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."

Comments

Its about damned time...

[damn_registrars]

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...

Re:Its about damned time...

[Sorthum]

Forget the Democratic slur-- it's about time ANYBODY in Washington stood up for something that doesn't involve systematically stripping our rights from us. Well played, House.

Re:Its about damned time...

[ArcherB]

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... Sounds to me like they just gave a bunch of pretty speeches.

I haven't read the bill that was passed, but it seems like it's a bunch of the same, minus the telecom immunity. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.. well, take a look. From HERE

The surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S, and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States- for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.

Re:Its about damned time...

[pitchpipe]

How is this informative. If you don't like or disagree with what the person said, respond to their argument. Changing what they said and then saying made it true for ya seems rather childish. If you don't believe the president distorted the evidence provided by the intelligence community, let us know what makes you believe that.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Scrameustache]

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president. I'm sorry, but it was unreasonable.

It wasn't trust based on rational thought, it was based on emotion. Fear, anger, panic.

I didn't trust him then anymore than I do now, because I do not base the trustworthiness on a person on their position of authority nor their space-time proximity to an awe-inspiring event.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Ardeaem]

That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it. I love how everytime someone wants to disagree with a point of view, their opponent has an "agenda," while the people they agree with have "values." Feel free to disagree with the ACLU about the second amendment, but if you read the text of the Constitution, you understand that the second amendment is difficult to interpret. The courts in the US very rarely side with people who hold to the most pro-gun positions anyway; the ACLU is not the only one who does not interpret the second amendment in the same way that the NRA does.

The ACLU does tons of good work with free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, Fourth amendment issues, etc, etc, etc. You want nothing to do with the ACLU because of its position on ONE confusingly-worded amendment? That seems extremely shortsighted to me. Strip away your free speech rights, and advocating second amendment rights becomes terrorism. Let's make sure we keep our free speech rights so we can be free to continue to debate what our second amendment rights should be. Support the ACLU, and that will remain possible.

Re:Its about damned time...

[MightyMartian]

Lots of regimes have mass graves, torture rooms and every affront to civilization one can imagine. The United States has not historically leaped to the defense of the citizens of such nations before, and has, in fact, in some cases, actively supported governments that committed such atrocities (Chile comes to mind). Where was the United States when hundreds of thousands (including women and children) were being cut down in Rwanda? Where is the United States with the atrocities in Darfur?

No, it simply will not do to try to excuse the illegal invasion of Iraq as some sort of humanitarian action. The precise reasons for it are vague to me, although it's pretty damned clear that there was some part family pride (the son finishing what many thought the father ought to have), access to a major source of oil (a classic war for resources) and maybe even a genuine lack of understanding that the Baathists, as vile a bunch as you can imagine, were not Islamists, and in fact, maintained power in part by harassing and murdering the types of religious fanatics who are likely to join Al Qaeda. I can well imagine from a man like George W. Bush an incredibly ignorant and one-dimensional understanding of the region.

Re:Its about damned time...

[blueg3]

Indeed. A lot of people didn't trust him at the time, and a lot of people disagreed with going to war before we even did so. Now, when politicians start up with "if we knew then what we know now..." business, I can't help but think that apparently a lot of people are more well-informed than they.

Re:OT

[timeOday]

I disagree. The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it." If that's a valid defense, then essentially there is no rule of law, just the whim of the king. So which is higher, the president or the law? That's the real question at issue here.

Re:This sucks.

[Bovius]

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."

Re:OT

[whoever57]

The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it."

Then go after the president.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, didn't the Nuremburg trials show once and for all that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense?

Re:OT

[DragonWriter]

I'm not defending it either way, but when you are debating to decide whether or not to give immunity to telecoms, why bring up congressional oversite of the President?

The kind of immunity for the telecoms sought by the Administration would have presented lawsuits against them which, because of governmental immunities, standing issues, and other problems, are pretty the most probable way, if not the only way, that any of the facts necessary to hold the executive accountable are likely to come out in practice.

It also would encourage large companies to violate the law at the behest of the executive in future cases (and not only in this particular area), by setting the example that such violations would be the subject of retroactive immunity. By encouraging lawbreaking at the behest of the President, it would, therefore, have reduced the degree to which the law served as a practical constraint on executive action.

So this law, that superficially concerning immunity for telecoms, had a serious impact on the practical accountability of the President to the law, something which Members of Congress unsurprisingly did not miss, and perhaps more surprisingly actually pointed out and acted upon.

Re:OT

[DragonWriter]

At the risk of invoking Godwin, didn't the Nuremburg trials show once and for all that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense?

They certainly showed that it wasn't when the orders came from the leadership on the losing side of a war, and the winning side is making the judgements.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[TubeSteak]

This is separation of powers at work, just like the founding fathers intended. Except the powers so far seem to be Democrat versus Republican, a duopoly which the founding fathers warned of and did not want.

Re:This doesn't address the issue.

[MightyMartian]

While obviously telecoms KNEW better, its hard to say 'no' to your nation's president

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.

ACLU is biased?

[GeekZilla]

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.

Re:ACLU is biased?

[AJWM]

US vs Miller was about the defendant having a sawed-off shotgun (on which the appropriate firearms tax had not been paid). The Supreme Court agreed with the US attorney (the defendants were not present or represented at the Supreme Court hearing) that a sawed-off shotgun is not a military weapon (they were wrong, but evidence to the contrary was not presented at trial or appeal), and so not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

By this logic, bans or restrictions on assault rifles and machine guns clearly do violate the 2nd Amendment, as they are clearly intended for military (and hence militia) use. (The court agreed with the general definition of "militia" as "all able-bodied males", not members of regular forces.)

US vs Miller is one of those bad decisions in which both sides can find something to back up their claims. The ACLU claiming that it settles the point is complete cop-out.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[lazy_nihilist]

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.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[Moridineas]

So instead of saying founding father this and founding father that, why not think for yourselves what is right for THIS age and time. To think that Americans do otherwise is sheer ignorance. The founding fathers are remembered because they got so much right--they designed a system that has survived 200+ years with very few changes. Nobody--originalists included--act or think the way you seem to think they do. While designing the first modern political system from the ground up, the founders and great thinkers of the period had many debates, wrote much, spoke much, and thought much. It would be foolish in the extreme to toss away an ENTIRE body of knowledge and thinking because it does not fit the intellectual trends of a moment (nihilist eh? ;-) In a situation like this, the previous poster is pointing out a perfect example of a problem that Washington warned of. Nobody is suggesting that we should keep a static society from the late 18th century, rather we should remember the ideals upon which the entire American society was founded, and be mindful of the past.

You know the old statement--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?

OMG

[DarkProphet]

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!