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.
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.
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.
It doesn't matter if Bush vetoes it. Under current law, there is no telecom immunity. EFF vs. AT&T goes forward.
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?
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.
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.
The President can't pardon civil offenses, only criminal offenses, so it won't have any effect. On the criminal side, the way the applicable statutes are written, its people in the executive branch that would be most likely to be liable anyway, and its hard as if this administration is going to prosecute them in the first place, so pardons aren't likely to be necessary except on the way out the door to protect against anything the next administration might do.
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.
George Washington knew this was the inevitable result of the formation of parties, and warned against it in his farewell speech. I think it's something that all Americans should be mindful of:
"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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
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.
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