Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Warns of Next Pass At Telecom Immunity
The ACLU has reportedly uncovered another pass at telecom immunity and is urging concerned citizens to speak out against what they call a "dangerous backroom deal." "But now, word comes that House leadership may be working hand-in-hand with Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants. As discussions continue, it's critical that House leadership avoid buckling to pressure from the White House or Senator Rockefeller at all costs. House leadership — and every representative — need to draw a line in the sand, by rejecting any compromise that would undo the achievement we fought so hard for in February."
Does Congress even have the power to grant immunity? They think they have the power to do anything they want, but is providing blanket immunity even constitutional?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Like they really care about a list, nor is it going to stop the evential passing of a bill..
Actually, it might just serve as the list to first go after when they get total control. You sure you want to make yourself a target?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If the telecoms don't have anything to hide, why would they be afraid of a few questions?
Uh-oh, Big Brother. It looks like that logic has a nasty way of working both ways. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to keep immunity out, sue every single telecom into bankruptcy, and throw every member of the Administration who was involved into prison.
Pff... hahahahah. Alright, it was worth a good laugh. Now please, go back to watching your televisions. The Factor is coming right up! Top news story? Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies...
If they're going to come for me, they're going to come for me.
Why be a pussy?
Blar.
It does matter. People (like the ACLU) do want to pursue them in court, and make an example out of them.
Personally, I am for immunity for the telecoms. What they did was wrong, but the Bush administration said it was legal. Companies should be able to take the government at their word for what is legal or not. Going after the justice department would be a much better solution, though a harder one.
The problem is that if we set a precedent that the government cannot be trusted by big corporations, than we will run in to problems later. Going the Google way and making a big stink when they overstep their bounds is good, as it forces them to be legal. But the telecoms should not be punished for doing the government's bidding. The government should be punished for not following its own laws.
Well, if we delegated the power encompassed by the IRS, the SSA, and the various other control mechanisms in place from the Fed to the states, we could undo a lot of arguably wrong-headed old precedent.
Creating a "new" tradition of un-intrusive Federal government would really put the "P" in Progress for many of us.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Agreed. They are going after the wrong people. I will admit that I tend towards being a conservative libertarian, but I'm leaning towards Impeachment just the same even though I've supported Bush in the past on a few issues (tax cuts mainly).
Ahem, the Telco's have hordes of lawyers to advise them if something is legal or not. What they did was NOT legal under the law when they did it. Remember this is a country of laws not of men, you cannot be told to do illegal things and then NOT be held responsible. The US government cannot order you to do illegal things. (Remember we hung German officials after WW II for "Only following orders") In any case these suites against the telcos are not for $ they are to discover the truth about what was done to us the citizens of this country.
I am one who has for many years believed that the two party system was the ultimate root cause for the Nation's ills, and have also loudly asserted that if your vote was based on a "lesser of two evils" decision, without question, you have voted for evil.
The Bush Administration, and concomitant GOP Congressional dereliction, has taught me a bitter lesson though. I must now choke back the bile that rises in my throat, whenever I long nostalgically for the time in America's past, when a President's lies were only about acts of consensual sex, a cum-stained blue dress, and tobacco products with odd exotic aromatics; instead of a President's lies about Natural Liberties, Immoral War, and the Blood-stained Iraqi Sands.
This is the cause for a correction in my analysis. While it is wrong to vote for a lesser of two evils; a very good argument can be made to support a vote for the lamer of two evils. The GOP has not yet begun to experience the pain that is necessary to purge the excessive resident evil within. There need be a return to a state of polar equilibrium in quantities of evil, or there need be the end to the Republican Party, as a clear and present danger to the people's liberty. There is no third way.
The oath was: against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, or to condense it down to a Bushified black and white: are you with the Friends of Liberty or Against Us. Choose wisely...
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
The Dems have always been hawkish until Clinton. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson were ALL major hawks. FDR put us squarely into WWII though the country did not want to do that. Truman put us into Korea. While Eisenhower put us into vietnam, Kennedy escalated and then was going to pull out. Of course, he took on USSR via the cuban missle crisis. Johnson escalated vietnam Heavily. Carter was rebuilding our military after 'nam. He pushed for us to have a greater number of smaller ships, but reagan defeated that and pushed us back into battleships that were retired again. In addition, he pushed us heavily into stealth aircraft. However, he screwed up the iranian hostage (though there is enough proof that reagan cut deals with the iranians and kept our hostages there for another 9 months longer; f&^king traitors). Even the Abrahams tank got its start via carter. All in all, only clinton was dovish.
As to balanced budget, well, the last republican who cared about lowering the deficit was Poppa Bush, and Nixon in 68 was the last republican to balance a budget. Clinton balanced in 2000. reagan and W. both ran up huge deficits, and to a lesser degree, Bush I, Nixon and Eisenhower.
Want to keep your guns with republicans around? Yeah, right. Hard to do, when they spy on all the trades and transactions and know all that you do. Just because it is not in the open, does not mean that the feds are not tracking all this.
So what differences are there? Damn little. And how long has that gone on? Since 1980, i.e. more than 25 years. About the only real difference that I see is that the republicans are TOTALLY corrupt and do not care if anybody knows as long as they do not go to jail.
Seriously, there is NO real difference between you, a freaking right wing nut, and the vast majority of left wing nuts. Neither of you have the moral capability of doing the right thing for America.