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 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.
Which is the worst move he could make. If he wants to present himself as a leader, he needs to show leadership on such an important issue. He's done nothing so far on this, and many other issues. I can't think of a bill which has Obama's name attached. If you like his legislation or not, at least McCain has done something - McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman...
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.
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.
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.
If one is protecting their country from attack, then by extension they are also protecting their homes.
Also, the reason behind that amendment was also to allow people to protect themselves from the government itself. Granted, Shays Rebellion was a failure and occurred during the Articles of Confederation, but few questioned the right of the people to use guns against the government. In fact, if you go to the Wiki page, you will see Jefferson's quote that you cited as well as the sentences leading up to that quote. In effect, Jefferson said that uprisings and rebellions are a good thing that should happen from time to time.
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis of the arguments before the court.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
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.