Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US House Rejects Telecom Amnesty

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the some-no-votes-just-because-it-wasn't-firm-enough dept.

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."

16 of 614 comments (clear)

  1. Its about damned time... by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Its about damned time... by Sorthum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Its about damned time... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Its about damned time... by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Its about damned time... by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Its about damned time... by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was under the impression that the ACLU stayed away from 2nd Amendment issues because there are many other organization that will step in should the situation arise. The NRA being one of them.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    6. Re:Its about damned time... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Informative

      The slur is on the R, we don't expect THEM to value freedom

      Before the Neo-Cons, there was a time when the Republican party was actually conservative."Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism, libertarianism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small government, and states' rights." About the only aspects they still have from that old ideology is their love of a strong military, and religious conservatism.

      --
      We are all just people.
    7. Re:Its about damned time... by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    8. Re:Its about damned time... by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:OT by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:OT by jb68321 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  4. Re:This sucks. by Bovius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  5. Re:OT by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:ACLU is biased? by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Alastair
  7. Re:Evil men doing good things by lazy_nihilist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Evil men doing good things by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?