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."
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.
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.
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!)
... just before election time."
The cynic in me says "Look for Osama to resurface
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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.
sigs, as if you care.
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.
sigs, as if you care.