Slashdot Mirror
Bush Demands Amnesty for Spying Telecoms
The Bush administration and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are poised to square off in front of a San Francisco federal judge Tuesday to litigate the constitutionality of legislation immunizing the nation's telecoms from lawsuits accusing them of helping the government spy on Americans without warrants. "'The legislation is an attempt to give the president the authority to terminate claims that the president has violated the people's Fourth Amendment rights,' the EFF's [Cindy] Cohn says. 'You can't do that.'"
...why doesn't he just issue a blanket pardon?
My guess: he doesn't want to take responsibility for getting the telcos off the hook.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What could possibly go wrong?
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Sure you can!
Just have Poppy buy you into office so that the people that have the strings attached to important parts of your body can pull what they want, when the want.
Seriously, we have just witnessed the greatest bald-faced rape of the Constitution since ... forever. The thing (or the most recent thing) that turns my stomach is that there is a very good chance they will get away with it.
Actually he did that. You can't say that "You can't do that", because he did that. The Bush Administration is asking for retrospective immunity - that's a lot worse than asking for permission to do it.
The rest of the world is watching this one closely as well - it's not just the US that's interested in the outcome of this incident.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
... why doesn't [Bush] just issue a blanket pardon?
Perhaps because pardons apply to criminal cases (government vs. person-to-be-punished-for-wrongdoing) while these are civil cases (wronged people demanding damages be paid by those who wronged them). I think the pardon power only applies to the former.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
All slashdoting aside, how would we deal with this situation? I know we're mainly a bunch of nerds, but aren't we the most influential people on the planet in today's society? What could we seriously do to circumvent this policy? Any ideas? Come on people, we're the brains of the world!
Doesn't someone need to be harmed in order to sue? And in order to prove you were harmed, you'd need to have access to state secrets, which can't happen in the new America. Therefore, no harm, no standing to sue, no case.
I don't think you can sue for a general affront to the Constitution.
You're full of shit. If you really were protecting freedom you'd have done something by now. Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
So, does that mean that you are okay to effectively have anyone and everyone who wants to listening to your calls or reading your emails in case you are a terrorist waiting for the right moment?
Before you really answer, think about all the stuff that you write in email to close friends, or in sms to loved ones, or over the phone. All that embarrassing stuff that isn't meant for any audience outside you and the receiving end. All THAT stuff becomes open.
I might be naive in my thinking, but why spend billions on listening to everyone's conversations when you could spend the same money to make their lives good. Happy content people don't go blowing themselves up or shoot random (or not so random) people by the bucketful. Happy content people lead happy content and productive lives. Eavesdropping on everyone won't make everyone happy.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The terrorists also used a tool of communication known as "spoken language" to transmit information to other terrorists.
Telescreens are now being installed in your house to make sure that you do not transmit terrorist information when using the aforementioned tool in your home.
"He'd catch the terrorists first, worry about paperwork and suspensions afterwards."
Yet, his childhood "pal" Osama Bin Laden is still free.
How long has Bush been "Pal'n around" with terrorists?
Since the Republicans want to blame Obama for Ayers misdeeds, this is a legitimate question now.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Obama voted for it too you know.
If he were really against it as some of the more delusion supporters claim, then he would issue a statement at this time supporting making it unconstitutional. Expect no statement.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
wait just one minute there.
using your logic lets go through a scenario.
Rape. I'm sure that no one has to say how terrible an experience that is. and it is almost always males attacking females.
we can stop rape completely. we just need to completely remove the genitalia of every single man. without the tools to commit the crime there will be no possibility of rape happening.
it will be completely stopped.
Is that worth it to you?
now i hear you saying, "that is completely different and barbaric". no it's not. you want to take away everyone's right to something just so that you can stop the >1% of the population that uses that same right for deviant behavior. it's asinine.
the right to privacy is no different.
if you want to give away your rights that fine.
Don't try to take away mine!
The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.
This was why immunity should NOT be warranted! And before you start screaming national security, exactly what kind of information that could be brought out in a civil case which would damage national security? Methods? Competent terrorists aren't going to be caught by dragnet style filtering anyway unless its technical prowess is far beyond what most experts agree is currently possible.
This is either protecting corporate cronies, protecting themselves, or most likely both.
At the very least, it means there are two sides to the "eavesdropping" question. It's a question for thoughtful discussion, not the sloganeering and bumper-sticker Constitutional Law pronouncements everyone has heard a thousand times.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives. That's a benefit that has to be weighed against the costs. But most of the partisan discussions on this subject don't fairly acknowledge that benefit. Terrorism is real -- the terrorists have reminded us of that again.
The preventable damage caused by terrorism can be seen stacked in body bags on the news broadcasts (again). What was the damage caused by the eavesdropping? Are we all 100% sure the eavesdropping is so much worse that it could never even be considered, even with safeguards? I'm not.
He'd catch the terrorists first, worry about paperwork and suspensions afterwards.
And yet FISA already let the government do that.
And as long as he filed his paperwork no later than 72 hours after starting surveillance, there would be no problem under FISA. This "we need every power imaginable with no oversight or you're a pot smoking terrorist loving liberal commie bastard" false dichotomy has just got to stop. FISA was more than enough as it was and this new legislation is a power grab, plain and simple.
(!happy) !=> suicidal killer
hopeless => suicidal killer
There are plenty unhappy people in America but no homegrown suicide bombers. What we don't have is a system that explicitly sets out to systematically oppress and render voiceless segments of the population - that is what's behind suicide bombers, because it takes away any value life has.
Then for the most part we get into a bullshit pissing contest of "your voice can't be heard because you're violent" and "we turn to violence because you won't let us be heard" to avoid anyone having to admit they're wrong.
dude...read the 4th amendment.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives.
But the problem is that we don't know who they are. You need to listen to millions of conversations to have a chance of getting down to what you are interested in.
And lets face it, it's not like they aren't going to be talking in coded messages to one another. I am sure that "Hey Terrorist friend, that bomb you asked for is running a day late, but we will still get it down there and blow shit up good" might sound like "Hi Bob, I will be picking up the milk on the way home, but I am running a little late."
As for the thought that there is some lowly paid government worker listening in on a conversation over the phone I have while away on business with my partner? Yeah, great. That just really works for me.
I hate to follow to logical conclusions, but correct me if I am wrong here:
1) Eaves dropping law gets passed.
2) Terrorist learn that they can be snooped on via phone.
3) Terrorists change communication method to avoid snooping.
4) Everyone else gets snooped on as the law is already enacted.
Did I miss something obvious?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Not to jump on the postback wagon, but isn't the whole concept of the American judicial system based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't listening in on anyone's conversations sort of take a 180 degree turn on that whole concept?
For the record, I am neither in America or American.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
has nothing to do with whether he can -- legally.
And this is exactly that kind of case in point... this last Presidential administration -- and Congress, too -- have done quite a few things lately that they probably can't do... legally. The fact that they did do them has no bearing on the law.
I don't have a problem with wiretapping or eavesdropping if the people wanting to do it go out and get a warrant. If you can prove to a judge that there is sufficient need to listen to a particular person's conversations without their knowing, that's fine. Before anyone goes down the "There isn't always time..." bollocks. If the need is there, then any paperwork can be rushed to the tune of insignificance.
What I do have a problem with is effectively taking off any and all controls about who does what and when. A blanket "telco's can't get into trouble" makes it much too easy for anyone to tune into anything they want.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I'm sure no one violated their rights by eavesdropping on their communications.
That's such an ignorant argument. They could have just as easily used walkie-talkies available at almost any department store, or spent some money and got some military grade communications for the cost of a few hand grenades. Or cell phones. Or satellite phones. Or wi-fi. Or broadband internet. You going to scan every frequency? Monitor every mode of communication? And it's not like they were sending detailed plans back and forth on their Blackberrys, it was tactical comm.
The type of wholesale spying the Bush administration is trying to promote and you seem to be trying to protect not only undermines the Constitution, it doesn't work. All the monitoring we have in place around the world didn't stop these yo-yo's. And it won't stop the next group. So what are you going to do then? Your philosophy is a failure. It's a false sense of security that provides no value in protection.
Combating terrorism by spying on Americans. Brilliant.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I call bullshit. They only support candidates who are pro-gun. They aren't pushing forward any political agenda other then gun ownership. The NRA could give a rats ass about political freedoms outside of this. This should be apparent in their wide spread support for our current administration. If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
And to the other poster here:
What the hell are you blathering about? We DO in fact know that the actions of the telcos (and the government people who setup / enabled it) were acting illegally. There is no reasonable question that this is true. Though, by our own rules, it will need to be proved in court... which is a different matter.
As for taking terrorism seriously, do you? As an individual, you are quite literally much more likely -- by orders of magnitude! -- to die in your bathtub than from a terrorist attack. So why aren't you advocating government cameras in everybody's bathroom? It would save so many lives! More than any "war on terrorism" has any chance of saving.
If you think that is a ridiculous example, then you are beginning to get the point. Because it is real.
This argument relies on pretending to know that warrants are always available for any situation where the conversation may be useful to save lives. Agents fighting terrorism will tell you they are not always available for those situations. People have died because no warrant was available in time.
Also, there's no need for an "anything goes with no consequences, ever" policy. No one has proposed such a policy. A policy requiring independent, after-the-fact oversight and examination of the choices of the agents involved would be adequate. Also, any evidence gathered would be excluded from court proceedings.
If agents were found to be malicious, they could face charges. If they were found to be careless, they could face discipline. If they made an honest mistake, they could be told to be more careful next time. If they took a good-faith chance and it didn't pay off, they could be encouraged. And if they ended up saving lives, they could be commended.
It seems like a reasonable policy that might work.
Why can't we save lives and follow the law? What was so desperate that we couldn't change the laws during the 8+ years that this was going on?
This program was against the law and the constitution of the United States of America. Period. This is not in serious dispute, that's why the immunity deal was necessary. Immunity was granted to prevent this from ever going to trial and bringing out the facts of the case. If everything was above board, why not prove it in a court of law?
And you are right, there is little in my post about terrorism. It wasn't about terrorism. It was about our government and how they are trampling the laws and traditions of this country.
The choice is not breaking laws to catch terrorists or doing nothing and letting them kill Americans; that's a false dichotomy. We can, and have for many, many years, held to the rule of law and protected our citizens. We can continue to do so.
The choice is protecting our citizens while adhering to the rule of law or not. This government has chosen not to. If the laws were insufficient, they had the option of trying to change those laws. They chose not to. This is completely unacceptable in any society that wishes to be considered democratic and those responsible need to be held to account.
Agents fighting terrorism will tell you they are not always available for those situations. People have died because no warrant was available in time.
Those agents would be lying. FISA allowed for retroactive warrants to be issued 72 hours after the fact.
FreeSpeech.org
Well, he already voted for FISA, so I guess he won't. Damn.
I am actually happy they stick to an issue. They are the National Rifle Association. I would rather join multiple groups that support my various beliefs than try to find the one that best represents all my opinions. I don't really want their opinion on other issues any more than I want to eat a Linux powered sandwich...
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Uh, yes, that's the desired effect. We don't want corporate co-conspirators helping the government do covert and unconstitutional things. The telecoms, like all big companies, have entire legal departments and no doubt numerous policies about these sorts of things, and they almost certainly had fair notice that what they were doing was at best fuzzy and most likely blatantly illegal. I've been all for suing their asses off since day 1, and even more so since their government cronies tried to cover them.
Call it a deterrent, call it vengeance, but I call it justice.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Hey, don't count Bush out yet -- he's still got a good two months to make it happen!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The main difference between then and now is that common people who would otherwise have no clue about what went on now have access to the discrepancies, and other peoples' interpretations and compilations of them. Sure, no one in America loved the Japanese immediately after Perl Harbor, but most of them also weren't aware of the economic warfare that was going on leading up to the attack, so they felt vindicated in ripping the constitution when it came to the Japanese Americans. It was controlled ignorance. It's much harder to do these days.
On a slightly scary, related note, now that we have a President-Elect who built his campaign using the internet, and who was able to control leaks so tightly that no one outside the circle knew who was being talked about for appointments, what else might he be able to hide under his hat? I'm a mild fan of his, barring the FISA vote, but the ability to direct his staff with such precision on information policy might not bode well if he has a shady agenda. I suggest we watch closely and listen where we can.
The NRA works to defend the 2nd Amendment; the ACLU works to defend the other nine (in the Bill of Rights). I see nothing wrong with this, except that the ACLU ought to care about #2 too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No he's saying that the problem outlined in the NY Post story wasn't caused by the FISA law, but by a DOJ that was horribly mismanaged under the Bush administration. There have been numerous other examples of mismanagement under this administration (Heck of a job, Brownie!) that make this a very plausible interpretation.
People have died because no warrant was available in time.
Then they should die. Jefferson may have been heartless, but he was certainly wise, when he said that the tree of liberty must be watered every now and then with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
To save the maximum number of lives, we need a totalitarian state. Do you think that this would be worth the price?
Calling defenders of the Fourth Amendment Nazis?
Too.... much..... irony.... ARGH!
"No where in the constitution is there an express 'right to privacy', this is a fact, if you disagree try reading the document."
That is indeed a fact. On the other hand, if you *understand* the constitution (as opposed to just skimming over the words while moving your lips), you know that the founders understood that rights are inherent, that no one can take them away, and that it would be impossible to enumerate this infinite number of rights. They revisited this idea in the ninth amendment after listing some of the more important rights in case you forgot what they wrote at the beginning, but I see it didn't help in your case.