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.'"
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!
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.
A bit off topic, but you both have valid points.
So called "gun nuts" often couldn't care less about the erosion of many other freedoms including those involving free speech and unlawful search and seizure, and many actually think that the war on drugs is a good thing, etc.
On the flipside, the so called, "hippy liberals" want all the freedom in the world when it doesn't involve guns.
What needs to happen is both types of people need to get together(over a budweiser and some granola perhaps?) and realize that it's EVERYONE who is having their freedoms taken away.
A society works best when it's citizens have as many freedoms as possible, in my humble opinion of course. What we need is cooperation and education, not fear mongering from either side.
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
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.
Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
This is the most historically ignorant thing I've read in awhile. Bush is way, way down on that list. Wilson goes at the top. Above Bush we'd find FDR, Jackson, Nixon, LBJ... and probably a few others I don't know about.
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.
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.
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
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.