Slashdot Mirror
Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether."
step 1: retroactive immunity
step 2: retroactive crimes
step 3: prophet
The trouble is that we have a choice between the Republicans who want amnesty and the Democrats who are afraid not to grant it. What kind of pressure can we bring?
Obama has an amazing ability to raise money from small donors. If the donors went on strike, Obama would react.
Enough of us have to tell the Democrats that we won't donate if amnesty passes but we might donate if it doesn't. The pressure from his supporters has forced Obama to react by telling us to suck it up. More pressure might force him to change the way he intends to vote.
So I was browsing Wikipedia and came across the following definition for "fascism":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Hm. Committed nationalist militants working in collaboration with "traditional elites", such as large telcos.
Discuss.
The standard narrative for Dem caving is that they fear for their electability or whatever. It's also possible that they just believe what they vote for.
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity. Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
I firmly believe immunity for ANYONE is too much. The idea that immunity makes whistleblowing more likely is a bunch of bullshit and always has been. You shouldnt need immunity if you did nothing wrong, and you deserve to rot in jail if you did. Its just a question of do you want to be the person rotting or do you want to bring everyone involved down with you.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
"If a policeman ordered you to rob a bank, do you think you deserve amnesty?"
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
The UN is nothing but the sum of its members.
And the US have been largely responsible for castrating it. Look at the use of veto in the UNSC in the past 30 years. Even USSR did not fuck it up that much.
I think the only way I'd be willing to accept telecom immunity is if all those involved in issuing the requests were prosecuted for it. Of course, that'll never happen...
I advocate mid-term votes on each of your congresscritters, with ballots such as that below (for each):
I think congressperson X:
Get the people really involved!
Your confusing two separate activities there. First, the wiretaps and then the refusals to provide access. The law, passed in 1994 says that the telecom providers must use certain equipment and make or provide access to the equipment. Bush attempted to use that to build data centers where bundles of lines passed through making tapping an entire region from one location a reality. It was to avoid having to send field agents to 200 different locations in order to effect a 2 minute tap. The law provides an out based on reasonableness and the claims that a company refused was a defense used by a CEO who was brought up and convicted on insider trading charges who claimed that because they didn't cooperate, the government took contracts from them and gave them to companies who participated.
It really is separate from the actual tapping and shouldn't be considered the same because the law specifically states that the government can pay for the change overs and stuff and make that happen. Access and taping are separate issues.
Then the government can tell the telecoms to destroy all documents relating to this. The telecoms can tell any future investigators that those records were destroyed, please refer to the current administration. Who have probably since moved to Dubai.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
As a French friend once told me, "You Americans don't know how to fight the government."
Get the tractors out, boys!
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
He was -- I was referencing a well known name to make my argument. If you have to let someone skate on lesser charges to convict someone else of murder.... well that's usually worth doing, isn't it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Here's the response from Obamas representatives when I sent a message to him last week regarding the amnesty bill:
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
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. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. 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. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
Most of it seems like the typical generic BS politician response.. protect the American people.. carefully monitor the program.. yadda yadda. The Protect America Act.. I hate names like that so much, just like the Patriot Act. By coming up with these bullshit names for bills, they are basically implying that those who don't favor these bills don't want to Protect Americans.. or aren't a true Patriot. Anyways, at least Obama says he's going to try and remove the provision to grant retroactive immunity. Whether he really tries that hard since he is so busy campaigning right now, we will see.
No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.
If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible. The OIC is held responsible because there is recourse for not following orders. The same goes for the government. If the government says, "Do this or else." You basically do it. Its considered extenuating circumstances.
Get your liberal Bush hating head out of your ass. We get it, you don't like the guy. Not very many people do like him. Now STFU and go read a book.
The Government broke the law by making the telecoms break the law. The government should be held responsible. Leave the telecoms alone - we don't need to give them any more reason for them to raise prices on us.
Coming at your point another way, without things like immunity and a 5th Amendment, there is less incentive to violate the status quo by doing something revolutionary, e.g., behaving ethically.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The biggest mis-conception is that Telecom companies were victims in all this; that the big mean government threatened them and they caved in out of fear. This just isn't true. It's not like they did the wiretapping for free, they charged and profited from it. Furthermore, by playing ball they received other sweetheart billion-dollar government deals, while companies like Quest were specifically denied. In fact, one of the lesser publicized but even uglier aspects of this bill is that it actually pays some unpaid bills for the wiretapping project.
The really crazy thing about all this is that, in civil court, the telecom companies are claiming they didn't illegally wiretap their customers, whilst they simultaneously ask Congress for compensation AND retro-active legal immunity... for acts they supposedly didn't commit.
This whole thing is outrageous and an affront to justice on all counts. If this bill passes unamended, I fear for the future of our nation. (If we, the people, can even call it that any more.)
-Grym