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."
Please follow the link and sign the ACLU petition and call your local representative. Domestic spying should be exposed and eradicated. The principle is more important than party politics.
No calls now, I'm
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
The current administration? Given the current balance of power this isn't as much a move by the current administration but by both parties working in unison. Sure, some will use it as a token "it's not me" vote but in the long run this isn't just Bush & Co or even the Republicans...
Wake up from your dreaded party politics dream and you'll see the real nightmare.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This is not a troll, but can anyone tell me what does it matter? Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions? Are we pursuing them in court? If the answer is no to both counts, then what does it matter if we grant them immunity.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
In the past for social change to become in the public awareness it has taken a bad economy or an intolerable immediate social situation. Given the track record of the Republicans over the past 30 years the best path to force social change would be to keep electing them so that they destroy the economy and the standing of the US in the rest of the world to such a level that only public outcry and massive social change can bring us back. Naturally, no one wants this so we are stuck between a rock (iraq) and a hard place.
So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way. It will bring out social change faster than the small bandaid method we are currently employing. This is the best way to 'burn out'.
Note: this message has been edited for the sarcasm impaired.
Veto.
If they're going to come for me, they're going to come for me.
Why be a pussy?
Blar.
As an European, I might not see the subtle differences between Democrats and Republicans, but to my eyes, they look so similar I can't really see the choice.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way.
He's been in the White House for seven years. I don't think we're getting the results you were hoping for.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Most of the outrages perpetrated by the current Democratic Congress have been the work of just enough of its "majority" members, of which Rockefeller is a prime example, knuckling under to the White House and going along with pretty much all the Republicans to pass every evil bill the Bush administration demands. Most Democratic representatives and senators are voting against these bills, but given how fine the balance of power is, all it takes is a few Democrats to go along with the Republican party line. Presumably, under an Obama or Clinton administration, the Rockefellers and Feinsteins and Liebermans will continue to be gutless for the White House, only this time they'll be gutless stooges for the (relatively speaking) good guys.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
What's at stake here is that an entire sector of corporation (allegedly) broke the law in secret, and once exposed, is now trying to make what they did suddenly legal.
What's at stake here is the public's right to discover who in our government (allegedly) requested that the law (allegedly) be broken.
What's at stake here is nothing less than the rule of law itself and whether the law is controlled by the People or by the corporations.
Think about the consequences if fucking telecommunications companies for God's sake get away with (allegedly) violating our rights to privacy guaranteed by the FISA laws...
Think about the consequences if the (alleged) pressure to break the law from our own government never is fully exposed...
Think of the consequences if justice is not served to those who deserve it...
If they get away with this, the grand experiment that is America has failed.
Allegedly.
For reference, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all deep in the pockets of the RIAA and a million other lobbying groups. Every major candidate is owned by various industries. On this specific issue, Obama is known to oppose telecom spying immunity while McCain is a fan of it.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
49 D - 49 R - 2 I
Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?
You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.
A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)
Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate.
My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
There are indeed valid, substantial questions regarding Jay Rockefeller's campaign contributors and the FISA Bill's telecom immunity clause. My questions about him go back farther to when he was minority committee leader, and was being pussy-whipped by Sen. Roberts (Can's-Ass) about Robert's promise to have the Intelligence Committee investigate the administration's use of pre-Iraq War intelligence, and even get around to issuing subpoenas, so Feith and Wolfowitz would get their asses hauled down to assert their 5th Amendment rights under oath while being televised nationwide. There are several Democratic Senators whose defense of civil liberties is very questionable.
However, your intimated assertion of a partisan parity is absurd, and a wild flight of fantasy from reality.
Let's investigate reality without the rosy-tint of you blurry lens:
Senate Roll Call Vote #20 on February 12, 2008, The FISA Amendments Act
Clearly, The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
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
STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person -- if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think -- Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for?
Oh, that's great, you have dishonest monsters deciding what is equal protection and what isn't! Fantastic!
You can't take the sky from me...
There are a few bad apples on SCOTUS. There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. All is not lost, but it certainly isn't balanced well, we'll agree. Nonetheless, it's the law of the land. Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree. It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments. Sometimes, they are.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
Damn! I mean DAMN!
It should be blatantly obvious, he's punishing you for not giving him the information he wants!