the world" that "felt we had it coming" were people who were already our enemies. Gee big surprise there, eh? Sure, the US has been something of a global troublemaker for a while now, but it's either ignorant or disingenuous to assert that the entire rest of the world thought we got what we deserved that day. Or do you just have that short a memory? Sorry pal, we had the world's sympathy, and we took a big shit on it.

Here's why (criminal prosecution, anyway)

[keineobachtubersie]

"The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it."

If I'm an individual, and I've been contracted to commit a crime by the "government", once I'm granted immunity why wouldn't I tell on everyone? Especially if I'm compelled by a court?

And before you answer, immunity means you can no longer take the 5th as it regards to the crimes you were granted immunity for. This is a standard tactic in mob trials, so the defendants can't plead he 5th. They're granted limited immunity (usually during the trial, or for specific crimes committed) and questioned. Failure to answer results in contempt charges, or perjury if they lie. Immunity doesn't protect you from telling what happened, and in fact makes it easier to find out.

Now, if these people, who have been granted immunity, HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT PRISON for the crimes they committed, why would they risk 1) committing new crimes (perjury, contempt) or 2) losing their immunity and being retroactively prosecuted (for example, immunity granted on the basis of total cooperation with an investigation).

Of course, in this case it's civil immunity, but the misunderstandings regarding criminal immunity prompted me to post, in order to clarify its value as a tool.

Keep this in mind, a large part of the successful prosecution of criminal enterprises is granting of immunity to key players in order to get information. It works.

Re:Here's why (criminal prosecution, anyway)

[Jeremi]

If I'm an individual, and I've been contracted to commit a crime by the "government", once I'm granted immunity why wouldn't I tell on everyone? Especially if I'm compelled by a court?

Well, in this scenario, a good reason why you wouldn't tell is because the government has threatened to kill you (or otherwise make your life miserable) if you do tell anyone. Of course, it would be illegal for the government to do that, but under the rules proposed, it would be allowable for the government to hire a hit man to kill you, and then grant the hit man immunity afterwards.

Regarding the mob scenarios you mentioned... mobs often do the same thing to keep witnesses quiet. The difference is that it's possible to defeat the mob. Defeating the US government, OTOH, is much more difficult.

Re:Here's why (criminal prosecution, anyway)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, in this scenario, a good reason why you wouldn't tell is because the government has threatened to kill you (or otherwise make your life miserable) if you do tell anyone. Of course, it would be illegal for the government to do that, but under the rules proposed, it would be allowable for the government to hire a hit man to kill you, and then grant the hit man immunity afterwards."

If your idea of a good post is to restate the argument that was destroyed in the post you are replying to, you need to stop posting.

Seriously, you're an idiot.

Good. More please!

[readin]

I wish the Congress would have secret sessions on foreign policy more often. For example, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq congress should have held a secret session to decide what to do. With the open session, members only had two options - vote for invasion or vote for doing nothing. With a secret session, the option of bluffing would have been available. Whether or not that would be a good option in that particular case is debatable, but at least the option would existed.

Secret meetings would be useful in more mundane matters as well. Think about buying a car with your wife (or Mom - this is Slashdot). Do you discuss the price and what you're willing to pay right in front of the salesman? No, you argue in private then present your joint decision. Pretty much anytime the U.S. is dealing with other countries we ought to be able to speak with one voice and our process of making decisions shouldn't be available to those with whom we are negotiating.

Would our congressmen act like scoundrels in these secret sessions? I think they would actually behave better. They are, after all, Americans, and we're talking foreign policy. And the lobbyists who have made their donations wouldn't be able to check their behavior and withhold donations for failure to do as told. Freed to use their wisdom rather than bound by the power of the purse, and freed from the need to grandstand for the public, they might finally do the job they were sent to do.

Re:ARGH! Read it first, then comment about relevan

[kiddailey]

The grandparent post said no such thing:

"Yes, because following the Constitution is SUCH a bad idea?!?!? *rolling eyes*

Would you care to elaborate on your point?"

Where in there does it say "the Constitution was this perfect thing that must be protected at all costs?" All s/he said, via sarcasm, is that following the Constitution is not a bad idea.

Ask 10 Americans off the street if they support the constitution. How many would say they didn't (besides yourself, assuming your American)? Not many if any at all, I'd wager.

Try to silence any American against their will and what's the first thing they say? "You can't do that, I have a freedom of speech!"

Maybe YOU don't support the Constitution, but from my observations I'd say that most Americans DO. The problem is not lack of support. It is, as has already been pointed out in this thread by myself and others, is that the people are being duped into thinking they're voting for representatives that also support the Constitution, when in fact they don't and/or are failing to live up to their oath of office to protect it.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[sumdumass]

Lol.. That isn't flaimbait, it is a statement of the circumstances. Like it or not, that is what is at play here. The circumstance surounding levels of frustration isn't flaimbait regardless with whether you are with the position it places us in or not.

Wrong

[Jane Q. Public]

If you want to call one of the clearest, least-subject-to-misinterpretation sentences in the whole Constitution a "cheap cop out", then go ahead. Apparently you don't understand clear language, and would rather rely on a court full of lawyers to interpret reality for you.

Cite all the court cases you want. I DID give evidence; it was the constitution itself. The language is clear and unmistakable. That is not a "cop out", that is fact.

The court(s) may have decided that there are exceptions. However, these rulings are CLEARLY contrary to the clear language of the constitution. Court rulings are subject to being overturned. I believe that when court(s) make decisions that violate one of the clearest and least subject to misinterpretation sentences in the whole consititution, those decisions will indeed be overturned in time.

Personally, as mentioned above, I think you are afraid to read and think for yourself. Go ahead and be spineless, letting lawyers double-speak your rights and Constitution away, if that is what you want. But leave me out of it.

Now, having said that, if what you cite above is correct, then certain cases of "ex post facto" laws may in fact be "legal", according to the court today. But that does NOT mean that they are constitutional. It would hardly be the first time that unconstitutional laws have been passed. But in order for even unconstitutional laws to be invalidated, they have to be challenged. I doubt very much the rulings you cite have been thus challenged. But they may be, and my money is that if they are, they will be thrown out.

The distinction must be made: a standing law can still be unconstitutional. It has happened before, and will likely happen again. In my considered opinion, retroactive laws are among the most blatant examples of such.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing by definition. Ex post facto does not mean what you think it means. In constitutional law, it has a specific connotation which has been refined by the courts (as another poster delineated). Come on - the Article was not drafted to make sure the government could not un-punish someone for something no longer considered a crime!

This is amnesty law. It is constitutional and does not require admission that any particular party committed a crime.

Re:Wrong

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, in fact it was. The law was drafted EXACTLY so that NO retroactive laws could be passed... for ANY reason. Read your history, not just your legal briefs.

This is not about what some lawyers might claim it means to them, today! This is about what was MEANT by the framers of the constitution when it was originally drafted. And in fact, this is what it meant both then and now:

From Merriam-Webster

ex post facto : after the fact : retroactively Function: adverb Etymology: Late Latin, literally, from a thing done afterward

And from dictionary.com

ex post facto -noun 1. from or by subsequent action; subsequently; retrospectively; retroactively. 2. having retroactive force; made or done subsequently: an ex post facto law.

These are not weasel-words or lawyer-speak. Article 1, section 9 was clearly and specifically referring to ANY law that had a retroactive effect. As discussed earlier, amnesty and pardons do not act retroactively; they are acts of forgiveness, as opposed to the kind of twisted logic that claims a crime was never committed because the law was changed today.

As I wrote before, read your history. You might learn a little about just why it was written that way. But let's not twist words. NO MEANS NO. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

In addition...

[Jane Q. Public]

I would also like to point out that by many centuries of tradition and legal precedent, partial and full pardons ARE permissible without any need whatever to be retroactive. Therefore, the court ruling you point out above amounts to an "interpretation" of the Constitution that is as unnecessary as it is ill-conceived.

Re:In addition...

[keineobachtubersie]

I would like to point out that you've still only given your opinion, which I've proven wrong with evidence, and you've supported with nothing.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[sleigher]

Although many countries did come to our aid and stand beside us after the events of 9/11, there are plenty of people around the world who thought we had it coming. I would believe that even though our allies stand with us they very well might believe that. Certainly the populations of many countries, or large parts of them, believe we had it coming. You know why I say this? Not because I hate America. I love my country. The simple fact is we did have it coming. Take a good look at Americas foreign policy for the last 50 to 75 years, even 100 years, and honestly ask yourself if we had it coming. I don't agree with it and certainly believe something should be done about it, but we had it coming.

Political Jargon.....

[IHC Navistar]

"Behind Closed Doors" is PolitiSpeak for "Let's vaguely mention the topic so we can tell the public we talked about it. We'll spend the rest of the time practicing our golf swings and playing charades."

You can't listen in

[Randym]

The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices.

Like those pesky varmints WE THE PEOPLE. Those guys are always prying, peeking over our shoulders, trying to figure out what we're doing in their name. Dang, I hate that!

UHC and medical records

[Descalzo]

But some countries with UHC do see their citizens' medical records. Do you have any doubt that the USA under UHC would be such a country?

Re:UHC and medical records

[TapeCutter]

"Do you have any doubt that the USA under UHC would be such a country?"

Personally it doesn't affect me what system the US chooses. I live in a democracy where the people vote for their government based on past performance and future promises. It's slow and full of pitfalls but I get cheap effective heath care and so do all my countrymen, even tourists from other countries with similar systems get looked after for 'free' (as I was when I became ill as a tourist in the UK).

UHC is a bipartisan issue where I live. As a taxpayer with higher than average income I figure the 1.5% levy on my taxable income provides full cover for 5-6 people (I like to imagine they are kids and their grandma's). Despite paying for these 'freeloaders' it's still cheaper than comprable private insurance in the US for one person and membership cannot be denied because of any pre-existing conditions that a private company finds in my medical record. Neglecting private insurance fees for a moment, if your in the US you already pay 1.5X more per head out of the public purse compared to where I live and yet you still don't have a universal right to quality health care, in the end it's up to you and your countrymen to demand a better deal from your politicians. Is that still possible in the US?

To clarify

[Jane Q. Public]

It may be that we are talking about two different things. I had already brought up in this thread the point that amnesty and pardons are not, and need not be, "retroactive". So then, I thought you must be saying that retroactive is indeed constitutional. But that would very clearly violate Article 1, Section 9.

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[gr8scot]

Exactly right.

I'm sorry, but that's not even remotely true. Once we started flinging bombs around, sure the rest of the world wasn't feeling so sorry for us anymore, but immediately after 9/11 we certainly DID see a lot of support coming from around the world before Bush squandered it. Do a little research and maybe you won't come off as quite such an ass? Europeans have been dying dozens at a time by pan-Arab and radical Muslim terrorists, for much longer than most US citizens understand, even now. They did have sympathy for our crash course in modern religio-petro-geo-politics. King George's adventures in Iraq have made all decent, sensible people uncomfortable, but there are probably only a few dozen people on the planet who regret the US invasion of Afghanistan that ridded it of the Taliban. Too bad we didn't see that task through before we started messing around in Iraq. It's not difficult to see how that "mistake" has "necessitated" much more redistribution of my wealth and other American taxpayers' wealth to tax recipients, primarily Halliburton, than would have been the case had the estimate of the Iraq threat been based on the most recent data, instead of Clinton- and H. W. Bush-administration "intelligence."

I asked for evidence, you gave nothing

[keineobachtubersie]

Not more of your worthless opinion.

"If you want to call one of the clearest, least-subject-to-misinterpretation sentences in the whole Constitution a "cheap cop out", then go ahead. Apparently you don't understand clear language, and would rather rely on a court full of lawyers to interpret reality for you."

Only the US supreme court which says you're wrong. So you're wrong.

I'll take your total failure to provide any supporting evidence for your opinion to be your admission that you have no proof.

"But that does NOT mean that they are constitutional."

Wrong. The Supreme Court's job is to rule n Constitutionality. THAT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB Get it? THEIR interpretation is THE interpretation, and IS Constitutional until ruled otherwise. On this, you're simply ignorant.

"The distinction must be made: a standing law can still be unconstitutional."

Unless it's ruled NOT to be by the US Supreme Court, who is given the power to interpret such things. If they say it IS Constitutional, it IS. That is their power granted by the...wait for it...wait for it... CONSTITUTION.

You fail at civics.

You asked for evidence and you got evidence.

[gr8scot]

The Supreme Court does not uphold ex post facto laws.

No I didn't, I got something I already refuted

[keineobachtubersie]

"The Supreme Court does not uphold ex post facto laws."

Wrong. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.[2]

Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."

That's TWICE it has happened, which makes you demonstrably wrong.

So you're wrong. They DO uphold ex post fact laws, you're wrong.

Not correct, WRONG.

And you STILL gave no evidence.

More importantly, the discussion is specifically regarding ex post facto laws that legalize a previously illegal activity, so not only are you WRONG about YOUR point, you're wrong about the original point too.

You're wrong. In many ways, utterly, and totally wrong.

You keep using that word.

[gr8scot]

"The Supreme Court does not uphold ex post facto laws."

Wrong. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.

It does not mean what you think it means!

Consider this Wikipedia article you cited.

More importantly, just because it's an ex post facto law does not make it unconstitutional. Again, from Wiki.

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects

Here, "ex post facto" is the opinion of the un-credentialed Wikipedia author, not of the Supreme Court or any Justice appointed by the President, approved by both Houses, and sworn in as a member of the Court. It's just the opinion of some guy with a computer and an Internet tube. You have been claiming that the matter is settled, which would require a precedent, repeatedly upheld, that positively asserts that legislation that alters whether an action is criminal can take effect retroactively. The ruling you cited to support that claim very specifically says that it is not a question of ex post facto because what the legislation alters is not considered a "punishment." Back to the Wikipedia excerpt, we find that the Supreme Court did not uphold any ex post facto law, it ruled that the particular law was not an ex post facto law at all, thus not applicable to your claim in any way.

... have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006." This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.

So the source that you cited does not support, in fact it refutes the claim you're making, that the Supreme Court has established and upheld a precedent that retroactive legislation is generally legal in the United States. From the same Wikipedia article:

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

When I hold a "closed-door session" in my home

[gr8scot]

satire

Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU.

[gr8scot]

And now, they'd also have to be stupid or naive to believe their constituents will continue to complacently take them at face value when they say "but we were just taking Bush at his word." Why would you do that? You were in on it, then.

You keep being wrong

[keineobachtubersie]

"Here, "ex post facto" is the opinion of the un-credentialed Wikipedia author, not of the Supreme Court or any Justice appointed by the President"

Source? Other than your opinion?

Right, you have none.

"So the source that you cited does not support"

Wrong.

"Finally, the primary source for the Wikipedia article you've been resting your case on was"

HEY DUMBASS THERE'S MORE THAN ONE CASE CITED IN MY POST

"Are you Rush Limbaugh's fact-checker?"

Are you mentally retarded?