FISA Bill Vote Today, With Telco Immunity

Bimo_Dude writes "Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card. Here are comments from the EFF. Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"

Comments

Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"This is good for the bottom line. That's good for AmeriKKKa!"

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[letxa2000]

I don't understand why people are so eager to go after the telecomm companies instead of the administration that made the requests that the companies were hesitant to resist?

I definitely think the telecomm companies should have immunity for cooperating with the government. If laws were broken, go after the government that made the requests.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[iminplaya]

No sir! I want to go after those who committed the act. The request means nothing without the following action. Remember, words are NOT deeds. They are only words. The sinner is the actor. The leaders have no power without the followers. That would include everybody all the way up to Hitler. There...Godwinned.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Nursie]

Because we expect government officials to try and subvert our liberties and have grown cynical about the possibility of ever changing that?

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Bimo_Dude]

I would be happy to start with going after the telecom companies first. Because executives usually look out for number one first, they will spill the beans on the administration just to save their own asses. Then, we would have even more evidence to use in a criminal trial.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[squiggleslash]

Both broke the law. Both need to be reined in.

Personally, I'm in favour of something dramatic, like AT&T and Verizon being required to give a huge amount of their infrastructure to Qwest. Qwest didn't break the law and by all accounts they were penalized for it, with pre-arranged contracts suddenly dropped and legal sanctions used to prevent themselves from defending their previous forecasts - which were based on those contracts coming to fruition - to shareholders.

Holding a government to account cannot be left to politicians. If the government asks you to do something illegal, you should say no, just as you would if anyone else asked you to.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess "I was just following orders," IS sufficient excuse if you're a telephone company. Although seriously, does any part of this prevent CRIMINAL actions against individuals at the TELCOs? Some crusading prosecuter could make his name here. Shouldn't be too hard to get some low level switch flipper to roll over on some TELCO VP.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[letxa2000]

The government is supposed to follow the law and enforce the law. If the government comes to you, especially under what could easily be considered "special circumstances," and asks you to do something that doesn't seem unreasonable given the circumstances, I don't think it's an individual's (or corporation's) job to evaluate or second-guess the government's action and decide whether or not they should comply. They certainly can, but I don't think they have to.

If the government is supposed to enforce the law, there should be an assumption that official requests made by the government are legal. If the government charged with enforcing the law requests you to do something, you should be pretty dang secure in that that same government (via its courts) will not subsequently find you guilty of something for cooperating.

Now I'm not advocating a blank check here, nor saying that "I was just following orders" is a valid defense again. But there's a difference between the government telling you "Go over there and kill that guy" and asking for cooperation in trying to avoid a terrorist attack.

I can understand why some people would say "The letter of the law is..." and on that basis want to go after the telcos. But the issue here is not black and white. There's a certain "stink test" that just seems like some people have a vendetta against some telcos when they really should be going after the government. I think they want to go after the telcos because it's easier to go after them than the government and, heck, they're corporations anyway so dang it they MUST be evil!

If you're at the scene of an accident and a policeman asks you to rush someone to the hospital because the ambulance can't get there fast enough and the policeman can't leave the scene, and tells you "feel free to go 80mph down the freeway rather than 65mph," would you? The request of the policeman doesn't seem unreasonable given the circumstances. Would it then leave a sour taste in your mouth if you were later charged with speeding to the hospital and your license revoked? Yes, you did something that was technically illegal. But it didn't seem unreasonable AND the government asked you to!

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[PONA-Boy]

When indoctrinated into military service, you are told, very explicitly, that you have an obligation to refuse knowingly unlawful orders. You are also made well aware that your actions, regardless of the lawfulness of the order, are fully punishable by a court martial. Do we hold the "telcos" to a lower standard?

True enough that we should prosecute an investigation against those GIVING the order in the first place but we should also do the same for those blithely accepting such unlawful direction.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[letxa2000]

So in other words this is all just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally? This is just part of the Bush-hate agenda?

Sigh.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Bimo_Dude]

Re-reading my GP post, I guess it wasn't clear enough. I'll try to speak more slowly this time around.

This is not "just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally," as you say (I hope you weren't trying to put words into my mouth). The telecom companies knowingly broke the law, and the people within those companies who made those decisions should be prosecuted as well as sued by those affected. The administration should also be held to account for those illegal requests.

As for your question about evidence... I think there is already enough evidence out there to impeach him as well as many others in the administration, and prosecute them all successfully. Impeachment has to come before prosecution, and that is "off the table."

This isn't about Bush. It's about the balance of powers in the government. It's about corruption. I won't deny that I despise Bush (that's another rant for another day), but I would despise any president that has arrogated this amount of power to the Executive. I would despise any president that is complicit with this level of corruption. Bush happens to be the current top crook; in a few months, we'll have a different top crook.

I'll sigh, too. This all is certainly worthy of it.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Dog-Cow]

If the telecoms don't know the requisite law, they need better lawyers on retainer. Given all the laws specific to this area, I would really hope that all the telecoms have the required legal expertise on speed-dial. There is absolutely no excuse for bypassing the FISA courts, which were setup to prevent EXACTLY this scenario -- an Executive abusing his power. There is never an excuse in this situation. If the telecoms had a real leg to stand on, they would not have needed to bribe 2/3 of the legislator to pass an unconstitutional law.

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[Qzukk]

you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally?

Actually, there is, since the government fucked up and set a lawyer a copy of the transcript of his own phone calls.

It's just been wandering around the court system for a couple of years now.

http://fas.org/sgp/jud/statesec/ahif090706.pdf

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[aproposofwhat]

Well I guess "I was just following orders," IS sufficient excuse if you're a telephone company.

And I suppose 'I was only ordering followers' will prove to be a good enough excuse if you're a President :o)

Re:Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T)

[letxa2000]

There is absolutely no excuse for bypassing the FISA courts, which were setup to prevent EXACTLY this scenario -- an Executive abusing his power. There is never an excuse in this situation.

The fact of the matter is that there might be an excuse in this situation. As I often say: NONE of us know as much about the real terrorist situation than many people at DHS and even President Bush. Hate him all you want, criticize him all you want, but I am 100% sure that he knows more about the realities of the threats than we do. So we can armchair quarterback all we want but the truth is we don't know.

Let's put it this way: If the president honestly believed that by violating the "privacy" (a vague concept that is not guaranteed by the Constitution) of a few people that he could save the lives of literally millions, would it be worth it? I'd say yes. It seems the president would too. Some would say no but I think that kind of blind extremism in support of privacy is every bit as absurd as a fascist state. A balance has to be found.

We can argue all we want about whether or not the president honestly thought the threat was so imminent as to justify the supposed privacy violations. We can debate black, white, and colors of gray when it comes to how absolute privacy should be. But we are debating from a position of ignorance because none of us know all the facts.

Treason

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.

Re:Treason

[dedazo]

It's really not possible to defend supporting something like this, but it's not useful to exaggerate and accuse them of high crimes, either.

Re:Treason

[jeiler]

Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution--article III, section 3.

This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.

Re:Treason

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Then the definition of 'treason' needs to change.

Re:Treason

[jellomizer]

I think you hate America so much that you would think that.
Ok lets put the partisan insults aside, and think of the big picture. If the government ever needs help from private indrustry, Indrustry needs to know that it can trust the government, and if it goes wrong the same government that they tried to help will protect them. Otherwise the goverment will need to go threw a lot of extra red-tape, and the company will need to extra red tape just to say no (because they need to make sure they can say no legally). If companies cannot trust the word from our government then more business will not do work in our government, as it would be considered too risky to do work, because if they say yes you can do that and then after they have put huge amount of capital then the government says no the voters don't like that anymore so you loose it all. Is very risky and companies don't like risk.

Google said No and good for them however when they did their stock took a tumble and faced different problems, the telcos said yes and didn't face those problems. Being that the cort took some time to determine that the governments actions were indeed illegal shows that it was in the gray area of right and wrong, so the person who made the decision of Yes or No didn't have a clear ovious path. If the lawsuit turned the other way the companies that said No would be in a lot of trouble.

Businesses are orginizations and have to deal with a lot of conflecting moral choices and mistakes are much to common. However to go for blood against them could have more of a negitive effect then not.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut, the fuck, up! Where have you been the last 8 years?

Re:Treason

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

There's one small detail that you are overlooking.

Companies shouldn't be breaking the law just because the government tells them to!

And if they do, they SHOULD be punished! As should the people in the government that told them to break the law.

Re:Treason

[Nursie]

I don't see a single mention of the rights of the citizens of the USA in there, just a lot of talk about business and government becoming best buddies and scratching each others' backs.

What happened to by the people, for the people?

These days it seems to be more "buy the people".

Re:Treason

[mlwmohawk]

They took an oath to uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. This is a violation of that oath. I would call this treason, yes.

Re:Treason

[morgan_greywolf]

Definition of treason from the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The Contitution is the United States -- it is the document that defines it. Betrayal of the Constitution is betrayal of the United States -- "adhering to their Enemies". Perhaps it is even tanatamount to declaring War.

Re:Treason

[Gat0r30y]

companies cannot trust the word from our government Um, companies shouldn't blindly obey any order from the government without running by legal.
If your a stock holder in one of these telecoms wouldn't you think they had some obligation to verify that what they were doing was indeed legal (it wasn't) and that they did not face exposure due to it (they should be exposed, and face serious consequences)?

Being that the cort took some time to determine that the governments actions were indeed illegal shows that it was in the gray area of right and wrong No, it was not a gray area - it was illegal, it was illegal when they did it, and it's still illegal. They knew it was illegal and they did it anyway - no legal dept. worth its salt could have possibly signed off on this sort of an action without knowing that it was never going to see the light of day. They were exposed from the inside - and they deserve to be punished for breaking the law, just because they are a corporation doesn't mean they get to skirt responsibility for their actions.

Re:Treason

[jeiler]

What, you--a "technolibertarian," whatever that is--wants the government to do something for you? That's called hypocrisy where I come from, but maybe "technolibertarians" use language differently from normal people.

Treason is defined as it is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the "conviction by whim" that you seem to propose.

Re:Treason

[Guppy06]

"If the government ever needs help from private indrustry, Indrustry needs to know that it can trust the government,"

And where does the public trust come into this, if at all?

Re:Treason

[jeiler]

The last time I saw an "argument" like yours, I was cleaning a catbox.

Rhetoric to the side, it might interest the more reasonable members of this discussion to note that the crafting of an unconstitutional law is not treason. It's not even a crime. It is, however, the reason for judicial review--and those of us who are able to eschew the excesses of rhetoric your post demonstrates are quite aware of this.

The solution to this issue is simple, though not inexpensive. If this law passes, then a person who has been the victim of a warrantless wiretap must bring suit against the telco and the government simultaneously. When the lawsuit is quashed/judged against, if the "immunity law" was used to rule against the original suit, appeal based on constitutionality of the provision.

That's what judicial review is all about, Morgan. Correcting unconstitutional laws is not accomplished by spouting useless rhetoric about "Enemies" and "declaring War"--it's accomplished by actually working within the legal system.

Re:Treason

[SydShamino]

Then the definition of 'treason' needs to change. Perhaps Congress could slip that into the bill that already redefines "illegal wiretaps"? If we're redefining things to suit our whims, let's be consistent.

Re:Treason

[waa]

Their oath of office is little more than "... to defend and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic..."

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Which means that just as the parent stated, each "representative" who voted YEA on this bill is guilty of violating their oath of office, for passing an illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill, and therefor is guilty of treason.

Re:Treason

[Hyppy]

I think that might be the first comment you've made that I completely agree with.

Re:Treason

[sgt_doom]

It is indeed treason - and it is you, "my friend" (to paraphrase a surrender monkey named McCain), who doesn't understand the meaning of that term.

Anyone, or group, who consistently trashes the US Constitution is/are traitor(s). 'Nuff said....

I would only add one hopefully pertinent comment: there is in actuality no government left, but simply the corporations who control this interface which was once known as "government".....

Re:Treason

[tgrigsby]

I beg to differ. The president most assuredly is guilty of high crimes, and the Congressmen that pass a bill to grant immunity to the president for violating his oath of office have themselves violated the Constitution and therefore their oaths of office by way of primary action and complicity. They will have raised the president above the law, assumed themselves above the law by granting such, and by doing so will have betrayed the American government and the people from which it derives its powers. That, sir, is treason.

It took over 200 years, but the Tories may be about to finally win the war...

Re:Treason

[flink]

Ah, but how does one discover that they've been the subject of a secret warrantless wiretap, especially if it was issued with a national security letter gag order? There's no way to prove standing to bring a suit. Even if you could, you'd have to be independently wealthy to have the leisure and funds to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.

I agree that the accusation of treason is spurious, but voting for this kind of malignant legislation shows such casual contempt for the constitution and the American people that it should, at the minimum, put you in line for a severe beating.

Re:Treason

[Enoxice]

"Technoliberation" != "technolibertarian"

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the list of the betrayers. Good sons and daughters of liberty should note their names:

Ackerman; Aderholt; Akin; Alexander; Altmire; Arcuri; Baca; Bachmann;
Bachus; Baird; Barrett (SC); Barrow; Bartlett (MD); Barton (TX); Bean;
Berkley; Berman; Berry; Biggert; Bilbray; Bilirakis; Bishop (GA);
Bishop (NY); Bishop (UT); Blackburn; Blunt; Boehner; Bonner; Bono
Mack; Boozman; Boren; Boswell; Boucher; Boustany; Boyd (FL); Boyda
(KS); Brady (TX); Broun (GA); Brown (SC); Brown, Corrine; Buchanan;
Burgess; Burton (IN); Butterfield; Buyer; Calvert; Camp (MI); Campbell
(CA); Cantor; Capito; Cardoza; Carney; Carter; Castle; Castor;
Cazayoux; Chabot; Chandler; Childers; Cleaver; Clyburn; Coble; Cole
(OK); Conaway; Cooper; Costa; Cramer; Crenshaw; Crowley; Cubin;
Cuellar; Culberson; Davis (AL); Davis (KY); Davis, David; Davis,
Lincoln; Davis, Tom; Deal (GA); Diaz-Balart, L.; Diaz-Balart, M.;
Dicks; Donnelly; Doolittle; Drake; Dreier; Duncan; Edwards (TX);
Ehlers; Ellsworth; Emanuel; Emerson; Engel; English (PA); Etheridge;
Everett; Fallin; Feeney; Ferguson; Flake; Forbes; Fortenberry;
Fossella; Foxx; Franks (AZ); Frelinghuysen; Gallegly; Garrett (NJ);
Gerlach; Giffords; Gillibrand; Gingrey; Goode; Goodlatte; Gordon;
Granger; Graves; Green, Al; Green, Gene; Gutierrez; Hall (TX); Harman;
Hastings (FL); Hastings (WA); Hayes; Heller; Hensarling; Herger;
Herseth Sandlin; Higgins; Hinojosa; Hobson; Hoekstra; Holden; Hoyer;
Hulshof; Hunter; Inglis (SC); Issa; Johnson, Sam; Jordan; Kanjorski;
Keller; Kildee; Kind; King (IA); King (NY); Kingston; Kirk; Klein
(FL); Kline (MN); Knollenberg; Kuhl (NY); LaHood; Lamborn; Lampson;
Langevin; Latham; LaTourette; Latta; Lewis (CA); Lewis (KY); Linder;
Lipinski; LoBiondo; Lowey; Lucas; Lungren, Daniel E.; Mack; Mahoney
(FL); Manzullo; Marchant; Marshall; Matheson; McCarthy (CA); McCarthy
(NY); McCaul (TX); McCotter; McCrery; McHenry; McHugh; McIntyre;
McKeon; McMorris Rodgers; McNerney; Meeks (NY); Melancon; Mica; Miller
(FL); Miller (MI); Miller, Gary; Mitchell; Moore (KS); Moran (KS);
Murphy, Patrick; Murphy, Tim; Murtha; Musgrave; Myrick; Neugebauer;
Nunes; Ortiz; Pearce; Pelosi; Pence; Perlmutter; Peterson (MN); Petri;
Pickering; Pitts; Platts; Poe; Pomeroy; Porter; Price (GA); Pryce
(OH); Putnam; Radanovich; Rahall; Ramstad; Regula; Rehberg; Reichert;
Renzi; Reyes; Richardson; Rodriguez; Rogers (AL); Rogers (KY); Rogers
(MI); Rohrabacher; Ros-Lehtinen; Roskam; Ross; Royce; Ruppersberger;
Ryan (WI); Salazar; Sali; Saxton; Scalise; Schiff; Schmidt; Scott
(GA); Sensenbrenner; Sessions; Sestak; Shadegg; Shays; Sherman;
Shimkus; Shuler; Shuster; Simpson; Sires; Skelton; Smith (NE); Smith
(NJ); Smith (TX); Smith (WA); Snyder; Souder; Space; Spratt; Stearns;
Stupak; Sullivan; Tancredo; Tanner; Tauscher; Taylor; Terry; Thompson
(MS); Thornberry; Tiberi; Turner; Udall (CO); Upton; Walberg; Walden
(OR); Walsh (NY); Wamp; Weldon (FL); Westmoreland; Whitfield (KY);
Wilson (NM); Wilson (OH); Wilson (SC); Wittman (VA); Wolf; Yarmuth;
Young (AK); Young (FL);

Re:Treason

[jeiler]

I know--five points if you can discern why I made that shift. ;)

Re:Treason

[MobyDisk]

Anyone who votes for a law that is later struck down as unconstitutional isn't qualified to hold office.

Re:Treason

[mortonda]

If the text posted above is accurate, this is technically an ex post facto law... it doesn't change the legality of what was done before, it simply makes it illegal to prosecute those past crimes.

What a loophole.

Re:Treason

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

So you could make up anything you wanted to say against me, without regard to what I was actually saying?

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote my congressman and told him that he can expect to not be reelected this November.

Re:Treason

[jeiler]

Almost--I changed the usage of a word to mean something the original author did not intend, in order to support my argument. This is precisely what you did by redefining "treason" in your earlier post. Since you were close (but not quite correct), I can't give you the five points, but here's a gold star for effort.

Re:Treason

[jeiler]

Ah, but how does one discover that they've been the subject of a secret warrantless wiretap, especially if it was issued with a national security letter gag order? There's no way to prove standing to bring a suit.

Actually, yes you could--if you were arrested or charged based on evidence gained in such a manner. By that time, of course, you've already got some pretty substantial legal problems, so you'd better come out with all your legal "guns" blazing.

Even if you could, you'd have to be independently wealthy to have the leisure and funds to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.

The hard part to finance is the legal team. You'd have to get someone to agree to represent you pro bono to be able to afford it, but it can be done.

I agree that the accusation of treason is spurious, but voting for this kind of malignant legislation shows such casual contempt for the constitution and the American people that it should, at the minimum, put you in line for a severe beating.

Feh. They're politicians. I wouldn't soil my hands with the likes of them. But be assured, if this bill passes, I will remember it come November--and every November afterward.

In the meantime, however, I have a letter to write to my congresscritters.

Re:Treason

[Bimo_Dude]

I have to say that GP did do a good job of explaining the way it currently is. Unfortunately, the constitution, the rights of the citizens, and the public trust do not fit with the scheme of things. It now really is all about payoffs and corruption, pretty much in all three branches of government.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

stop being such a coward.

Re:Treason

[squiggleslash]

Hey! There's no need to insult people who have a phobia about paying taxes and love loud, rhythmic, electronic music!

Re:Treason

[TooMuchToDo]

Hazah! No one from Illinois voted yes! Makes my day.

Re:Treason

[roystgnr]

Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.

This particular strain of authoritarian has figured out a loophole in that system: get the extremist gun owners on your side first. Gun owners with sensible attitudes are still trying to get our Bill of Rights back through political processes, and gun owners without sensible attitudes are all standing behind our Dear Leader in preparation for when the Muslim hordes invade.

Re:Treason

[BoberFett]

The reason us "Yanks" still have that right is because we're intelligent enough to use it only as our last option. Apparently you are in a hurry to use violence at every opportunity. Maybe it's why your rulers didn't see fit to give you that right.

Re:Treason

[LordPhantom]

Wrong: ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Re:Treason

[Dripdry]

Last option? We haven't had that option for decades and the government knows it.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so what are we going to do about it? We're in endgame, and the politicians win. The American people (you and me included) don't have the means, the momentum, or the balls to do anything about it. You'll whine online, I'll whine online, but we won't accomplish anything. We're fucked.

Kinda helps me understand how a terrorist might feel. "I can't accomplish any real change, but I might be able to blow up n AT&T building or three." Except I'd be afraid to try even that.

Game over, as usual.

Re:Treason

[The Moof]

It's now "by the people, for the people (with money)."

Re:Treason

[FishAdmin]

As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.

And by the wonder of the Right of Free Speech, you are certainly entitled to that opinion! However, the Constitution would argue with you. Article III states:

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Not treason. Sorry. Illegal, immoral, or unethical? Possibly. However, I'd still like to know why the NYTimes weren't called up for treason when they published our Troop movements in ADVANCE, thereby "giving Aid" to our enemies.

Re:Treason

[FishAdmin]

That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.

Wow! You Georgia boys really get fired up! Hey, we Yankees aren't THAT far North of you. Yeah, we trumped you in the War, but let's let bygones be bygones, what say?

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the USA, particularly in Britain and Ireland, "Yank" (NOT the same as "yankee", though same root) is used as pejorative slang for all USA citizens regardless of intra-USA north vs. south alignment.

Re:Treason

[ma1wrbu5tr]

Agreed! But what can we do about it?

An armed rebellion that would get squashed in a millisecond?
Protesting has gotten us nowhere.
Heck, I don't think my Congressmen and Senators even read my emails or letters.

How do we hold the traitors accountable?

That is the question that plagues me now that I have completely lost any confidence in all three branches.

Re:Treason

[NeutronCowboy]

I have a question. What if the law is deemed constitutional, based on the interpretation that ex post facto refers specifically to laws designed to retroactively increase punishment?

The big, big, big issue here is that this law is fucking with the foundation of our legal system. It would be similar to people passing a constitutional amendment that makes the President King, or something similar. At that point, the SCOTUS has nothing to argue about anymore, except state a personal opinion that the amendment is hogwash.

Sometimes, some laws are so bad that they cannot be rectified by working within the system.

Re:Treason

[FishAdmin]

Outside the USA, particularly in Britain and Ireland, "Yank" (NOT the same as "yankee", though same root) is used as pejorative slang for all USA citizens regardless of intra-USA north vs. south alignment.

Actually, I knew that, although I *do* appreciate the polite explanation. However, don't be alarmed if you hear a large *whoosh*, as that was the joke going over your head!

Re:Treason

[mlwmohawk]

Agreed! But what can we do about it?

Well, we can't do anything over night. It took a generation or two to get to this point, and it may take just as long to get back.

There is no single battle. This is a war within the United States to return control to the people. I love my country, by my government is becoming a fascist dictatorship.

Civil disobedience. Run for office. Local, and build. VOTE. We got here because people didn't care.

Re:Treason

[morgan_greywolf]

Shhhh! Don't go around making sense! They'll put you in Gitmo!

Re:Treason

[rolfwind]

It's not? The Constitution you cite says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

and:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

So the Constitution has recognized that enemies can be domestic and I would say that there are many Senators that have given aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution.

Re:Treason

[MSG]

Maybe it's why your rulers didn't see fit to give you that right.

Rights aren't granted by government, they're taken away. Rights exist in the absence of government.

Which is to say that "his rulers" saw fit to strip their citizens of that right.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

So taking that tortuous route to try and change the simple meanings of words, everyone who voted who anyone who votes for or had a hand in writing this bill would be giving aid to enemies of the Constitution and should be sent to Guantanamo Bay this evening.

Those who donated to their campaigns even more so.

Re:Treason

[vsync64]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now, remember the oath of office?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

If you don't think that President Bush and his government and industry cronies are domestic enemies of the Constitution you're deluding yourself.

Re:Treason

[Ortega-Starfire]

Well, Obama just voted for it, against his previous stance on the issue.

Re:Treason

[Dog-Cow]

They violated the Constitution. That's treason.

Re:Treason

[Dog-Cow]

How do we hold the traitors accountable? Rebellion. Perhaps the only silver lining of the ongoing torture of Iraq is that a great many soldiers who follow illegal orders are out of the country.

Re:Treason

[zullnero]

I'd think that if you were a technolibertarian, the first thing you'd do is create a website of competitor companies that DIDN'T sell out their customers' information to the Government, along with a list of companies that did, in order to inform people as to which company they should do business with. That requires no government regulation at all, as well as technology.

Re:Treason

[zullnero]

The word is that the Senate is going to try and remove the provision that grants retroactive immunity to the telcos. Mainly, the most attractive part of the new bill is that it restores the original FISA law and prevents the current President from continuing to warrantlessly wiretap people for the next, oh, several months.

I don't think the Senate will be able to strip that provision, we can only hope that the next administration will find the provision Unconstitutional (which it IS), knock it out, and frogmarch the scumbag CEOs responsible for illegally violating their customers' privacy without legally informing them and getting their consent.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Our "rulers" didn't give us the right. We reserved it for ourselves, telling our employees they couldn't take it away. That's the reason we still have it.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You ask way too much from Yanks! You seem to forget, we wanted to do something but American Idol is coming on, or; I got mine.. 'f' you. You see, in America we are free to speak about the things that ought to be done. We are not a people who can stomach the pain that would be necessary to see the task through.

No one here is willing to give up their "right" to a latte to actually be upset about this. I think we need to burn The White House down. then the capitol, then the court. Then that stupid monument that looks like an obelisk with the all seeing eye.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Only Qwest was willing to stand up to the Administration and refused to participate in illegal wiretapping of Americans. Any telco that participated in unconstitutional spying should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

If one considers the current presidential administration an enemy of the United States, which some members of slashdot do, then it is possible that supporting said administration amounts to treason.

Heck, they call it the "war on terror", so, wouldn't the act of eavesdropping in correlation with this be considered an act of war?

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.

As far as I'm concerned you're a little douchebag twerp.

Re:Treason

[Atario]

Almost true. Natural rights (such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) exist independent of governments; legal rights (such as copyrights or patent rights) don't exist without them.

Also, governments can't take away natural rights. They can violate them, but they can't take them away.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a term for breaking an Oath, and it's called Perjury.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.

=====
I agree. Bitching online is no substitute for the decisive action that is sometimes necessary to secure our rights and freedoms.

Once in office, our legislators ignore the will of those who elected them and instead learn the tricks and loopholes of the Pander Masters. Well, I say to hell with them. Vote them out and try again. And if you can't vote them out because the process is rigged, then blow the place up.

Trouble is, the state is too powerful and too entwined in virtually all aspects of existence in this country. You can't simply blow something up and then disappear. And when you get caught, which you inevitably will, forget about sunshine, fresh air, decent food, and a good night's sleep.

So, resign yourself to becoming a suicide bomber, because that's the only practical way any ordinary person with limited resources can make him/herself be heard.

That's a tough choice to make.
=====

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

It may not be treason, but it's certainly sedition.

Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

My Quote Chain:

"Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of."
--Arthur Dent

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine

"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
--David Korten

You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."

Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Four More Fears!

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Gat0r30y]

It sounds like fascism to me. Just my .02$

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[DaedalusHKX]

You forgot the most important quote that should be on your chain:

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

To translate for those hard of reason: "Any government big enough to redistribute the fruits of other people's labor to YOU by force, is big enough to take everything it wants from you, also by force. It is also big enough to run your life, and kill you or enslave you on a whim or a trumped up charge. It can also watch you and make a panopticon of your daily life. And you will like it, and clamor for it to change only enough that you won't notice the ubiquity of the abuses. Yes indeed, you will... like it." - Me

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

I'm not sure how to interpret your post... I'm not in favor of McCain or Obama...

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

No implication that you are. :-)

Searching on "It's not illegal when the President does it" turned this image up. There's a gestalt realisation for the people of the US in the image.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[nuzak]

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Doesn't sound anything like him. Mark Twain perhaps.

Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Nursie]

Insightful?

Maybe Jefferson was, but the rant underneath is an extremist libertarian nonsense.

Libertarians of the world hear my voice - your proposed system sucks just as badly as everything else and would result in unprecedented concentration of power by the wealthy, with slavery for the rest.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Hyppy]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[tgrigsby]

Out of curiosity, if you're not for either one, who are you most against?

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[chazbet]

What's the point of being a capitalist, if you can't buy and sell everything?

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[bsDaemon]

Mussolini never said nor wrote that, nor did Giovani Gentile, so I'm not sure where this quote comes from.

Likewise, in Italian Fascism, "corporation" means a vertical trade union, like a syndicate, and is akin to guild socialism. The people at the top of the corporation are the "masters" and the people at the bottom are the "apprentices" with varying levels of competancy in between.

Votes for the Chamber of Deputies are then done by occupation -- so the transportation syndicate is comprised of airline and rail workers, for instance. They then vote for members to represent them in the parliament.

Only people who are experts in their field craft laws and regulations, which are then given to approval. The "dictator" then has ultimate responsibility to carry it out.

Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot better than our current popularity contest that leads to lawyers from dairy country trying to pass laws regarded IT policy, for instance.

Not that I'm a fascist, I just read everything about them I could get out of my university library 'cause i didn't have tv.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, if you're not for either one, who are you most against?

both.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[fredrated]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump "Capitalism is what capitalists do" and today what capitalists do is buy corrupt government officials for the betterment of their companies.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[bimplebean]

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." That was Gerald Ford, not Thomas Jefferson. Not quite in the same league. Mentioning this small government drivel in this thread about big government spying on you is a bit off topic.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Abcd1234]

What does big government have to do with restrictions on the activities of corporations, or the holding of companies liable for actions which are illegal?

Or do you just like to inject your libertarian rantings wherever possible?

On the bright side, I think I just discovered the political equivalent of the "I don't watch TV" guy.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Actually, no, what "capitalism is" is well-defined. What corrupt businessmen do is entirely different. They are opportunistic supporters of rights violations for financial gain - to their own ultimate detriment, of course. The real source of the problem is a government made up of individuals who are likewise looking for easy money and willing to do anything to make that happen. The businessmen and politicians gain, and we lose.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[CrazedWalrus]

Sounds like something Ayn Rand would know something about.

I actually went and read Atlas Shrugged last week simply because I've seen it brought up on /. so often -- usually in derogatory terms by people saying things I don't agree with. Given the consistency of those circumstances, I knew it must be a decent read. I wasn't disappointed.

For those that haven't read it, it's basically a 1,000 page fictional book about the interaction of corporation and government, and the socio-economic impact of those interactions. If you're pissed off about this FISA bill and similar paid-for legislation, I'd recommend the book.

This is the opposite of free market. It's companies with good lobbyists using the government as a shield and a weapon.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

I started reading Atlas Shrugged a few months ago and got about 2/3 through before moving on to other books, but it definitely left an impact. Maybe I'll finally pick it up again and finish it.

Also, how did you get through that whole book in one week? I guess if you read 30 pages an hour for 5 hours a day it would be possible, plus I found myself going back and rereading certain speeches and interesting parts.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

You should check out the Objectivism Online Forum. It's usually pretty interesting to read, and if you have any questions, people will usually jump at answering them.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[CrazedWalrus]

I'm in the process of being laid off, so I've got some time on my hands. :-) Also, I don't re-read during a reading. I'd rather read the book and then go back and re-read the earlier parts that played into the ending once I know how it fits together.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[k1e0x]

This is not Capitalism. Capitalist would sue these telcos and put their ass in jail.

This is government teamed up with business.

When government controls business it is fascism
When business controls government it is corporatism. (with the suspected same results of fascism.)

Business alone is not evil, business and power IS.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

And I am in agreement with you. I said antithesis , not epitome.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[FishAdmin]

Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.

How would that be any different from the places being governed by your craven, corrupt, superstitious, hateful ideologies?

Puts it in a bit of a different light now, doesn't it? How about we all agree to NOT let the Government think for us, and we can hash out the rest of it later?

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[gv250]

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson Doesn't sound anything like him. Mark Twain perhaps. Would you believe Gerald Ford?

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[ma1wrbu5tr]

I've never heard it stated more succinctly.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[rpillala]

What exactly constitutes a corrupt company? Corporations have no moral imperative.

You should read Free Lunch, wherein David Cay Johnston basically spells out in detail the truth of your observation. My conclusion from this is that capitalism doesn't perpetuate itself, it eliminates itself. Which is weird.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"What exactly constitutes a corrupt company?"

A company or individual that persuades officials to pass favorable legislation backed by government force.

"Corporations have no moral imperative."

Everyone has a moral imperative to uphold individual rights.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[rpillala]

Here's one more for you. Kit Bond (R-MO) on NPR this morning:

When the Government tells you to do something, I think you all recognize, uh, that that is something that you need to do.

Here is a link to the NPR story itself, with audio.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[DaedalusHKX]

I've been saying EXACTLY what you said!

Amazing that it seems most of them lump me in with their favorite opposition, religious socialists and religious fascists... as if somehow, atheist socialists or atheist fascists were any less dogmatic, or any less stupid for letting others think for 'em.

Thanks for clarifying. Well typed :)

Not sure WHY they lump me in with their pro marriage anti marriage morons when I've already said that I think the gov'co should stay OUT of people's contracts.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[MrShannon]

The quote is President Gerald Ford's in an address to Congress on August 12, 1974.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1429863

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[tom's a-cold]

Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.

Don't know much history, do you? Unless it's just a vocabulary problem and by "antithesis" you meant "epitome."

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[aeschenkarnos]

No, it's the apotheosis of capitalism. Since capitalism says "making money is the highest human goal", and protecting human dignity and rights is a lower goal, then of course the capitalists will, eventually, subvert the mechanisms of government towards that end.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[mosb1000]

Wow, this is the only post I've ever read on slashdot about fascism that isn't simply calling the opposing viewpoint fascism with little or no reason.

Fascism does have it's merits, in that it is more efficient than capitalism or communism. While it is good at building efficient economies, it doesn't have a very good human rights record at all.

I think it's reliance on strong leadership is it's main downfall. Leaders, no matter how strong, have their flaws.

"Not that I'm a fascist, I just read everything about them I could get out of my university library 'cause i didn't have tv."

The TV won't tell you much about the workings of fascism.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[colinrichardday]

Are you expecting the government to enforce those those contracts?

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[mosb1000]

Capitalism is not a philosophy, and does not set out a "highest human goal". I don't think I've ever even read the word "capitalist" before. I think you are referring to objectiveism, in which case you would still be wrong, but perhaps more right? Most of the people on this forum who advocate capitalism are actually libertarians, for whom human dignity and rights (including economic freedom) are a primary goal.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[rpillala]

The corporation, while being a person for some convenient purposes, is actually not one. As such, no moral imperative. Even though it's made up of people, the freedom from knowing you operate without a moral imperative makes life much easier for certain kinds of people. I'm not saying I think they should ignore individual rights. I'm saying they think that, and the culture supports it.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"The corporation, while being a person for some convenient purposes, is actually not one. As such, no moral imperative."

The moral requirement not to violate the rights of others doesn't disappear simply because a bunch of people have gotten together to work towards one common goal.

"I'm not saying I think they should ignore individual rights. I'm saying they think that, and the culture supports it."

And none of these beliefs make it a reality.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Don't know much history, do you?"

A pithy ad hominem unsupported by any rationale as evidence -- ignored. If you'd like to actually provide some evidence or rationale, let us know.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[DaedalusHKX]

Ironically, the government never has. The last time I knew someone silly enough to try to get the government to collect a debt, they got about 120 to 200 bucks a month on a debt of 300 grand. Would've probably taken a few years and the last payment, due to government inflation of money supply would have probably has no value compared to the materials and labor that the original 300k debt had bought. But then again, if government won't control people... what will? I mean, its not like you can teach your kids to accord respect so that they may be respected, or honor contracts and accords that they enter into, of their own free will, right? I mean, damn, schools don't teach people to be honest, they just teach kids not to get caught, since only those who get caught, get punished by "authorities" right?

Heh, irony is, poor parenting, and abdication of responsibilities has more to do with why our world is so "fucked up" than any amount of government coercion of schooling or anything else. If parents were willing to do their jobs, and if people lived up to their responsibilities, well damn... we'd have already colonized the damn solar system. But since the people have to be FORCED by outside forces (often religious fear or government thugs with weapons) to get along with their own families and neighbors, what can we expect of them except to continue to ask for more of the same.

I guess leading by example is the only thing to do. Hmmm... and since the examples will likely never be publicized in the government influenced medias, the masses would never find the examples unless they were out actively searching for them, in the past, and the present. And they'll never be on the front page. Of the only thing you can be sure, is that if something of actual concern is printed, it is always on the back pages of the paper when a huge scandal is breaking on the front page. That one, is actually something I've noted to be without fail. New OJ scandal, had a federal reserve policy change on the back pages. Britney's baby, Michael Jackson's kiddie scandals... yep, money policy + extra inflation on the back pages of my local "Daily Press" and "Times". No surprise. But until I knew to look, I didn't see that stuff either. Frankly, I just want to say I'm not mad at you man. More like disappointed that so many start to ask questions, but always hit some kind of invisible ceiling, instead of asking more and more questions and breaching all barriers in their path. THAT is what upsets me...

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is judicial activism. Unfortunately, you're missing the big picture. The government has no business whatsoever being involved in marriage, period. Yes, they deem marriage beneficial for social stability, yes, they give tax breaks--but at the core of it, it is a religious issue with "civil marriage" overloading the definition to provide a handy hack around the "wall of separation" created by the first amendment. By throwing the word "civil" in front of something, they somehow supposedly mask the fact that they've taken a ceremony with wholly religious meanings, and degraded it down to a societal benefit devoid of spirituality, and in essence usurped the role of the church with the town hall itself in order to recognize one of the oldest, possibly most sacred rituals in human existence.

The fact that the government was ever able to require a license for marriage, or pass laws providing special benefits to people who found a church to tie a knot/place a ring/make a pronouncement is the activism that should have been struck down to begin with centuries ago.

Courts should keep their grubby paws off of religion, religion should keep its grubby paws out of school, and people should be let well enough alone from the grubby paws of private, craven, corrupt government.

Re:Press the button labeled "Submit"

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the late President, Gerald Ford.

Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[sponglish]

Well if Glenn Greenwald said it, I agree with him. Glenn is always right and he's very smart and has LOADS of integrity. Yay Glenn!

Signed
Not a sock-puppet.

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's modded funny, but I don't get it.

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[sponglish]

Greenwald's got a rep for turgid prose and multiple personalities.

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[crashfrog]

Patterico has a rep for not knowing his head from his ass, and drawing completely unwarranted conclusions from ambiguous data when it tars a political opponent.

Zero credibility. I mean, the most damning evidence for sockpuppetry is that Greenwald didn't post on a thread at Ace of Spades.

Does that prove sockpuppetry? Or does that prove that nobody with any goddamned sense pays attention to what Ace of Spades has to say?

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[sponglish]

Thanks for backing up your assertions with corroborating links, crashfrog. [/sarcasm]

You don't consider several different people commenting on blogs in support of Greenwald while using his IP address and many of the same mannerisms to be "damning" or even suspicious?! Not to mention all the other evidence included in the article.

I can't believe you even read the article. Or... maybe...

Glenn, is that you?

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[crashfrog]

You don't consider several different people commenting on blogs in support of Greenwald while using his IP address and many of the same mannerisms to be "damning" or even suspicious?!

I don't know how you would detect a mannerism without being there in the room with the writer; maybe it's just that you don't know what the word "mannerism" actually means.

And I don't know how you would prove that any specific IP address belonged only to Glenn Greenwald and not to any other person or organization, in perpetuity.

But, I do know that Patterico is such a mouth-breathing moron that he can't tell the difference between a funny costume and child pornography.

Not to mention all the other evidence included in the article.

What evidence? Not posting in an Ace of Spades thread? That's evidence of sense, not of sock-puppetry.

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[sponglish]

A pedant, eh? Too bad for you.

Re:Glenn Greenwald is Da Man!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd find your points fascinating, if you weren't so obviously full of shit.

What right do they have to grant immunity?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?

It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[freedom_india]

You all talk here and you leave out streets and the congressmen.
I bet a month's salary (to be donated to ACLU) that the bill WILL pass.
Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.
Sitting on your collective asses will not achieve anything.
God save you guys from your president.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

They don't have the right. The constitution actually forbids it.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[cryptodan]

Our Constitution can be amended to allow it, which makes our Constitution somewhat retarded.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[ricebowl]

You all talk here and you leave out streets and the congressmen. I bet a month's salary (to be donated to ACLU) that the bill WILL pass. Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War. Sitting on your collective asses will not achieve anything. God save you guys from your president.

God save us from their president. If the government of any country is willing to oppress its own citizens in what regard do you think hold the rest of us? I don't know where you're from but over in Britain we've got our own human-rights-defying issues to worry about, the Swiss have theirs. Does your country have nothing to worry about from its government? If so could you tell me your nationality so I can seek citizenship?

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that.

A successful constitution amendment requires (1) 2/3rds majority in the house (2) and 2/3 majority in the senate (3) and ratification by 3/4 of all state legislatures (4) and the supreme court (4.a) has to interpret it as it was intended (4.b) and deem it more important than other parts of the constitution.

There is also the Constitutional Convention process, (1) that has never happened before and (2) the federal government can't initiate that process.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Jason Levine]

What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable.

Nine Eleven (crowd mumers in approval)

Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?

Nine... (audience gasps) ... Eleven! (audience roars in praise)

Oh, and Hitler is conspiring with the Legion of Doom to assassinate Jesus so toss me some money to stop them. Also, Darth Vader is trying to buy uranium from unwed teenagers.

(The "It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One" episode of Family Guy was on last night and it seemed appropriate.)

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Hyppy]

I called my congresswoman, and convinced my friends in nearby districts to contact their congressmen.

With less than 24 hours notice and a family to take care of, I think I did about as much as I reasonably can.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

All rights to individuals and companies are granted by the government. Which part of this is causing you trouble understanding?

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"All rights to individuals and companies are granted by the government."

And what exactly is the government made up of if not individuals? Bits of cold gravel?

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[FleaPlus]

They don't have the right. The constitution actually forbids it.

Are you sure about that? It seems that this might in a sense be effectively the same as a presidential pardon:

From Article II, section 2, of the US Constitution: "[the President]... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[lostokie]

You have that backwards. All rights to government are granted by the people. Or that's what that old musty document in DC says.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[freedom_india]

God save us from their president. Excellent choice of words.
My government repealed its anti-terror law, because, surprise, the communists think it violates citizen rights.
The press is not controlled by corporates and we do have periodical 'outbreaks' of various scams like money-for-parliment-vote, etc., which resulted in expulsion of MPs. In fact various news channels vie with each other for such break-through corruption, , scandals, etc. Each day i open my newspaper i read only bad news first: criticism of policies, the central bank, inflation and stuff. In fact a telecom spying scandal broke out and a minister was forced to resign. The good news is rarely reported.
I guess if the papers in a country are full of good news, then the jails of the country must be full of good people -:)

And the Supreme Court kicks the government's ass on various matters not to mention direct censuring and castration of the government-:)
BUT, now the bad things: Rule of law is very thin, and someone who pokes his nose too often disappears.

Even Swedes are up in arms against the government for spying on them shamelessly.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Bimo_Dude]

As someone posted above, from the constitution, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This means that the legislative branch cannot pass a retroactive law, either to provide immunity or to prosecute people. This bill is unconstitutional, but it will take a hell of a fight and a lot of money to get the supreme court to rule on it as such.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Dachannien]

This is a civil matter, though, not an offense. If my neighbor backs into my car, the President can pardon them for the ticket they get for running into me, but I still get to sue them to get recompensed for the damage to my car.

On a side note, I wish the earlier poster had elucidated us on what part of the Constitution he was referring to, instead of being cryptic about it. I'm not nearly familiar enough with Constitutional law to reach a conclusion on whether he's right or not.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[BoberFett]

Gravel would be preferable.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do. It is called Divine Right (of the King).

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Phroggy]

Rape is also a sin against God, in addition to being a sin against the victim. You need forgiveness from both.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[FleaPlus]

As someone posted above, from the constitution, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This means that the legislative branch cannot pass a retroactive law, either to provide immunity or to prosecute people. This bill is unconstitutional, but it will take a hell of a fight and a lot of money to get the supreme court to rule on it as such.

I'm fairly certain that the ex post facto clause only applies to laws which criminalize previously legal behavior. Would it be unconstitutional to pass a law which grants amnesty to illegal immigrants?

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[stinerman]

The SCOTUS has ruled that retroactive immunity isn't an ex post facto law.

You're welcome to continue believing that the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly, but there are only 9 opinions that matter when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Bimo_Dude]

I can not find any documentation that the SCOTUS has ruled about this issue at all. It is my belief that retroactive immunity is ex post facto. That belief may be incorrect, and if it is I'll happily admit it (and not spout about it any more ;).

All I could find when searching is a bunch of debates about the subject (most on /. of course), with a bunch of non-attorneys like me discussing it. If the SCOTUS has issued a ruling on this, does anybody have a link? I would like to read it.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[stinerman]

The best I can find is in Calder v. Bull:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

It's obviously not 1, 2, or 4. 3 requires the punishment be greater.

I've heard of other precedents but I can't find them either.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Bimo_Dude]

Thank you for that link; I couldn't even find that one. Based on that, it does look like ex post facto has a more limited definition than I originally thought. I shall stop spouting about ex post facto now.... :)

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Qzukk]

3 requires the punishment be greater.

3 was effectively struck down to make room for punishing sex offenders.

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Scudsucker]

Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.

People have, actually. But if there are massive protests and the media ignores them, did they really happen?

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.

It's great that they instilled those values in is, isn't it? Yep, our parents always taught us to fight back and to hold onto our liberties! I used to remember those exercises a lot when I was growing up.... oh wait...

Re:What right do they have to grant immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

?!

Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been writing and calling my Congressman, Elliot Engel, on this issue for months. Yesterday I received an email from his staff stating he was happy to tell me there was no telecom immunity as of the March FISA vote. Upset that this completely neglected to mention how he planned to vote on this bill today, I called his office. The staffer said she'd never heard of FISA or telecom immunity. I called a different office, and they said they didn't know where he stood on the issue but they'd be happy to call me back once he voted. Talk about a joke. This has really been eye-opening to me.

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[pkbarbiedoll]

This is why I am not motivated to make phone calls or write letters. I've received snail mail from congresstraitors saying they appreciated my support of a bill that I originally wrote to oppose. It's a freaking joke.

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[PONA-Boy]

I called, wrote, and emailed my Senators and my Representative about this when the previous FISA bill came up in February.

This new bill somehow managed to fly under the radar for a long time. Has anyone taken note of how this "suddenly" started getting reported on only as it is coming to the floor of the House? WTF?? The last go-round, there was a LOT of coverage of the bill for quite some time. This one, however, just springs up out of nowhere and passes like greased lightning. I smell a rat...*err* politician.

No sooner did I hear about the new FISA bill than I started canvassing my elected representatives again. I've attempted to make my voice heard in the House to no avail. My Representative (a Republican) can in no wise count on my support the next election cycle. Democrat, Republican, Anarchist...I don't care WHO challenges her for that seat, I'm voting for THEM. When my voice, my CHOSEN and ELECTED official, in Washington refuses to give my opinion a fair shake on things, I opt for very public and immediate change in personnel.

Now, we get to see what the Senate has to say. Should my elected voices in that wing of Congress fail to listen to their constituency, I'll mark them for humiliating defeat come next election day too. I am sick and fracking tired of living in a country where professional politicians in Washington sit on their oblivious asses and make policy that shovels me a little deeper into the muck. ...I swear, what a bunch of assclowns.

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[Phroggy]

I just sent Representative Hooley a quick note thanking her for voting against this bill. I had previously written to Senators Wyden and Smith about the issue of telecom immunity; Wyden's response was very encouraging. The letter I got from Smith didn't sound like he particularly understood the issue, but he's a Republican so that didn't surprise me.

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[dccase]

Your efforts paid off.
- He voted Yea.

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[Omestes]

It doesn't matter if you vote against them. They'll buy more air time thanks to the telecoms support. More air time, means they'll get elected no matter what (didn't you know our politicians are elected the same way that McDonalds and Coke are sold, with the same level of effectiveness)

With their air time, they'll say "terror" 400 times, mention those evil gays hoping to get married, perhaps say something about how abortionists and stem-cell researchers are going to break into our childrens room, and kill them (if the gays don't get their first). Then they'll wave an American flag. They're as good as elected, at this point.

American voters are, to a large part, absolute morons.

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats. Engel voted Yea. So that would probably mean what? Either he wasn't told there was actual telecom immunity in there, or that he lied to you? (happily at that.)

Re:Stunning ignorance from my Rep

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been writing and calling my Congressman, Elliot Engel, on this issue for months. Yesterday I received an email from his staff stating he was happy to tell me there was no telecom immunity as of the March FISA vote. Upset that this completely neglected to mention how he planned to vote on this bill today, I called his office. The staffer said she'd never heard of FISA or telecom immunity. I called a different office, and they said they didn't know where he stood on the issue but they'd be happy to call me back once he voted. Talk about a joke. This has really been eye-opening to me.

This is typical of Eliot Engel. I had voters call his office about another issue. Even after some 100 voters called, the people at his office acted as if they hadn't heard of the issue. There is no politician in Washington, DC as disingenuous as Engel.

"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Government"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Section 802(a) provides:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . .

(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

• 
  (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was
  • (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and
    (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

  (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was

  • (i) authorized by the President; and
    (ii) determined to be lawful.

The rest of this Orwellian missive is available as a PDF file.

Reminds me of..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi Germany.

Maybe just a little.

Game over man, game over!

[the_macman]

Done and done. The house just voted to pass the bill. Kiss telco prosecution goodbye, kiss accountability goodbye, kiss your civil liberties goodybye.

I was watching it live on CSPAN, pretty disgusting. Just remember who voted for this when elections come up.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Guppy06]

"Just remember who voted for this when elections come up."

We're talking about Congress here. They have a better chance of dying of old age and/or indicted than of being voted out of office.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Anonymous Coward]

One more reason to leave the country. America has a lot going for it but it's getting less and less as time goes on.

I know two people who left the US of A for brighter pastures.

One's happy, married and now has 3 kids and the other is on his way to becoming a millionaire.

If the founding principles of this nation are being subverted into a big daddy state, it just might be time to check what else is out there.

So as a summary, I'm pretty bullshit on this immunity AND I work for a telco.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[danzona]

We're talking about Congress here. They have a better chance of dying of old age and/or indicted than of being voted out of office.

Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Guppy06]

"Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch."

Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[KevinKnSC]

This is a vote in the House of Representatives. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago. For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[dubl-u]

Just remember who voted for this when elections come up. Absolutely! I already put money into the Strange Bedfellows coalition budget. We already have $250k to go after the people behind this. Please donate!

I think the first order of business is just to make sure the people who elect these buffoons know that they were sold out by their elected reps. Put personally, I hope there's enough left to help fund primary-election opponents for these authoritarian yutzes.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Guppy06]

"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."

On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.

"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."

If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?

Re:Game over man, game over!

[mazarin5]

Grandparent:

Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch. Parent:

Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote. You:

This is a vote in the House of Representatives. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate Reading is for winners.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Nimey]

It will go to the Senate soon enough, and it's expected to pass. I hope Dodd will filibuster again and that the powers that be won't have enough votes to shut him up.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Anonymous Coward]

What you mean is:

John McCain voted FOR this travesty.
Barack Obama was TOO BUSY and didn't vote.

So basically, they both voted for it.

FISA Senate Vote Record

Re:Game over man, game over!

[peter_gzowski]

Here's the vote.

My rep voted against it. Does this mean I now have to be proud of Patrick Kennedy? The other rep in RI (Jim Langevin) voted yes, though. I guess it's time for me to call Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed!

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Obama opposes telecom immunity, why didn't he vote Nay on S. 2248?

Re:Game over man, game over!

[jo42]

Won't do much good, but I want to peck it out on my keyboard anyway:

"Heil The Bushtard!"

Re:Game over man, game over!

[stinerman]

Daily Kos has a statement from Obama that he supports the capitulation^Wcompromise bill.

Will a Mr. Nader please answer the white courtesy phone? Mr. Nader to the white courtesy phone, please.

(feel free to exchange "Mr. Nader" with any minor party/independent candidate you feel most comfortable with)

Re:Game over man, game over!

[monxrtr]

Too bad it won't hold up in Appeals Court. Telecommunications companies will still be sued, and politicians will have burned political capital for no reason. If every individual telecommunications company customer were to file a pro se civil suit against them, it would end up costing them billions. Learn from the RIAA tactics, and use the strategy to drown opponents in the courts. You gotta get paid too.

This is why we need legal lawsuit template web sites, with videos, procedures, motions, and explanations cataloged according to type: RIAA defense, Telecom Civil, Class Action Negligence (for firms that gouge the class with attorneys' fees and reap the giant percentage of the award), etc.

Just filing the lawsuit in the proper court is going to have a 1:100 dollar attrition war advantage, as it costs them lawyer time, expense of flying to the court, staying in a hotel, making their motion to dismiss, etc. One hundred million people filing lawsuits should cost the Telecom Industry $100 billion MINIMUM. 'Course they would then try to defend the suits as a class, and everyone could file more motions upping the expenses.

Turn the Ron Paul political campaign donation model into the pro se civil law suit model, and now you're talking serious political power. Let's form a publicly traded NASDAQ Law Troll Firm to do the paperwork cheaply.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[wonkavader]

Obama came out (today) for this bill.

He's for telecom immunity, if it means avoid snitty zingers from the Republicans about Fisa. Whatever's convenient.

It would really be nice if I could now say "he just lost my vote."

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Guppy06]

Actually, it's far more confusing. Dodd introduced a specific amendment removing the immunity from S.2248, known as S.Amdt 3907. As you can see here, Obama showed up to vote for the amendment (i.e. against immunity), while McCain voted against (i.e. for immunity).

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama opposes it? What did he actually vote? Because you know, saying "I oppose" and then abstain instead saying NO, that's a joke.

Re:Game over man, game over!

[Prune]

What are "snitty zingers"?

Lets fund some primary challengers

[maynard]

On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.

I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.

Re:Lets fund some primary challengers

[Nimey]

Bond's one of my senators. I'm proud to say that I never voted for him.

Re:Lets fund some primary challengers

[Amisinthe]

The thing is, you're preaching to the choir here. You want a rep out of office? You have to go out and convince 75 year old Nanny McSleepytime that this is a big deal and worth changing who she votes over. But she won't agree. To her this is NOT a big deal and you are a belligerent pest for bothering her with it.

The part of America who puts these people in office does not care about the constitution any more than the representatives they're voting on. They want to be lied to and placated. Shoving the truth in their face will get you a swift "GTFO" and won't change their minds one bit.

Sad, but true.

Re:Lets fund some primary challengers

[The Warlock]

Don't forget Paul (R-TX), who abstained so he wouldn't stick out from his party line.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml#NV

One Republican voted against. ONE. What the hell?

Re:Lets fund some primary challengers

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to go out and convince 75 year old Nanny McSleepytime that this is a big deal and worth changing who she votes over. But she won't agree. To her this is NOT a big deal and you are a belligerent pest for bothering her with it.

Funny, my 85 year-old great uncle, who fought in WWII for freedom and to turn back the tide of fascism, is really angry about the idea of giving the telecoms immunity for lawbreaking.

But 25-year Rufus McBeercan who works down t' the fillin' station in Buttstump Arkansas just lights another Lucky, takes a swig from his can, scratches his privates and says "whutz on tay-vay tonite?". And 40 year-old wall street broker Billy "Big Bux" Cheatem says "I knew the fix was in. Glad I held on to all those telco shares".

Yup, you're definitely right in blaming old people for this farce.

Hope you die before you get old.

Re:Lets fund some primary challengers

[Froboz23]

Very true Amisinthe. The only way you could make your message sink in with most of the American voting populous is if you could present your ideas on American Idol with songs about specific political issues such as this. Of course, it would have to have a catchy beat with some nice guitar riffs and sweet dance moves if you really wanted to influence peoples' opinions on this matter. Wearing something shiny would probably help too.

Sad indeed.

Re:Lets fund some primary challengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one party has lost their way and half of the other one has:

What "bipartisanship" in Washington means

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/

My CAPTCHA for this post was "coronary". How appropriate!

Judicial Review

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judiciary can still just throw the law out as unconstitutional, which they hopefully will do if it passes.

Welcome to the USSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...sad day indeed...the USA has died, and the USSA has been born.

The reason the wall was torn down had nothing to do with the communist giving up...they had won, but we didn't know it until now.

Click your heels together and thrust out your flat hand and scream "Heil Bush!"

Good Luck with that

[Phrogman]

As a Canadian, I have come to expect the worst from the US Government in most cases, and in most cases it has failed to disappoint. I sincerely hope your representatives listen and this bill is defeated, but I expect it will pass with flying colours. After all the US has "the best government money can buy" :P

Whatever happens down there south of the border, we can expect the Tories to enact similar legislation up here sooner or later. Finlandization is well underway, sadly...

these telcom execs should be JAILED

[justdrew]

they are lawbreakers. our president is guilty of high crimes and TREASON. impeach, jail for life.

tar and feather the sob's

[Spacepup]

Since both presidential candidates are in congress, they way that they vote on this bill should be the tipping point for anyone on the fence between the two. Unless of course they both vote for this, then they should both be tarred and feathered.

Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[oodaloop]

Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office. Um...tar and feathering is lethal. Not that I'm against it. Just saying.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[zappepcs]

Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office. Hazing, as such, is generally seen as bad, not legal, and one of those things you are not supposed to do but in this case, I agree.

I think starting their term with 30 days in county jail, and a required 30 days service year in any of the lower ranked civil service jobs available in any district. Yes, that was 6 work weeks. It might help them stay just a little more humble and in tune with the people that they are representing. If you have to eat your PB&J with joey who has three kids and a mortgage, and the secretary that can't afford a car, I'm willing to bet you remember it.

Sure they can do it, we have plenty of police and secret service to guard those who need it. No, they are NOT too busy to do this as it is directly related to the job they were voted in to do. when they are too busy to meet with the public they represent, they are too busy to be in office... recall vote etc. is then required.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[oodaloop]

OK, let me be the first to correct myself. SOME forms of tar and feathering are lethal, while others merely severely burned. I read recently how the dipping or covering in boiling tar killed most people, however wikipedia lists far more variants than with which I was previously familiar.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[nurb432]

can be. Isn't always lethal.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[nurb432]

Sounds like anti-American terrorist talk to me, attempting to incite/support violence against a standing congressman.

Please come with us, we have a few questions for you.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[orielbean]

they will probably both vote for it to not be tarred and feathered for being weak on terror/security theatre.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[Hyppy]

Neither is rabies. Only 99.x%.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[SirLurksAlot]

Since both presidential candidates are in congress, they way that they vote on this bill should be the tipping point for anyone on the fence between the two.

You're working under the assumption that people actually care about this issue enough to make a decision one way or another based on how the Senate vote goes down. Unfortunately outside of the tech and privacy advocacy circles (which tend to overlap) there are a lot of folks that this is a non-issue for. There are many people who are more than willing to say "I don't have anything to hide, so if this protects me from the terrorists then so be it." They will bury their head in the sand while their rights are steadily eroded.

You're also making the assumption that both candidates will vote on the issue. There is a trend that politicians will abstain from voting on sensitive issues during election years, though I can't see Obama doing this and I'm not sure what McCain's record looks like in this regard.

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[taupin]

Ummm... this is a _House_ bill. McCain and Obama are both in the _Senate_. They've already voted (McCain for, Obama against)

Re:tar and feather the sob's

[PONA-Boy]

I've got a pretty good idea...before you enter public office in Washington, you should spend a week working in a Waffle House.

You will meet people from every walk of life in a Waffle House, and hear their stories. Having the Honourable Senator Oblivious bussing tables, taking orders, and burning toast in a Waffle House might just give them a taste of what it is like to live like the average American citizen.

I Expect

[VacaN]

The Democrats to sit on their hands.

Btw, I live in Georgia

[pkbarbiedoll]

The representative is a member of the Republic party.

Re:Btw, I live in Georgia

[pthor1231]

http://broun.house.gov/

Look at his page on the house website. What would you expect from an old white republican who routinely visit UGA, is avidly pro-life, speaks out against same sex marriages in CA, and a gun toter? If your brain doesn't SCREAM good 'ole boy after looking at that site for about 5 seconds, then I don't know what else to say.

IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"If the PRESIDENT does it!"

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Bimo_Dude]

That's one of the main points of the bill. The weird thing is that this morning, there was an editorial in the Washington Post indicating that the newspaper supports the bill.

It was my hope that the article would be posted in time for people to contact their representatives, but also, the scumbags passed the bill at just about the same time that this article made the front page of /.. The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

WaPo is more Psyop garbage. Like reading PRAVDA in 1976.

How do you "compromise" to allow violations of 4th amendment protection?

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[KevinKnSC]

The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though. It's up now: Roll Call 437

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Bimo_Dude]

The only compromise I see here is that the legislators are so willing to compromise the rights of the citizens. The house approved this as a payoff to Bush for not vetoing their war spending bill. What a freakin compromise! They just said, "Hey! Don't veto the war funding that you requested, and we'll be happy to tear up the fourth amendment, too!"

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[hedwards]

That's what I've been trying to figure out. What the telcos were doing was illegal when they did it. Granting immunity, on the hopes that they'll know it's illegal and behave better next time is asinine.

They were well aware that they weren't being provided appropriate paperwork the last time otherwise, they'd be itching to have their day in court. Letting them off the hook for what was obviously illegal is hardly teaching them a lesson for the future.

Really, what ought to happen is the people at the top making the decision to comply with the illegal orders should go to prison.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Bimo_Dude]

Thank you! I'm pleased to see that at least my rep voted against it! No surprise there though, because his DC office's voicemail was already full when I tried to call at about 8:00 AM.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They cop a cool check, every time they exercise CALEA related operations.

They broke the law, on illegal orders from the Exec - and they get to keep the dough.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[protein folder]

interesting, ron paul didn't vote on this one...I would have figured he'd be against it...

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Anonymous Coward]

newsflash: Ron Paul is a politician, just like the rest of them.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[dave562]

If you're so inclined to go http://www.house.gov/ and use the applet in the upper left hand corner to find your representative. Let them know how you feel about their vote. I told guy who picked up the phone at the office of the bastard who represents the 46th Congressional district that I'm exceptionally disappointed in his support of a blatant violation of my 4th amendment rights. I told him that everyone in that office should be ashamed for supporting such an unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[The Moof]

The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though. They'll never post it. It's a matter of national security against terrorists!

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[GuyverDH]

In the military, we are given a class during basic training on how to respond to superiors who give illegal orders.

Examples are given of what constitutes and illegal order, and what the proper phrasing of the response should be. Granted, you will probably end up at some kind of punitive action review, if not full court-martial for disobeying or refusing to obey a superior officer, yet, you have your out. However, if enough evidence or witnesses are available to show that the order that was given was in fact illegal, then the superior who gave said order is brought up on charges. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

Now, if all the telcos that did this activity, were to show that they were authorized or requested by the president to do this illegal activity then wouldn't that potentially be fuel for the fire to have criminal charges brought against the President? ie - add to the charges of impeachment?

Regardless of his reasoning, committing an illegal act is still committing an illegal act, and 9/11 did not change the constitution.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm glad to see that my rep (Mike Honda) voted against this crap. Shame that 108 democracts voted for this travesty.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[dkleinsc]

I was surprised by that one too. But at least my congresscritter (Kucinich) voted the correct way on this one.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Dog-Cow]

No. The people giving the orders should be water-boarded to death. On CNN.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[zullnero]

Yep, what it only does is to create an interesting situation where the President, whom is presumably a representative of the people, is held above the laws that the people he represents has to follow. So...which goes first, the notion of being a Republic and not just a dictatorship, or the laws we all have to follow?

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[pugugly]

No surprise for me sadly - Steve Buyer is a pretty much useless piece of shit. He voted against protecting the detainee's from torture too.

For myself - I voted for Obama in the Indiana Primary, and I will vote Democratic in the general. But I had Obama set up for five bucks a week in my banks autopay system, and I'm switching that over to http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa now, and I've emailed the Obama campaign and told them exactly why.

I don't want these bastard showing up in thirty years and trying to do this again. They came close in the 70's, they're coming closer this time around, and frankly, if we get their asses out of the Whitehouse, I'm damned if I want them doing this again to my kids and grandkids in another 30 years.

I want these investigations to go forward dammit.

Pug

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[sgt_doom]

From reading almost everything out there on this subject - the best item to date is the legal deposition filed by the expert witness on behalf of the EFF (F. Scott Marcus) which is indicative of a substantially large Narus box network at AT&T and other telecoms. (Most probably extant in at least 20 cities throughout America.

This provides the Bush Crime Family with an awesome capacity to spy on everyone for both financial intelligence and political intelligence and election-rigging (along with the existing TIA: over 70 government contractors performing domestic surveillance together with the NSA and NGA elements).

Of course, MAIN CORE (that database composed of over 8 million American "domestic terrorists" -i.e., citizens who have written or worked against the BushCo criminal activities...) is a subelement of this network.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Its time for everyone to turn on IPSec on their computers and servers even if it is just anonymous mode.

The NSA might have the capability to convert all spoken phone conversations to text and mine them for evidence of "insubordination".

It may even have the capability to collect every drop of US or even World wide Internet traffic.

Lets just flat out give them the credit they deserve and assume the above is in fact true and occuring.

If everyone ran IPSec in main + anonymous mode.. The NSA might be able to launch an active MITM against specific targets to gain access to the IPSEC keying material however they most certainly do not have anywhere near the technology or capacity to do this on an Internet scale.

If they or our ISPs want to listen in our our electronic communication lets make sure they are listening to static.

Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

[packeteer]

They dont need to actually hide it. Nobody checks this stuff anyway. Sure mod me down however you want, i dont intend to be funny or ironic. Honestly im just depressed about this stuff.

What will Obama do ?

[mbone]

As the new de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and as a Senator, Barack Obama could stop this with a word. What will he say ? Will he stand up for liberty ? Or betray it before he even gets elected ?

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

He stands for nothing. He will auto-fellate, if that's what you mean. Doing so is how he justifies the bending-over.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[jellie]

He made a statement against retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies in an earlier FISA bill.

On the other hand, McCain seems to grow closer to Bush every day.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't help that McCain is pushing this.

Obama has voted against it in the past. I just hope he'll find a way to kill it.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[amplusquem]

The Senate voted earlier, NY Times story here. It passed 68-29.

Obama voted AGAINST it (McCain voted for it).

Re:What will Obama do ?

[freedom_india]

Or betray it before he even gets elected ? Ya, that bastard already betrayed you.
Somehow i think McCain is a better candidate than Obama: Straight-shooter, doesn't lie, and is experienced.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[mbone]

Different bill. There will be a Senate vote on this (unless it gets Filibustered).

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Anonymous Coward]

and voted in favor of telecom immunity.

"straight shooter". right.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Anonymous Coward]

With a word? Is he a senator or a god? Interesting how willing you are to coalesce so much power with one person for the sake of protecting your rights.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[mbone]

No, it's just that as a practical matter he could stop it. If someone was drowning in a river, and the Senator was standing by with a rope and life preserver, it is not attributing him the powers of the deity to ask him to throw the life preserver to the victim, or to be critical of him if he doesn't do it.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the letter of the law, whoever is elected isn't required to invoke executive privilege just because the prior President did.

If the ACLU waits until there's a new President in charge and brings it up then, there's a much better chance of getting justice.

As much of a supporter as I am of keeping this sort of filth out of the legal system, the SCOTUS hasn't been too amused lately with Executive branch interference with it's domain.

Or in other words, it's questionable whether or not this will really result in immunity for the telcos. It could be overturned when the courts take back their constitutional powers, or it could be set aside when the new President wants to send a message that they're not in agreement with an unpopular President's agenda.

Admittedly, it's pretty far fetched that McCain will do so, but he flip flops so much, it's hard to say what he'll actually do if elected.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Anonymous Coward]

the SCOTUS hasn't been too amused lately with Executive branch interference with it's domain.

You mean the SCOTUS that's been packed with fundementalist conservatives who believe in unitary executive theory? Something tells me they will support this pre-Watergate view of the executive for decades to come...

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Scudsucker]

Somehow i think McCain is a better candidate than Obama

So rather than vote for the pussy (who will at least vote against immunity) you'll vote for the candidate that supports immunity AND torture. Perfect fucking sense.

Straight-shooter

Straight bullshitter, you mean.

doesn't lie

McCain lies all the time. He lied about the confederate flag. He lied about Petraus using unarmored Humvees. He lied about canceling a fundraiser with the rape jokester. He lied about not knowing much about the economy.

and is experienced

Not on economics he isn't. Said so himself. Not on foreign policy, as he keeps mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, and thinks Iran (Shiite) is training Al Queda (Sunni).

The only thing McCain is experienced at is bullshitting the press and selling himself out to lobbyists and fund raisers. His campaign is run by the former, and try Googling Donald Diamond for the latter.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[freedom_india]

That WAS meant to be sarcastic.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whew! Good thing too. There's no way I could support a candidate who would vote in favor of this vile, traitorous bill!

Oh wait, Obama announced that he will vote for it.

Never mind, I just realized that the bill is not actually so vile and traitorous... it's more cute and fluffy, really.

Re:What will Obama do ?

[Scudsucker]

That WAS meant to be sarcastic.

WHOOSH! There are so many kool aid drinkers here that that it's hard to tell anymore. :) One of em's even an an editor here.

When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorists"

[WillAffleckUW]

It's going to be fun using the lack of warrants to trick them into long stays in GITMO for some 24/7 waterboarding without trial ...

(don't think we won't do it)

Boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people have been on their soap boxes for a while now, and nothing is changing.

We'll be using the ballot boxes in a few months, and the two major choices will change nothing.

Looks like it's time to start stocking up on ammo boxes.

Info not mentioned by blurb or articles

[Guppy06]

H.R. 6304

Re:Info not mentioned by blurb or articles

[dubl-u]

H.R. 6304 Anybody know the Senate version of this?

My rep didn't listen. Perhaps my senators will listen a little better, but I want to be as clear as possible.

Re:Info not mentioned by blurb or articles

[Guppy06]

Bills don't change number between houses, so you can tell your senator to vote against H.R. 6304.

Re:Info not mentioned by blurb or articles

[Bimo_Dude]

Oops! Sorry about that. I meant to include it in the summary. Thanks for putting the bill number out there.

Vote is over

[Anonymous Coward]

25

No we will be protected from Domestic Terrorists..

[KozmoKramer]

But who is going to protect us from Big Brother?

You Deserve It

[geggam]

You gave up your weapons to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You gave up your rights to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You feel safe because you abdicated your responsibility to ensure the govt did not run over the people.
Look ! Its American Idol. You can quit reading now.
You are safe.

Re:You Deserve It

[waa]

Look ! Its American Idol. You can quit reading now.
You are safe.

Exactly. But I have coined the term "American IDLE" since it seems to be more appropriate description.

Final vote in the House

[Goobergunch]

YEA 293
NAY 129

The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Christ! Since when can Congress vote away accountabilty?

The only excuse for passing this is that a criminal trial was upcoming to punish the guilty Government officals rather than their boot-licking lackies. I guess that would only happen in the America of my grandparents. I am disgusted.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Lawrence_Bird]

To all those who bashed the 'evil' republicans the past 10 years... will you now bash the 'evil' democrats with equal fervor? And its not just FISA... check out H . CON . RES . 362

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;

And yet they claim nothing in the resolution "shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran." Nah.. Naval blockcades aren't a use of force nor an act of war. Obama = McCain = the same crock of shit

Re:Final vote in the House

[Colonel Korn]

I'm rather frightened at the bipartisan support this sort of thing gets.

Re:Final vote in the House

[goathens]

I called my representative and his clerk assured me he would reject the bill. The role states that he supported it. Is it bad form to call his clerk back and inform him he's on my s**t list and I'll be voting for whoever isn't him next time?

Re:Final vote in the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Just something interesting to notice.

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

Re:Final vote in the House

[Amisinthe]

If you check the votes, it's hardly supported by both parties. The dems alone had more nays than yeas. The republicans had almost unanimous support however. Yes, it's possible the dems could have had many more nays, but you can still form some opinions based on these results.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Metasquares]

Because anyone who voted against this bill can be accused of supporting terrorism or some such nonsense.

Re:Final vote in the House

[mazarin5]

I'm continually surprised and pleased to see how well my representative stands up for justice and liberty, even if it is a Sisyphean task.

Re:Final vote in the House

[halfEvilTech]

YEA 293 NAY 129 The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it. Final Tally Republicans: Yea 188 Nay 1 Democrats Yea 105 Nay 128 At least a majority of the Dem's had a spine but it wasn't enough for the roughly 40-45% of them that did not.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Abcd1234]

No, that's a really *really* good idea, actually. And I'd advise you to tell the people you know about the stunt he/she pulled.

Re:Final vote in the House

[muffdiver]

Nancy Pelosi voted FOR it?! Of all people. My god, we've got to get that spineless woman out of there.

Re:Final vote in the House

[NiceGeek]

Interesting that Ron Paul didn't bother to vote.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Enoxice]

Sadly, it passed. Happily, every single rep from my state (MA) voted nay.

Re:Final vote in the House

[freedom_india]

No. Anyone who votes against this bill is made sure that he never receives campaign funds from telecoms.

Re:Final vote in the House

[bmetzler]

Yes! Yes! Yes! Finally something we agree on!

Re:Final vote in the House

[The Warlock]

To all those who bashed the 'evil' republicans the past 10 years... will you now bash the 'evil' democrats with equal fervor?

Well, I'm looking at the roll call here, and I'm seeing 105 Yea to 128 Nay for the Dems and 188 Yea to 1 (one) Nay for the Repubs.

So, um. No, I don't think "equal fervor" is called for here. For one party, less than half of them supported this bullshit, and for another party, 99.5% of them did.

(no, the one Nay vote is not Ron Paul.)

Anyway, here's the list so you know who to vote against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml#NV

Re:Final vote in the House

[Akita24]

At least (about) 50% of those f'ing democrats voted against it. That's a shitpot more than the f'ing republicans who voted against it (1 and a handful of chickenshits who didn't vote).

Re:Final vote in the House

[Colonel Korn]

If you check the votes, it's hardly supported by both parties. The dems alone had more nays than yeas. The republicans had almost unanimous support however.

Yes, it's possible the dems could have had many more nays, but you can still form some opinions based on these results.

The votes weren't listed online when I made my comment, but I suspected that the votes would fall the way you describe. Still, a very sizable, though not majority, portion of the democratic party voted for this, which is a lot more evil than I'd like to see in the second most evil party.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos goes out to Johnson (IL), the only republican to vote no on this.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Bimo_Dude]

muffdiver (73683) said:

My god, we've got to get that spineless woman out of there

As funny as that is, I'm still inclined to agree quite strongly. I thought that exact thing as soon as she said that impeachment is off the table.

Re:Final vote in the House

[sleigher]

You are so correct! Maybe this is the thing we need for people to truly open their eyes and see there is nearly 0 difference in the two. All of you /. people with your "soap, ballot, jury, ammo.... use in this order" sigs, which box are on now? I know what box I think we should be on. Which brings us to the underlying problem. I don't find it important enough to disrupt "my" life. Until people in America start to look beyond themselves we will never be beyond these issues.

Re:Final vote in the House

[statemachine]

Apparently you flunked math. 105 Democrats and 188 Republicans voted "Yea." In what world is 105 greater than 188? Also, that's less than 50% of D and 99% of R.

You want to know what's scarier? The Republicans' votes were party-line. If there were a few scores of defectors on the R side, then I'd say there was some careful consideration there. But with only 1 defector, you can't tell me they all actually represented the will of the people in their districts.

Although I may not like it, I believe that only a Senator is allowed to go against her constituents' wishes. A representative not representing his district should be fired -- D, R, or whatever affiliation.

Re:Final vote in the House

[statemachine]

I'm sure using the words "s**t list" would not go over well if you call them back. Just ask for a reason why he voted opposite of what you were told. Don't be surprised if you get a denial or some other answer you don't like.

Who is this Congressman whose staff isn't kept aware of his decisions?

Re:Final vote in the House

[debatem1]

Who was it, if you don't mind my asking?

Re:Final vote in the House

[Anonymous Coward]

If I admitted what box I was on I would get a visit from the FBI tonight. I believe in the constitution and the values and ideals our country was founded on. I also firmly believe in defending that document against all threats, foreign and domestic. I will defend it with my life if need be. While I'm bragging I'd also like to say that I have never seen an episode of American Idol.

Re:Final vote in the House

[goathens]

Charles Wilson, Ohio 6th district. Upon callback, I was assured that the congressman "doesn't support amnesty." The situation was similar to what an earlier post said about their congress critter: They don't consider this bill amnesty because it doesn't say "amnesty" in the bill. I suppose it's partially my fault for not stating that I was in opposition to the bill itself. I started trying to fully explain how the bill builds the dead-obvious loophole "but the government said it was for terrorism," and I was quickly told that the clerk I was talking to didn't specialize in the details of security/defense issues; but she'd have someone who knew the details call me back about it later. My plan is to write a letter explaining my position on the bill, quote the parts I don't like, and inform Wilson he's not getting my vote in november because he's either voluntarily supporting telecoms/ warantless wiretaps, or too incompetent to keep from voting for bills that run contrary to his stated agenda. Since I think this is going to the senate next week, I'll probably copy this letter to both of my senators while I'm at it.

Re:Final vote in the House

[sleigher]

EDIT:

The line should have read: "I don't find it important enough to disrupt "my" life."

For the record, I do.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Lawrence_Bird]

The Dems (and you) talk a good game... and forget to play. If the Dems were serious about stopping the abuses they would have been 232-1 NAY. But they were not. Oh and by the way... no piece of legislation moves through the House without the approval of who.... oh the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.

Re:Final vote in the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently YOU flunked reading, as that is what the poster said: 105 yea to 128 nay is, in fact, over 50% of the Dems voting AGAINST it. You seem to be getting "yea" and "nay" confused.

Re:Final vote in the House

[statemachine]

That's what AT&T and the NSA would have you think!

The bill has passed

[Squerb]

Great :(

Re:The bill has passed

[roguetrick]

Very easily passed. Sad freakin' day. Call your senators and tell them to not vote for it.

MOD PARENT

[dark whole]

+1 Godwin

Re:MOD PARENT

[dark whole]

I phail, that is to the AC above me.

Um, yes...

[Joce640k]

The US (and other) gov. has been endorsing and even encouraging this for years. Look at Echelon, Carnivore, etc., etc.

nixon is not dead

[TheGratefulNet]

he's alive and well. in spirit, at least.

didn't FISA come from nixon era wiretapping?

so all the 'progress' we made since the nixon days has been overturned.

so, would that make bush the 'new nixon'?

Re:nixon is not dead

[crazytisay]

I'll take Nixon over Bush anyday. At least when Nixon spoke, you could tell there was somebody home.

Re:nixon is not dead

[mbone]

W is worse than Nixon, by a good measure.

Re:nixon is not dead

[stinerman]

Not to mention that Nixon was objectively to the left of today's average Democrat. He imposed rationing on gasoline for fuck's sake! Not even Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Boxer have put a bill in the hopper for that.

Re:nixon is not dead

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Ask the man who was there. Nixon's White House counsel says the current situation is worse than Watergate.

Re:nixon is not dead

[TheGratefulNet]

thanks for the link! I may just read that. (then again, do I really need to be any more upset than I already am at my current president?)

Who will protect us from Big Brother?

[KozmoKramer]

Who will protect us from Big Brother? My advice is to go out and report EVERYONE as a "TERRORIST". Your neighbor, the banker, the high school principal. They will eventually run out of funding while they chase down all of the worthless leads.

Re:Who will protect us from Big Brother?

[corsec67]

They will eventually run out of funding while they chase down all of the worthless leads.

Too bad they would be spending the money the took from me while doing that.

Re:Who will protect us from Big Brother?

[crazytisay]

What's funny, or rather not so funny, about your post, is that is *exactly* what we used to do. Neighbors reporting other neighbors for being Communists, leftists, etc. You know what happened to them? Interrogations, blacklisting, intimidation, arrests, detainment, you name it we did it, all in the name of democracy and freedom. So you know what, even as a joke, no thank you. Spend your time more wisely, call your Reps and your Senators and let them know how you feel.

Or better yet, educate yourself, educate those around you, and maybe we can get a social revolution going. Because if our system is truly broken, and we can't change these policies through our elected representatives or massive public outcry, the only other options are complacency or revolution.

Re:Who will protect us from Big Brother?

[KozmoKramer]

You sound like a terrarist to me fella.... ;)

Which telecoms

[partypants69]

Which telecom companies were involved with the spying? Anyone who uses them should cancel their service.

Re:Which telecoms

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them except Qwest complied with the government's requests.

Re:Which telecoms

[Drathos]

Cancel their service and go where?

To make matters worse, you don't even have to have that company as your provider. Odds are that when you make a call to someone, your call is still going through one of the companies that complied with Dubya.

Should we really expect any less??

[crazytisay]

This type of encroachment on civil liberties was commonplace during the Red Scare and through the Vietnam era. There was backlash, some high profile scandals, and we got the FISA. 9/11 was the impetus for changing the balance of power back to the state. Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the government has been steadily grabbing at more (unconstitutional) powers to surveille its citizens. Hopefully there will be public backlash, but the power structure of the country is quite a bit different from previous eras. I would argue the US is more corporatist than in any previous era, and now we're fighting on two fronts. Hence the telco immunity provisions. Corporations and the state are getting a bit too cozy for my taste, and capitalism be damned, I don't want to end up in a facsist state.

Re:Should we really expect any less??

[plasmacutter]

hopefully, I call 280 thousand dollars dedicated to hoyer's challengers in less than a week (and climbing by 500 to 1000 bucks a minute) public backlash.

Re:Should we really expect any less??

[crazytisay]

Well the public may be motivated to give what they consider to be a lot of money to fund the challengers. Don't forget that the entrenched interests here, in this case the government and the Telcos, have deeper pockets than a couple hundred thousand dollars. It's a good start, but trying to out donate the competition, when the competition has combined yearly revenues in the billions of dollars, isn't the best strategy.

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if there's maybe a loophole in there. The acts have to have been "determined to be legal". Now, that's not the same as "arguably" legal, is it? And that's not the same as "legal, but only if you use a ridiculous notion that the president can do anything, so nothing is illegal for him to request".

Bush has said the actions were definitely legal, and this immunity is for civil lawsuits. Well, what I suspect is that Bush can dispense with any illegality by use of the pardon power. He can pardon himself and his whole administration, and any of their friends. I believe the pardon power is pretty absolute ("except in matters of impeachment," thank-you Nancy Pelosi for taking it off the table! Since there are so many civil suits, they had to be taken care of too, hence this bill. (Would the fact that Dennis Kucinich read 35 articles of impeachment into the Congressional Record be enough to void the pardon power? Well, maybe if the court was outraged enough.

If the broad pardon-everyone-for-everything scenario really comes true, I think we'll have nothing left to prosecute with. It would be the ultimate in loyalty payback, wouldn't it?

Other nations, stay tuned -- you may be needed for an International Tribunal.

Upshot of immunity

[nuzak]

Now they can be subpoenaed as a material witness against the Executive, and they'll enjoy far less protections against their having to produce evidence. No fifth amendment protections for one, since it couldn't incriminate them.

Not that this will actually happen, but it's a nice fantasy.

Re:Upshot of immunity

[scifiber_phil]

Well put. This is something I did not consider. My congressman voted for this, and now I will demand the telcos testify at hearings, or congressman doesn't get my vote. I am to the point of voting every elected official I can out of office who does not consider the reaffirming of our constitutional rights to be job one. And by the way, I can't respect any government that condones torture for any reason.

What Congress Giveth, Congress Taketh Away

[grocer]

It is possible that the Democrats will sweep into Congress as well as the White House in Nov. and purge the influence of Bush and his legacy from the hallowed halls of Washington...although not particularly likely considering Obama is merely a tool of the Chicago political machine and the democratic leadership... What this really means is we'll get touchy-feely torture and compassionate wiretapping by our new Democratic Overlords...oh joy! I'm officially ashamed to be an American let alone admit I've voted...at least if I didn't vote, I wouldn't be part of the problem. Has anyone of these clowns ever read the Constitution? What is so challenging about English? No unreasonable search and seizure. Not a hard concept.

Re:What Congress Giveth, Congress Taketh Away

[Zymergy]

The new ethos seems to be that it depends on the what the definition of is IS (The most basic of verbs: TO BE).
For Bill Clinton it was whether or not a BJ IS sex, ...apparently it is not by his definition of IS. (Most women seem to disagree with Bill on this one...)
"Unreasonable" is the wiggle term here, and Congress is noting by their defining actions that what is "Unreasonable" to them IS different to what is "Unreasonable" to their constituents.

Re:What Congress Giveth, Congress Taketh Away

[maniac/dev/null]

The Democrats in the House voted 105-128 for this bill too. As a party, they opposed it on the whole (with a pretty slim margin). If the Democratic party as a whole didn't want this, they had the votes to stop it. This isn't a Democrat / Republican thing anymore, it has everything to do with the individual Representative in your area.

Call your Representative. Call the guy who's running against him. Ask them questions about what's important to you. Then vote for the one you like best, even if you don't like the letter that comes after his name. Every single one of these idiots who passed this bill is up for reelection every two years. If you don't like it, vote them out.

PASSED 293-129

[Jess (geek-chick)]

Just breaking Looking for link to roll call now.

Re:No we will be protected from Domestic Terrorist

[Gat0r30y]

Uhhh... domestic terrorists?

never mind, look above for link

[Jess (geek-chick)]

Should have read the comments better before hitting submit.

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[Guppy06]

"We Dems?" Under Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi?

Ever wonder how this bill passed with flying colors through a House with a clear Democrat majority?

New laws

[Verteiron]

I think we need a constitutional amendment. It should read:
"Any bill that comes before the Congress to be passed into law must be able to be summarized accurately and without loss of detail into 50 words or less. Once this is accomplished, the original multi-thousand page document shall be thrown out, and the 50-word summary presented for passage into law."

And perhaps another one:
"Anyone who attempts to add text to a bill that is completely at odds with or irrelevant to the bill's title shall be considered guilty of treason and put to death immediately in as brutal a way as possible."

Re:New laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first amendment comes out to 51 words.

Re:New laws

[Hyppy]

It's grandfathered in.

You see, retroactive legislation is usually frowned upon.

Re:New laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look at Read the bill. Although I think their site may be down now :(.

From reading it a few weeks ago, the basic idea is that entire bills must be read aloud before they are passed. This does several things:

1. Forces congress/house to simplify bills

2. Forces congress/house to slow down the rate at which bills are introduced/passed

3. Bring accountability front and center as well as more transparency

There are also disadvantages (mainly stemming from the slowed pace at which the house/senate would operate). However, the solutions to avoid the gridlock that would ensue carry with them the benefits above.

Re:New laws

[Omestes]

There are also disadvantages (mainly stemming from the slowed pace at which the house/senate would operate). However, the solutions to avoid the gridlock that would ensue carry with them the benefits above.

I thought that congress/house was designed to be slow. Its a feature, not a bug. The slower they are, the more deliberation, and the less the flightly whim of the masses/press matter. Or at least thats how it works in theory.

Re:New laws

[frdmfghtr]

Not just frowned upon; unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: ": No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

If I read that right, it means to retroactive laws; telecom immunity being proposed in this law is granting immunity to illegal acts committed prior to the law and hence unconstitutional.

Clover

[Nonillion]

Seriously, did ANYONE expect anything different? The government and those spineless politicians have defecated on the constitution, AGAIN. I here by summon the Cloverfield creature to extinguish our corrupt government, so we the people can get a fresh start.

Contrast this with Immigration

[Anonymous Coward]

A few months ago, weren't many conservative members of congress saying illegal immigrants shouldn't been given any short cuts to citizenship because they ignored the rule of law? Now the same people seem to be saying the rule of law can be ignored when they choose. How can any rational thinker reconcile these contradictory positions? And don't tell me national security trumps all unless you can back it up with a quote from the constitution or an amendment.

OK!

[azzuth]

Getyoubackistan ready and waiting...

Hmmm

[copponex]

Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism. And that is the inevitable result of free market capitalism, or fascist states where the government is "the shadow of business cast over society."

Well regulated markets work the best. Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage, or prevent greed from wrecking society. Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption. If that hierarchy is in a corporation, there's nothing the public can do about it. If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle.

So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism. I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state.

Public officials should not be allowed to seek employment after their service with any firm that does business with the government. If you don't like it, don't run for office. You're running because you want to participate as a proud citizen of our democracy, not so you can enjoy power and kickbacks. Right?

Re:Hmmm

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"And that is the inevitable result of free market capitalism, or fascist states where the government is "the shadow of business cast over society.""

That is not capitalism, but corporatism.

"Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage or prevent greed from wrecking society."

What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?

"Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption."

Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.

"If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle."

And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).

"So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism."

The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights.

"I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state."

I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame.

Re:Hmmm

[Tacvek]

Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.

[snip]
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).

The problem is that even if the state cannot manipulate the market, there will still be business interests attempting to manipulate the government to effectively enforce said business's
monopoly. You do correctly identify the end problem though being the state. The state must not be corruptible, or corporations will work tirelessly to corrupt it. It is as simple as that.

And please do note that the state does not have a monopoly on force. Physical force, sure, but sufficiently large corporations have a surprising amount of market force, which can sometimes be just as effective as physical force.
(Consider a cabal of the worlds largest 30 or so corporations, and how they would be able to manipulate completely unregulated markets if no general regulation (such as anti-trust laws) were also present.).

Properly working regulation may keep corporations in check, but it still requires a state that the businesses really cannot corrupt. So the state is to blame for being corruptible, but the corporations are to blame for exploiting that fact. End result though is that the state needs to change.

Re:Hmmm

[copponex]

I wanted to add this before I responded: I am thinking in the context of a real democracy, not America. In my opinion, it's a fascist state nearly beyond repair.

That is not capitalism, but corporatism. Which, again, is the end result of free market capitalism, because people are and always will be greedy and corrupt. Corporations get so large that they hold power to coerce government, so it matters very little that they can't use guns to enforce their will. They use lawyers and politicians instead, who do have access to them.

What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say? Without a law, explain why DuPont wouldn't stop dumping paint in the Hudson if it saved them money.

The other is a matter of what you consider society. In America, so far that has meant the privilege of living comfortably at the expense of other cultures. It started with the indigenous population, spread to slavery, and now we are nice enough to kill foreigners who happen to be nearby the resources we consider necessary to our lifestyle. I consider this morally reprehensible and the worst kind of greed. You may believe otherwise.

Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply. The government has to have force, otherwise they aren't a government. The corruption of a corporation, or the collusion of government and a corporation are inevitable. You can either eliminate the corporate entity or the government. I choose to eliminate the corporation.

And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them). The government has to establish law and enforce contracts. If you can point out a society that you would like to emulate that has done otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. When corporations have less rights than people, it will be less of a problem, as the corporations who don't have a positive impact for the society they operate in are dissolved.

The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights. That's an empty phrase. Which rights are automatically taken away from you in a well regulated economy?

I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame. In America, there's no difference between the desires of business and government. In any case, you can choose to concentrate power in corporations where no one has oversight or the power to change anything, or concentrate it in limited local government, where you do have the power to change something.

The military industrial complex is a very real entity, and they make hundreds of billions of dollars each year as a reward for manufacturing weapons, as long as they collude with the government to provide false pretenses for war. If the arms dealers were under government oversight, they could be dismantled by the constituents of the democracy. Of course, real democracy -- that is, the will of the general population being accomplished, is the greatest threat to our current government, and thus, the symbiotic corporate structure attached to it. That's why they deeply despise public opinion, and proudly ignore it. That's why there's a constant barrage of media on the ineffectiveness of government. They want to make sure people don't use it.

Re:Hmmm

[NeutronCowboy]

Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.

Not really. Corruption is essentially a hidden tax on all transactions, the cost of which is passed on to the end-user. Not to mention that it is the most inefficient and most easily abused tax system, with no benefits to the end-user.

Unless you meant that people only start to worry about corruption when it comes with force? At that point, we're talking about an uneducated population. I hope you're not referring to the US.

Re:Hmmm

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"because people are and always will be greedy and corrupt."

It makes no sense to say people are "corrupt". To be corrupt requires one to deceive or force others to do things against their will. People by definition aren't corrupt. You can assume that by definition but then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

"Corporations get so large that they hold power to coerce government"

Let's break this down. A corporation offers an elected official money in exchange for legislation forcing competitors into a disadvantage. The elected official accepts the offer, takes the money, delivers the legislation, and backs it by force. The government then forces that competitor into that advantage, and if the competitor resists, the government can shut the competitor down or apply additional force.

Now, I ask you how to stop this from happening, and I suggest that the only solution is to prohibit the government from applying force to someone without just cause - such as to prevent rights violations, or to bring a criminal to justice, for example.

You would rather go after the companies. The problem is that there will always be new companies, and they will always find a way to entice politicians. The problem is not with the companies, but with the politicians willing to accept the bribes. That is where to place the blame. Officials who are charged with upholding rights, are freely violating them in exchange for bribes.

"Without a law, explain why DuPont wouldn't stop dumping paint in the Hudson if it saved them money."

Without a law preventing private ownership of the Hudson, the Hudson would be privately owned, and that owner has a right not to have their property destroyed by surrounding property. They could practically sue DuPont out of existence if that happened. When the government decides it owns a piece of property, and does not bother to treat it as a property owner would treat their property, then you end up with situations like this - the Cuyahoga River fire comes to mind.

"It started with the indigenous population, spread to slavery, and now we are nice enough to kill foreigners who happen to be nearby the resources we consider necessary to our lifestyle. I consider this morally reprehensible and the worst kind of greed."

And I agree. You listed rights violations, and are equating greed with violating rights, but greed by itself is not a rights violation. Only a rights violation is a rights violation. Wanting the most product from your money and work is not by itself immoral, and that is all that is represented by the word "greed".

"The corruption of a corporation, or the collusion of government and a corporation are inevitable."

You have not shown that to be true. It is only inevitable if you permit a government to pass laws violating rights.

"You can either eliminate the corporate entity or the government."

Nope. Neither choice is correct. The former violates the rights of every citizen to pursue their own interests. And eliminating the government leaves you open to rights violations.

"If you can point out a society that you would like to emulate that has done otherwise, I'd love to hear about it."

And if I choose not to emulate any past society... then what? You win the argument?

"When corporations have less rights than people, it will be less of a problem, as the corporations who don't have a positive impact for the society they operate in are dissolved."

A pure assumption backed up by no evidence or rationale. On top of that, you assume that the ends justify the means.

"Which rights are automatically taken away from you in a well regulated economy?"

My right to life - my right to do with my time, my labor, my productivity, and my products, what I please, and freely trade with who I please. Economic regulation by definition is a force-backed resolution controll

Re:Hmmm

[Jaeph]

If that hierarchy is in a corporation, there's nothing the public can do about it. Corporations only have power because we treat them like people and give them a voice. Corporate money should be entirely illegal in the political process. A corporation should have absolutely no say in the political process. NONE.

People? Sure. I'm fine if someone takes his golden parachute and spends it on politics. It's his money, fleeced fairly. But taking corporate money to do the same? That's wrong.

-Jeff

Re:Hmmm

[Dog-Cow]

You are right. All campaign donations are bribes unless done completely anonymously. Corporations simply get to spend more on their bribes.

It's very sad that the Bible-loving Republicans freely ignore the Bible's exhortation not to accept bribes or even favors from those they may have to arbitrate between. But hypocrisy is a basic tenet of politics.

Re:Hmmm

[copponex]

People by definition aren't corrupt. You can assume that by definition but then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

People aren't corrupt? And I guess they aren't jealous, vain, or "bad" in any way. It's just that they don't have the free market to liberate their true good will. I don't think I'm the one who has a credibility problem on this issue...

Let's break this down. A corporation offers an elected official money...

That's an oversimplified example. More often, the corruption is that political favors are done with no money involved until the corrupt official exits office and gets a cushy job with the benefactor of his dishonesty. If there's no big salary at the end of the election, the people in politics for greed will be forced to directly break the law instead of skirting around loopholes and handing multi-billion dollar contracts to friends and associates. Dick Cheney is a great example.

Now, I ask you how to stop this from happening... You would rather go after the companies. The problem is that there will always be new companies, and they will always find a way to entice politicians. The problem is not with the companies, but with the politicians willing to accept the bribes. That is where to place the blame. Officials who are charged with upholding rights, are freely violating them in exchange for bribes.

The government is going to exist. Companies don't have to exist in their current form. You hit the nail on the head when you said there will always be new companies - many of them, in fact, which remain small because as soon as they reach a certain size, they are probably going to start doing bad things. And if they do then they'll be split up by the government, if they are doing their job, and you end up with many competitive entities instead of large uncontrollable behemoths.

Without a law preventing private ownership of the Hudson, the Hudson would be privately owned, and that owner has a right not to have their property destroyed by surrounding property. They could practically sue DuPont out of existence if that happened. When the government decides it owns a piece of property, and does not bother to treat it as a property owner would treat their property, then you end up with situations like this - the Cuyahoga River fire comes to mind.

If natural resources are privately owned, all you're doing is creating a natural monopoly. What's going to stop Hudson River Co. from charging $1,000 a day for access for it's non-business partners? They could bankrupt shipping companies overnight, buy them up, and continue abusing their power until it destroyed the local economy for everyone else except for them. And if you don't think companies will destroy themselves so the top members of management can walk away with a few hundred million dollars, you don't watch the news very much. The EPA is not cleaning up after the government. They're cleaning up after companies who destroyed their own property to make huge sums of money.

In straight capitalism, corporations do anything for a profit. They'll clear-cut a forest, dump raw chemicals into lakes and rivers, and put people in the belly of coal mines and work them to death. Before regulation arrived at the beginning of the 20th century, employees and the environment were being obliterated because they were cheap or free. Only after massive public protest did the government step in to limit the damage.

Wanting the most product from your money and work is not by itself immoral, and that is all that is represented by the word "greed".

Greed is obviously subjective. The problem with the free market is that companies have no rules. If they can make a profit marketing a known carcinogen to children, they will do it, have done it, and continue in countries where there is no regulation.

You have not shown that to be true.

There isn't a single counter-example that I can think of, unless you cons

Re:Hmmm

[Qzukk]

They could practically sue DuPont out of existence if that happened.

Only if they could prove that it was DuPont that did the damage, and not one of the hundreds of other companies throwing their chemicals in the water, or homeowners pouring their oil into the storm drains, or farmers washing their fertilizers into the rivers, or...

It might almost work in an ideal world with an ideal legal system, but in ours, they'd simply insist they didn't throw anything in the water and it wasn't carcinogenic, and the fact that you've got 50 different tumors is the fault of everyone else. And that's assuming you were able to catch them in the first place, since without the power of government to trespass on their property, you wouldn't be able to see what they were dumping that was running into yours.

The problem is not with the companies, but with the politicians willing to accept the bribes. That is where to place the blame.

So if I want someone dead, all I have to do is keep offering people money until they do it, and it's not my fault that someone eventually takes the money? Is it that hard to recognize that both those that demand and those that supply are at fault?

Re:Hmmm

[Starcub]

What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?

ROFL! I can't believe you actually posted that; what a sad but telling sign of the times.

Re:Hmmm

[thealsir]

Democrats are no better in this regard.

You missed a bit

[Nursie]

Darth Vader is trying to buy uranium from unwed dope smoking teenagers.

There, now I think we have all the bases covered :)

Isn't it time to read again, the....

[3seas]

Declaration of Independence ???

When was the last time you read it?

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[WillAffleckUW]

It's called a Blue Tidal Wave.

Even the rest of you Republicants know that there are no safe states for you this year, and that even the safest of safe Congressional Republican seats are up for grabs.

Face it, you're playing defense, and we're coming straight at you, and we're not stopping. ;-)

My representative voted the right way.

[rickhale]

At least my representative, Earl Blumenauer, along with the rest of Oregon's Democratic house members voted against this travesty.

Attention mods:

[Anonymous Coward]

US Constitution states...

Please mod parent post +VII "Quaint, with Olde World Charm".

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[Kjella]

(B) the subject of a written request or directive [from the Executive Branch] indicating that the activity was
(ii) determined to be lawful. Now, there's nothing wrong with the Attorney General making a legal opinion - that's pretty much his job:

The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments." What happens when you instruct the courts to drop any case against any action that has been "determinaed to be legal"? Folks, you have the wonderful choices of:
a) the Legislative branch instructing the Judicial branch to obey the Executive branch
b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not
c) creating government-sponsored thugs outside the law, free from the restrictions of the government
d) all of the above

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[Abcd1234]

authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and

Good Christ, are you serious? If that isn't clear evidence that something shady was going on during that period, I don't know what is...

Good question

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Good question! Sadly, that's what it'll come down to - deciding which candidate is less dangerous for the country. And that is difficult to determine. You've got professed widespread altruism and its corresponding rights violations on one side, and on the other side you have claimed "free market" proposals that will fail and dissuade the public away from the phrase "free market" in the future, combined with a zealous religious party.

My only hope is that one party will get a strong lead in Congress, and I can just vote for the candidate of the opposing party. He'll have huge pressure placed on him to toe the party line, and maybe, just maybe, nothing will get done!

Re:Good question

[dave562]

Good question! Sadly, that's what it'll come down to - deciding which candidate is less dangerous for the country. And that is difficult to determine. You've got professed widespread altruism and its corresponding rights violations on one side, and on the other side you have claimed "free market" proposals that will fail and dissuade the public away from the phrase "free market" in the future, combined with a zealous religious party.

Given that they're both endorsed by the CFR you can be sure that no matter who gets elected they will continue to pursue policies designed to bring about a single world government.

Senate

[ploben]

Did/When does the Senate vote on this?

By that definition...

[copponex]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. By that definition, shouldn't the people from the Reagan Administration involved in the Iran Contra affair still be in prison? Last I checked they were still in office, or hosting shows on Fox News.

Re:By that definition...

[jeiler]

Here we get into a difference of opinion between what I believe, and what the law defines. By the standards of law, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Reagan Administration: indeed, technically speaking, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Carter administration because the US didn't have the cojones to declare war after the hostages were taken.

So, technically speaking, the Iran-Contra affair was not treason, according to a strict construction of the law.

Re:By that definition...

[bugnuts]

technically speaking, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Carter administration because the US didn't have the cojones to declare war after the hostages were taken Not doubting Carter didn't have cojones, but I don't believe the US has declared war on anyone since WWII. I'm sure someone will correct me, but Korea was a "police action" and I don't believe there was any declaration in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, etc. By the time Reagan came around, American certainly believed Iran was more an enemy than when Carter was failing to handle the hostage crisis.

Now the war on drugs, which I'm not certain qualifies as a real war declaration, is really a war on its own citizens. The "war on terrorism" is more like a war on "any faction we don't like, domestic or abroad". Not sure that is an actual declaration, either... since neither are possible to actually win. (Yes, Terrorism has surrendered and signed a peace accord. Mr. Terrorism has declared all his followers to cease fire, and urged Mr. Drugs to turn himself in to the authorities for a war tribunal.)

Re:By that definition...

[jeiler]

Not doubting Carter didn't have cojones,

Brief POI: war is declared by Congress, not by the President. I have a lot of respect for Carter as a person and as a philanthropist, but in many respects he was the worst president we had in the 20th century.

but I don't believe the US has declared war on anyone since WWII.

That's entirely correct. There have been Congressional authorizations to use military force, and military budgets have to be approved by Congress, but there has not been a declaration of war since WWII.

As for the "wars" on terrorism and drugs--it's not helpful to get rhetoric and actual declarations of war confused.

Good.

[Rombuu]

I'm glad to see this finally happen.

Re:Good.

[taupin]

Can you explain this statement, please? _Why_ are you glad? It seems to me that this bill is largely bad news for "freedom". . .

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[fishbowl]

>b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not

b!!!!
I'm excited about the prospect of this amazing authority being handed over to President Obama, aren't you?

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[Guppy06]

I realize I'm talking to a committed troll here, but why would somebody that hates Bush vote for the party that has refused to impeach him for two years?

Contact your Senators!

[Kickassthegreat]

This story is why I spent the first hour of my day contacting my congress-persons to ask they vote against this bill. From the role call, I can see my representative voted for the bill.

But, we still have a chance to prevent this from becoming law. Contact your senator today to ask that they vote no on this bill.

Don't know who your senator is? Check out this

This legislation further degrades the constitution

[yuriwho]

it is a sad day, hopefully Obama or Feingold will filibuster this in the senate.

Seriously, though

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

How do we go about getting this declared unconstitutional?

Who voted how:

[Guppy06]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

Yes, I'm kharma whoring.

Any country needing a nerd

[Anonymous Coward]

I need to find a new home, the USA just died and I want a country where the people have some rights...

Are there any out there I can apply to for immigration status?

Re:Any country needing a nerd

[Hyppy]

I second this.

I love my country, but I am beginning to want to wash my hands of it.

Good luck getting anyone to do anything about it

[elrous0]

They don't have the right to override the Constitution without an amendment. But good luck getting the Supreme Court to enforce this (it's stacked with Bush appointees and other fundies) or Congress to ever actually grow some balls (the Democrats who were elected to stand up to George W. have done nothing but act like his plantation slaves).

...and women!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...I think Pelosi is contrary evidence to your theory that we are ruled by MEN....though admittedly anecdotal.

Re:...and women!

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't matter.... she voted for it. Regardless of what the sex of the voter is..... As much damage can be inflicted....

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[WillAffleckUW]

LOL. You tell me why the Fix on WaPo has you down for losing 20-40 seats in the House and 6-10 in the Senate.

Reality has a liberal bias to it.

That's the truthiness that stares back in your face.

But hey, I served not swerved, comrade!

Well, it takes a big government to control them.

[DoctorFrog]

As Teddy Roosevelt said, the only thing big enough to bust the trusts of Big Business is a Big Government.

How did your critter vote?

[Holi]

Well my state went 50/50.

To the Honorable Patrick Kennedy, you sir have my continued support.

To the (dis)Honorable James R. Langevin, you sir have given me a goal, to insure you never hold public office again.

Pelosi!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All you S.F. liberal Pelosi lovers..... She voted Yea so remember that when your beloved speaker comes up for vote. Lucky I am just south of her and my rep voted no. Although I don't really like Spier anyways.....

Re:Pelosi!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 292 representatives voted for it, so it doesn't do you much good to try to pin it on one person. Here are the relevant stats:

Republican support for bill: 99.5%
Democratic support for bill: 45.1%

Yes, Democrats have a tendency to compromise too much but let's not lose sight of the real enemies of this country.

An enemy of the state list

[Opportunist]

Comfortably provided. It's at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

Check the names under "Yeahs" and you know who is the worst enemy of democracy and freedom in the United States of America.

Finally, maybe now they'll catch me

[Somecallmechief]

As a terrorist and an active member of several terrorist organizations, I applaud this and similar measures to capture me, preventing (what I hope will be) my inevitable destruction of the American way of life. To be sure, most of my illicit hate speech against the American infidels (die, pigs, die!) sounds like carefree banter about recent viewings of the Daily Show and a casual contempt for recent Hollywood movies; but the astute listeners behind these wired and wireless conversations see their true meaning: I hate all that God created and his appointed leader on earth, G.W. Bush. My desire to overthrow Holy Land 2 is transparent, and I can only hope that I will be caught soon and rendered justice. Listen on, fearless protectors of freedom. Heed not my seemingly innocent affection for puppies--canines form the basis of our linguistic code-speak for destruction.

Re:This legislation further degrades the constitut

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one! Obama....doing something.....in the senate. Hahaha.

If you don't like this, Act Now, Act Fast

[TomRC]

Go to http://www.downsizedc.org/ and register your dismay with your Representative (and Senators).

It's easy and quick. It'd better be - they're trying to rush this through - again.

Registration with personal and address information is required.

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[cduffy]

51% isn't enough to push an impeachment -- or to get anything else done if one angers the party holding the veto.

First off, it's Unconstitutional

[zullnero]

But it's Constitutionality will only be in question provided the Supreme Court doesn't get reloaded with goofy right wing judges like Antonin Scalia whose judgment only serves to cover his hunting buddy Dick Cheney's behind.

No.

[magus_melchior]

The end result will be that the government and the telcos will file a motion to dismiss because under this new FISA law, all they need is a pass from the President to legalize the wiretap, which he will be happy to produce. In such an event, I seriously doubt any trial against the government will even reach discovery because of their abuse of the state secrets privilege. A truly patriotic judge may deny the motion because the FISA amendment is unconstitutionally granting the telcos and government a free pass after the fact, but he'll be putting his career on the line if he does.

All this new law does is grant yet another unwarranted privilege to the executive. I don't know what the hell Pelosi and the others are thinking, but the last thing they should do is capitulate to the White House on a power trip.

Re:No.

[Phroggy]

A truly patriotic judge may deny the motion because the FISA amendment is unconstitutionally granting the telcos and government a free pass after the fact, but he'll be putting his career on the line if he does. This is precisely why judges are not elected. He wouldn't be risking his career... but he wouldn't have been appointed to the bench in the first place if he were the type of person who would do that sort of thing.

Re:No.

[Omestes]

...all they need is a pass from the President to legalize the wiretap, which he will be happy to produce.

So... we wait 5 months, THEN take them to court. If its Obama I rather doubt he'll present the letter saying that they are peachy keen. If its McCain... We're still screwed.

I wonder if that'd work, actually. Is it a letter from the sitting president, or from the, at the time, presiding president?

Re:No.

[Jimmy King]

I don't know what the hell Pelosi and the others are thinking, but the last thing they should do is capitulate to the White House on a power trip.

That's easy. "Wow, who ever knew a bed made of $1000 bills would be so comfortable?"

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wonder how this bill passed with flying colors through a House with a clear Democratic majority?

There, fixed it for you.

Re:

[clint999]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[Guppy06]

"51% isn't enough to push an impeachment"

The Democrat majority in the House today is larger than the Republican majority was in 1998.

"or to get anything else done if one angers the party holding the veto."

So principles get sacrificed in the name of "getting things done," things like granting immunity to the telcos? And I'm still expected to back this party?

IIRC that's not how ex post facto works in law

[DoctorFrog]

I believe SCOTUS determined that while it was unConstitutional to make past actions illegal (so as to prosecute actions which at the time were not against the law), it is okay to pass legislation which makes prior illegal acts retroaxctively legal.

I can't recall the case off the top of my head, but it was a civil rights case; I want to say Loving vs Virginia, overturning the illegality of interracial marriages.

Re:When we Dems start tracking down GOP "terrorist

[cduffy]

The Democrat majority in the House today is larger than the Republican majority was in 1998.

...but they were working with a President who was willing to compromise on occasion; as a result, both sides got useful things done.

So principles get sacrificed in the name of "getting things done," things like granting immunity to the telcos? And I'm still expected to back this party?

*sigh*. I think the party's presidential candidate has some principals (of course, his pending statement regarding this "compromise" will shed additional light on that one way or the other)... but otherwise it's just a lesser-of-two-evils thing.

Blackwater

[Hektor_Troy]

Granted, so far it's "only" about illegal wiretaps against U.S. citizens. But essentially this says "If the PotUS says 'do task A for me', then the company that does task A cannot and will not be held liable, even if it breaks the law."

So far that task has been (and might still be) "spy on U.S. citizens"

What's to stop the next task from being "rough up U.S. citizens who mouth off against the government"? Or "kill U.S. citizens who are a pain in the ass"?

Sure, that's a big slippery slope, but then again, I'm sure if you went back to say ... September 2000 and asked people on the street, they'd probably say that the U.S. government would NEVER allow such a thing. Of course, they'd probably say the same thing about torture (or whatever phrase you'd like to use instead), suspension of habeas corpus and a lot of other things that have happend in less than a decade. Even "small" stuff like purposely revealing the name and occupation of an active CIA agent working abroad.

Re:Blackwater

[corbettw]

Even "small" stuff like purposely revealing the name and occupation of an active CIA agent working abroad. Never happened. Stick with the things that really did occur (like all the other stuff you listed), and you won't end up annoying potential allies.

Re:Blackwater

[Hektor_Troy]

Uhm ... does the name Valerie Plame ring a bell?

And while a 100% confirmed connection between Scooter Libby and say, Dick Cheney, has never been fully established, you'd be more than just naïve to think, that the White House didn't have anything to do with it.

Re:Blackwater

[corbettw]

Uhm ... does the name Valerie Plame ring a bell? Uhm, does the name Dick Armitage ring a bell?

Did you get upset with the New York Times when they published details of the SWIFT banking intel? Or is it only bothersome when you have a chance to hate on Bush?

Re:Blackwater

[Hektor_Troy]

Richard Armitage admitted to being the source of the leak. At the time of the leak he was the Deputy Secretary of State. Now, while I'm not a U.S. citizen, nor an expert on U.S policy, I'm pretty sure that a Deputy Secretary of State is a member of the government.

So, a member of the U.S. government deliberately told a reporter (according to wikipedia he told Bob Woodward) that Valerie Plame's employment.

But I haven't addressed the scathing critisism of your comment. Is the above ONLY a problem if I DON'T have anything against George W. Bush? In what world is something as serious as a government official leaking the name of their own active agents only problematic, if the person bringing it up is a fan of that government?

I didn't bring it up to throw crap at the Bush administration. I brought it up because it is something pretty much noone would expect from their government - no matter where in the world they live. I brought it up because all that did was ruin someone's active career (not like she could continue working as a covert agent, when the whole world knows she's a covert agent). That it put every contact she's had in foreign countries at risk isn't important, seeing as they're not U.S. citizens.

Re:Blackwater

[corbettw]

First, Armitage's "leak" was more a slip of the tongue. Second, Plame wasn't in covert status at the time, so it wasn't a big deal. Third, the only people I've seen get excited about it completely ignore the dozens of other leaks that happen all the time.

Yes, leaks are a problem. This wasn't a leak, though, and unless you have a problem with the New York Times publishing classified data on the SWIFT banking intel (among other things), you're not allowed to care about this non-incident, IMO.

Re:Blackwater

[corbettw]

I'd like to know how outraged you are over this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/nyt-reveals-name-of-ksms-chief-interrogator-against-cias-wishes/

"NYT reveals name of KSM's chief interrogator -- against CIA's wishes"

Which means this person, their family, their neighbors, their coworkers, all of their lives are in danger now thanks to the solid reporting of the New York Times. Are you screaming and ranting and raving about it? Or is it no big deal, because it wasn't leaked by some deputy in the State Department after he drank too much at a cocktail party, thereby allowing you to hate Bush?

The U.S.A Dictatorship

[CaptMoroni]

Based on the famous quote below from Dr. Alexander Tytler, it appears that we are quickly approaching the dictatorship & bondage part of the cycle.
----------

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, AND IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY A DICTATORSHIP.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
  from spiritual faith to great courage;
  from courage to liberty;
  from liberty to abundance;
  from abundance to selfishness;
  from selfishness to apathy;
  from apathy to dependence;
  from dependency back again into bondage."

Re:The U.S.A Dictatorship

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

But it's not "the voters".

It's the mega-rich. The banks, and their vassal corporations. One Kennedy or one Bush - in servitude to these masters - is a million times more damaging than a city-block of 'welfare mothers', or other bugbears, voting to keep starvation at bay, or a school for their children.

Re:The U.S.A Dictatorship

[iminplaya]

...a million times more damaging than a city-block of 'welfare mothers', or other bugbears, voting to keep starvation at bay, or a school for their children.

I will always vote for bread before bullets, welfare over warfare, but it is really up to us keep the monster at bay. It is our complacency after those things are acquired that is the real problem. Maintaining vigilance if or when all needs are met seems to be very difficult. But we must if we are to avoid that cycle. In the absence of a perceived common enemy, we all seem to go at each other. We become easily distracted by the circus acts. It's an atrophy of sorts.

Re:Good luck getting anyone to do anything about i

[Bimo_Dude]

(the Democrats who were elected to stand up to George W. have done nothing but act like his plantation slaves).

You, sir, are too kind.

The slaves had to be abducted, chained, and whipped in order to obey "orders." These crooks in congress require no such coercion; they do it voluntarily (that being said, my rep, Jim Moran (VA), voted against this bill, so he in exempt from the above statement in this case).

What about NIXON?

[monkeyboythom]

Poor guy must be spinning in his grave, saying why didn't I think of this? I had a real war compared to this joker...
Charlie's not in the bush, he's hiding in the Watergate!

Note: there could have been an upside to this though. He could have sent Jane Fonda to Guantanamo and we would have been spared from all her workout tapes.

Re:What about NIXON?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Nixon's string-pullers got better at their game, with the new league of puppets.

It's not just about campaign funds

[roystgnr]

It's about campaign airtime now, too.

It's possible to receive enough money from individual contributors to make up for lost donations from criminal corporations, but how much good does grassroots fundraising do you when you're not even allowed to buy a political ad with it?

Obama's response Later Today

[Anonymous Coward]

A result of a call to his campaign I made today afte the vote.
"The candidate will be commenting publicly on the FISA bill later today"

If he doesn't vote NO

[Shivetya]

then what? What if he skips out on the vote or votes "present". Same with McCain. To be honest if McCain votes Yes and Obama skips out I would have more respect for McCain at least standing up for what he believes even if its wrong. I would rather have a politician unafraid to declare his views than to leave me guessing.

I don't care for either of them, can I vote none of the above? I guess I could go with Barr and that Libertarian party. I have already written off prosecution of telecoms based on past behavior and regardless how this bill went I wasn't overly concerned with going after them. I am willing to give them a "once" based on the fact that Congress and the Administration didn't set the ground rules and the companies simply acted out of intimidation which is how the current government operates.

I see the change in the Democratic stance as "we believe we are going to be in power and damn if we do anything to strip of us of our options". In other words, just like when they took over Congress and went earmark crazy once they have both sides locked up I can't wait to see what they try to pull. Already we have vilification of oil companies over profits causing them to shed gas stations like they have cuties. I figure its par for the course.

If they have an (I), as incumbent, next to their name they need to go. Yet how many years is it going to take for us to get these two parties out of power? How can we say we have a choice between candidates when the only two who will ever stand a chance to run are basically selected for us.

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[Fallen Kell]

We still might get the lawsuits. If you read that, the section 4(B)(ii) requires it to be "determined to be lawful", only the Courts can determine that the acts are lawful, not the President. As such, if the Court decides that the act was not lawful, the Telecom is still not immune to the activity.

Vote All These Dems Out!

[Antimatt3r]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

All the dems on in normal (non-italic) font.

Pelosi once again! Really with all her compromises on the Iraq war and this.

Youve done a great job Nancy stopping the republicans!
I mean really, she votes republican and helps pass rebulican bills.
There is something seriously wrong with the politicians of this country.

When do we as "The People" finally stand up and say enough is enough.
I guess we thought we tried when we voted more Dems into office, but that failed.

Its time we hold politicians accountable for their votes and their promises that brought them into office.

Re:Vote All These Dems Out!

[corbettw]

Youve done a great job Nancy stopping the republicans! The bill was introduced by a Democrat. So I'm not sure why you mention "stopping the Republicans".

Re:Vote All These Dems Out!

[Antimatt3r]

The bill was introduced by a Democrat. So I'm not sure why you mention "stopping the Republicans". Look at the vote Only 1 republican voted no and 128 dems. It is a replubican bill all the way. Whoever introduced it should be fired.

Donate here:

[maynard]

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

Who is Steny Hoyer?

[corbettw]

According to the summary, Steny Hoyer is just some random Congressman. No party affiliation, not even a state.

According to the man's website, he's a Democrat.

Now, I wonder why a story posted by kdawson would neglect to mention a Democrat's party affiliation?

Re:Who is Steny Hoyer?

[NeutronCowboy]

I'd like to ask - does it matter? If you're looking for scapegoats, 188 out of 199 Republicans voted for it. 105 out of 236 Democrats voted for it. If you think that the guy whose name is on the bill is most responsible, think again. Names on bills are like a giant trading game, due to the publicity that can be garnered by being associated with the right one.

Re:Who is Steny Hoyer?

[stinerman]

And not only that, Steny Hoyer is the Majority Leader in the House.

Re:Who is Steny Hoyer?

[corbettw]

I'd like to ask - does it matter? Yes, it does, but not for any of the reasons you listed. kdawson, and much of the media, will only state party affiliation in stories like this when it's a Republican who's behind it. The same thing happened with the Countrywide story the other day. That kind of double standard shouldn't exist.

Listening to the will of the voters

[dccase]

Listening to the voters will be easier for them now.
They don't need a warrant anymore.

That Rs voted in lock step is not surprising

[maynard]

That the Democratic Party, after promising in 2006 to clean up House rules and never let another bill be shoved through like this, did just that. They gave less than 24 hours notice from the posting of the bill to the House website to the actual vote the next day. Which congresspersons do you believe actually read that bill?

This isn't even a pretense of responsible governance. It is an abrogation of their oaths of office. Every single congressperson who voted for this bill should be removed from office forthwith. At the next election, if we must wait that long.

Boxes

[Holi]

Well, I used the soap box, but no one listened.
I then used the ballot box, but I was betrayed.
Now They have taken the jury box from me.

Only one box left.

Re:Boxes

[oodaloop]

There's still the, uh, Supreme Court box. Any law Congress passes can be deemed unconsitutional by the Supreme Court. And the recent ruling supporting Gitmo detainees' right to trial should be at least a little glimmer of hope that this could be overturned. Don't let that stop you from getting an ammo box or two ready, though. Got my own ready.

Re:Boxes

[Holi]

I have no way of challenging this law in the Supreme Court as it has not yet affected me. Even if I did, the Court is in no way required to here my case.

Donate against Hoyer! $1000 a MINUTE

[plasmacutter]

this website is aiming to make the democratic party listen to the only thing they apparently do listen to now adays, their wallets.

They are over the 50% point right now and are gaining approx 1,000 dollars a minute.

Donate to this fundraiser, support the half million dollar goal to bribe hoyer off the house leadership.

Call Your Congressman

[aarongadberry]

Some of you may not consider this a big issue because you have "nothing to hide". Our founding fathers knew that power leads to corruption, so they put in place a form of government that could be run by devils but do no harm. This is the very foundation of the idea of checks and balances. This legislation does two things:

1. It acknowledges that the President and his friends (telecommunications companies) are above the law, thus removing the legislative check on the executive
2. It permanently eliminates the forth amendment judicial check on the executive

Please take two minutes, find your congressman and his position on http://www.stopthespying.org/ and call them NOW.

If you really care...

[ma1wrbu5tr]

you'll hop over to the vote tally page and
see which list your representative is on. If you
disagree with their vote, contact them and let them know they fucked up.

Interestingly enough, neither Obama nor Hillary bothered to vote on this back in February.

The best we can hope for now is that maybe the Supreme Court will overturn it as unconstitutional.

You can find your representative here, and your congressman here.

Let's flood every link in this post with /. traffic. Then, let's write our Congressmen, and maybe some Supreme Court Justices.

Maybe, just maybe, that might get somebody's attention. If not, at least then they will know we are watching.

And you can know that you did something, even if it is a bit late

I recant my position

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

If the government is forcing these companies to wiretap, then the companies are not to blame. They should not be prosecuted for wiretapping. However, I do still disagree with this legislation, as I believe it paves the way for further rights violations.

Get off your soapbox

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how everybody loves to crow about how they protested one fucking war, like it was the only government action the citizens, at that time or before, should have opposed.

Official Word from Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill

Well shit.

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[NeutronCowboy]

Sadly, it'll be d). I can't believe no one sees this. Or they see it and think it's ok.... not sure which bothers me more.

Where are the democrats?

[AxelTorvalds]

I thought they had some backbone.

good job guys. I thought we were going to pull out of Iraq or start that process, when will that happen?

You know, keep FISA if it's a national security thing but don't give the Telco's immunity for it. It's already ripe for abuse and immunity pretty much guarantees that there will be abuse.

Official: Obama Supports This!

[plasmacutter]

Obama Officially Supports This

He seems to view giving retroactive immunity to corporations for horrendous violations of US law and the constitution as something "disagreeable but potentially acceptable".

I think i'm going to vote for Mccain. I'm left by canadian standards, but my position means jack if the candidate lies to you. Mccain is honest.

I know he doesn't give a flying crap about me and is in bed with corporations. I know what to expect from him.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[stinerman]

You could always "waste" your vote on Nader, Barr, McKinney, etc., etc. I mean if you're going to vote against Obama for spite, you might as well vote for a flaming leftist.

I guarantee you that they don't lie about their positions on the issues, and they aren't in bed with the corporations.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[Praxx]

Did you read the whole statement?

"...It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses..."

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[plasmacutter]

You could always "waste" your vote on Nader, Barr, McKinney, etc., etc. I mean if you're going to vote against Obama for spite, you might as well vote for a flaming leftist.

I guarantee you that they don't lie about their positions on the issues, and they aren't in bed with the corporations.

I want to assure democrats are sent packing!

until they grow some god damn balls they don't deserve office.

If this means subjecting the nation to bush part 3 then so be it, but voting for those others does not have the same effect as voting for a republican.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[plasmacutter]

Did you read the whole statement?

"...It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses..."

yes, which is why I characterized his opposition the way I did.

To him it's apparently "disagreeable but potentially acceptable".

There are times to speak in a conciliatory manner, this is not one of them. There are a large number of slimy cowards in his party who don't give one god damn about the fundamental rights of US citizens.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[stinerman]

voting for those others does not have the same effect as voting for a republican.

With all proper and due respect, that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Try less emotion in your politics next time. A dispassionate, logical assessment of the candidates and their issue positions makes for more enjoyable living.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[Praxx]

I fear when it comes to vote in the Senate, it will validate your statement, but I remain hopeful that Obama will follow through. I certainly will be disappointed if he votes for this legislation in anything close to its current form.

There are times to speak in a conciliatory manner, this is not one of them. There are a large number of slimy cowards in his party who don't give one god damn about the fundamental rights of US citizens. You couldn't be more right. The lack of fundamental understanding of what America is supposed to stand for is a bi-partisan problem; the disastrous effects of which are poisoning the efforts of those who really serve America.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[plasmacutter]

voting for those others does not have the same effect as voting for a republican.

With all proper and due respect, that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Try less emotion in your politics next time. A dispassionate, logical assessment of the candidates and their issue positions makes for more enjoyable living.

are you nuts? the fourth amendment has been shredded, chewed as cud 4 times, and plopped out the other side of the walking steak... the person who is supposed to be progressive and against this measure comes out in support of the bill despite the obvious singular purpose of telecom immunity.. and im supposed to be "dispassionate".

Hint: the US was not born because the forefathers engaged in "dispassionate, logical assessment" of british tyranny. They shot the bastards and kicked them off our land for their egregious actions.

for the record--basic logic:
voting for a republican is more effective than simply not voting for a democrat at removing democrats from office because it not only denies them their vote, it grants their opponents an extra vote.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[stinerman]

voting for a republican is more effective than simply not voting for a democrat at removing democrats from office because it not only denies them their vote, it grants their opponents an extra vote.

And voting for a Republican often has the nasty side effect of electing Republicans, who are, at last glance, worse than Democrats.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[plasmacutter]

This is true, but when democrats are nothing more than rubber stamps/sock puppets for the republicans standing next to them you're electing republicans anyway.

I find what I plan to do exceedingly distasteful. I hate republicans with a passion, but democrats need to grow a backbone and until they do they need to be given incentive to do so.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[Guppy06]

Considering how back in February the attempt to remove immunity from the last FISA bill got shot down by about 2:1, that means nothing. Nothing will remove the immunity, and the upshot is that he'll be voting in favor of the piece of legislation that grants it.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[Scudsucker]

I think i'm going to vote for Mccain.

Like being against adultery and voting for Giuliani.

Mccain is honest.

Except when he's lying. Which he does, a lot. He lied about the confederate flag. He lied about Petraus using unarmored Humvees. He lied about canceling a fundraiser with the rape jokester. He lied about not knowing much about the economy.

The only thing he does more than lie is flip flop, which he's done on just about any issue you can name. He's such a horrible flip flopper that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[slashqwerty]

So to paraphrase what you're planning to do:

I was going to vote for the lesser of two evils. But then I was suddenly reminded that they really are evil. So now I'm going to vote for the greater of two evils. That'll teach 'em! Now they know that if they want my vote they'll have to be less evil.

Re:Official: Obama Supports This!

[plasmacutter]

So to paraphrase what you're planning to do:

I was going to vote for the lesser of two evils. But then I was suddenly reminded that they really are evil. So now I'm going to vote for the greater of two evils. That'll teach 'em! Now they know that if they want my vote they'll have to be less evil.

actually, more along the lines of:

this party claims to be different from that one, but it's become clear they are nothing of the sort. Until they actually act differently and actually OPPOSE the party they claim to oppose, i'm going to vote for the other guy who is actually honest in saying he wants to screw me.

Dont Miss this --- Bush Pardon Himself

[Antimatt3r]

While this bill was a tragedy lets not overlook another monumentous retroactive immunity that Bush is giving himself and his cronies http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgroundsurface/framespage.htm?loc=http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgroundsurface/Comments.aspx?StoryURL=803

21st Century Approach Needed

[anorlunda]

Well, the bill passed the house today. In my opinion it's still a sham. We are still trying to fit today's problems and methods to 19th century approaches to creating laws and doing oversight.

It is unrealistic to expect that any law enforcement agency in any country should be prevented from using 21st century technology just like the rest of us do. In this context, that implies passing all traffic through filters and letting algorithms decide who is suspicious.

The problem is not how to monitor suspected terrorists, it is how to figure out who should be suspected.

IMHO a modern approach would permit government to use data mining and other software tools, but it would require that oversight agencies must be allowed access to the source code and be permitted to insert auditing code into the spyware.

We need a department of the judicial branch staffed by people trained in IT, not law. This department would have to power to use software and electronics to oversee all activities of the executive and legislative branches of government. (judicial too?)

Bottom line, every employee of every branch of government expect that every communication, every action, every line of code, should be subject to surveillance. Citizens have a right to privacy. government employees and don't; not even in secret places like the Senate cloak room, the Oval Office, or a judge's chambers.

To put it another way, we can no longer try to prevent abuse by limiting data gathering and filtering. Abuse must be prevented by detecting it at the back end.

The technical challenge would then shift to keeping the surveillance operation secure. It would become the target of all targets to penetrate.

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[inKubus]

It's pretty simple. They have to pass this bill. Otherwise the telcos will roll the administration in court to prevent losing the cases.

It will reveal that a lot of things were done to put a lot of money into the hands of a few people. And the bottom line is that we need to take that money back, since it was obtained dishonestly.

However, it's been part of the game as long as governments/businesses have been around to declare war and game the system. The problem is that they infringed upon rights, they broke the law, and now they are trying to retroactively change the law. It doesn't work that way.

.... because of the terrorist threat

[Russ Nelson]

Have you noticed that ANYTHING can be excused by appending the words "because of the terrorist threat"?

"I had to pee on the floor"
"I left my homework at home"
"I didn't know she was underage"
"I was drunk"
"You have to tap his telephone"
"I had to post this"

ANYTHING.

When did dismantling the Constitution...

[AugstWest]

...become a Conservative value?

Seriously, the "Defenders of the American Way" are completely fucking with everything we were founded on.

Water board your senator today!

[Moof123]

Yes, June 20th should really be turned into National Waterboard your Representative Day, but at this point it's up to the Senate. I'm not sure how many of them are ALREADY wiretapped (Bush must have some sort of amazing leverage...), but clearly they have lost any sort of perspective as to why the Dem's got the boost in the last round of rigged elections. So I propose we The People go out and give our elected reps a taste of their own medicine.

A round or two of a stress positions while in extreme cold followed by a good old waterboarding session might do the trick. We can then staple gun a tracking device on their cranium and see how THEY like losing their rights. Maybe barcode tattoo them too, so they'll have an idea about what this whole Real ID thing is all about.

How's the job market in Canada?

A law to make breaking the law illegal?

[RingDev]

Okay, I like Obama's stance on a lot of the issues, but this is just retarded.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people." So Bush's wire taps were illegal, meaning they were/are in violation of existing laws. So we're going to make a NEW law that makes it illegal for Bush to break the existing law?

He already broke the law, why would he care about breaking the law that would prevent him from breaking the law?!!?

Laws are designed to govern people that follow them. People who place themselves beyond the law will not be effected no matter how many laws are created. More laws will not make them change their behavior.

Punishment is the answer. Even if the punishment can not change their behavior it can limit their ability to affect others.

We've already determined that Bush's wiretaps were illegal. He broke the law. The answer isn't to create more laws, the answer is to enforce the laws that we already have!

-Rick

Re:Well, it takes a big government to control them

[DaedalusHKX]

Heh, well the people obviously don't have the guts to save themselves... so they'll have to keep enslaving themselves to each Promised Land and Promised Messiah that someone comes up with.

Oh well... the more I hear them act like this, the more I realize they got EXACTLY what they deserved. Stupidity SHOULD be painful... and their beloved governments, religions, etc, have given the stupid exactly what they were clamoring for.

what's the big deal

[BagMan2]

The telco's should NOT be responsible for policing the government. Everybody is complaining that the government is doing illegal wiretaps, and then blaming the telco's for letting it happen. The ones guilty of the illegal activity here is the government for ordering the illegal wiretaps, not the telco's for providing the means for them to accomplish it.

Who wants the telco's deciding who they should allow wiretaps on and who they shouldn't? That's not their job. If they government has a legal reason to wiretap somebody, I don't want the telco's turning down the request because they might politically disagree with what the government is up to. If you have an issue with the wiretapping that the government is doing, then take the government to court. The telco's should provide the means for the government to do any wiretapping that they want. If the government abuses that access, then the government should be held responsible. The telco's should have immunity, otherwise you are just making them responsible for the governments bad actions.

The real problem here is the greedy lawyers think the telco's have deeper and easier to pick pockets than the government. Shameful really. This aspect of the bill is fine, which is why so the vast majority of people from both sides of the isle voted for it. This is why we need a representative democracy, because you need representatives who can spend the time to look at a what a bill actually means instead of having the typical knee-jerk reaction that we see right here in this slashdot thread.

Re:what's the big deal

[shentino]

What about a little thing called "probable cause"?

Has are government gotten so power hungry they have forgotten why the 4th amendment was passed in the first place? To stop exactly the sort of thing that ye olde King George was fond of doing...which is one of the reasons the revolution happened to begin with.

Unfortunately, I already know the answer: yes, they have.

Since we are at the mercy of fallible humans with political and authoritative clout, it is only natural that we will be abused.

Read the whole sentence

[Kaseijin]

If you read that, the section 4(B)(ii) requires it to be "determined to be lawful"... "...a civil action may not lie...if the Attorney General certifies...that...the assistance...was...the subject of a written request or directive...indicating that the activity was...determined to be lawful..."

What can I do?

[CedgeS]

What can I do? My representative voted against it. One of my senators is one if its most successful detractors. The rest of you need to get your people in line and stop messing up America for those of us who already have.

Re:What can I do?

[deimtee]

Write or ring them up and say "well done". You need to encourage the good as well as oppose the bad.

Here's what I wrote my representative...

[Captain Sarcastic]

I sent an E-mail to my representative, and here's what it said:

Representative Moore,

I have read the results, and saw that you voted "Yea" for the FISA amendment act of 2008 (HR 6304).

I don't understand how you could have supported a bill that provided a blanket immunity for the telecommunications companies when they provided warrantless wiretapping at the request of the Justice Department.

I don't comprehend how you could hold these entities as blameless when they knew that the warrants for the wiretaps were not forthcoming, and provided them anyway. At the very least, I believe that a lawsuit would have forced them to defend their actions, indicate whether they were putting in some safeguards of their own, and possibly to exonerate them as actually yielding under protest. Instead, once this bill passes the conference committee and is signed by President Bush, it quietly absolves them without determining whether they did, in fact, break the law.

I don't understand how you could have decided in favor of this compromise, considering that it only succeeds in compromising the 4th Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

I have been a Kansan for close to 20 years now, and I have been proud of your representation of us in this district. Like most Kansans, I have put your achievements ahead of party affiliation, and I considered you a prime example of how some people could put partisan advantage behind the good of the country.

I am bitterly disappointed in your decision, and am now finding myself in a position of having to consider how I can continue to support you in light of this decision.

Again, I am sorry to see this decision of yours. I don't think it was your best one.

Sincerely...

It may have the same effect as shouting into a vacuum, but as citizens, we need to let our displeasure be known - now and at the ballot box.

Fascism is here in Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

This is America moving closer to a police state.

We continue to send the same people back to Congress to continue to screw us over and the American citizens are being bent over one more to take it up their A**! This is illegal intrusions on our Constitutionally protected rights.

Our founding fathers of this country would be calling us all weaklings and COWARDS for not standing up and fighting this.

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen

[glarbl_blarbl]

Uhm.... Read that section again. It's not the courts who make that decision under this bill, it's the executive. That's why this bill is such a piece of shit. I was hoping that Sen. Obama would pledge to filibuster it if the immunity provision isn't removed. Unfortunately his party seems to be more intent on covering their own asses instead of fulfilling their duty to protect the Constitution. Man, what I wouldn't give for an actual opposition party in this country.

Then why would Obama say he supports this?

[kickassweb]

Obama did say, after the vote, that he would TRY to get the retroactive immunity struck from it, but the rest of the bill is so Orwellian, it doesn't much matter. He supports the "compromise" that gives the neocons every damn thing they want. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/obama/index.html Y'all might have an interest in what's being done about this via the ACLU, Libertarians, Progressive NetRoots, Ron Paul Supporters and other Strange Bedfellows. http://bloggasm.com/strange-bedfellows-bloggers-from-the-left-and-right-team-up-with-the-aclu-to-fight-telecom-immunity

For the millionth time already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me, kids...

It is NOT illegal for the government to wiretap calls that either originate or terminate outside the borders of the United States. PERIOD.

This whole issue is based on a false premise.

Re:tar & feather the sob's by Optimistic Pessi

[Anonymous Coward]

Not obvious? Both presidential candidates continue to withold voting on any measure that might make them stand out in a crowd and really give the public an idea of what they stand for outside of all of the political banter that they and the news spew out as elections grow ever closer. IMHO all registered candidates that are also members of congress should be required to vote on all matters in which they share no personal interest. They were voted into office to do just that, express their opinion to direct this nation in the course of its constituents - by allowing them to duck the issues they are not only failing to do their job, they become nothing more than walking commercials and I don't know about you, but I don't believe everything I see on TV!