Slashdot Mirror
US House Rejects Telecom Amnesty
The US House has just approved a new bill that rejects the retroactive immunity to telecommunication businesses and denies most of the new powers for the US President to spy on citizens without a warrant. "As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework."
That someone with a D after their name grows a package and stands up for something. If only it had happened several years prior as well...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Bill Foster hacked their speech generators!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Separation of powers is a good thing; the more conflict between the White House and Capitol Hill, the less the rights and incomes of the American citizenry will be eroded.
Bravo!
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
You FAIL!!!
its about time something intelligent was done in congress that was consistent with the constitution. I'm hopeful that this is the start of a trend in congress as the dem's finally gain more power, in which some of the BS laid down by the GOP gets thrown away... wishful thinking but maybe next they can revisit the patriot act, and the dmca. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. they could very well tomorrow come back and try to repeal the 27th amendment so they can give themselves raises for doing such a good job.
i know, how awful it is for an on topic first post?
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
It is all about awareness and unity.
Spying and secracy does not really protect National Security.
The actuality is this spying capability is a threat to national security in that it allows a few people in control to shut down any political opposition.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
That's great news, but it is somewhat diminished by the Democrats waiting two years to start to do what they where elected for in 2006. I'm glad that "but but the TERRORISTS!" doesn't have so much sway any more.
We are all just people.
This is separation of powers at work, just like the founding fathers intended. Even if they don't really believe the ideals of freedom of speech, rule of law, no unreasonable searches, etc, they are supporting them because they don't want the president to be stronger than they are.
This country is turning into Nazi Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_pluralism
When you don't have the push-pull tug-of-war going on, whatever side is running off keeps running faster and faster until you get USSR (Left, Socialist) or Nazi Germany (Right, Fascist). Normally everyone gets tired of pulling and meets in the middle to figure out what goes where; remove that and bye bye country, hello Iraq or Russia or Iran or North Korea or whatever else. History has shown this in every sustained single-party rule case (a single, unified party is a dictator; it's one entity with one goal and one mind); common sense and logical analysis will prove it pretty fast too.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
They congresspeople who put this bill together stood up to the Bush administration's paranoid, fear-mongering bullshit. Their actions mean that they've gone on record stating that telecomm immunity has nothing to with national security.
It's precedent. It's courage.
Would you have preferred they do nothing? Stood around and bitched about The Man?
Tagged with slaskos for the newest slashkos editor, Scuttlemonkey.
It is fascinatning to watch and hear these debates. When all this will accomplish is boiler plate FISA requests being prepared and carried around. All they have to do is request the wiretap and they can begin, they don't need to have the approval which can take minutes or weeks.
So yes the Phone companies won't be able to say 'We were threatened with losing our huge federal subsidies so we consented.' Now they can be sued by the 'Americans Communist Liberties Union' so they can suck up more of our tax dollars with federal lawsuits instead of helping with the core issue. That being people that want to take American Civil Liberties, like the right to Life, and cut your head off with a serated knife on video.
Don't fool yourself into thinking this is just about Bush versus Pelosi/Fienstien; this is about the protecting the American way of life versus those imposed on us by someone wtih a bomb-vest like happened in Israel last week.
It is ok to worry about someone listening to your phone call.. but you have to ask yourself.. What do I have to hide? If they can listen to 10 million phone calls (really??) and stop 1 more Oklahoma City, or 1 more Bali Hotel and it is not hurting me in the least. What do I have to worry about?
No, if you want to call up people in Irag/Iran/Afgahnistan/Pakistan and discuss the 'the bomb' and you are not talking about the latest J-Lo album being 'the bom' then you might have to be worried.
He who is always at the bottom of the distribution list, but needs the information first!
The Democrats can talk all they want on the House floor, but it's all hypocritical political posturing. The fact is, the Democrat-controlled Congress APPROVED the surveillance program. The Telecoms did nothing illegal in complying with the wiretap requests. They will continue to do so, and the program can now continue with the full authority of Congress, whereas before it was "simply" an executive order from the President.
The most ridiculous part is this issue of retroactive immunity. The Telecoms will NOT be prosecuted for any crime, since their actions have now been definitively legalized by Congress. However, they can still be sued in civil court by customers who feel their privacy has been violated (as the wiretaps probably violate the Telecoms' "terms of service" agreements). Trial lawyers are salivating over the prospect of huge class-action lawsuits with multi-million dollar settlements, and the accompanying lawyer fees they will collect. The consumers will only see a few dollars each from the settlements. The immunity was meant to prevent the Telecoms from being sued, not to prevent them from being prosecuted.
What is the real reason the Democrats approved the wiretap program, but denied Telecoms immunity from being sued over past actions that they have now made legal? Because trial lawyers are huge contributors to the Democrat party. The Democrats can talk all they want about the "rule of law", but their true objective is simply to benefit some of their wealthiest and biggest campaign contributors: the trial lawyers.
In fact the most ingenious way to do it would only require the mass distribution of a single email and letters to the media to put a single thought into everyone's mind. They would not even need to have actually done what is said in the email; just knowing that it was possible would be enough to send the country into chaos.
We actually came up with this developing a script for a movie but decided against putting the idea into the public domain.
I really think if we work in unity there can be peace, prosperity and abundance for all and an end to violent conflict. There are only a small percentage of people that cause all the worlds problems.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
That is, by far, one of the most impressively biased summaries I've ever read.
If Bush uses his Veto then that would be a very bad move politically, even if it served his interests (and they are his, a veto would not serve the public interest at all on this matter), what with the elections and all, it would say all sorts of things about the republicans that they wouldn't want said at this time.
Ok, the Veto exists for a good reason, but just having a power doesn't mean you should over-use it. It's not meant to turn a president into a dictator.
This was a violation of the law and the Constitution by the Executive branch and therefore the President is directly responsible for the violation even if he didn't give a direct order to do so.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
If the president simply issues a pardon?
What?
Bush's reply has been something along the lines of, "There are men and women out there dying in Iraq. We need this bill to pass so that we can go back to making the world safe for our soldiers and our families. So please hurry up and make telephone companies immune from prosecution."
The major disconnect here has been that Bush has had plenty of opportunity to just sign the bill and go back to listening in on phone conversations. The fact that he has hung the entire bill on the passage of retroactive immunity has made it clear that he's either just fucking around and seriously doesn't care about what the military agenda is, or he's clearly got something to hide involving those phone companies. Either way, I'ma go make a bag of popcorn and wait to see what happens next.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
"I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying."
Really? Ever? Do you really think this is the first time that an executive branch was impassionately challenged by a House controlled by an opposing party. This is nothing new nor special. If anything, it's pathetic. There's no debate, no Democrat reps out there saying "You know, some wiretapping might be okay, and tapping international calls really shouldn't be classified as 'domestic surveillance'".
If anything, thanks to Obamamania, it's quaint to be naive and in awe of politics again.
Leonard Boswell was one of twenty-one Bush Dogs that signed a letter a couple weeks back urging immunity for telecoms. He's facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon, which might have had something to do with Boswell's about face on the issue.
Incidentally, it also goes to show what a pure egotist Ralph Nader is. It's Democrats taking care of the dead wood in the Democratic Party, while Nader just runs as a spoiler.
While most people would consider the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness clause the most important part of the document, I would argue that the above quoted phrasing is even more important. As non-transient as the issues of today seem, they are mostly transient when you think in terms of decades and generations rather than in terms of months and years.
There will always be power grabs, wars, attacks on civil liberties, etc., but the government is structured in such a way that the government will always shift towards both the will of the people and the fundamental principals of freedom.
We must have faith that in times when the strength and fortitude of our founding principals appear to be fading, at least one man will stand up and do what is right for the nation, and in the absence of such, we must individually stand up and be that man.
When you are enraged by policy or the behaviors of those in governing position, think about whether you are enraged by propoganda that led you in that direction or whether you are enraged by an actual afront to your personal values. Be it propoganda, take time to think about how you have fallen under the spell. Be it personal values, hold your tongue and determine a course of action such that you can actually make a difference.
What You Need To Do Now:
If you are a US citizen, visit Congress.org and enter your zip code in the Search box to find out who your Representative and Senators are. Then write them a letter urging them to uphold the House's version of the bill in the conference committee.
Don't bother with email; if you can't write a letter, call them on the phone.
Emphasize the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Urge them not to compromise, if the President does veto the final bill. It would be much better not to pass a bill at all than to allow this travesty of justice to continue.
My letter is going to point out that all the telcos knew they were breaking the law when they committed their crimes. Such criminal acts should be treated as such. IMHO, there shouldn't need to be civil lawsuits filed by those who were spied upon; all of the telco employees involved, as well as all the government officials involved, should be put in prison for a good long time.
You can't prosecute a sitting president, but what you can do is impeach him, and that's what should happen to Bush.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Why are we so concerned about the telcos and their responsibility? How about the people who had them do the eavesdropping in the first place?
I think we're going after the red cape and not the matador here. We're being distracted away from the actual guilty parties.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I read the summary describing "impassioned, defiant speeches" (I didn't read TFA. I don't need another 'free' account).
Wasn't this session sopposed to be closed?
Have gnu, will travel.
All that's well and good, but what does it have to do with telecom immunity?
Ask your local prosecutor how easy it is to compel testimony from someone they've indited for a crime, vs someone who's been given immunity.
I'll try to keep that in mind while I listen to them talk about raising my taxes and taking away my guns.
I think this is B.S, and here is why...
Perhaps I'm mistaken as I didn't RTFA, but from what I'm hearing, the government still isn't being held accountable.
While obviously telecoms KNEW better, its hard to say 'no' to your nation's president. Now, telecoms are going to take the brunt of the repercussions while the REAL reason this stuff happened (abuse of intimidation by the executive branch) goes unpunished. And yes, I'm sure it will go unpunished - at least on an individual level - as the upper crust of government officials (by law) cannot be sued as a result of doing their 'job'...
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
"We don't hate freedom. We just hate that you are giving more to yourself by taking it away from everyone else."
Finally Congres does something that DOESN'T take away our freedoms, violate our rights, or serve the greater good of the corporation.
It's about time that people remember Bennie. You know, that long haired guy on the $100 bill. Those who are willing to give up their freedom for security deserve neither.
So Bush wants us to give up liberty for security, eh? Never!
Brings to mind a great book by Alan Watts, "The Wisdom of Insecurity". Great read for $7.
Enjoy.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
How about just prohibiting eavesdropping without a court order, period?
I am not sure how you can claim being neutral on the Second Amendment constitutes the ACLU as being an "organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda." They clearly state their position here (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html). Their position statement follows:
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- Policy #47
Now, not being an expert on Supreme Court rulings, I wonder if there are later cases where the opinion of the court was different. The case the ACLU references is from 1939.
I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."
"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals" do you think the founding fathers meant ALL types of arms? It was pretty limited back then...cannons, pistols, rifles, swords, so maybe at that time they did. If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now? There are quite a few people I can think of that don't really need to be carrying around grenades or rockets. :) My ex-wife is one example.
If they did mean individuals and arms in general and not specifically "small arms" and non-automatic weapons, then there is a constitutional right for individuals to actually own those types of weapons and where can I get mine?
It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.
Oops! Sorry. I included two different topics. I went from "The ACLU is not choosing to only promote it's own agenda" to a discussion on what the founding fathers meant by "militia" and "arms". My mind tends to wander as the caffeine wears off in the evening.
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
Or was it actually just the Democrats that rejected it?
Not that im wanting to start yet another political debate, just that it would be nice if we had a bit of accuracy here.
Its about as bad as a radio ad i heard the other day ' who will be our next president' and they had Hillary's and Osama's voices, but no republicans. Not that i like ANY of our choices, but the last i heard there were more people running then just those 2.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It is politics and empty threats. The house will make the president exercise the veto power, but the congressmen won't have the guts to overturn the veto if Bush actually exercises it.
Could the submission be any more biased? Perhaps they could have said a "heated debate occurred" and provide the factual details and let the discussion here point out the subjective, political points?
Oh, wait. Sorry. Forgot where I was posting. Carry on...
Finally!
/. Might as well be DU or DailyKOS.
Now when the US has an active intercept from a known terrorist in a foreign country who places a phone call to any US telephone number, they have to get a warrant before the telecom companies will allow them to listen in. The plan is all coming together. People have now seen reality: George Bush is the one true enemy we should be concerned with! Terrorists have been demonstrated to be nothing more than straw men for those power hungry fascists on the right bent on world domination. Men who will stop at nothing to listen in on each and every word each and every one of us utter. Wait, I think they're at my door!
I gotta buy stock in those disposable phone companies.
And yes. I know, I know.. Fascism really has its roots on the left, but if you speak a lie long enough it becomes the truth.
Its posts like this that really make me not like
Those companies that complied with the request for information did so because it was not an unreasonable request for a Government to make in a time of war. And specifically who was harmed? Who was improperly charged as a result of the requested info? We do know that info gathered in this fashion has helped prevent attacks and tracked terrorists. At least we are getting something for this trade off.
The house dems did this only because they get a lot of money from trial lawyers who hope to take billions of dollars from these companies who were only behaving in a patriotic manner. They don't care about your rights. Make no mistake, there will be some issue that comes down the pike that will give them the excuse to throw you guys under the bus and sign away your "rights" and you will get nothing for it but a bill to pay. More than likely, it will be for the "children."
I'm saddened that so many here are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
What!? No witty quote?
I'm sorry, but the only fearmongering I see here is that the left throws out ambiguous statements about how their civil liberties have been violated. Never has anyone substantiated that with any facts. The fact is that the government has done a good job of preventing terrorism over the last 6+ years. Whether this is by luck or by a concerted effort, history will tell. But, I wait for facts rather than innuendo.
K
As a card carrying member of the ACLU, you are full of crap.
I cherish the ACLU and commend them in the stands they take. It is not popular to defend horrible acts or people in order to prevent bad law or precedent.
As for the second amendment, any plain reading of it leaves some ambiguousness about the purpose for the right. Is it for a militia or for personal ownership? I tend to lean more toward personal ownership if only for the comma between the two clauses, but it is not cut and dry.
It is a god damned hard road to take, one which won't make you any friends, but the ACLU takes that road, many times against the popular will to protect the meaning of the constitution. The ACLU does important work.
I ask you, are you a member of the ACLU? If not, why not?
The telecoms have immunity right now anyway because congress is a bunch of pansy-assed no-gooders who refuse to do anything that counts. For instance, lets see them address state secret priviledges -- ohh, that's right, there will not *ever* be a successful lawsuit against the telecoms until that one gets addressed.
Need I remind you of a previous *CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRTY* into the NSA that went something like this:
Congress: NSA, you are under investigation for some bad illegal shit!
NSA: Oh, ok.
Congress: Give us access to your secret files proclaiming your guilt, now!
NSA: I'm sorry, you do not have security clearance for that.
Congress: Golly gee, ok investigation over. Now, back to this bill on why my district needs $300,000 to help study the effect of prolonged exposure to tree sap on surfaces of operating tables in a hospital, run by my good friend (insert good friend's name here).
If you think this is funny, then read the God Damned News and Wake the Fuck Up.
I just hope that once all the people get rich off the lawsuit settlements, and the phone companies begin refusing anything thats not explicitly authorized by a judge, and there's a piece of intel that slips by...that San Fransisco is the target. I feel pretty safe here in central Georgia. Good luck on the left coast ;-)
They won't care about your guns when they can snoop on everything you do and nail you on the slightest wrongdoing - or blackmail enough other people into lying that you did something wrong that they can get you convicted.
But you're a tough guy, you can take whatever they throw at you! What about your family? Your parents, your children? How much suffering and indignity will you be willing to see them suffer through?
When that kind of power exists, sooner or later that's how it winds up getting used. History shows us this is a much greater threat to your country than a bunch of terrorists.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
This House standdown didn't happen overnight. It really crossed a watershed when Chris Dodd hung his entire presidential campaign on fighting telco amnesty, and didn't let go. Even today's performance was the product of careful working of the rules to create a final line in the sand, and then stop amnesty from crossing it.
Republicans have gamed this system for years, decades. Democrats are finally working the game to protect us, and just not their own asses. But it doesn't mean they just picked it up last night.
It's even better than that. It means Democrats have finally invested time and effort (and no doubt a lot of money) in fighting to protect the Constitution. And the reward is that they won one. So we owe them our gratitude and respect. Because that's what will keep them coming back - and because we owe it to ourselves to do whatever we can to get that.
--
make install -not war
The word "people" is no different in the second than in any other instance in the constitution. People means the people. There are no magical dual meanings.
And the founders were very clear as to intent, people back then owned what they wanted to, fullstop, there were no restrictive gun laws based on anything until the "jim crow" racist laws started. ( albeit, to be quite fair, slavery in general though was one of two instances of the founders really screwing up, that and the "general welfare" clause) That's right, antigunners got their start as racists, right along with the poll tax, anti "miscegenation" laws, and so on. As to militia, the inclusion was to specify who of "the people" could be called up to serve the governor, that is the organized militia (everyone else is unorganized militia and can be volunteers, but can't be compelled to serve, the organized and then by default "other" or unorganized in total is "the people"), but it had nothing to do with who could keep or bear, that goes back to "the people". Out of the complete pool of the people, a certain subset could be mustered and can't sday no, but it has to be a damn real emergency to, not some bankers war over yonder so a few big companies can make profits.
And the miller decision was seriously flawed, laughably so, absurdly so and easily proven. It was about a short barrel shotgun, saying it had no "militia" purpose. bullcrap, the founders knew there were different weapons and made zero exceptions, these were highly educated and erudite writers, they would have included exceptions if they wanted them., they didn't. Google for "trench gun" used in ww1, which was prior to the miller decision. You have to remember history then, the government was scared shitless of some physical revolt happening, the bankster fraudsters and their sock puppet politician dweebs had screwed the economy over and ripped off 90% of the population and the "people" were getting righteously pissed off about it. *That* is why you got the miller decision, it was mandated from on high to start gradually disarming the US people to protect fatcats from righteous wrath (that they deserved back then).
I quit the NRA in 68 because it was obvious they were sellouts, the establishment got to them and they got compromised (again, also quite clearly at the time racist, they didn't want black folks getting any more guns because of the failure of the civil rights act of 64 and the resultant riots, we needed "law-n-order!!"). If you were around back then you could remember it, I do because I was involved in both civil rights/freedom in general, conservation issues and gun rights (still am but sort of semi retired now).
I never joined the ACLU because they have a centralized controlled government bent that is at odds with a lot of other freedoms (like where are they on constitutional money? absent) I think it is OK they are fighting for free speech, but as an over all org I give them a c-. They could be much better. That this is all we have though, I agree, pitiful.
The NRA exists today as a jobs program for the fatcats who run it. they have done nothing but compromise and give in on every critical point as long as I can remember, and have been consistently on the "wrong" side of every major issue. Wrong on scamwar viet nam, wrong on compromising on gun rights, wrong about the war on some drugs (prohibition II), wrong about supporting the arbusto gang and his crew of fascist fear mongersand.. and a big huge list going way back, I'm not going to type all night.
They are the "useful idiots" center for know nothings who cannot read nor think and it keeps them from being really effective, clueless knobs join them and think that is enough. Stupid, but so it goes. Other gun rights orgs are much better, run by better people who actually understand the whole idea and the real law and the structure of the USA as a completely different concept than any other nation ever conceived, where the individual
A link to something substantiating the private ownership of cannon, and their use in coordination with the early American military would have probably gotten your post modded up instead of down, making your information much more visible.
Wow, we're into full karma suck-up mode now.
This has nothing to do with privacy, this has everything to do with the Democrats protecting their greedy lawyer constituency. The Democrats are pretty much universally against any bill that in any way limits the ability of lawyers to rape you or corporations. We can debate the merits of whether eaves dropping is a good idea or not, but Congress has passed more liberal laws in recent years allowing for broader monitoring. The telephone companies should not be able to be held liable for complying with lawful government requests. If you have a beef with whether a request is lawful or not, you need to take that up with Congress or the administration. Law enforcement can be held liable for violating civil rights beyond what congress has authorized, but it is not the telecoms job to ejudicate that. I don't want the telecoms deciding what they want to allow or not.
What should happen, is the telecoms should receive indemnity if they keep logs of all monitor requests and forward them to a congressional oversight committee for review. About half the people against this immunity thing look at it as a back door to get the telecom companies not to cooperate with the law for fear of possible prosecution. The other half simply want to protect the greedy lawyers.
Check out the latest US News + World Report. It's the issue with the handgun on the cover. Surprisingly decent coverage on a wide variety of gun issues. It also covers some of the upcoming Supreme court hearing about gun control in D.C. Sometimes it's good to see the media actually giving information out - such a welcome change from endless talking heads and the same news stories over and over.
Keep your damn guns, you may need em when China comes to repossess all your stuff...
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
You should really brush up on your history. The gunpowder plot was in 1605. In 1689, after the glorious revolution kicked James II out the bill of rights of 1689, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 included the Subjects right to bear arms for self defence. It also included most of the other rights that were adopted into the American Bill of rights, at least the first 8 amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Bush really doesn't care if the telecom companies get sued or not. What this is really all about is not having a court decision that strikes down the presidents spying program. The court proceedings might be secret but if a decision unfavorable to the spying program is the result then the fun would begin.
One of the interesting aspects of the article referenced is the video of Rush Holt giving his support to the bill. Rush is perhaps the only true scientist in the House of representatives - he is a Physics PhD who served as Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (a fusion reactor research lab) located in New Jersey. During an open house of the lab I had the chance to meet Rush, and since I am in his congressional district I've been glad to have the privilege of voting for him several times.
Rush's district is a traditionally conservative district that has elected some candidates who I disliked intensely - the person holding his office prior to Rush was very much a new wave conservative and in favor of amending the constitution to allow things like school prayer, and to ban burning the flag. My level of satisfaction in how this bill came out, and Rush's part in it was very satisfying.
No, I'm not, for a number of reasons, none of which are any of your business. I say that mostly because, having started off your post with an ad hominem attack on me, you have forfeited any moral rights in the discussion.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
WTF? Our government did something right? Now if they can just fix the FCC, but thats too much to ask for I guess *sigh
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Exactly! It's so bizarre that Libertarianism relies in principle on the premise that people are, in their natural, unfettered state, productive, but buys into the most selfish and nihilist policies versus people who have been ground down by circumstance or misstep.
Also, I defy anyone to honestly profess as Libertarian who knows ANYTHING about the conditions of the average American during the Gilded Age (1870s to 1900). End statement.
Just because you can sell someone the chance of great success better than the surety of comfort doesn't mean that the first is actually better than the latter.
The ACLU does some good work--and some very, very bad. That's why I'm not a member.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Conceded to as clarified.
Though I would add that heated discussion may be seen to have value as an entertainment, which is a separate case. ;-)
Ignorant cunt.
Too little, too late. Seven years ago would have been an opportune time to put the administration in its place. We've already allowed them to alienate our inalienable rights, and we've paid them nearly a half a trillion dollars for the privilege. I'm sorry, but 2 blown up buildings, three lost airliners, and ~4000 dead civilians aren't worth the price of my essential liberty or yours. If our loss was tenfold it still would not and could not justify disregard for our civil liberties. And that is to say nothing about the skyrocketing oil prices and the fact that nearly the whole rest of the world hates us. For what? Safety? Security? Its an illusion, and always has been. Remember that, the next time they make you take off your shoes at the airport. Its nothing cabin door locks and a few air marshalls couldn't fix. There is no safety guarantee in life. We all run the risk of something bad happening to us every time we leave our homes for the day. Any day could be the day you don't come home. More Americans die every year of self-induced injuries (alcohol abuse, drug use, smoking, and obesity to name a few), but I don't see a half a trillion dollar initiative to solve THOSE problems. Its a sorry state of affairs when the land of the free is fleeced due to a glorified snipe hunt, and sorrier yet that the whole scheme has been perpetrated by those sworn to faithfully uphold the ideals and best interests of the American people. And sorriest of all is that you and I have done it to ourselves by allowing these criminals to frighten us and rob is of our rights, dignity, and tax dollars in the name of protection against a bogeyman that simply doesn't exist. I am certain that our founding fathers would have some stern worlds on the subject -- oh, well they did, its called the Constitution, but fuck it, we threw that out the window seven years ago. We will get exactly what we deserve. But hey, as long as we have Blu-Ray, American Idol, and Ipods, its all good right?
In the timeless words of Charlie Brown: Good grief!
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
While I'm certainly glad they're doing it, I don't for a second think we have anything to thank for this other than partisan politics. These guys stomp on our rights and take our money every day they're in office, this time it's just convenient to attack Dubya.
(and for the record, I like attacking Dubya...)
Your's is an example of unpopular work that makes no friends for the ACLU. On the surface it sounds like the law was "right," but upon analysis you must admit that the law as it was written was a very BAD law and had an overly broad definition of "illegal" which may have included legal residents and naturalized citizens. It also had provisions for "english-only" government.
While we may agree or disagree with the motives of government, the ACLU prevents government local and federal from overstepping their bounds, and the law you cite is a prime example of a local government assuming rights it does not have and potentially harming citizens. Were this law not challenged, it would harm citizens and legal residents and created a "show me your papers" society. No body wants that in the U.S.A. I hope.
Compared to Torquemada, that is.
[...]
Your POST is what is based on emotion - as is most liberals versions of the 'facts'. Well, I see you're clearly not biased in any way. There were credible sources of intelligence, namely the british intelligence community to believe that WMD's existed - and quite honestly there's still no proof he wasn't working on them. And you are obviously not at all unaware of the context on the conflict! Let's forget that Tony Blair was so far up Bushs' ass that he could see his tonsils, and concentrate on history. As you can see, the UK is as unbiased towards Iraq as you are:
At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It initially formed two former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Baghdad, and Basra into a single country in August 1921. Five years later, in 1926, the northern vilayet of Mosul was added, forming the territorial boundaries of the modern Iraqi state.
For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.
Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi of Iraq ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal's death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939. The United Kingdom invaded Iraq in 1941, for fear that the government of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani might cut oil supplies to Western nations
The Central Treaty Organization (also referred to as CENTO, original name was Middle East Treaty Organization or METO, also known as the Baghdad Pact) was adopted in 1955 by Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran, as well as the United Kingdom. Although American pressure, along with promises of military and economic largesse, were key in the negotiations leading to the agreement, the United States could not initially participate "for purely technical reasons of budgeting procedures." Some (particularly nationalist radicals) saw the Pact as an attempt by the British to retain influence in the Middle East as a substitute for the loss of their empire in India. In 1958 the United States joined the military committee of the alliance. It is generally viewed as one of the least successful of the Cold War alliances.
You can't take the sky from me...
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alley, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
The Founding Fathers had won their independence from the British Crown. For the first time in human history individuals were free to govern themselves and were sovereign. And the Founders wanted to pass on this liberty and freedom forever. So what did they do? They locked up liberty and freedom into a trust known as the Constitution. The American People are the benefactors of the trust. The benefactors cannot abolish the trust or get rid of it. It can be modified but so long as specific conditions are met.
Libertas in infinitum
Many of the arguments in the Federalist Papers were scrapped at the Convention. Thus citing the FP for legal reasons is a fallacy. They can provide historical insight, but not legal insight.
Libertas in infinitum
That would be good except that we have a political duopoly in this country. If we had 4 or 5 parties then you are correct. However we have two parties that DO work together quite often with very little policy difference between the them. Their only goal is to retain power and their platforms are meaningless.
It's time for America to have a second party!
Libertas in infinitum
Clinton lied under oath about a blow job.
Bush lied under oath when he swore to defend the constitution.
Both are serious. I know which I find treasonous.
This is what they swore to do:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
They are not there to protect the people from terror, but to defend the Constitution from its domestic enemies like our President.
At the end of the day, the real purpose of this bill is to enrich the trial lawyers, a key fundraising component of the Democratic Party, by giving them legal authorization to sue telecomms. If Democrats were so in favor of citizens rights, they would support lower taxes, a right to keep and bear arms, get rid of the USA PATRIOT act, and in general get rid of a lot of federal regulation. Let's not forget that it was a Democratic administration that dragged its feet on cryptography exports until a kid cracked the government permissible 40 bit key on a PC.
At the end of the day, were this bill to pass, the USA would still have the USA PATRIOT ACT, an Internal Revenue Service that already has all of the eavesdropping and police powers that the federal government could ever need, still have the patronage bank called the Dept of Homeland Security, and still have a political party that would have us believe that the more we rights and more income we cede to the government, the more freedom we will have.
Bush hasn't been a perfect pro-freedom president - government wiretaps ARE crap, but at the end of the day, Bush has been good about expanding freedom. He's expanded freedom of trade, freedom of investment, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to keep the proceeds of ones labors and investment. Those are big freedoms.
This is my sig.
Keep your damn guns, you may need em when China comes to repossess all your stuff..
What, we owe the Chinese US Dollars, and they aren't worth that much any more!!!
And that's sort of the whole point...
US Exports are rising at twice the rate of imports. All of the financial house of cards on the economy is crap but for the first time in a long time, thanks to pro-trade, pro-low-dollar policies, manufacturing is actually coming back to the USA. Right now, exports are about 15% of GDP, which is actually higher than they have ever been in our national history, and they will continue to rise. As long as China keeps its dollar peg, every -other- country will rise radically relative to the dollar. So the USA will get the benefit of the low cost of chinese imported goods PLUS gain a manufacturing advantage over other industrialized nations.
This is my sig.
I've never called my representatives before, but I called them about a month ago when they walked out and in the process let the original telecom bill lapse. I looked up the representative who did it and told his staffer to keep up the good work. Then I called my representative and told them that they sure as hell better not grant the telecoms immunity for their treason and unconstitutional actions. I'd like to think that myself and everyone else like me who took the ten minutes out of their lives to make their voices heard actually had some impact on the process.
Sure, but since that's a de-facto devaluation of both the dollar and Chinese currency, all other imports will increase. Like oil - why do you think crude is at $110? Partly because of low supply compared to the high international demand, but also because the dollar isn't worth as much compared to other currencies and other countries can afford to pay more for the same amount of oil on open markets.
That will eventually cause even those cheap chinese goods to rise in price as energy and plastic feedstock makes the cost of production increases, and more locally don't forget gas, food, and everything else. Inflation sucks for anybody on a fixed income. But hey, enjoy those lead-tainted, lowest bidder chinese products since soon it's the only thing you'll be able to afford!
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Sure, but since that's a de-facto devaluation of both the dollar and Chinese currency, all other imports will increase. Like oil - why do you think crude is at $110? Partly because of low supply compared to the high international demand, but also because the dollar isn't worth as much compared to other currencies and other countries can afford to pay more for the same amount of oil on open markets.
Well no, what will happen is that other imports will decrease, and in fact, they are, as more offshore production from other industrial nations is relocated to the USA. The rest of the world still has the problem of using the USA as a dumping ground for their consumer goods. So while yes, Americans will have to live more within their means, the rest of the world, used to relying on exports to the USA to provide their rich social programs, will too.
This is my sig.
substantiating the private ownership of cannon
Because the East India company and all the other colonists sailed for the New World completely unprotected from pirates?
Critical thinking, dipshit! It does double damage!