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."
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They wouldn't possibly oppose someone bugging the session room while they discuss, would they?
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
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
We would absolutely love it if you would get a tape and give it to wikileaks. Or Youtube. Or John Stewart.
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
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
"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.
Don't blame me; Soulskill edited my submission pretty heavily.
ZOMGBBQ, an editor who edits. Kind of.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
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):
That kind of severe contradiction should disqualify anyone from participation in either "Intelligence" or "Judiciary" decisions.
--
make install -not war
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.
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.)
"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.
Gitmo.
No one will every hear from you again.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
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
"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.