Slashdot Mirror
Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill
zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.
I'm sure you're all feeling a little bit better now right ?
Um, right ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
While they might not miss the relatively few votes of those of us who cared about the Republic, at least we'll be able to say we made the attempt.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.
I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does. They don't care. This nation needs a serious shakeup NOW.
I have no words for how cheated I feel right now.
...is how you guys want to play. Fine whatever. Except you better be looking over your shoulders constantly. This is not the end. It is only the beginning.
I see that not only there will be an increased usage of encrypted emails but there will be a new market for encrypted phones (hand set to hand set). Where do I get one?
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Right?
Right?
Hello?
I can see the fnords!
http://www.freegovernment.org/
It's time to order more of those 'THIS PHONE IS TAPPED' stickers from CrimethInc.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
"Obama (D-IL), Yea"
Fu%ker!!!! There. Now what do we do about it? What measures can be taken to have this changed?
All your freedoms is belong to USA....
or
In Corporate Amerika wires tap you....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
From CNN
In short: They aren't outright granted immunity, but instead a hearing will be held where they will undoubtedly be granted immunity. Bloody Democrats, they never have a spine when they need one.
PS: Hello to whatever TLA is currently monitoring this
McCain abstained.
Obama voted yea.
Biden voted nay
Kerry voted nay
Hillary voted nay
Now you know for real who stands for freedom and change and who doesn't.
My blog
"Change we can believe in" No change at all...
Our two senators voted 'Nay'; the bad news is that 69 other jacks voted 'Yea'. To bad that I can't vote them out of office.
Deplorable
Why didn't Obama try to stop this? He could have spoken out and got the rest of the dems behind him. Instead he voted in favor of it. This is what his campaign said in October:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
And on Dec 17:
Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.
Oh sure, he voted for the amendments which attempted to remove or limit the immunity, but everyone already knew those would fail.
This is from his most recent statement last week:
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.
Another nail in the coffin for our constitution. This is a sad day. And to think that most of the senate voted on this WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE GIVING THE TELCOMS IMMUNITY FOR!!!.
This stinks of a grand-scale coverup. There is still the possibility of suing the government, and perhaps striking this bill as unconsitutional. Let's hope we get to the bottom of this and put some people in jail.
Here I'd had hopes for Obama. Real hopes, too. But if he'd betray his country on a vote like this, then I just lost a great deal of respect for the man.
Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history happened, giving a clear mandate to our lawmakers to end the war? Somehow that didn't happen. Somehow the legislative groundwork got laid for another war in the meantime.
My congresscritters happened to be on the right side of this. If yours were not, I strongly suggest calling their offices and informing them that (if they're Democrats) your donations next election cycle will be going to their challenger in the primary. And then, of course, following through on that.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And why are they not marching on Washington to protect the constitution? If they bring the M16s, I'll be right there with the bullhorn, stretchers, and snacks. Unless they want to teach me how to use an M16.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Not that this was very unexpected. While many of us held high hopes that person(s) responsible for illegal activity would actually be held accountable, it seems like that's not the way the U.S. works anymore. I would think this sets a precedent; now one can argue that changing laws grants them retroactive immunity.
I've told my wife for years we eventually will need to move the the U.K.. Looks like that just got a little closer.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts voted NAY/Abstain on this. I nearly had a heart attack.
nt
Now the government has the tools it needs to protect us. Don't you feel more protected? I feel more protected!
My freedoms are so protected too. Freedom to write things like:
"I wish each member of the Bush administration was dipped in a vat full of Poison Oak sap, and that each senator and representative was made to take turns scratching the oozing blisters on their private parts."
On June 23, I learned that Obama would not oppose this bill, and regretted my donation.
On June 24, I called Obama for America and asked for my donation to be returned, and that I would reinstate the donation once I saw Sen. Obama "take effective steps to protect our 4th amendment rights." Needless to say, I was forwarded to a voice mailbox.
On July 9, I still have not received my refund, nor even the courtesy of a return phone call. But I went ahead and donated the $100 to Courage Campaign instead.
I can see the fnords!
Christ wake up, Obama has a history of crap like this.
I'm quite serious.
I'd fly out tomorrow with guns in tow if I knew more than 20 people would show up.
Post the GPS and GMT and I'll be there.
I am appalled to see such an idiotic piece of legislation pass. Does the rule of law mean NOTHING in our country any more? I may as well tell CmdrTaco that it's ok to shoot his neighbor, and then get him immunity just because I said so. Shame on you, senators. Shame on each and every one of you who voted for this godforsaken bill.
Seriously, fuck it. I don't know what the point is any more. Our government not only has a complete lack of respect for the rights of the American citizen, but also a lack of respect for OUR OWN GODDAMNED LAWS. Why should you and I act any differently than them? What, other than the point of a gun, is supposed to keep us from ignoring laws just because we feel like it?
Senators who voted against the bill, I applaud you, but your valiant efforts were for naught. There are 69 traitors in our Senate, rendering you impotent.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
If all our telecom companies are put out of business by lawyers looking to make a quick buck off of this, how can we make phone calls at all?
I think this bill makes the best of a bad situation for the telecom companies, which are a critical component of our economy. Do you think they will likely be believe the "trust me" line again when asked to do something like this?
I think not.
It's time for encryption of electronic communications to be the standard rather than the exception.
Make it too expensive to eavesdrop.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
...it's good to be the king - Mel Brooks
Can somebody explain the constitutional argument here? I can understand the illegal nature of warrentless wiretapping, but not the retroactively granting amnesty part. That seems like something that'd be within congress' power to grant, should it so choose.
Not a typewriter
I'm open to suggestions for the free-est place on the planet since the free-stock around here is dropping like a rock. Anyone?
If you illegally download MP3s and videos, you are depriving American corporations of their rights to benefit from their intellectual property. This means the government can't collect taxes to fund the War on Terror. Therefore, file traders are in league with terrorists. So, it's OK to use Echelon or Total Information Awareness or the Friendly Neighbor Network or whatever they call it to track down file traders.
Blame EVERYONE. With a 60%+ voter apathy for the last 24+ years the USA deserves everything it gets. When GW and his boys got in again I packed up and moved.
The US Constitution is the greatest achievement of civilized man. The raping of that document is the greatest crime. -me
The Supreme Court needs to step in and strike this down. Someone needs to bring a lawsuit and get it sent up to the Supreme Court.
When FISA courts can grant RETROACTIVE warrants, why does the Bush administration insist on not getting a warrant?
Because they were doing far more than just looking for terrorists.
A true sad day in the US.
Glad I voted for Ron Paul. I'll be using him as a write in come November.
Shit, I think my phone's been tapped.
It's already starting!
I'm glad I'll be able to say "I was there, and I tried to stop it" when the grandkids ask if I remembered when America started down the path of forming a surveillance society.
HAHAHAHA Obama votes against a large portion of his supporter's will, both expanding surveillance and providing immunity to large corporations from criminal lawsuits! HAHAHAHA There's your change! How do you like your precious Obama now???
Well, if a candidate making one decission the voter does not agree with is grounds for no longer support that candidate, then the voter will be out of any options, very soon.
Might explain low voter turn outs, actually.
I was going to vote for Obama. I probably still will. At least he made a decision and didn't abstain so he could plead that he never voted for it. Was it the decision I was hoping for? No. Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
the People have abdicated our duties; for the people who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses"
My fellow Americans, we have failed ourselves. This is why the second Amendment was invented, as clearly explained in the declaration of independence. Do you think they would have voted this way if 3/4ths of the nation was standing, armed, in front of the senate? Our apathy has doomed this nation to becoming an Orwellian police state.
Doesn't this fly in the face of article 1 section 9 of the constitution? In paragraph 3 is states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That seems rather straightforward to me and since this decriminalizes something after the fact it sounds like an Ex Post Facto law to me.
To fulfill it's balance power. Oh...what? um..They support it? Who would appoint judges that would?.....Oh....Dang. Guess it'll be up to the next wave of judges to do the right thing.....if that even it exists by the time they get there.
import system.cool.Sig;
www.freegovernment.org -- http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=762973
That's an optimistic assessment. A similar review of politicization of hiring in the Justice department recently found significant violation of department procedure, but there was no accountability to be had because the perpetrators had already left the department and there are no criminal penalties to be applied.
I am confident that any such review of the wiretapping programs will find inappropriate actions confined to long-gone political appointees giving inappropriate but unquestionable directives.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
And here I was sure he'd vote Yea.
On other news:
Senate declares that they will support Bush in a new search for 'weapons of mass destructions' in other countries of the world.
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
I feel reasonable minds can disagree on matters of public policy. But to you I am a traitor?
What is the standard for flamebait here anyway? I am confused.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Never would have happened if those fuckers had some sack. Castrati Choir, they are, they can sing the song we want to hear but there's no balls to follow through with it. We gonna jail Rove for refusing to testify before Congress? Yeah, sure, we'll get back to you on that.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Call your Senators now and remind them who they are supposed to serve--the people, not the government, not private corporations.
Also, look into your state's "vote of no confidence" proceedings. There must be at least one state with enough people and gumption to unseat a senator or representative because of this passage, especially when Dubya signs it.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Obama, agent of change?
Republicans believe in limited government?
Rule of law trumps rule of kings?
I think not. Same old, same old.
Thus we proceed to an animal farm world where words take on new meanings and some are more equal than others.
Infuriate left and right
damn, I thought for sure they could just run the clock out on that one
Now it's clear we've got a very significant fraction of the Congress involved in this stuff. There really is no other reason to do what they just did.
Blogging because I can...
In between reading the legislation (which none of you will do) and reading only the summary, you might consider reading some analysis of this by someone who Is A Lawyer:
Article here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html
Come and throw me in Gitmo you bastards. Its better to die on my feet than live in chains of your f*cking police state.
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
I have supported Obama since last August. I have the bumper sticker and T-shirt to prove it. Mr. Obama just lost my support. His telecom position was one of the key reasons I supported him. The bumper sticker has already been removed.
What signature defines me as a person?
No... ex post facto Law shall be passed.
"Clinton (D-NY), Nay" Too bad she's out of the race..
This is yet the second time i'm mentioning slashdot helped bury this.
I'm an old school moderate, which, since 1994, means I'm "OMG PINKO LEFTIST GODLESS COMMIE ENEMY OF THE STATE", and I sacrificed karma by the pana-max shipfull pointing this out.
All to no avail, the leftist version of the moronic bushite scum we love to hate descended upon my posts and anyone who dared to agree with my assertions this man should be examined under the same scepticism as any other beltway sellout with zealous fury, "-1 troll" mods in hand.
If you hate the irrational blindness of bush supporters, then mod someone calling for skepticism of Obama, you are a hypocrite.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
All we can hope for now is that a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they find the law unconstitutional.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
I encourage you to do the same.
Both of the Pennsylvania Senators, Specter and Casey, voted Yea.
For the same amount of effort to post a comment here, you can easily write to your Senators. Their goverment websites have contact forms.
To armorments made of electrons, let us strike at those who betray us. And if unwilling to listen to reason, react with arms of steel.
Despite [[this story][http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802967_pf.html]
Every single damn republican voted yea. Well, those who bothered to show up.
So a WTF to Obama, but at least half of the democrats stood by their people.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Welcome to the Police States of America... ALL YOUR RIGHTS BELONG TO US. I guess, we should all apply for a handgun license to piss the government off now. I will be not surprised, if in the next 15 years we have another civil war.
just hopped over to cnn to see what they have on this. could not find a single thing on the front page. all the space is given to some jon benet ramsey development. crazy. I do see it very small on the front page of msnbc.com - still a lot more space to the ramsey thing though.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I was going to vote for Obama. I probably still will.
How the hell can you say that!? I understand, and agree with, what you say about not agreeing with every decision your candidate of choice makes. This isn't just any decision, though! This isn't spending $2 billion on highway upgrades when you thought only $1 billion should have spent! Obama betrayed the very rule of law that keeps our nation afloat (to say nothing of the privacy issues!), and you are still going to vote for him?
If you'll vote for a traitor like Obama, you'd vote for anyone at this point. Obama very clearly demonstrated today that as far as he's concerned, the law applies when it's convenient. Well, fuck that. With a policy like that, he should never be entrusted with any position of importance. EVER.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
If the founding fathers of our country were still here today to see what America has become, they would jump on their horses and ride away. far far away.
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
What does that tell you?
I was donating fairly regularly to Mr. Obama for his quest for Presidency. I urge those that were doing the same to move their future donations from Mr. Obama and the DNC to the ACLU, which is vowing to fight FISA and the immunity in court.
Of the 49 Democrats in the Senate, the vote was 20-27-1 for FISA -- the Dems as a group voted against the bill, with Kennedy not present.
Of the 2 Independents in the Senate, the vote was 1-1-0 for FISA -- Sanders voted against, Lieberman for.
Of the 49 Republicans in the Senate, the vote was 47-0-2 for FISA -- the Republicans as a group voted unanimously for the bill, with McCain and Sessions not present.
So it seems to me the beef ought not to be with the "Bloody Democrats" -- but rather with 100% of the Republican Senators, 50% of the Independent Senators, and roughly 40% of the Democratic Senators.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Did you honestly think writing your senator would have made a lick of difference? Seriously?
Empirical evidence suggests strongly that the american politicians do what they want, when they want.
Sorry kids, but you're going to have to march, or light something on fire to make a change now, and I'd hurry, before they make that illegal.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
While we can certainly take issue with those that voted Yea on either side of the aisle, it should be noted that not a single Republican voted Nay on this bill, in the Senate. How do you like that?
How many times have I heard the sentiment "if only we had the right people in charge, all of this insanity would end" expressed?
When will it become clear to the thinking members of western civilization that the system itselfâ"not just those holding officeâ"is broken? That government is so powerful, its reach nearly unlimited, that the system has become mercantilist, and therefore attracts to office precisely those who will trade your freedoms for their gain?
[ home ]
I'm quite annoyed that one of my two senators voted in favor of this amendment, and I've already written her an email, not that she'll ever read it.
...So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companiesâ(TM) legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and is immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the governmentâ(TM)s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.
Anywho, Feingold had a really nice position-point short written up on this subject, and I found myself to be largely in agreement with his views.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/07/20080708.htm
When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that, in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear that some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power â" the power to listen in on peopleâ(TM)s personal conversations...
Well if you want to take the brightest light from all this I guess you could look at the fact that now, to get the corporations off scot-free the administration has to produce letters verifying that Bush authorized it and that the administration, at least thinks it's legal. What could lawyers do with such a document? Could it be that the congresscritters are waiting for something just like this (proof that Bush broke the law)?
The Democrats control the House and split the Senate with the Republicans. That this plan to protect those who enable the Executive branch to spy on innocent Americans passed handily in both houses of Congress is the fault of the Democrats as much or more than the Republicans. Yet expect most who disagree with it to blame it all on Bush and call for Democrats to win the Presidency and all seats in Congress.
This Congress was elected to stop crap like this. I wonder how the roll coll correlates with recent donations from telecom lobbyists.
Article I, Section 9 and the Fourth Amendment are gone. The only part of the Constitution which is truly safe from BushCo is the 21st Amendment (repeal of Prohibition... duh-bya likes his drink).
I was going to donate to Obama, but I think I'll give to the ACLU instead. They deserve it.
MOTHERFUCKERS
Dodd Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
To strike title II.
YEAs 32
NAYs 66
Not Voting 2
Specter Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00165
To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
YEAs 37
NAYs 61
Not Voting 2
Bingaman Amdt. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00166
To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.
YEAs 42
NAYs 56
Not Voting 2
It's that last one that really hurts. We were just eight votes from getting it passed. These are the Democrats who voted against it: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Inouye (D-HI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV)
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
The ones that voted for the telecom immunity bill don't care about individual contributions, they get all the filthy lucre that they need from corporate patrons.
She cosigned the induce act, remember that lovely piece of legislation? The one that would have made the general purpose pc, the smart phone, the blackberry, and the ipod illegal?
yeah, she's such a great, "stand-up for the little guy" kind of politican.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"Just Following Orders" is not an excuse to break the law.
Despite the Telecoms gaining immunity from civil complaints through this bill, Obama can start a federal criminal prosecution when/if he wins the presidency.
Unlikely - how would we all conduct e-commerce and e-banking?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. -- Obama
Hang on - typo in there...
Given the choice between sacrificing the 4th amendment and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. -- Obama
There, fixed that for ya.
Thanks for the run Obama, it was nice to have six months to believe there could be a principled President.
Now, let's all drop the depression, disappointment, and bargaining. And for damned sure let's not slip into acceptance. Let's focus on the right phase of grief for this ongoing usurpation of our nation; anger.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I love the fact that the fucking gubmint no longer needs a warrant to go get my library records to be sure I'm reading the right books. I mean, they have to know which books to burn.
How hard is it to immigrate to Denmark?
"A government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation." Yeah, I think that was it. Let me go fix up the reference on Wikipedia...
And any person who tries to be worth voting for, will not be viable, and thus a vote-sink.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
you can always make something legal that was illegal, you just can't do it in reverse, ie make illgal what is currently legal
I'm proud to say that the senator that represents me (and that I actually voted for) voted Nay!
All three of my representatives voted nay as well. At least that's something.
I'm extremely dismayed to see Obama's reversal on this issue. I'd really like to hear what his reasoning was. I'm angry enough right now that I'm questioning why I've been supporting him all this time and wondering why I should be using my vacation time to go campaign for him (as I have been planning) when he just reversed himself on a major promise to his supporters? Why the hell should I keep giving him money when I could give it to my own representatives that actually had the backbone to oppose this?
I'll probably take a few days to cool off and then evaluate this situation further. Right now I'm mad as hell about it and if the election was held tomorrow I'd probably be voting for Nader. Hell, a write-in for Hillary even -- she had the balls to vote against it.
This just sucks no matter how you slice it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Even blind people saw this coming.
i have a roll of electrical tape.
No, it's a two-party system because of winner-takes-all state counting and the electoral college system. In such a system, any third party takes votes away from whichever of the primary parties most closely matches their goals. Thus, any libertarian or green party candidate running for President is only hurting their cause by making it less likely the representative that best supports their view wins.
Plurality voting is inherently clone-negative (that is, a new candidate identical to an existing candidate makes it less likely for either to win). A national popular vote would have the same problem.
If you'll vote for a traitor like Obama, you'd vote for anyone at this point.
You had some good points in your response until this insinuation. Not to sound dickish, but without knowing my personal views, my voting history, my persepctive on how government should and should not function, my opinions on how far a government should go to protect (or control) my preference and reasons cannot be so easily summarized.
Obama very clearly demonstrated today that as far as he's concerned, the law applies when it's convenient. Well, fuck that. With a policy like that, he should never be entrusted with any position of importance. EVER.
Your opinions are yours. I'm not going to say that you're wrong. I haven't seen that he's proven "the law applies when it's convenient", at least, not yet.
Quite honestly, I'm not happy the Bill passed. However, I viewed it as an inevitability. That still doesn't mean I'm pleased with his vote.
Rather than drag this out, I'm just going to say that I understand your concern at my comments, and that I hope your vote goes to whomever you believe is best for the US.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I have sent off my registration form and am now officially "unenrolled". I'll not donate to the Democrats any longer. And I certainly won't vote for Obama, who may have voted for Dodd's amendment but clearly supported this constitutional obscenity.
No more political parties. Its time to boot both Democrats and Republicans from governance. Both party leaderships have proven themselves utterly corrupt.
Spam.
There were only a few states where both senators voted against the bill: MI, NJ, NY, VT, WA and MA if you count the fact that Ted Kennedy opposed the last incarnation of this bill but could not vote this time for health reasons. If you come from any of the other 44 states, then get busy: at least one of your sitting senators needs to be taught a lesson.
And a note about McCain's abstention: he's a strong supporter of Bush on this matter. The only reason his vote is registered as 'abstain' is because he's in Ohio raising money and support for his bid for President instead of actually performing his job as a senator.
I came here for a good argument
We all must write our senators and congressmen (I already have) and call for support of a Constitutional Amendment (Ratified by the States, because Congress won't/can't) where once the approval rating of any elected official (President, vice president, Senator or Representative) falls below 20% that official is immediately nullified. If it is a congress person, they are suspended from voting. If it is a president or vice president they will be replaced as the constitution already dictates.
This two party system is screwing us over. If we can't have a viable 3rd party, then lets at least have the "null" party and be able to deny them a voting position. (This still allows them to do work for their constituents.)
We also need to add an option of "no confidence" to the ballots for when we don't want the candidate to have a voting position from the start.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
This just pisses me off. I think we should repeal every law that was passed since 9/11.
I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, and boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there, is a choice I leave to you.
Not to sound dickish, but without knowing my personal views, my voting history, my persepctive on how government should and should not function, my opinions on how far a government should go to protect (or control) my preference and reasons cannot be so easily summarized.
I'm just saying that this is such a crucial issue, that at least in my opinion, if you'd vote for someone who supported this damnable bill, you can't really have any standards at all that you hold a representative to. What Obama approved is on the order of voting in favor of killing people he doesn't like, it's that bad.
I haven't seen that he's proven "the law applies when it's convenient", at least, not yet.
No? I certainly think it qualifies as that when people break the law, and just because the President said it's ok, they get a free pass for it. I mean, come on. If Bush walked up to me and told me to go rape someone, that doesn't make it ok, why should that logic be ok here? If we don't enforce the consequences of the law, just because someone thinks the law didn't apply, the rule of law in our country means nothing.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
What they WONT tell you was how DHS put a trojan in Skype last year when Skype had to release a new client, and another thing you probably don't know is how the DHS is concerned with "2nd Life".
Because 2nd life is such a distributed system, and people mostly use psuedonyms, it's all but impossible to "tap" and know what you're listening to.
From Washington state:
Representative McDermott voted against it in the House.
Senators Cantwell and Murray voted against it in the Senate.
It's up to you to get involved in politics and make sure your Congress Critters know what YOUR opinion is and WHY you hold that opinion.
I will work to get those three people elected again because they're the best hope we have now of getting this thing repealed.
Do your part and get involved. If your Congress Critters voted for it (or failed to vote at all) then find out which of their opponents would support it and work to get their opponents elected.
Democracy works, but it takes work.
This day will live in infamy.
Illegal wiretapping program? Unconstitutionally granting immunity?
Have you ever taken a civics class? Something that a president does may or may not be "illegal" -- the fact that Congress has decided it to be unlawful notwithstanding. In this country, there is this thing called "separation of powers" and in point of fact, the illegality or constitutionality of a presidential action or congressional mandate is decided by the judicial branch, and not by preferred political spin.
Do you really believe that what an elected president may choose to do in defiance of congress is as simple as quotng a city charter for a parking ticket?
It's not simple. It's not straightforward. If it were either, then presidents wouldn't do things that Congress doesn't like (wiretaps), and Congress wouldn't do things that otherwise sound very unconstitutional, like granting immunity to some (but not all) telecom companies.
This, my friend, is why the ACLU exists, and why the Supreme Court of the United States listens to arguments about constitutional issues.
As bothersome as these issues are, it beats tanks in the streets hands down.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
1) This started before 9/11
2) There is big $$$ in government contracts (so they acted in "good faith"...to their stockholders?)
3) They were caught doing this before, and had this specific law written as a result
4) Nixon tried saying that the President can do whatever the President wants. That didn't fly
5) "Just following orders" didn't fly at Nuremberg (in fact, Rachel Maddow came up with a great analogy - if you are the get-away driver, is it a legal defense to say that the robber told you it was legal to steal from the bank?)
6) According to the separation of powers, it is the Congress and not the President who gets to decide what is legal and what is not.
:(){
We are only going to use it to snoop on phone calls to and from Sweden. The Russians asked us to do it.
That's 'change we can believe in' for you.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Well, at this point, most of you are upset about being considered less of a person than a corporation. And you should be. After all, would you have gotten eternal immunity for hacking into 100 million peoples lives?
There is a problem with a government passing laws that knowingly obfuscate and contradict the US Constitution. That problem is that they are not our government anymore.
We are coming very close to having a revolution and overthrowing this corporately owned government. I am personally more than tired of it. It has been done before. It will be done again.
Government lust for power. That is what they do. The agreement that all states signed locks them away so they cannot do what they are now doing. Instead of adhering to the law, they ignore it at their leisure.
Domestic spying, search and seizure, all without a warrant or a care in the world. At this point it will only take a few years or so before we burn their asses to the ground.
They are not protecting the individual or their property. That is the primary goal and purpose of government. That is it. It is not to protect an amoral more of a person than a person corporation. Corporations used to exist at the behest of the community. Now, they are world-wide and above the control of governments- but not People.
In the end, I think it will fall to us to remove this lot. I'm sorry guys, but it's getting very close to R Day. Take care.
This is the last straw. I will never give another dime to the Democrats and I will revoke my party affiliation. I expect this from the Repubs, but am deeply and thoroughly disappointed with the Dems. Obama will still get my vote because we're fscked with McCain. I'm sending my money to organizations and candidates who actually care about the Constitution.
Here's a part of the money trail
Telecom Contributions - 2006
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House
Time Warner $13,200
AT&T Inc $13,000
Comcast Corp $10,000
Communications Workers of America $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000
Total Pelosi $56,200
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chmn. Sen. Intell. Cmte.
AT&T Inc $16,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $16,000
BellSouth Corp $14,900
Total Rockefeller $46,900
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-CA), House Majority Leader
AT&T Inc $12,000
Comcast Corp $10,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000
Time Warner $10,000
Total Hoyer $42,000
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader
BellSouth Corp $31,050
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader
AT&T Inc $22,000
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader
NelNet Inc $19,600
All points of time and space are connected.
It's an illusion.
It's not that they don't have the backbone to stand up to Bush. They have no wish to. Rare moments like these let you know who the real master is. Money. Money and the people/corporations who have large piles of it. Like gigantic telcos in this particular instance.
The whole two party noise machine is just there to dull the wits of the masses and make them think they can change things.
They can't.
Remember how happy the Democrats were when the Congress became 51% Democratic? How's that working out so far? Fat lot of good it did, wouldn't you say?
Face it - we're bought and paid for. You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all fucking the good it does.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Thus, any libertarian or green party candidate running for President is only hurting their cause by making it less likely the representative that best supports their view wins. And since the only way to change it is in Congress and not the Executive branch, and they know this, you know they're doing it intentionally for publicity.
Unless you feel that there is no practical difference between candidates and would rather vote for neither than be forced to choose.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
HAHAHAHA Obama votes against a large portion of his supporter's will, both expanding surveillance and providing immunity to large corporations from criminal lawsuits! HAHAHAHA There's your change! How do you like your precious Obama now???
Well, if a candidate making one decission the voter does not agree with is grounds for no longer support that candidate, then the voter will be out of any options, very soon. Might explain low voter turn outs, actually. I was going to vote for Obama. I probably still will. At least he made a decision and didn't abstain so he could plead that he never voted for it. Was it the decision I was hoping for? No. Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.
Phhhfff... the guy voted for a blatantly inconstitutional, police state-like bill and you go "Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.". A LITTLE? Where's the sense of accountability? His _actions_ are screaming so loud and you're still listening to the 'change' talky-talk.
This makes it clear to me that Americans are too far in the brainwashed-by-the-media department to even be able to realize the road they're on right now. Remember Ben Franklin's words, they'll make a lot more sense in the coming years.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
The way it's SUPPOSED to work is that the candidates are supposed to campaign hard, build supporters, negotiate concessions from the primary parties, then pledge their supporters to the candidate that agrees to support their interests.
No, the way it's supposed to work is that we elect people we respect as electors to the college, and they decide who should be president. "All politics is local." Instead, we have something completely different.
You can argue that the electoral college isn't a good idea. You can argue it in a number of ways.
But what we've been shoved into by the parties is not what we're supposed to do. The whole system is gerrymandered to benefit various folk -- the parties -- and has been since roughly the 3rd election of our republic.
For all who think Obama stands for change, YOUR WRONG.He voted yes. Yes to the immunity that he said he would oppose. He is just as useless as Bush.
I can think of few things that would have made a French Revolutionary government less popular than relying on foreign troops.
Louis XVI spent money he could not afford when he was already heavily in debt. The early US federal government was also heavily in debt from the war. It probably could not afford to return the favor without going bankrupt itself.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I am outraged not so much by the decision that I disagree with, but at the fact that he explicitly promised to oppose that very immunity. For someone who ran as not your typical politician, he sure started backing off on his promises quickly. Even before he's elected, which might be some sort of a record.
Then again, I supported Hillary (who voted nay for this bill, I might add). I would not encourage you to vote for McCain, who's likely even worse than Obama, but I would encourage you to remember this during next primaries!. If people remembered that salesmen of hope good presidents do not make, we might have Clinton for the Democratic candidate. And I believe her to be a somewhat lesser evil than Obama...
The year of Libertarian on the poll booth tabletop has arrived!
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
A look at the "reign of terror" should be enough to give anyone pause for going down that path.
What I don't understand is why the fuck you americans are standing idly by. What ever happened to the government working for you? If they don't, replace them.
Get your guns
Get your presidents, dead.
Stop fucking around and do something about it, clearly your government isn't representing you, otherwise you wouldn't be fucking sitting here bitching about it. I'm a Canadian citizen and I'm outraged at the apathy you fucking "citizens" have. If you don't fucking do something soon you're going to be slaves. Don't give up your freedom that you "fought so hard to protect".
Brazil (yes, I live there) seems it will pass "cybercrime" legislation so broad, ill-conceived and generally poorly written that just about every citizen will be committing a crime just by watching someone else browsing. I am not following that very closely, but it seems it has cleared the senate and the only way to get rid of it will be to shot it down completely.
Makes me wonder where did I put my passport... Are there any sensible countries looking for migrating geeks?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I should be using my vacation time to go campaign for him (as I have been planning) when he just reversed himself on a major promise to his supporters?
Obama will say "green" a lot in the next few weeks, babble about "corporations", promise "free" healthcare and you'll be right back in line.
No worries.
> I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
And I believe that they knew it was illegal and did it anyhow. Because immunizing them from punishment would only encourage companies to knowingly commit future illegal acts at the behest of the government, I would MUCH rather force the government to come clean and make things legal first than to quietly do illegal things without telling anyone.
Considering that we still don't know everything we did (and now, we might *never* know), I feel betrayed. By the government, the president, the telecoms and, yes, by people like you.
Yeah, pretty weak that Obama voted Yes for this. This got me thinking about Ron Paul's stance on this bill and I found this article. Very uplifting.
I wish I could vote "None of the above." in elections. Today is really one of them, which sadly seems more like every day.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
I'd really like to hear what his reasoning was
Your own sig has a link to it - he describes on his website the thoughts behind supporting it.
Basically at this point he's sure enough he's going to win he doesn't care what you think, and wants the powers provided by FISA (not his own words obviously nor even paraphrasing - just my take on it).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments
The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.
the US is in serious need of a revolution.
and there's no such thing as a non-violent revolution...
A few years ago, when the whole warrantless wiretapping issue broke, Slashdot posted an article speculating on what was going on. The author looked at the public statements, developed a technical conjecture of what was probably happening, showed that the public statements correlated with the technical conjecture, and talked about the implications.
IIRC, the article suggested that a system called Echelon, that had been deployed outside the US, had been deployed inside the US. Echelon was rumored to contain technology that sampled all voice conversations in a telephone system for certain words/phrases and decided to listen more closely to ones that triggered certain criteria.
IIRC, the article then pointed out that if done within the US and thus requiring a warrant for each instance of listening, there were not enough personnel in the entire US judicial system to process all the warrants that would be needed.
That is likely to be the context for what this is all about. It may well be a very difficult call. Also, the entire debate has taken place without this information publicly on the table, even on a basis of taking the speculation as an assumption by those debating the issue.
If you think about the issue in these terms, the telecom immunity becomes somewhat of a sideshow and the imposition of judicial oversight on the criteria for further listening becomes the most critical aspect. An important purpose of the telecom immunity lawsuits was to find out what was happening. I think the article provides us an educated guess, and that the debate can become an informed one and not just an argument in the dark about principles without an understanding of the underlying technology.
...
You say yer life's a bum deal
'N yer up against the wall
Well, people, you ain't even got no kinda
Deal at all
Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care
Of Number One
An' Number One ain't you
You ain't even Number Two
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Bull-Moose party anyone?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
> McCain abstained.
The funny thing is that he voted for it before he abstained. If he wants to impress me, he should've voted against it. Otherwise, I'm not changing my opinion of him.
Here is a simple legal analysis on why this "unconstitutional" claim is incorrect regardless of how loud it gets in the echo chamber.
The prohibition on "ex post facto" laws is based on the fact that it's unjust to pass a law saying that the thing you in the past was a criminal act (even though it was legal at the time) and then arresting you for it. That argument doesn't apply to decriminalizing things.
For example, a law could be passed repealing all the drug laws against marijuana possession and use -- and it could set free all the people in jail those particular crimes. The people here would have to say that such an act is an "ex post facto" law if they want to also say that retroactive telecom immunity is "ex post facto".
(Also, the telecom cases are really civil cases and the rules are actually much looser still. But the point is made.)
Saying this immunity is unconstitutional is more of an emotional or political opinion than a legal one.
I want the HOPE stickers torn off cars. I want HOPE t-shirts burned or composted or whatever you dems do with trash.
I mean what did you expect people?? The guy's a Chicago politician! Helloooo rampant corruption?!? I could see this coming a million miles away, and his flipflop on campaign financing wasn't the first bad sign.
WHY do you persist in nominating SENATORS anyhow? They can't govern, all they know how to do is talk! And I don't think Obama's much of a talker at that. Well, you all are going to reap the whirlwind, McCain is going to be the next president (as he SHOULD be after this fiasco.) I'm a repub and I don't like McCain's politics, he's too liberal. McCain can kiss my bright red rosey out on Main Street for all I care.
Whatever, Obama or McCain, both populists, we're all screwed. Give me Clinton (Bill, NOT Hillary) over both of 'em any day.
'nuff said.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history happened, giving a clear mandate to our lawmakers to end the war? Somehow that didn't happen.
That's because the mandate was not as clear as you make it out to be. I voted for a Democratic senator for example because I was tired of Republicans overspending. What do I get but a flurry of earmarks rising exponentially from Democrats and Republicans alike...
As for Iraq, I shudder to think that if they had "listened" as you say, that tens of millions of Iraqi's would now be living under Al Quida Sharia law, instead of women there actually having a shot at a real future as they do now that the surge has brought them close to a lasting stability.
My new mandate is singular: reduce spending. That's why this time around I'm going for McCain, because he actually managed to keep the hand out of the cookie jar for a year and shows the most promise as actually sticking to reduced spending and possibly even not expanding government too much. Slashdot used to be full of libertarians with that as a goal, but then Obama comes along and lures them with shiny candy from the government... It's just like that carnival in Pinocchio guys, don't fall for it!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I wouldnt mind seeing how the remaining elements of the Bush apparatus react when they're being tapped. This includes the activist judges Roberts and Alito, the entirety of Fox News, certain "conservative" bloggers(Pajamas Media and Club for Growth come to mind), the entirety of talk radio, lobbyists of all influences, union busting/H1B agencies, and those whose business is Wall Street(or similar). It is implied that Congress will be tapped.
For full effect, wait until Bush leaves office, then start the tapping. Collect enough for a year, then release to the non-Fox media at the first major economic crisis/election cycle.
Then break out the popcorn and watch the amusement.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Hillary voted No, and the Democrats have not had had the convention.
I almost view this as a play by the clintons, if it didn't seem so conspiracy minded. Trick Obama into voting for it, providing leverage for Hillary to use the base to pry away the nomination from him. If you read social networks you can already see some calls for her to be the nominee, plants or no it's an interesting turn of events.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Outgoing presidents (of both flavors) almost always come up with a bunch of truly amazing presidential pardons for people that do not seem very wholesome. Despite various hue and cry, there has never been a legal challenge against it because it's perfectly reasonable (from the legal sense).
Telco immunity would seem to be the same thing. Basically saying that they grant immunity and that's all there is to say on the matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here is another short legal analysis that explains the issue a little and cites some case law. Instapundit is a law professor.
The people who are saying this is unconstitutional because it is "ex post facto" are two things:
1. Not lawyers and
2. Incorrect.
Give me Clinton (Bill, NOT Hillary) over both of 'em any day.
He ruined the nation with NAFTA, and allowed the DMCA to pass. No thanks, but I'd rather have the likes of Edwards. A trial lawyer who can tame business does have what it takes to lead.
This is what people get when they went for Obama when they really wanted the likes of Edwards.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And a note about McCain's abstention: he's a strong supporter of Bush on this matter. The only reason his vote is registered as 'abstain' is because he's in Ohio raising money and support for his bid for President instead of actually performing his job as a senator.
He's already walking on hot coals for his position on trade; if he voted with Bush, he'd turn Ohio into Southern Michigan. That is, mostly Democrat with a minority of Republicans here and there.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
... to make a difference.
It's frustrating to see people get this worked up about shit like this but are just as lazy as the next guy.... like me!
----------------
Mr. Obama,
I am writing to you in regards to your vote on the telecom immunity/FISA bill today. I have never voted in my life, mostly because I've always felt that all politicians, especially presidential candidates, are all corrupted to the core. Bribes, AKA "campaign contributions", are what get laws passed in this country. I feel that we have become the United Corporations of America, in such that the country is completely run by corporate-bought politicians.
Then you came along. Your message of change and hope, your rejection of lobbyists, and your sincerity caused me to believe in a candidate for the first time in my life. I was a big evangelizer of yours. I thought that maybe, just maybe this country had a chance to return to the ideals that our founding fathers believed in. You seemed to be our country's last hope.
But then you voted in favor of the FISA/telecom immunity bill. For months you've been saying that you did not support it, but then after you won the primaries, you seemed to have changed your tune. I cannot fathom how the Barack Obama I supported in the primaries could vote for such a bill. The bill is beyond unconstitutional. Increasing the president's abilities to illegally spy on Americans is bad enough, but now the telecoms who illegally participated in the past get immunity. How is this change? How is this hope? How is this anything different than the past decades of corporate bought and paid for government? Removing even more of our civil liberties, and giving a "get out of jail free" card to those telecoms is not change. It's more of the same.
I'm sure your position was switched because your top analysts told you that a vote against it would make you seem soft on terrorism. I had assumed you would do what you do best though - stand up and explain the situation from your perspective, and straighten everyone out. You did the same thing with the whole Jeremiah Wright ordeal. The media was having a frenzy, and you did something unprecedented - you talked to the media and the American people like a real person, not a politician. I had assumed you would stand your ground with the FISA bill, and address the American people as to why you voted that way. But instead, you fell into the trap that the current administration's fearmongering has laid.
I'm very sorry that you voted for this bill. With one single vote of yours, you have now lost me as a voter. I will no longer endorse you to those I know, and will work to make sure people I know understand the implications of this illegal bill you voted for. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. The internet is swarming with angry, upset supporters of yours, who feel the same as I do. They too will be abstaining from voting this November.
I haven't given up on you yet, and I'm hoping that you will do something publicly in the next few days to address this, and win my support back. I want to believe in hope and change, but frankly all I see now is another politician who managed to trick me. I hope you can prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
A Former Obama Supporter
Anyone who wishes to request a refund on their previous donations to the 0bama campaign may contact Alexa Chappell (achappell@barackobama.com) They have agreed to return my non-merchandise contributions. Its not much - only about $1000 over 6 months - but I will place it in the escrow fund, and my weekly pittances will go to Feingold and his Progressive Patriots Fund and the ACLU until I detect a return to principle on the part of our nominee.
I would disagree.
Please recall that the only powers which the Federal Government has are those granted to it by the Constitution. Anything not explicitly stated within the Constitution, and the associated Amendments to it is by definition, Unconstitutional.
Pretty simple really. Some would argue that that is a fairly simplistic reading, especially in regards to the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the gateway phases 'common good' and the famous 'commerce' clause, but which seems to be a more likely scenario. Our founding fathers drafted a document that was to be understood by the average man, specifically limiting the power of the federal government, OR, they drafted a document and intentionally hid 'back door' vague terms for those who wanted to exploit their positions of power?
Now, you are correct about the 'Ex Post Facto', but please review Article 1 once more and refer me to the point where it grants Congress the ability to nullify civil suits.
Please tell me where in Article 2 it grants the Executive branch the powers of 'Executive privilege', 'State Secrets', or enjoining companies to break the law.
As soon as you come back with those exact references, as they appear in the Constitution, I'll verify them, and if you are correct, I'll agree that the actions of both the Legislative and Executive branches were Constitutional.
So there was a heated debate weather the wiretapping was legal or not... it was regularly claimed to be illegal... now congress passed a bill clairfying that it's legal... when they pass a law saying you can do it, it's legal, no matter how much you may dislike it. So my real question is can we stop calling it the "illegal domestic wiretapping program"?
Copyright law is actually mentioned in the Constitution. Do you believe in that rule of law, or just laws you agree with?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Apparently I need to go catch up on my reading about how I need to behave from now on to keep myself from eventual reeducation. Its funny but I used to really like living in the US but the more I see things like this the more I understand why half of the world hates us.
It was illegal when it happened.
When liquor was sold during Prohibition, it was sold illegally.
Obama knows he's going to get hit for this. McCain knows it too if he would take a stand, but he ran away. Pussy.
Between the 2, yah, Obama's still got my vote.
Maybe every American citizen that has at least a 4 year college degree (from an accredited school) have their social security number put in to a big spinning barrel. Then, just pick one, make him/her president for 4 years and see how things go.
Oh, and this would be the process for electing members to the House and the Senate too.
I seriously don't think it could be any worse than what we have now.
Companies capitulated in the face of jingoist rhetoric and executive branch shenanigans, essentially offering up constitutional protections with barely a peep.
Last time I checked, FISA is a law made by Congress, not a constitutional amendment (sorry, the Fourth Amendment is about domestic criminal cases, not foreign surveillance). Personally, I question the very constitutionality of the FISA law itself. Congress cannot limit the inherent powers of another branch, short of a constitutional amendment.
Okay, you don't believe the president has such inherent wartime powers, but I and Jefferson and Lincoln and FDR - and even Clinton in the FBI spying case - would disagree. But apparently here, if you disagree with a Slashdot meme, you are a traitor, or a "weasly (sic) little maggot coward."
Ah, the irony of making such attacks on people for merely disagreeing with you in a thread about civil liberties.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
It is true that the French ended up with Napoleon, but they have continuously been refreshing their model of democracy, often with some not inconsiderable bloodshed.
France is now into its 5th Republic. In the aftermath of Napoleon's downfall, the 3rd Republic was born.
The current 5th Republic was triggered by colonial tensions in Algeria in the 1940s and 1950s.
Perhaps this is one thing Americans would do well to learn from. You cannot just set up a Republic and let it meander along without significant course corrections from time to time. The French people have in the past understood that, and I hope they continue to do so.
I leave you with Thomas Jefferson's words: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
The collectors value of this stuff is going to go though the roof.
I would also suggest - when network performance isn't critical - relaying traffic over the 6Bone to any gateway (if using 4-over-6) or a 6-to-4 proxy to drop back onto the regular Internet at a remote location. I sincerely doubt the 6Bone is monitored to any real degree, which means you can also obscure your point of origin. (IPv6 Phase 2 seems to be going well, incidentally, with 153 products listed as gold-certified and 352 silver-certified. However, it is still reasonably "unknown", making this an ideal time to learn how to use it to improve anonymity and privacy. You do NOT want to end up playing catch-up on such things.)
Tor is also good, and I would definitely recommend that Tor be used in a similar way - as a backbone that cannot be realistically monitored, thus providing extra layers of anonymity and privacy that a simple, direct, encrypted stream cannot.
If you do use direct connections, though, be sensible about the encryption methods. Use the strongest encryption mode you can, not just the strongest encryption key. A good key is important, but information can be extracted from a strongly encrypted message if you are using ECB or some other very weak encryption mode. There are now very strong modes, although not all encryption software or hardware support them. If they are supported both ends, though, use them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm not a lawyer but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dames_&_Moore_v._Regan
Also, there's no judicially enforced prohibition on doing everything unless the court has explicitly ruled it's allowed. It's the opposite.
You sound like you can make a legal argument but "it's unconstitutional unless you can prove to my satisfaction that it's explicitly allowed" is contrary to any kind of reality. You're not the god of the Constitution. Sorry to break that sad news to you.
Anyone who actually cared about reality could look up Executive Privilege and find out what it's about and why it exists and how it is understood to be constitutional. Do your own Googling.
I can't believe we live in a country where laws that NO ONE WANTS are passed. Ridiculous. Democracy does not exist. Prove me wrong.
Oh yeah? :-)
I got your Easter Bunny right here!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Its kind of funny (not really) how a lot of countries ended up with a similar scheme of no wiretap warrants needed - the "terrists" are out to get us - kind of laws.
If I didn't know better I would think that a couple of "old boys" from each country got together and decided what to force into local legislation. The recommended way: to use some "great external threat" to get the parliament moving in the right direction.
In my [european] country, the threat from terrorists was cited. When an MP asked when our country had ever even experienced terrorism, it was mentioned that an old primeminister was shot to death, a minister of foreign affairs was stabbed to death and a man had been arrested who had planned to kidnap an old minister of justice.
These are all very serious crimes, but the first was commited by a single run down alcoholic, the second was commited by a single psycologically unstable man, which was also the case in the third crime. How many believe that these three violent crimes would have been stopped by using warrantless wiretapping?
More importantly, how did these crimes constitute terrorism? Needless to say, we now have warrantless wiretapping.
She made the willows dance
I swear in the last 2 years I've heard more and more laws being passed, with OUR voted in representatives, that quite a few people claim are illegal before they are even signed into law. Has anyone stopped to think about this? In this case, all these lawsuits involving the telecoms will be dismissed. A big fight will ensue over the legality of this new law... 5+ years from now it might(or might not) get struck down as unconstitional. What happens then? Oops, your right to sue has expired since the statue of limitations has long expired. Congress accomplished what they wanted, to protect the telecoms. And they will do JUST that, even if this law is completely unconstitional. What I want to see is a law that requires that all laws be found constitional by a court before they can be passed. This system of being able to pass unconstitional laws KNOWING that they are unconstitional is just out of control.
I've watched our government(the USA) worry about the "zomg right now we need gas for cheap" instead of stopping to think that we'll still need it for cheap next year, 10 years from now, maybe 50 years from now. The government deal with the RIGHT here, RIGHT now. They don't think about tomorrow. That's part of the problem with the USA. We don't think ahead at all. Our attempts to think ahead are only because some other company 'thought ahead', and they know just how to make ALOT of money off of the government, our government.
My dad told me of a song by the Grass Roots called "Let's live for today". Apparently quite a few radio stations refused to play it because the words to the song basically ignore what could happen tomrrow, and just worry about right now. This is the world we live in. We're living for today.
Look at how people are handling the war in Iraq. We went in there, now the Democrats are saying that they only gave permission to invade, not stay for years to clean up the government that WE removed. Are they serious!?
Look at our government spending. We're spending money faster than we ever have, and there's no attempt to control it. The dollar is weakening daily as a result and Bush and Co. want to spend more money? Are they serious!?
Stop and look at all of your gripes about the government mishandling things, and then ask yourself how much of them could have been handled better had we simply thought ahead.
Quite often the gripes people have that they want the government to fix are because they didn't think ahead themselves. Variable home loans and you signed up for more house than you could afford? Gas prices out of control? Hurricane destroyed your house and although you could have had insurance you didn't spend the money? You gotta own up to your own mistakes.
We need to start thinking ahead folks. Plain and simple.
Do I plan ahead in my life? I didn't choose 'the perfect spot on the beach that's 45 mins away in my Hummer'. I chose a location that is close to work. I am 10 minutes from work, and I drive a minivan(vice an SUV) because it is more fuel efficient than an SUV. I also have my beater car around for when I drive alone. It gets slightly better gas mileage than my minivan.
I try to think of what COULD go wrong in the future, instead of dealing with the future when it fsck me in the a$$. Why can't my government do the same?
I just wonder what our founding fathers would think of the USA if they were here now.
Funny I never even thought of ex-post facto as why it would be unconstitutional, I figured that would be too easy to explain away, you know something this "this merely formalizes how law A and law B work together to provide end result C"
I was thinking more along the lines of;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And then the fact that members of government are required to swear an oath to uphold the constitution, this would to my mind exclude the passing of any law that runs contrary to the constitution.
But now that you've brought it up article one section nine does include;
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Now, a bill of attainder is basically the government finding you guilty without a trail, ex post facto (after the fact) does not however specify if its for retroactive criminalization, or retroactive immunity, its just ANY law after the fact.
So yes I'll go with the ex post facto argument too, its unconstitutional for the government to have done it in the first place, and its unconstitutional for them to try and get the ISP's off the hook for helping them.
Mine, which is also addressable to Sen. Jim Webb, for whom I voted, goes something like this:
Dear Son of a Bitch,
I thought you stood for the things that the United States is supposed to stand for. Obviously, I was wrong about you. You've lost my vote. Fuck off and die.
Sincerely,
Your new biggest foe
OK, so I didn't really send that letter, but it's what went through my head when I looked at the roll call for this bill. Dammit. Dammit dammit dammit.
I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
Finally Congress passes a law that makes sense!!
For one, how is it unconstitutional? I've read the Constitution and I can't find a single mention of telecoms. Secondly, how was it illegal? International communications are fair game, and contrary to popular belief, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTERNATIONAL LAW. Third, calling it a domestic wiretapping program is a little more than mis-leading, it's an outright lie. The only phone calls that were (and still are) being monitored are incomming and outgoing INTERNATIONAL calls, so 90+ percent of the people posting here are unaffected anyway. Domestic calls require at least a FISA warrent, which is a secret warrent issued by a federal court.
In a typical 8 hour work day, I spend in excess of four to five hours on international calls, my guess is most of the people here crying about it probably don't even know how to place an international call, let alone make them often enough to be worried if someone is listening, and if someone wants to listen in on my calls, more power to them, they'll soon be fast asleep. As far as electronically monitoring intl calls in general, not only am I in favor of it, but I see as the duty of the federal government to do it. We monitor communications all over the world for suspecious activity, I sure as hell want what's coming into and out of this country monitored.
We have a pretty good idea what's going to happen with this law. There are so many immediate uses that those wiretapping will be too busy to actually getting around to trying to wiretap any real threats.
Lets take a look at how surveillance cameras are used in London
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/28/local-councils-in-th.html
In the US, expect frivolous uses of the law such as the above. It will be used to find where to dig dirt (sex lives,funny/out of context quotes) on any politicians.
Expect those abusing it to have a good sense of 'just how far they can get away with it', and typically keep within those bounds so as to not be noticed.
...you want as much as possible. Doesn't excuse the vote, of course.
Interesting that all presidents change their mind about the powers of the president after they ascend to office. Nobody wants the other guy to have all the candy, but you know that you'll only use the powers to advance the right (i.e your) agenda, so it's all good.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I actually wanted this to be passed. I am thankful my senators listened to me.
Anyone else can't get the sound of his voice from their head repeating "Where's your Obama now, nyaaa?"?
Meet the new boss, ha?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I wonder what they know that we don't?
How to get elected?
I've always been a believer that some state secrets are necessary, and that, yes, a significant portion of the voting population is basically to busy with other things to care about real policy.
But you know what? I'm sick and tired of the idea that our elected officials should get a general pass just because they may know something we don't. Is it too much to expect them to explain what they're thinking in clear terms? If the justification for doing what they're doing really is that good, shouldn't it be compelling? If it is that compelling, why are they just sitting on it? How hard is it, when you're a person who's privileged to hold national office, to release a believable and factual statement explaining things?
I don't even need this every day. Just on big things, like trashing the fourth amendment and granting immunity to people who knowingly do it.
What do they know that we don't? I don't know. But until they can come out and explain themselves, I'm going to assume the answer to that question is: not a damn thing.
Tweet, tweet.
I didn't check the register, but we seem to be assuming that McCain was present for the vote and actually abstained. Kennedy was also listed as "Not Voting," though I presume it was because he is recovering. Voting yea is a definite ding. Missing the vote entirely isn't exactly winning top honors in my book either, though.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Soon Conan O'Brian or Jon Stewart might be giving them away.
Right before they start giving them away at the local gas station with every purchase of a full tank of gas.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Not that we'll get one, but isn't the fun of polls arguing about what you would have picked if it were available?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Any government that lacks accountability is destined to become a terrorist organization. Oh the irony......
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
Immunity from civil lawsuits has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. There's no 4th Amendment right to collect civil damages from non-governmental 3rd parties. The two simply don't have anything to do with each other.
Screw this I say we go all jihadi on their asses and come november we vote with bombs and not words
Sorry for any offense, but this strikes me as cowardly. The leaders would rather erode important liberties and rights, rather than keep those rights and experience some risk.
I always looked up to the US as having the backbone to accept some risk rather than give up fundamental principles.
Label me nave....
If you donated to the Obama campaign, may I suggest a toll fee phone call asking for a refund? (866) 675-2008. You might also consider a better place for your donation: http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
As far as I know, it has always been legal for law enforcement to listen to both sides of a wiretap target. The warrant is for one side. Once the judges allow for that target to get tapped, they can gather evidence against other parties.
This is what is happening with FISA. There is a big difference though. There is no right and wrong way to collect evidence in a battlefield. They are not trying to build a case, they're trying to locate and kill or capture. It depends on how you see the terrorists. Are we at war with them or are we trying to bulid a criminal case? It makes a big difference.
Thanks goodness. The Telcos had no choice when the US Gov't, right or wrong, came knocking and basically demanded they help avoid another 9-11 style attack. The executive branch has broad powers, especially in time of war as stipulated in the Constitution, so it would be a matter of years of legal battles to decide the ultimate legal outcome of Bush's program. The Telcos could suffer real damage if they weren't given immunity. They would be put in a terrible position of either helping the exec branch and facing billions in lawsuits as a result, or not help the exec and face all kinds of wrath from the exec branch, who rattles sabers at the drop of a hat during this "time of war", etc. And if they didn't help and there WAS another attack? They would probably be scapegoated like no one has ever seen before. I'm glad for the passing of the new bill that gives them retroactive immunity. They were and still are pawns. The battle needs to be between the branches of gov't. This is a great development for another reason too. It clearly demonstrates that the democrats are as spineless as ever and certainly not the prince charming they were touted to be for the nutcase left.
I was gonna vote for Colbert anyway.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Tap my phone read my email go ahead. Fuck you. Fuck this country and all the people in it.
Please point a nuke at washington and click "detonate", for the betterment of the American people and the world as a whole.
Signed,
True Patriot.
Can someone please remind me why we have elected a Democrat-led congress? My goal for this November election will be to vote out every single incumbent congressman regardless of party affiliation.
It's only been 19 years since Ceausescu died. And Berlusconi is apparently still not dead. Neither is Joerg Haider, though it's been 6 years since his party was in power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The main reason to pass this immunity legislation is not to protect the phone companies, but to protect the government. If these cases went forward, there would be discovery and subpoenas, and whoever authorized and knew about the illegal wiretapping would stand a decent chance of being discovered.
I'd wager that there are high-ranking Democratic Senators and Congressmen who at least knew that this was taking place, and so it's in their interests, as well as the Bush administration's, that no subpoenas get issued.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
He voted for all three amendments that would have stripped or at least delayed consideration of immunity. Granted, he should have voted against the final bill as unacceptable when those amendments did not pass, but he did at least vote for the amendments, the closest of which failed only 42-56. Had any Republicans except Arlen Specter bothered to stand up for the Constitution and rule of law, immunity might well have been removed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You probably won't find such a country. Which makes my original question even starker - do you believe this matter is bad enough you'll die to try and fix it?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
If you ask me, you're all giving the same knee jerk reaction here. Look a little deeper. Do you really think that when the presidents goons showed up with their guns and said "hand over the secret stuff", the phone company said "whew, we're glad you finally showed up. We have just been dying to give this secret info away to somebody!" Get real. If the goons show up on your doorstep with their guns and their clout, are you going to say no? Why punish the phone company for caving to the US government? Instead, we should just haul GWB and Darth Cheney off to a maximum security prison and leave the phone company out of it.
It's not as if it made any difference.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
People are so goddamn fickle that they'll take their vote from a candidate because of one single issue.
People will throw the presidency to John McCain because of a bill that protects telecoms from LAWSUITS. As in the previous post's link, it doesn't exclude telecoms from being CRIMINALLY liable, which they most certainly are.
Despite our electoral process being flawed, it is mostly sound. But voting for Bob Barr, who everyone knows has absolutely no chance of winning this election, exclusively because of protection against telecom LAWSUITS is taking a vote from Obama because you disagree on ONE ISSUE.
Obama supports Net Neutrality. Anybody here on /. remember Net Neutrality? I sure do. Remember universal health care? Ending the war in the Middle East? How about the Economy? Loosening the lobbyist stranglehold on Congress?
The other people here talk about OBAMA growing a spine? When you change your vote in a way that will hurt the Democratic Candidate because of one issue, it is YOU who needs a spine.
Remember how he voted on the copyright extension laws?
Better amend the constitution so people can vote for some REAL change in the white house - like Papa Smurf!
NO MOUSE IN THE HOUSE!
NO MOUSE IN THE HOUSE!
NO MOUSE IN THE HOUSE!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
when those Liberal Democrats you elected to Congress actually vote on this bill instead of getting rid of it?
When will the public wake up and recognize that Liberals and Neocons are basically on the same side, except that you know what a Neocon will do, but a Liberal will lie to you about what they will do but end up doing what a Neocon does anyway?
Your only hope is to vote in a third party to the White House in Nov 2008, if not then Obama or McCain would be glad to serve another George W. Bush third term for him after he is out of office. Notice how both Obama and McCain seem to be moving to the far right in the most recent things they support like this Fisa bill, the Iraq War support, and other things that Bush also supported.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
You traitorous scum. Instead of choosing between shit and piss, I will stay home this November. In case it has yet to hit you between the eyes, American democracy is dead. In its place is authoritarian tyranny where the rule of law is suspended for the wealthy few.
Obama is the "lessor of two evils?" Does he own a couple of strip clubs or fast food joints that he leases out to people? Where are they? Are they at least profitable? Is he the only person who leases out exactly two evils?
Now what? Millions of irrational nitwits awaiting the Rapture or armageddon (or both), proud of themselves for asking out loud "how do they know there were dinosaurs if nobody was there to see them?" and suchlike rot. An oligarchy of businessman-politician-criminals looting the world, inside and outside of our nation. A society where it is in poor taste to mention these things, where we must be good little consumers and emulate the absurd role models in our commercial entertainment media. A body politic where the only tolerated discussion is regarding the shallow and contrived theater in that part of the commercial entertainment media called "news" or "journalism." A citizenry that believes every bogeyman story that is presented to it, regardless of how absurd, unfounded, or internally inconsistent it may be.
Are we fucked backwards and forwrds yet?
Spread the word: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/henrycase/gGxDHM Do not vote for Barack Obama.
Welcome to the glorious Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics!
You're on the right track. Read Shock Doctrine . You'll be disappointed to learn that it is a tried and true formula.
Although there are a number of reasons not to like this bill, it is possible it may not be all bad - if I understand the provisions on the immunity, it requires that the telco provide evidence that the administration requested the (at the time) illegal and presumably broad taps (to dismiss the suit, I would assume that the request(s) must cover all of the plaintiffs) prior to those taps being put in place.
In particular, I would assume that (based upon comments on some taps being implemented before 9/11) evidence would need to be provided of the Bush administration requesting taps before 9/11. If so, this would mean:
It seems to me that in a rush to prevent investigation into the warrantless wiretaps, the Republicans have just given the telcos a huge incentive to bypass some of the need for such an investigation by handing over the evidence such an investigation would have eventually discovered. Oops.
See title.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Just a reminder: The legal system is a replacement for violence to settle disputes as long as both parties agree to it. Once one sides refuses to use the legal system, the result is that both parties begin to use violence.
In this case, Congress and the Telcos have refused to use any option other than brute force & violence. Our options are clear.
Andy
Encryption and never give up the keys!
PGP, TruCrypt get them and bank on them.
Am I glad I don't live in the land of the free.
He voted for all three amendments that would have stripped or at least delayed consideration of immunity. Granted, he should have voted against the final bill as unacceptable when those amendments did not pass, but he did at least vote for the amendments, the closest of which failed only 42-56. Had any Republicans except Arlen Specter bothered to stand up for the Constitution and rule of law, immunity might well have been removed.
So, Obama voted against it before he voted for it?
Umm, that explanation didn't work so well last time around, did it?
I am starting a campaign to chalk the sidewalk outside all telephone company facilities with the phrase 'domestic wiretapping center'. Any time someone passes the facility they'll be reminded that their constitutional rights have been curtailed. It is time we all participated in raising awareness that our freedom is being legislated away.
http://domesticwiretapping.blogspot.com/2008/07/domestic-wiretapping-center-campaign.html
How many years did we have to sit around listen to Americans explain that "America isn't all bad, it's the government, see?"
Everytime I exlpained that you people ARE your government, I was told how much better things would be when the mid-term elections were over and the Democrats had the house. And now!? Same shit different day!
So I say again - America has gone soft, corrupt and scared - it's time you all faced up to your shame. You cannot get better until you admit you're sick.
And before you all trot out the usual 'yeah but your lot are worse', remember, being the second fattest girl in the bar does NOT make you skinny! With your land of the "free, home of the brave" attitude it should not be enough to be slightly less corrupt than the other evil bastards.
The world needs better of you. We need a Free America as an example of how things should be done. You are the ones trying to export democracy by bomb and preaching about freedom at every given opportunity, and you need to be better than this!
It's only a two party system because the game is designed for it. People do actually vote for who they want to vote for. They vote strategically. Nobody wants the greater of two evils, so they vote for the lesser of two evils. To have people vote sincerely, we need a different voting game. We ought to look toward the Olympics this year and observe a voting system that really works. There is no spoiler effect. There aren't any parties. Each candidate gets one vote. It might be a little complicated to count votes, so instead of a range of ratings from 0 to 10, voters could either give a 1 or 0. They would either approve or disapprove. People could still vote for the lesser of two evil frontrunners, but they could also approve of another candidate that might have a wide appeal. If this candidate had more than 50% approval, he would win. Have a third party or independent candidate that you think a majority would like? Then vote your approval. The game is changed.
When you talk to people close to the campaign about this, they say stuff like: "Come on, who really cares about that issue? Does anyone think the left is going to vote for McCain rather than Obama? This was a hard question. We tried to get it right. And anyway, the FISA compromise in the bill was a good one."
That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
Obama, considered to be the the last hope for freedom in the USA and all that ;-) voted "Yea" while the reviled Clinton voted "Nay". Just goes to show how impredictable politics are when you don't know what was the real purpose behind this or that action.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Choose the one that you will get punished for
( ) ignoring laws like in Guantanamo
( ) ignoring laws like FISA
( ) Serving coffee that's "too hot"
Strange world!
bye egghat
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
... and he doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates. If Democrats (and the public) can kick up enough of a stink that enough superdelegates take notice, it's still possible to have a nominee who voted against this.
In the words of douglas adams:
"Any person capable of getting made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
I thought there needed to be more discussions about it before making a Change to Constitutional Amendments ?
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
I heard it put once by a European who had lived through the tyranny of WWII that there is always corruption and tyranny in government, but one version is the kind which pretends to be something else through a facade of humanitarian 'niceness'. People still know it's there for the most part, and they complain and fight. And then the naked, aggressive version of tyranny comes out, with the starving and the death squads and the barbed wire, and the people shudder and cry, "No, anything but that! Anything but that! Bring back the other kind of corruption. Lie to us again, please, just anything but that!"
The interesting thing is that there is a third kind of government which is not corrupt at all, I've seen it and worked at various levels within it. But it only seems to be able to exist in small groups where everybody knows everybody else and the stakes are so low that the wolves don't smell enough blood worth having. When the system gets any bigger and successful, which often happens with healthy beginnings, things start to fail and the psychopaths scent out a meal.
-FL
This POS legislation would be better off vetoed. "If we make the law protect the people it won't pass, so let's make it a license to screw them over instead." Oh, that's beautiful logic.
She can just leverage her millions of dollars in campaign debt! Or something.
Instant runoff voting. Then you can buy your ice-cream from your favourite stand - and if that one fails, you get to buy again from one of the remainders and so-on.
Sure there are a minor problems with it, and perhaps there are better voting methods, however IRV is really simple and works for the most part.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Wrong. If this were true, the telecoms wouldn't have been able to buy off Congress for something like nine grand a vote. Money is power. If everyone sent a monthly twenty-dollar check to Congresscritters they approved of and stopped sending it when they pulled some crap like this, I assure you that Congress would notice.
It is, of course, grossly unfair that normal folks don't have massive-corporation money. But we do outnumber them. It's a sad fact that your vote doesn't matter nearly as much as your wallet does. Donate to primary challengers against the Congressfolk who voted for this monstrosity; it's pretty much the only way they'll pay attention. But we'll see if anyone remembers that in two years.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I suppose I hardly need point out that now isn't a good time to be making pseudonymous threats against elected officials over a wiretappable communication channel.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I should be more rigorous. I can't back up that it was the largest shift in history; I do remember reading that it was unprecedented that all of the Congressional seats which flipped did so from red to blue, none in the opposite direction. A clear mandate, regardless.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
But it's the way that it is. If you're wondering why your Congressfolk don't pay attention to you, it's because you're not sending them money. You, individually, could not pay them enough to take your opinion seriously, in any case. You can't afford to bribe them. You could always donate to a lobbying group, which will pool your bribes with those of your like-thinking fellow citizens, which might be more effective. The EFF and ACLU have been pretty good on the whole FISA thing.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How can I keep all my communications out of the US, and out of the purview of your crazy government?
Sounds like a dumb question, doesn't it. But today, maybe not so dumb... Let's see what we have.
* Illegal rendition and incarceration of non-US citizens from non-US soil.
* Illegal wiretapping of, well, anyone, from anywhere to anywhere.
* Co-option of foreign intelligence services such as UK and Australia (huge CIA base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs in central Australia, remember - the existence of which is connected to overthrow of elected Australian government in 1975, with connivance of British Queen)
* And so on.
Jesus Christ. Memo to USA: Keep your filthy hands of non-US citizens. Get your filthy planes, tanks, warships, and troops off non-USA soil. And at least make some effort to treat your own citizens decently and constitutionally. Until then, you're not fit for civilised company. Over.
you had me at #!
How else can you communicate with a violent state! (like yours)
you had me at #!
The spying tools are today's state of the art.
The next step is to skip the 'collecting evidence' part (since that's already been compromised) and move directly to fabricated evidence and show trials. Oh, wait, you already have that in Gitmo...
you had me at #!
There are jobs around in Europe. For example, MySQL.com is always hiring, if you're top-notch.
If you're Brazilian you can even travel freely among the Schengen countries without a visa. (Unlike USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc, who don't like Brazilians to visit).
If you're American, consider Canada as well. They're still reasonably sane, although of course along with Mexico threatened by loss of sovereignty through "NAFTA+". (The USA intends to co-opt Canadian water and oil resources this way. Come to think of it, they are likely going to attempt that in Brazil. Try that in Europe, fuckers.)
you had me at #!
Massive CIA presence in Australia as a strategic location.
Also, Australian and UK governments were fervent supporters of the war of aggression in Iraq (despite the fact that the public was overwhelmingly against it).
you had me at #!
When you have a violent state (and the USA is violent on an unprecedented scale), how else are you supposed to deal with it?
you had me at #!
Am I the only person who reads slashdot that isn't a rabid leftist?
I'm glad Obama signed it. I'm glad this bill passed.
And since when did slashdot become the Huffington Post?
What I find amazing is that the telecoms claim to have had no choice but to do this, yet it is known that not long ago they threatened the government that they would pull the plug because the government was behind on payments for the wiretapping. How is it that they can decide to stop doing something if they're not paid, but still have no choice in the matter? This is all just blatantly wrong yet they're getting off the hook, and that has to be one of the most aggravating parts of this whole thing.
OBUSHA: Capitulation you can depend on!
Obusha lost my vote yesterday. I'm not voting against him, but I'll never vote for him. Ever, for anything.
And the money I was going to donate to his campaign, I'm now giving to the ACLU. Somebody has to look out for our freedom, and it certainly won't be a President Obusha anymore than it was for his mentor George Dubai Bush.
We only need a few donation to send a pair of these http://www.bullsballs.com/truck/nutz/ to every democrat in the senate who voted for this.
This is not about terrorists. This is about control of the "difficult" people in the population and making an example of them for all to see.
It's unclear to me why the telco's should be facing civil or criminal suits for this. The executive branch has the job of enforcing the law. If they go to a company and request that they take an action assuring the company that it is legal the company is legally required to comply are they not? Aren't they subject to criminal penalities if they do not comply with what the executive branch says is the law? If the executive branch has asked for something that may be illegal (unconstitutional) then actions should be instituted in the courts against the executive branch. This may be done by a citizen (including the corporation in question) or the legislative branch.
How can it be a companies responsibility to interprete the constitution and laws? I would have liked to see the telco's having filed something in the courts related to the request from the executive branch but the only requirement for this is good citizenship nothing legal. At some point you do get to the point where civil disobedience may appropriate. I think you could include Qwests refusal in this category and I give them cudos and my strong support for doing this. However, it doesn't make sense to me that you could be subject to civil or criminal prosecution for not taking that stand.
I would like to see the Bush administration facing impeachments and criminal prosecution for this and other actions they have taken. But the telcos? I wish they had been better citizens and taken Qwest route or at least gone to the courts, but it doesn't seem like there is any basis for them to be facing civil or criminal legal actions.
I'm rather impressed that you can inveigh against profligate spending and support infinite imperial military ventures overseas under the "libertarian" banner. (Please drop the figleaf of concern over human rights. It's gone past laughable at this point and straight into grotesque.) And also that you can pretend that the unprovoked and murderous invasion of another country is going to "reduce spending".
Also, unless you're making over $225k per year, you'll do better tax-wise under Obama than McCain. (Source.) But, I mean, if you want to shill for rich people to keep more of their money, that's fine. You should just be a bit more honest about it.
Remember, kids, it's strong-jawed libertarianism when rich people get their taxes cut, but it's "shiny candy from the government" for the rest of us.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Oh, give it a rest. When Bush strode into office and was flying high, he was the second coming of Reagan. When his Norquistian policies bore bitter fruit, suddenly No True Conservative could be so unpopular.
They could have cut funding. They would have enjoyed popular support for doing so. Reasons why they didn't range from (at the cynical end of things) that Democrats are just as bloodthirsty a party of warmongers seeking global dominion as Republicans, or (at the less cynical end) Democrats are so inexplicably scared out of their wits whenever a Republican threatens to call them unpatriotic that they can't help but give the opposing party everything they asked for and more, or maybe they're just as out of touch with the people of this country as you are. (See following paragraph.)
"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?" As of about two weeks ago, the war's approval rating is only slightly north of the President's, and is hovering around the proportion of Americans who think that Saddam Hussein personally plotted the 9/11 attacks.
The war is not popular, and has not been for some time now. I can't imagine how you got the idea that the majority of Americans think the war was a good idea.
(Oh, and the war certainly was the defining issue of the 2006 elections.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
So... as long as it's dressed up with a "humanitarian" sticker, you'll vote for bombings, invasions, occupations and all the rest, while calling yourself a libertarian. Are you aware that Japan said that it invaded Manchuria for humanitarian reasons? That Mussolini said the same when rolled into Ethiopia, and Hitler when he annexed the Sudetenland?
I mean, wow. I couldn't be that ingenuous if I took lessons. One might think that a self-described libertarian might be a smidge more skeptical of what the government says.
Well, that's vague and reference-free enough to be impossible to rebut. Care to expand on that, or does Obama simply give you a squishy feeling in your socks that you just don't like?
Wait, what? You started by claiming that McCain's tax policies would be better for you. More freedomlicious, or somesuch. I pointed out that there was roughly a one-in-twenty chance of this being the case, since nearly everyone in the country is better off under Obama's plan, since it makes the tax system more progressive, rather than more regressive, as McCain's would.
And now you're complaining that Obama's tax plan isn't progressive enough? I'm trying to unpack what you mean by that last paragraph, and I'm coming up blank. Please explain at further length why you believe that a tax plan which raises taxes on nearly everyone is better than a tax plan which cuts taxes on nearly everyone, from a libertarian perspective.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
We are clearly overdue for a good and proper political revolution. Track down your senator, then tar and feather him. Even the ones voting against this bill should be beaten for the overall pathetic weak spined showing we've had fro them in the face of outright rape of the constitution and snubbing of the rule of law.
Will not be flown by terrorists into government building, but by patriots into corporate headquarters.
Of the 49 Democrats in the Senate, the vote was 20-27-1 for FISA -- the Dems as a group voted against the bill, with Kennedy not present.
20 + 27 + 1 is not 49. Of the 49 Democrats in the Senate, the vote was 21-27-1 for FISA (supported by 43.75% of those voting).
You said you believe in "rule of law." The DMCA is law. If you think it is okay to violate laws you don't like (which, granted, you haven't admitted, but a lot of people here seem to think it is okay to do), but want to hold telcos responsible for laws you do like, that would be hypocrisy on your part, not a fallacy on my part.
Simply because you don't like my argument doesn't make it fallacious.
As for your link to inductive reasoning, quite the contrary, I was quite deductive:
Major premise: Rule of law is important.
Minor premise: DMCA is law
Conclusion: You must follow DMCA (and if you don't like it, change it, just as Congress changed the FISA rules).
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
From the first time I saw Obama on TV one word came to mind: phony.
Ladies and gentlemen, Obama really really wants to win. He will do anything to win. He will take whatever stand he feels gives him the most votes. This should have been obvious to you when he denounced Rev. Wright. Put the pieces together people! He had nothing to run on, no experience! He has a shady past. If you don't have a good platform to run on, run on abstract things like "Hope" and "Change"
All of you Obama supporters will be very disappointed when he doesn't deliver. This is just a sign of things to come.
The only time you get an honest politician is when he/she is a completely selfless person. Obama isn't. Sorry, I like the guy too, but he just isn't who he pretends to be. This is PROOF.
Obama keywords:
flip-flop, elitist, power hungry, politician