Slashdot Mirror
Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill
shma writes "This morning the senate has a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate on the FISA bill which grants retroactive immunity to telecoms who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have pledged to try and filibuster the bill, but require the vote of 40 senators to keep the filibuster alive. The article states that a similar 'threatened filibuster failed in February, when the Senate passed a measure that granted amnesty and largely legalized the President's secret warrantless wiretapping programs.' Should they lose the cloture vote, the bill is all but assured of passing. A proposed amendment stripping the immunity provision from the bill is also expected to fail."
I have a feeling we're in for a big letdown on this one. I guess he will just skip the vote altogether to avoid the controversy.
I simply don't understand why the Bush Administration doesn't want to use retroactive warrants. Spy on whoever you want just make sure you submit the warrants to the FISA courts later.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Once again, you'll have to choose for the candidate that goes backward the slowest...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Well, it's great that Dodd is filibustering this insane bill, but quite frankly I lost all respect for the guy when he supported giving a $300 billion tax-payer funded corporate bail out to Country Wide (who owns 10% of the mortgages in the US) because he's pals with the CEO. At least with Dubya the game is up and everyone knows him and his cronies for the corporate whores and oil lobby monkeyboys they are. With guys like Dobb, who posture around with a BS charade of integrity it's somehow worse. If you're going to be a festering piece of shit, please don't insult me or waste my time trying to convince me you're a white rose.
A-Bomb
Because that would mean they're following the law. To quote a Bush Administration agent, "Badges!?! Badges?!? We don't need no stinking badges!"
That's their mentality.
I agree, Obama is probably a better choice than McCain. (Although it's still a little early to be making decisions now, especially with no VP picks yet.)
That doesn't mean he shouldn't be called on his bullshit, though. If he's going to change his mind, that's fine, but he needs a reason. The reasoning here appears to be "the Republicans called me weak on terrorists" which is a rather lame reason.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
When you have elected officials, they learn rhetoric, idiocy, and how to play with the body politic. They rarely if ever campaign on what they truly intend to do. Now, in Greek democracy anyone could be elected through a lottery system for a one year term, based on regions of the country. It'd be awesome if we would institute something similar. No more pandering to lobbyists, etc. But oh no, that would be a democracy, and America doesn't want that.
... in a Democratic Party controlled Congress? I am not trying to play partisan politics, but it is absurd to think that the party that claims to be "of the people" would bow so easily to Big Business and a President that they have made no bones about despising. This is one of the most patently offensive laws to civil liberties that I've ever seen, and I'm just stunned that there isn't enough Democratic support to either strip the retroactive immunity provision or filibuster the bill. Isn't it the Republican Party's job to acquiesce to big business?
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
I met Dodd once. He was trying to sneak a relative into an event where I was interpreting for foreign dignitaries. The woman working security told him his guest did not have the proper credentials to enter the VIP area. His response was quick:
"But I'm SENATOR Dodds."
She wasn't impressed:
"Yes, I know that. And HE doesn't have the proper credentials."
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I know several people in the intelligence community, mostly hackers, CS researchers, and technical people. They are all against telecom immunity and against the current wiretapping procedures. (One of them actually works for the company that made the P2P throttling software for Comcast). Whenever I discuss the subject, they are sympathetic and tell me that the U.S. government abuses their powers far more than is publicly known.
Things will TRULY be bad when they are afraid to tell me that they are against it.
Canada had this since 1996, when Alan Rock, a left wing joker, created a law which allows the Police to take, and do anything they want, with out fully telling the judge who is issuing the warrant.
Even if the Police in Canada just thought you might be guilty of something, they can act upon 'their feelings', and than get the warrant for the crime they say you committed. Or just fore go the warrant based on what they tell the crown.
If you are a firearm owner in Canada, the Police can enter your home, place of work, friend's homes, family's homes, looking for firearms 24/7.
This has happened in Canada more often than what is reported in the media.
You think that the a Democratic president would have invaded Iraq?
Something like that is conceivable.
Imprisoned and tortured innocent people?
It's happened before.
Pushed for telecom immunity in the first place?
Who do you think is pushing for it now?
Undermined the military?
There's a reason why even Bush used to be against nation-building before he was for it.
Don't get me wrong, it's obvious that on average the Democrats are doing a lot better than the Republicans lately. But you can't just say "a [party I like] President" wouldn't have done such bad things; that kind of tribalism valuing affiliation over actions is at the root of how the Republican Party self-destructed, and the Democrats aren't immune from the same human impulses.
To get down to specific examples, I think it's pretty clear by now that Gore wouldn't have made most of the mistakes Bush did, but I don't think it's clear that the privacy issues we're discussing right now aren't an exception.
That's it, exactly. I keep forgetting this; it's just personal resentment towards telcos that reminds me where I'd rather this thing end up.
It's as though the Democrats are afraid of shaming the President. They won't do anything substantial about what he and his gang have perpetrated. This "impeachment's off the table" smacks of blackmail fear or some misplaced perception that the electorate just doesn't want another impeachment.
I want a real one. I want for soap opera broadcasts to be pre-empted, I want a parade of dozens of officials taking the Fifth, and several very damning "I don't recall" responses.
I also want the power to levitate at will and to travel through time without disrupting anything, you know, inconvenient to me.
I do believe that this administration has at least one more gut-level shocking revelation coming. I don't really think that any of them will pay for it with jail time, nor to do think that any of them will really care whether the exposure will prevent them from "serving" in government after the fact.
I think that both the Executive and the Legislative branches have something to hide here, and I suspect that the filibuster threat is an empty gambit. Either the telcos are funding all of the reelection campaigns, or the Congressional committees knew about it too and approved it.
We have become that which we resisted. Welcome, comrades!
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
Most votes are wasted. What good does it do to vote for a winner? Your vote is not wasted only if it influnces the outcome. This is a rare event. However, if 500 people had voted for Gore instead of Nader in Flordia, then the world would be different now.
Different, but IMHO not any better. I voted for Nader hoping that it would help Gore to lose (I'm not in Florida tho), even though I think Republican politicians are complete scum. The thing is, I think Democratic politicians are complete scum too, but scum that ought to know better. I think the only way to bring the Dems back in line with their platform is to vote for independents and hope the Dems lose in the process-- if it happens repeatedly year after year eventually they'll get the message that what they're doing ain't working very well.
I knew full well in 2000 that Bush was an accident looking for a place to happen, and voted for Nader realizing that. Bush exceeded my wildest expectations in that regard. It was clear to me that until it got a LOT worse, it wasn't going to get any better so there's no point in mitigating the damage by voting for a Democrat and postponing the agony. What surprised me though, is that the voting populace actually didn't see Bush as the colossal screwup he obviously (to me, at least) was, and he was voted in again-- but I figured that is a good thing as the Dems just won't learn.
This year, I actually hope McCain will get in and continue to show the Dems that they are banging their head against a wall and better shape up if they ever want to see the oval office again. I think McCain would likely be nearly as bad as Bush, but as I said, I don't see it getting better until it gets a lot worse and Obama would just prolong the agony in making the Dems think what they're doing is OK.
So I'll vote independent-- ANY independent, as I refuse to vote for the scum of the earth, whether red or blue, and whether or not they have a chance of winning or not. While Barr may not have a chance of winning, Obama does have a chance of losing, and that is what I'm shooting for-- I just refuse to vote for McCain to try to accomplish it.
But perhaps you can tell me where a guy fits in who:
- Supports the first AND second AND fourth amendments
- Supports abortion rights
- Supports universal health care and malpractice tort reform
- Opposes wacko environmentalists, bible-thumpers, and political-correctness
- Distrusts big business and trial lawyers
- Hates the Iraq War
- Fully supports the Afghan War
- Thinks the government should help the poor more than the rich, but not to the point of fraud and dependency
- Supports higher taxes and less spending
- Thinks the government has a responsibility to balance the deficit before this country goes bankrupt
- Supports putting an income test on entitlements like Social Security
Now, tell me what party speaks for me. Jesse Ventura is the closest thing I've seen so far to my ideals. And alas, he doesn't have a party either.SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Wasn't the biggest ballooning of the federal budget (and debt) of the last 50 years under Reagan? Followed by the Bushes?