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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
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?
I disagree. Passing a good bill that is doomed to failure is better than passing a bad bill to maintain the appearance of "getting things done."
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.
Yes!!
I was talking to someone the other day about the coming elections and I just said that I vote third party but I really want a Republican in the Whitehouse as long as we have a Democrat controlled Congress. Because whenever one party controls the Executive and the Legislative branches of Government, regardless of which party, we get out of control spending, Civil Liberties are trumped upon, ... just horrible Government.
This person said, "So, you want them arguing all the time.
I said, "Yes. That's only way to get decent Government."
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
And that suggests that biggest problem with how the Presidency has evolved. The Presidency was not supposed to be some sort of regal position, save in the ceremonial respect (where the President is the equivalent of a king or emperor). If the President of the United States asks you to do something illegal, it is, under the law, no different than any other citizen of the United States asking you to do something illegal. You say no, because you're opening yourself up to possible prosecution or civil reparations.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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
The Bush administration controls the Justice Department and they are blocking prosecution to protect their cronies in the CIA, NSA, and FBI who broke the law. The Democrats are trying to keep the Bush administration from completely shutting the door on prosecutions if the Republicans lose power in 2009. If an honest Justice Department can prosecute the Telcos in 2009, then they can use plea bargains to obtain evidence for prosecutions against the government-employed instigators of the crimes. If not, all the evidence can disappear, like so many White House e-mails at the end of December 2008.
Otherwise, if they want to make sure a lot of heads don't roll, Bush is going to break his wrist signing all the pre-emptive pardons that will be necessary at the end of this year.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
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.
What is with the US obsession with "founding fathers"?
I agree that they were bright thinkers of their time, but surely they can't have got EVERYTHING right. For starters, they didn't even let women and black people vote.
So instead of saying founding father this and founding father that, why not think for yourselves what is right for THIS age and time.
You know the old statement--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?
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