Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Libertas in infinitum
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*
The one to the public, the one to the lobbyists, or the one to the 3 letter agencies.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
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.
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.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Language is dynamic, and "irony" now has an additional meaning - don't let it bug you :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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...
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.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
"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.
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.