Slashdot Mirror
House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support?
We discussed telecom immunity yesterday ahead of the House vote. It passed by 293 votes to 129. Only one Republican voted against the bill; Democrats were evenly split. It now goes to the Senate. Reader Verteiron points out that Glenn Greenwald has up a post titled "Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill." It says that Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway. I couldn't find this on Obama's official site. Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?
Perhaps that slogan only really means that we can hope all we want for some change, 'cause we're never going to get it.
He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.
no change
This does not stop law suits. It gives telcos who have written requests from the government, dated after 9/11/2001, that state the president authorized the specific wire tap to not be liable.
1)The telcos still have to go to court and file papers
2)so many people were violated that there will be many many suits
3)they have to have written proof that the president authorized it (not likely given the fact that Bush wanted to not be caught)
4)there is evidence that Bush had been doing this domestic wire tapping before 9/11
5)A judge still decides if the proof provided by the telcos meets the standard
Why do we keep relying on "leaders" (read "rulers") to do what is right for us, even when it is almost never in their interest to do so?
Is it not time for open source governance?
I'm not supporting McCain, but I did support Ron Paul.
I would say it's likely Obama will vote for the bill whatever comes of it. Even though Obama talked about Civil Liberties, with the renewal of the Patriot Act all he really did was push for being kinder, gentler.... and most of those provisions were stripped out later on and he still voted for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations
Obama also supports banning the burning of flags (which is also the proper way to get rid of a delapitated flag, btw) with just a law, not even amending the Constitution:
"I support legislation introduced by Senator Durbin that makes it illegal to burn the flag without changing the Constitution."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060627-obama_statement_29/
I'm sorry, but I'm not excited about this election at all (I voted and campaigned in the primary so I could be).
"Only one Republican voted against the bill;"
Hrm. I wonder who that may be :P
Oday ouyay antway otay ayplay away amegay?
I can't think of anything profound to say. I hate to be the bearer of hopelessness, but I think that the US is too far down the road to being a police state. There is no way this will get reversed. I don't see this thing being defeated in the Senate. There are too many powerful lobbies behind it. Sorry.
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not. This has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the betrayal of rule of law by both political parties. They have eviscerated the fourth amendment without so much as a peep from the Supreme Court.
This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States. Otherwise, everything our founders stood for in the creation of the Bill of Rights will be diluted to nothing before our eyes. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian United States of America.
Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway.
This is just another case where multiple issues are stacked into one bill, forcing legislators to either support something they don't want or vote against something they do want. Yes there is supposed to be a solid connection between all the parts of a bill, but legislators can't vote yea on one line item and nay on another and often time the connections between items on a single bill are tenuous. Tagging unpopular items to otherwise popular bills is one of the more common forms of corruption in our legislative process.
We are all just people.
You know, as much as I don't like seeing the telco companies getting of completely, I must admit I blame the government more than the companies themselves.
It was the government that started this whole ball rolling and the telcos were (more or less) just following orders.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
As much as I am against the wiretapping, it isn't actually wrong to make the telcos immune to something the government required them to do. The problem is that you can't realistically punish those in government who were responsible, but that isn't a reason to go after the telcos. Does anybody actually think they had much choice in the matter? You are talking about a government which has empowered itself with the ability to request sensitive information from people and then order them to stfu about it under the threat of persecution. The telcos may be bastards, but holding them responsible for something the Government most likely strong armed them into doing makes no more sense than denying somebody his right to a fair trial "because he deserves it".
In this particular case the blame rests with the government, the problem is that they are already untouchable, which is why people are going after the telcos. Somebody ought to pay, and because it isn't possible to make the ones ultimately responsible pay, people have picked the telcos as the scapegoat. Problem is "they are bastards and deserve it" isn't a good reason to sue the wrong institution.
What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?
This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.
The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.
It is illegal call up someone within 60 days prior to an election and criticize John McCain.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Not if he can help it
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
Paul and his minions can't do this on their own. You'll need to create a Libertarian / Liberal coalition to win this. IMO: Libertarians and Civil Rights activists have more in common than they have in opposition right now.
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/11689
ActBlue appears to be attempting this type of Libertine/Liberal coalition. I've donated.
less than 0.01% of the country cares.
People don't care about this, they care about their perceived lack of money.
whether it is true or not.
They hear that the economy is in a recession (it isn't), that they are losing money on their investments (they aren't if they know anything), their homes aren't worth anything (they are, and will continue to go up over time), and want to feel better and will vote according to their belief of who makes this warm and fuzzy feeling possible.
This issue isn't on the top 100 list of voters.
The political climate currently will cause the brightest to leave the US and earn their money else were, leaving the US with only incompetent people in leader positions. I have given up already, the US is doomed at least for the current generation and need a lot of work and attention of future ones.
It is only immunity for those who have "proof" that they were asked by the executive branch for their cooperation in spying. :/
Which would have been illegal, wouldn't it? Too bad the white house email system went on the fritz...
The Dems probably want the telcos to release any white house emails that may have been 'misplaced', in their own defense.
The telcos are not the target, they are pawns. Sing about the bad man who asked you to do the spying, and you're free to go.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
He supports it. He supposedly opposes retroactive immunity, and once last October even declared that he would filibuster a FISA bill with immunity, but he appears to have changed his mind at the last minute.
If he filibusters, perhaps I'll change my mind on donating to his campaign. But right now, he has signaled that he won't oppose this FISA bill - and further, he may even vote for it.
If you're OK with that, I suggest you campaign for him. I'm not OK with that.
You would be surprised... Many of Paul's supporters are motivated to go to the local levels and get things done. Most republicans (rank and file) just show up to the presidential election every 4 years, send some money in, and that's it. Paul's supporters can take over the party within a decade if they play their cards right and stay engaged in politics. That's basically all it takes -- people start taking Mayor positions, State Senate and Representative positions, etcetera, and then onward and upward. Nothing hard -- I expect a mass exodus of republicans this year as they get their behind handed to them in the general election (this is what happened to Democrats in '94?) so it makes it even easier for us.
I have respect for Libertarians, but 3rd party is a tougher fight because Repubs/Demos already legislated the playing field to suit themselves so it's easier to take over a major party than to get Libertarians in prominent political positions in order to have the average voter consider them a valid force.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_i_would_support_dodds_filibuster.php
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
From reading the "statement", it seems like he is saying that it is more important to have the stricter penalties and a clearer law going forward than to worry about the cases that have already occurred. Personally, if I were in the senate right now and the two choices were "stop this from happening going forward, but let the first batch go through" and "nail the guys who did this, but continue to have this fight every time the issue comes up", I might just pick the future over the present. It seems like the political climate is such that the guys have de facto immunity anyway, so what do we really gain by allowing prosecution? The deck is stacked against anyone who wants to bring the telecoms to court. Next time it won't be.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Here's the thing. I look at a lot of Obama supporters today and I see in them a lot of the same things I saw in myself when I was big into the Republican Party.
The moral of the story is that you can't buy into any single party's message, and that you need to make either political party work hard for your vote. Nobody gets screwed over by a political party more than its most loyal supporters...
We need to get past the game that we are being worked towards, where we see Democrats and Republican as enemies, and re-learn to appreciate each other as citizens. We need to tell ourselve that it is as ok to be a redneck with his cars up on blocks (that's me), as it is to be a gay couple getting married, that a man has as much right to own rifle as he does to burn the flag, that, we together have natural rights that encompass not just the bill of rights, but beyond them. And, we need to understand that when someone else is trying to get us caught up in a civil war of even a political sort, they are only doing so that in the cause of protecting us from these imagined fellow citizens as enemies, that they are taking the rights of everyone.
This is my sig.
Something to keep in mind. On Olberman last night a constitutional law expert basically said that this law procludes the telcos from civil liability for their actions. This is obviously bad and stupid. However it doesnt proclude them from criminal liability. The problem is no criminal case will be allowed through the justice department under this administration. The only chance of that happening would be for a new administration to make it a priority. Now, simple question, what are the chances of a McCain administration doing so?
I agree wholeheartedly.
You know what, I used to agree with you and I have argued very passionately that suing the telcos is just another way for the lawyers to get rich without accomplishing anything...
but...
I'm thinking that I want some accountability. I want names. I want search terms. I want to know who the government was searching for and why and we cannot trust that the government will tell the truth.
This is my sig.
You (and others) are of the belief that this proof doesn't exist. I assure you it does and it is widely believed it does. Fmr. AG Gonzales testified to this fact and the telcos have used such arguments in their legal cases.
Congress said "yeah, we'll get your back if you can prove Bush asked you to do it" knowing full well that the telcos have such proof. It was a compromise in name only.
Bull. We're deep in a game of "I know that you know that I think you think that I know..." but not so deep that we can't follow the clues and, ignoring what people say and watching what they do, see pretty clearly what's going on.
The House Democratic leadership has control of this process, and, through Steny Hoyer pushed this through. They could have played it many ways, and this is the way they chose. They put together this "compromise" and were under no obligation to bring it to the floor unless and until they liked it. Turning around and saying they were foxed into it doesn't wash.
Why would they do this, you ask? The most likely answer is that they wanted to get it out of play before November, and thus were doing it on behalf of Obama.
Or, if you're paranoid, you might note that we already know that some of the illegal wiretaps were done on journalists and politicians. Just as the "anti-racketeering" RICO act was quickly expanded to cover things that weren't previously considered racketeering, even the legally sanctioned the anti-terrorism powers are being used in all sorts of inappropriate ways. Perhaps blocking the immunity provisions would not be healthy for our brave representatives's careers. So in that sense you might argue that they were forced into it.
But, no matter what, our representatives weren't sold a pig in a poke unless they weren't paying any attention at all, and in that case it was their own leadership that did it to them.
--MarkusQ
same as the old boss.
The proof is what they are after. Not the telcos.
If they get the correspondence that proves the white house meddled before 911, that's a revelation.
That doesn't mean anything good will come of it, necessarily.
Obama is fighting to remove immunity.
Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...
Text of the House bill, see section 802.f:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304
EFF analysis of the immunity portion of the bill:
http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf
I simply refuse to be trapped by false dichotomies.
Are you dumb?
No matter how much change Obama says he belives in, no matter what change he does believe in, there won't be change for one reason. Money. If Obama wants to get the money and support of the democrat party he needs to vote with the democrats, he needs to be like Hillery if he hopes to be elected. The Democrat party is divided, Obama needs to bridge that gap if he hopes to be president. Meaning, he can't create change. Just yet another failed government promise...
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The Bush Administration are the real criminals in this case, why aren't they being held accountable? Everyone is gung ho about crucifying the Telco's, what about the people who ordered them to do the spying?
While I don't agree with what they did, I can understand why the Teclo's agreed to the situation. The Bush Administration probably assured them that were the program ever exposed, they would be granted immunity, and in the mean time they made a fair bit of money off the illegal activities of the government. Both groups should be tried for their actions, but people should be much more upset with the government over this.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
BUT it only gives immunity to wiretapping that started after 9/11. The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact. This was when the Bush people were ignoring terror threats so it was not about terrorists.
Or did I miss something? He wasn't the lone republican to dissent.
What about 9/11/2001 is legally relevant? Ie, what makes wiretapping (or whatever it is being called) okay after that date?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Tor router in a box / appliance or hacked up home router anyone?
It's been discussed briefly on the Tor mailing lists (from what I can tell in the archives).
When this passes, it sounds like that's the only average citizen's defense against random wiretapping.
Welcome to the police state.
I prefer no spying on US citizens at all, without a signed warrant.
Sure have. Apparently, we shouldn't grant immunity to the telecoms--no, wait, I mean we should grant immunity to the telecoms. Of course, the wiretapping was legal anyway, though on second thought maybe it wasn't.
So there you have it: John McCain's stance on wiretapping and telecom immunity. hope that cleared things up for you. :-)
We don't live in a democracy anymore. Come to think of it we never have.
One day, people are going to revolt. As they won't tolerate the censorship and constant surveillance.
Too bad it is problay going to happen in WW3, around 2025.
having phone sex with your grandfather, so just relax.
Official House Roll Call for H R 6304
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
Breakdown of votes by state, representative, etc.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437
(1) Obama turned down federal financing the other day.
(2) He is totally reliant on private contributions to carry the campaign to the White House.
(3) It is the internet fund raising that has brought in huge dollars for him.
(4) Stop being adoring fans and start thinking like empowered citizens
(5) Get on Reddit, Digg, twitter, Facebook, etc.: NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS until Obama proves leadership on Telecom Immunity
(6) Learn what it feels like to have real power.
Forget video, how about going for "plain-spoken?" Require everything passed by the US Congress to be written in plain English. Use a standard text complexity analyzer to verify it. Yes, they'll have a legal jargon to compress complex concepts into single words, but overuse of them will count against them. (Require hyperlinks to the official definition of each such word.) At least it would remove some of the deliberately verbose and obfuscated sentences in too many laws that seem to be deliberately hiding the meaning of the law.
I agree that sunset provisions would help clean out all the legal cruft built up over the decades, and force old laws to be rewritten in plain English.
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Here's a list of how each representative voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
I've been a supporter of Obama. That said I am an independent. I support those who reflect my views, not the views of big corporations and lobbyists. Until this issue is cleared I intend to withhold financial support. I ask those who believe strongly enough in this to do the same. We need to send a strong message.
If lobbyists can do it.. so can we...
once more into the breach
If you are able to remove your party blinders--I know it's difficult--, please consider Bob Barr. He's in this to win.
Here's his press release from Thursday - Bob Barr Urges Congress: No Surveillance of Americans Without Fourth Amendment Protections
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06304:
Then you should've supported Ron Paul.
Libertas in infinitum
The problem is that legislators forget who they take an oath to. They take an oath to the Constitution.
They are not allowed per their oath to vote for anything unconstitutional yet they do so anyway.
One of the only members of Congress that has Constitutional integrity? US Rep Dr Ron Paul. Google him...
Libertas in infinitum
No, that complicates the issue and allows future politicians to muddy it with more complex definitions of plain-spoken and the like. Then we have SCOTUS rule on what is and is not plain-spoken, what legal jargon is allowed, what dictionaries are allowed (then it becomes an issue of capitalism, do we support Black's Law Dictionary or some alternative?) Etc.
Let's not create a blurry definition, instead, let's videotape every senator and representative saying their yea by reciting the text of the bill. If the law is deliberately obfuscated or verbose, then they will pay for it in their time and in explaining why they voted for something needlessly complex. Their upcoming opponents will campaign on the simplicity and elegance to the laws they will write, and may even win on those grounds.
Certainly if we require videotaping of yea votes by requiring each yea to be a repetition of the full text of the bill then we will no longer have to worry about burgeoning, confusing and unnecessary legislation and the strange and unrelated matters that slip into major bills.
I don't think this is the case; if you read "Dreams from My Father" on living in Suharto's Indonesia you get a visceral sense for how he really doesn't dig police states.
Nobody likes Police States unless they are on the same side of the Police, or better yet control them. He is no different than any other power hungry politician.
The entire Republican party has arrayed themselves against the Constitution.
Bob Barr, former republican senator, opposes telecom immunity.
Remember that on election day.
He is now the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.
For now, I'm leaning towards voting for Bob Barr but if the only choices were McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact.
Guess what else Bush did before 911. He also gave the Taliban $43 million dollars of US taxpayer money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that?
Unlike a democracy a republic does not require checks and balances. All a republic requires is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch". A dictatorship can very well be, and most likely is, a republic.
This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process.
Only until the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. Now whether they would or not is up in the air. The current court has rubber stamped some of what the Bush admin wants to do but has barred others. The recent court ruling upholding habeas corpus for instance was a 5 to 4 ruling. However the Gonzales v. Raich ruling, the case about states rights and California voters approving medical marijuana, was 6 to 3 against states rights, without giving any logic based on the USA Constitution for the ruling.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The last few stories regarding obama, mccain or clinton have resulted in a few of these "they didn't vote" comments... Please mod this inappropriate post down.... k thx
All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and n
Mind you, I've had a long day so far, but the only thing I can think of is a reference to Bush 1...?
After rereading the post I see my post was wrong. For some reason I was thinking your comment was about Clinton. I see now that while the ggp did say something about Clinton-bashing, the post I replied to did not. What I meant though is that Clinton was the "NEXT to LAST almost-as-obnoxious turd" to be in the White House.
I'm confused, and feeling like maybe my hair is messy from a *WOOOSH* but at least I've got the balls to stand up and proclaim my ignorance loudly! :-D
No need, it was my mistake. Oh and Bush 1 is the second from last.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I am directing my money toward those candidates who genuinely fight this absurd bill. I'm still hoping Obama will rejoin those ranks, but until then there is no shortage of campaigns I can contribute to. The 128 House Democrats who voted against it, for example.
(Oh, and I am noting who voted which way on this one. In two years I will be picking amongst about 105 primary challengers. Pelosi, Hoyer, I'm looking at you.)
All that said, voting third party is more effective than not voting at all, and whoever modded you flamebait is an idiot for doing so.
Ron Paul and his supporters and trying to change the Republican Party. This will be a slow process, probably taking 5-15 years before we have significant leadership positions in that party
People have been trying to change the Republican Party for more than 30 years now. The Libertarian Party was started by Republicans who were fed up with the republican party and Nixon. However Libertarians have been fighting in the party at least since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president. What ironic is that Ike is the same person who warned about the military industrial complex.
FalconShould there be a Law?
He hasn't had the opportunity to vote on it at all yet. We're just pissed that he's not stumping against it wholeheartedly.
He still has ample opportunity to make it right. A drop in donations to his campaign (with explanations from the droppers as to why) might yet convince him that doing the right thing is worth any political cost that might be involved. Or a jump in donations to this page, set up specifically to reward valor and punish cowardice on this very issue.
It might even redound to his benefit. I honestly believe it would.
If this guy would run I'd be out on the streets supporting him.
The second American Revolution is going to be much more violent than the first.
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
As a sidenote, he's not even an ardent supporter of small government. He supports a small federal government, and huge overbearing state governments.
A small federal government is what the Constitution of the USA is about. That says nothing about the size of state government though. I used to support Paul because of this, however I disagree with large state government, I want as small of a government as possible at all levels.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I have respect for Libertarians, but 3rd party is a tougher fight because Repubs/Demos already legislated the playing field to suit themselves so it's easier to take over a major party than to get Libertarians in prominent political positions in order to have the average voter consider them a valid force.
Except most Libertarians started as Republicans. The LP itself was started by Republicans who were fed up with Nixon and the party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.
Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet
Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications
Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards
Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy
How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers
I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.
People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.
That's fine.
Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"
Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.
I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.
I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.
If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.
This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.
Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.
For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!
I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.
Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).
he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"
The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,
Tweet, tweet.
It was the government that started this whole ball rolling and the telcos were (more or less) just following orders.
The same excuse was used during the Nuremberge Trials, "I was just following orders."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh, and as I mentioned in another reply, Paul is the Representative for the Texas 14th district. He is most certainly not a Senator.
What you gonna do about it?
The New, Updated, Republican - Democrat House Political Hit List:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Dog_Opposites_Those_Who_Got_it_Right
~hylas
Last I checked, Qwest wasn't brought up on "not doing the executive branch's bidding"
That's because you didn't really check [fiercetelecom.com] at all, did you?
Being blacklisted, if Qwest was, is not being put on charges of "not doing the executive branch's bidding". That's not even a crime.
FalconShould there be a Law?
if I were in the senate right now and the two choices were "stop this from happening going forward, but let the first batch go through" and "nail the guys who did this, but continue to have this fight every time the issue comes up", I might just pick the future over the present.
Either or aren't the only choices, you can have both. Actually by showing businesses they will be prosecuted it may stop them from doing something illegal when they are asked next tyme.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As the parent mentioned, the only group willing to stand up for freedom is a fraction of the Democratic party. The entire Republican party has arrayed themselves against the Constitution. Remember that on election day.
There are plenty of freedoms that Republicans have fought to protect that Democrats have sought to take away. It is the Democrats that put into place the massive fingerprinting program at DHS. It is the Democrats that shred the 2nd amendment and they have a sorry track record dating back to FDR to using the government to censor opposing points of view in the media.
The fact of the matter is that both parties are adept at pointing to the other side, and saying, "give us more power, before the other side takes your rights." The thing is, when you give the government power, you automatically take rights away from yourselves.
The only way to get rid of government abuses is to get rid of government.
This is my sig.
Iraq just pumped 2.5 million barrels a day this month. If they continue to improve, they will be at 3 million a day by the end of the year and oil prices will be down, and Bush will wind up looking awfully good.
This is my sig.
If Obama wants to get the money and support of the democrat party
Obama doesn't need party funding. He's got the largest war, er campaign, chest by collecting millions of dollars off of individuals over the net. Actually he went back on his pledge to use public financing because he's doing so well fund raising. McCain is starting to use that as an issue.
FalconShould there be a Law?
But if you think the Illinois state senator and constitutional lawyer is some kind of closet authoritarian, I dunno what to say. How many fascist heads-of-state started in the damn state senate with a law degree after a decade of community service?
Obama is obviously an authoritarian. The first hallmark is to demand the state act together, and he has that in spades.
This is my sig.
Do you know how many people could die in the time it takes to wake up some judge at 3AM? And what if he gets stuck in traffic
Every time I hear this argument about the judge stuck in traffic, the terrorists are on their way, and therefor, we have to get rid of the constitution, I just want to puke.
Why couldn't we just have a staff of FISA judges in the same damned building as the people who want the wiretaps? In fact, put them in the same room!
You don't have to give up your constitutional right to solve what's really a minor staff management problem. It's just stupid!
This is my sig.
A box was left out, soap. "Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.".
FalconShould there be a Law?
We know they received such written requests. Seems like the lawsuits
would be dismissed immediately.
Maynard has his head up his ass. The Democrats are worse than the Republicans in many respects and they both suck. Would you rather have snooping in your bedroom or see your paycheck confiscated and given to slackers? Both are an affront to freedom but those are the choices.
ActBlue is a front for the Democrat party. Research their registration and you will find the same, old cast of characters.
I agree that many Democrats are libertines but there are no Libertarians in that party.
Do I hear other voices here in the wildness? We the great majority here in the middle that believe neither the far right nor the far left are working for the anything other than their special interest need to arise
It might even be better than that. You might have people of the far right and far left who are inventing a new middle altogether.
This is my sig.
There are lines that aren't crossed without a bloody fight. There comes a time when you either stand for what is right, come what may, or you tuck your tail and crawl under the porch and lick where your manhood should have been attached. My hopes of seeing Obama fight for the reinstation of our Constitutional rights undermined by the Bush grab for power are devastated. I will no longer contribute to his campaign and have deleted my account on his web site as well as requesting to be removed from their mailing lists. I believe we have just seen the loss of the elections to the Republican party.
i guess i just dont understand why the teleco's are even in the line of responsability for this, to me its the government thats violating peoples rights, not the telecoms, its the government that should be sued, not the telecoms,
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Same thing I posted on Threat Level...
This won't really effect my vote for Obama. This is similar to the approach he's taking with 'universal healthcare'. Health care as a truly socialized service will have an incredible and underhanded force against it by the insurance companies and lobbyists and whoever else, it's a nearly impossible sell because of who's already in the bunk. But, his suggested approach is reasonable because it will help the people that need it but the insurance companies have no reason to fight it.
There's too many people, people in too much power trying to protect the telecoms, but the legal situation as it is with wiretapping is unacceptable. What can be changed must be changed quickly and the stuff that will be difficult to effect until after he is in office will have to wait.
Even if the telecoms can't be punished for whatever harm they might have done, that's no reason to ignore everything else Obama has promised, certainly in contrast to what little good McCain has promised.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Is wrong with your politicians? What, by extension, is wrong with your public? Are you so gripped by that idiotic and irrational fear that you will continue to give up your rights to corporations and their bought and paid for politicians on the lie that what they are doing is in your best interests? Time to wake up, America.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
I find it slightly ironic that between this post and yesterdays' preceeding thread on the same subject there have been countless individuals writing to express their disappointment in government, the political duopoly that controls it; and, for many, their avowed independence of both.
Yet, for all the mention of BBarr/RPaul and the Libertarians (whom i generally respect) and a minor tip-o-the-hat to the greens; no one person
has brought up the ghost in the machine: good old Ralph!, the great
spoiler.
Allowing that his bombastic nature is derived from decades of outrage and
trying to keep the smoke between his ears, this guy is the only one
with a proven track record of both anti-corporatism, an uncanny ability
to organize due to the inherent righteousness of his causes
(i.e. public safety in the true sense, not more LEA legislation), and
in his track record of getting those laws passed.
One need only look at the mines, the "dirty jobs" to see the impact
of his efforts. And yet, even those people who have directly benefited
from his labors (most all of us) write him off as some nutjob.
Is this because, as he alleges, the media and the duopoly have /. are not unawares.
cast him into a black hole; successfully silencing him? Seems
possible to me. But we here on
So why the absence of his name on the 'alternative' list?
resist propaganda
Which republican voted against the new FISA bill? Because I want to live in the state he's representing.
The pocket book. We can pull an MLK.
This may sound insane to anyone under 40 but maybe a boycott of the Telecoms is in order. Cancel your private phone/cell phone/ISP. Let's use capitalism to our advantage. We can make the markets work for us. Let the congress know how serious we are about this by boycotting.
Nothing gets done with out a sacrifice. This is our opportunity to make a sacrifice for what we supposedly beleive in. If we aren't willing to give up our phones/internet/cable tv for a week to two months then we don't deserve to have the freedom to bitch about wire tapping in the first place.
I still can not see how the telcos have violated the law.
1. FISA is the law.
2. FISA permits the NSA to tap phones without an existing warrant.
3. The phone companies must comply with NSA requests for taps without an existing warrant, (see 1 and 2 above).
4. After tapping a phone without a warrant, the NSA must eventually get a warrant.
5. The warrants are state secrets involving foreign spying and do not get forwarded to the phone companies.
6. Only the NSA can break the FISA law by not eventually getting the warrant.
Even if you disagree with FISA, it is still the law of the land. Even if the NSA does not get a warrant, the remedy is that any information they obtain can not be used in a court of law. If the information is used in some something 'evil', then there should be existing law (ie against blackmail) that will apply.
You seem to be under the impression I am advocating coal
No, I don't have the impression you're pro coal. I do think you're pro nuclear power, wanting to build more power plants "with only a few thousand nuclear plants, eventually, powering the US" .
Environmental impact of energy production comes from the waste emissions
Environmental impacts also come from mining as well as pre and post processing solid waste.
That's where nuclear becomes a very attractive option.
Uranium mining can be very dirty and destructive. "Uranium mining left a legacy of death". The Navajo have had to live with it. "Navajos won't allow uranium mining"[pdf]. Throughout the world it's mostly Indigenous peoples who carry the burden of uranium mining. "Indigeneous Peoples Call for Global Ban on Uranium Mining".
when we're redirecting enough solar energy to electricity that we start losing vegetation?
Any vegetation effected by solar power, PVs or concentrated, will only be where the concentrators or PVs are.
Nuclear, on the other hand, won't still the tides, it won't slow the winds, it doesn't soak up the sun's radiation, and it won't release the CO2 that we now know from experience warms the earth.
Forgetting mining, the construction of nuclear power plants releases a lot of CO2. Construction of plants require prodigious amounts of concrete and steel, both of which require massive amounts of heat energy to manufacture, and more than likely it come from coal. Then there's the need to transport them.
Like there are air conditioners and refrigerators of the coast. There are more than likely houses with them near mining and manufacturing though. Then there's the need for water for the mining yet water isn't readily available where the uranium is. In Colorado "Gov. Ritter Signs Uranium Mining Water Protection Bill".
The Univ. of Delaware study you linked to (see, I click! I read! Feel the love, Falcon.) plans to generate 330GW of power annually - from 166,720 turbines floating on top of fifty thousand square miles of ocean.
That area is still capable of being used as it is now. Ships and sail boats can still sail. Fishermen can still fish, actually because of the platforms needed for wind ginnies more fish could live there. Then with more fish more people could be encouraged to swim or snorkel and dive, which could boost the economy of the area. This is being done in Florida, artificial reefs are made by sinking cleaned objects which then encourages coral to grow. The coral offers shelters and food to fish.
That's a wind farm roughly one-fifth the area of Texas
Texas, specifically west Texas has wind farms that prod
Should there be a Law?
Hiding behind AC skirts, you know Gore won regardless, and the tired, spoiler, argument is getting moldy. And, considering RN has done more than AG has ever done, RN would still have been the better president and he would also have kept us out of Iraq plus a whole lot MORE to our benefit.
You're just ape'ing the talking heads. The election was stolen, thats the kind
of corruption RN wants to fix. AG, for all his worth, is still a politico;
maybe less of one now, but back in 2000 not. And the Dems are just as
spineless now as then.
resist propaganda