Slashdot Mirror
Senate To Reconsider Wiretap Immunity
bughunter passes on a report from Wired Threat Level about the effort by Democratic lawmakers to roll back some provisions of the Patriot Act. Three of its provisions expire at the end of this year, and the reform attempt is expected to be attached to legislation to renew them. "Lawmakers are considering key changes to the Patriot Act and other spy laws — proposals that could give new life to lawsuits accusing the nation's telecommunications companies of turning over Americans' electronic communications to the government without warrants. On Oct. 1, the Senate Judiciary Committee likely will consider revoking that immunity legislation as it works to revise the Patriot Act and other spy laws with radical changes that provide for more government transparency and more privacy protections." Among the other likely goals of reform efforts, according to Wired, are limiting the government's power to issue National Security Letters, and limiting "black bag" searches to cases of spying or terrorism — 65% of past searches were authorized in drug cases.
That the War on Drugs has done more to rape civil liberties than any other government initiative in modern times.
The fine summary leaves out the minor fact that Obama is opposed to watering down the Patriot act.
So much for hope and change.
Senate Democrats propose surveillance law changesWednesday September 23, @08:29AM
The AP is reporting (via yahoo) that Senate Democrats are actually trying to restore some of Americans' rights and freedoms that were lost when government panicked after 9-11.
Free Martian Whores!
You would think that, with a Democratic majority, this sort of stuff would pass without much trouble. This administration is too nice to the Republican minority.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
As expected when they proposed it--the Patriot Act was not used as advertised.
Just 3% of the "National Security" Letters were used for terrorism-related cases.
65% of them were instead used for drug cases. So many of the actions taken by the Bush Administration to allegedly protect us from "Terrorists" were instead used for the meat and potatoes Law and Order issues the Republicans favor. Despicable!
What were the other 34% of unconstitutional searches for? My understanding is that only 3 out of over 700 warrantless searches and wiretaps were for cases that involved terrorism. This is why there were FISA courts in the the first place to prevent these kinds of abuses. Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave, that is until someone decides to declare you an enemy of the state.
It's all about the possibilities!
They're all owned for by the same 'campaign contributors', so why on earth would they be different? Are you saying that Democrats aren't enough honest enough to stay bought?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You would think that, with a Democratic majority, this sort of stuff would pass without much trouble. This administration is too nice to the Republican minority.
It's not a Republican vs. Democratic issue. I know it seems like it, but it's not. The Democrats are going to put on a nice show for all of us to show us that they at least "tried", but in the end, this won't pass. Big telecom has powerful lobbies, and the TPTB in the military and civilian intelligence agencies have all deemed telecom immunity to be too important to national security.
My blog
Obligatory Onion: BREAKING: Democrats Hoping To Take Control Of Congress From Republican Minority In 2010
But what do you expect? After all, as Biden said, some of the guys he campaigned for are turkeys.
The Army reading list
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/18/1913248/New-JUSTICE-Act-Could-Roll-Back-Telecom-Immunity?art_pos=2
That's right. It annoys the piss out of me when folks, regardless of the issues, get in your face about how their party will fix the issue and how the other party caused it.
The next big issue will be tax increases in 2010 - it's gonna happen even if there's a 100% Republican control in the Congress. But, that's another issue.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
I would say more I would like to see this chapter to end.
You can't expect all companies to have a moral compass. That is why you needs laws and regulations. So when the US Governments goes and puts pressor to the Telecom companies, what would you do... Really and honest here...
Are you willing to say no and have the government (which at the time was considered unstoppable) go after you. Or are you going to say yea lets go.
A willing Pawn is still a pawn. If you are going to sue you should sue the people who pressured the telecoms to do so. Because we can't and shouldn't expect them to do what is right. Especially with all their money and investments having a goverment OK on it. (you know those cell towers and telephone poles all have to have government OK at some level) so Fighting them really isn't much an option as they could just as easy go to say Well Verizon helped us and you didn't so I think I will OK Verizon to have the towers put up. So in short the Risk of saying No was really too high. (sure Google said no, they suffered low stock for a few months, but they don't have government ties like the other Telecoms do)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The thing is, the Democrats are as power hungry as the Republicans. And the PATRIOT act was passed by a nearly unanimous vote.
A pox on both their houses, I say.
Free Martian Whores!
A slightly different but overlapping set of campaign contributors.
I was pissed as all get out that the telcos got immunity for cooperating with an illegal government action. They should have had their asses nailed to the wall, as a reminder that businesses should not accept the government at its word about national security.
At this point, however, I wonder if revoking the immunity is a good way to go. It's not quite the same as double jeopardy, since the companies were not acquitted by a jury, but it's close. In order for companies to function, they need some predictability. Congress' granting retroactive immunity to the telcos set a bad precedent. But having done so, revoking it also sets a bad precedent.
On the other hand, is it ever late too late to seek justice?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! You think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's too rich.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
This is all smoke and mirrors designed to make you think they are doing something about nothing.
The problem is that the telecom immunity didn't give any immunity that wasn't already there. The Democrats know this, including Obama who not only voted for the immunity, but sent the justice department to court in February to defend it when the EFF attemped to get it shot down.
Under the 1968 wiretap laws, if the government presented anyone a document stating the legal authority for the wire tap- that they were legally able to obtain the information requested, the people who assisted them would have a complete defense against any civil or criminal actions against them. The 1978 FISA laws amended that to include warantless wire taps not to mention the other warantless provisions outside of FISA. When Bush abused the law on the wiretaps, he marked those documents classified as national security documents which forbids the telecoms from disclosing information about them unless they are wanting to commit a felony that could carry 5 years to life with the possibility of the death sentence.
The telecom immunity set up a secret court of review that operates under FISA. The only way the telecoms could get immunity under it would be if they had the documents already prescribed by the complete defense provisions already in place. The Court of Review would review the documents, ask the federal agencies if they issued it, then asks them to explain why it's still a national security interest and needs to remain classified. If it isn't legitimate, or it doesn't exist, no immunity happens. If it's legitimate and still needs to be classified, the Court of review instructs the court holding the actions against the telecom that the case needs to be droped and never brought up again. If the secrete classification isn't justified, the document is returned to the telecoms with immunity from prosecution for using it as their complete defense and it's up to the judge holding the action over them whether to keep it classified or not.
All the telecom immunity does is create a vehicle that existing immunity could be realized without causing exposure to a serious felony opr disclosing national security secrets. Democrats know this, but they also know that the average America does so they are bringing this up for the sole purpose to posture themselves for reelection. The JUSTICE act that was recently discussed was sponsered by at least one person who is up for reelection next year. That's all this is about. Evidently democrats on congress have done little to justify their own reelection and feel the need to run against Bush instead of running on their accomplishments.
DO not expect anything more to happen with this other then talk and claims of wanting to prosecute the Bush administration for the wiretaps. Better yet, look into exactly how the telecom immunity provides that immunity and you will know first hand that this is nothing more them posturing with smoke and mirrors.
FTFA... limiting the government's power to issue "national security letters,"...
Translation: The President of the United States does, in fact, NOT have the power to issue a royal decree which suspends the Constitution of the United States of American whenever he fucking feels like it. Nor do his minions have such authority. The laws regarding due process, privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, and so on, shall stand, and we are very, very sorry that we allowed the terrorists to win by scaring us into passing this absurdly named "Patriot Act".
and later made it permanent.
Just to be clear, there are TWO things going on here. Please don't get confused.
1. There are three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year. Note that Pres. Obama and the Ministry of Justice want to renew these provisions.
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/09/15/justice-department-supports-renewal-of-patriot-act-provisions
2. This article is referring to Russ Feingold "S. 1686" bill (aka the "Justice Act,") which is basically a watered down version of the original Patriot Act.
I have to give Feigngold credit for his voting record on civil liberties. My concern however is that his bill will be amended to renew the expiring provisions, preserve retroactive telecom immunity, and do very little to restore civil liberties. Recall that the Democrats pretended to put up a fight about telecom immunity when the new FISA legislation was being debated (voting it down once) before eventually approving it (in spirit of bi-partisanship).
IMHO, the best approach (assuming you care about civil liberties) is to prevent ANY new legislation from passing, thereby allowing the expiring provisions to die.
There is a stark difference. Democrats win by promising to spend your money, and Republicans win by promising NOT to spend your money, but then spend it anyway once in office.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
The actions the telecoms took were legal under the PATRIOT act, which was the law of the land at the time. You can't just go back and make them illegal now, that's blatantly unconstitutional (and a much graver assault on all of our liberties than unwarranted wiretaps).
Bollock!
It was unconstitutional and illegal, until they passed a law to make it retroactively legal. They knew where they were going, they should pay the price.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
The actions the telecoms took were legal under the PATRIOT act
No, they weren't. Not even USAPATRIOT authorizes unlimited spying on domestic sources with no warrant. And nobody in the government has ever even claimed that the actions were legal under USAPATRIOT. The only statutory legal justification for the program would have been FISA and they did not go through FISA. The only claim on legality they ever made was AG Gonzales' legal theory that the President can ignore any law he wants as long as he thinks it's really important for national security that he do so -- a legal theory with what I will generously call "flaws".
Not even John Ashcroft thought the surveillance program was legal, and he was a huge proponent of USAPATRIOT. Does that not tell you something?
That's why Congress had to retroactively make those actions legal. That is the ex post facto law. Undoing an ex post facto law is not, itself, ex post facto.
The enemies of Democracy are
Not all of the PATRIOT act is bad.
If I were to read about something good about it I might be able to agree with you, but nothing I have read is in any way good. What about the "Cowardly Government antiAmerican Act" is good? What is it about the misnamed PATRIOT act that isn't bad?
I journaled today about The Cartoon Terrorist. It isn't in the national news, but the local paper (and all the local TV news) covered it. There was a plot to bomb the Federal Building here in Springfield (home of Ward 2 Alderman Gail Simpson), and it was uncovered by plain old police work by the FBI. No warrantless wiretaps, nothing else from the PATRIOT act, nothing by the Dept of Homeland Security. Just cops doing their jobs.
Back in my grandfather's day the President said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Today's presidents are more like "OMFG ITS TEH TERRORISTS! GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY, IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION, IMPRISON PEOPLE WITHOUT TRIAL AND TORTURE THEM! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! MOMMIE!!!!"
Free Martian Whores!
Take a look a the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles in the bill of rights. They seem to have been pretty well gutted in the name of "National Security". The 8th is looking pretty shaky too.
Been to an airport lately? I remember a time, WAY the hell back in the late 60's^F^FStone Age, when you could walk out onto the tarmac at an airport, without a boarding pass, without a ticket, get on a plane, and pay for your ticket with a personal check right on the airplane. Mind you, at the time, there were quite a few idiots standing up in mid flight screaming "Take thees plane to HA-VAN-HA! too.
Driven from Phoenix AZ to Vegas lately? They have these nifty 'TSA checkpoints' on both sides of the dam where they pretty much just wave you through, but sometimes actually pull you over and search your car and person without a fucking warrant.
I told my grandkids about that once, they thought I was lying.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
oh- the Democrats did that (voted for PATRIOT) out of sheer calculating political cowardice.
The NAZI era Germans called it the "zeitgeist" - the mind of the times, everyone was caught up in the frenzy, Germany was so fucked up (economically) after WWI, and the people wanted so badly to believe it was everyone's fault but their own. (dudes, you lost a war. . . that you started). Mass-denial, and failure to take responsibility for their actions (and consequences for WWI were huge, because it was a huge fucking clusterfuck of a war) - and desire to blame it on everyone else: the Jews, the Commies, the French - is what put Hitler into power.
9/11 had the same exact effect on the US. (and I'm not buying into the terrorist notion that 9/11 was "the result of our mideast policies" - that's also childish blame-shifting. . . I'm just saying you don't blame and punish an entire culture for something that a few hundred whackjobs cooked up on their own). I think that the chickens of US imperialism and arrogance are coming home to roost, and the years following 9/11, Iraq, and all that crap, were part of it. Will the US suffer the devastation that Germany suffered after WWII? Look at photos of downtown Berlin after the Soviets got through with it. God, I hope not.
Those who do not learn the lessons of History, are doomed to repeat it. And even those who DO learn the lessons of History, are doomed to sit by and watch others repeat it.
So - to vote against USA PATRIOT would have been political suicide for the Dems. On the other hand, Obama's act of courage (voting against the Iraq war) is probably a big part of what got him elected. Some demographic of Americans still DO actually prefer political courage.
That's not saying I would not have wanted my representatives to grow a fucking spine, and stand up for my rights. . . and what is objectively Right. That would have been nice, but I think it's expecting too much of people who, as a profession (career politicians), are generally deeply flawed individuals, in a system that generally rewards mediocrity, cowardice, and corruption.
But this is what I mean when I say there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between Republicans and Democrats. Folks point out the obvious differences, and tell me, hey dude, that's not cool. Then I watch as a guy like Obama goes from "Yes we can!" to signing off on renewing the Patriot Act provisions, in the space of a couple of months. Dude; that's not cool.
And no - there's no third-party in particular that I think would be any better. I think it's the system that's hopelessly broken, and incapable of steering us back onto the right track.
I'm just stocking up on ammunition and canned food, and waiting for the inevitable, like everyone else.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.