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.
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.
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.
It doesn't matter if Bush vetoes it. Under current law, there is no telecom immunity. EFF vs. AT&T goes forward.
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?
Hm I suppose you MAY have missed the article that came out (from the Wall Street Journal no less) that talked about a huge NSA spying program, which includes -everyone- in the city of Detroit, everyone they talked to, among millions of other people whose emails, etc got flagged by some NSA program. I'd link but their site requires subscription. The NSA pulled bank, phone, credit card, etc records for millions of innocent individuals and shared them with many other government agencies.
This type of government-funded, classified-budget project, plus all the other recent revelations about warrant-less wiretapping (demanded by the Bush administration officials on account of their terrorist-finding programs) amounts to a huge case against the Bush administration itself. If the administration had not demanded the info, which is illegal itself thanks to the Constitution, the ISPs would not have had to give up info... not that they had to, and doing so was also illegal IMHO. Anyways you can't possibly say it was only the ISP's fault without acknowledging the government was giving them hell in the meantime.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org
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."
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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 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.
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.
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.
The "Earned Income Credit" allows for tax refunds in excess of the amount paid in taxes. Call it what you will, but I call a refund amount of >100% welfare.
If the republicans wanted to run on a platform of "we're going to give cash handouts to millions of people and pay for it by borrowing from the future", then they should have just come out and said that.
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.
You sound much more Libertarian than Republican. The Republican Party in its current format has strayed far, far away from the old model of states' rights and limited government.
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.
The telecoms need only to provide documents showing legal justification for their actions, and they're basically off the hook.
Guess who doesn't want any investigation of said legal justification?
Go live in your libertarian utopia and take your attitude with you. I suggest though that you work out a lot first, as the first person stronger than you will have plenty of fun with you. You will find that everyone eventually meets someone stronger or faster, and without the protection of civilized society, things get seriously uneven seriously quickly. The purpose of taxes and the occasional leg up for people down on their luck is an efficient way to restore their productivity, so they can make net contributions to the society.The point of helping people out is to get them productive: it's an investment, not a giveaway. There are times when the investment doesn't work out but by and large, people tend to want to produce.
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