House Approves Extending the Warrantless Wiretapping Act

wiedzmin writes "The U.S. House of Representatives voted 301-118 today, in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act until December 31st, 2017, effectively reauthorizing the broad electronic eavesdropping powers that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program."

Comments

Can this be retroactively legalized

[Colonel Korn]

"that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program"

Sorry for the tangent, but I have a question. Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators? In other words, should the people involved in warrantless wiretapping before our hideously evil overlords legalized this rape of our rights be culpable for their crimes?

Also, someone do us the favor of linking to a list of the despicable scum in the House who voted in favor of further rape today.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[fustakrakich]

Under the votes tab: Roll no. 569.. Might not be there long

They have nothing to fear from this. They see it as a plus, and most of the voters do, too.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[DanTheStone]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Riddler Sensei]

If I understand what I've heard the way it works is you can make an action lawful ex post facto but you can't make it illegal ex post facto (I have no idea if this is right or not, just off the top of my head what I recall).

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[king neckbeard]

I would think that such a policy could happen. In a less negative light, let's say that we ended the war on drugs and at least decriminalized a large number of substances. Would granting them amnesty/pardon be unconstitutional? I don't think so. However, wiretaps are searches, so Congress can't actually authorize them.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[ranpel]

Roll Call

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[ranpel]

rather... Roll Call

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Mitreya]

Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators?

I think ex post facto laws refer to making what was formerly a legal activity to suddenly become illegal. Not sure if it covers the reverse (i.e. retroactively legalizing and excusing law-breaking)

If it did, then, presidential pardon would be trickier than it is.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[dark12222000]

It's not supposed to be legitimate to give a pass ex post facto, but it happens. This is pretty clear in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[rtb61]

Technically it can until challenge for breach of constitution in the high court. Should the high court be stacked with corrupt judges, who choose to analyse laws upon their own political biases and, their sponsors beliefs in what should have been the intent of those that wrote the constitution, rather than literal interpretations of those laws against a literal interpretation of the constitution. So until the high court of the United States of America is unstacked with corrupt political flunkies, well, then anything goes.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[englishknnigits]

And of course, Paul voted against it. One of only seven Republicans to vote against it. Shame he'll be gone soon, not that the vote made any difference.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

It was never the intention of the founding fathers for the constitution to be read literally. The reason being that they didn't want to have to cover absolutely every combination and permutation of action or inaction that could apply. The constitution is there as a guide and subject to interpretation.

Even without that, there's serious disagreement of what some of the Amendments even say, like the 2nd Amendment means two very different things depending upon which copy you go by. The copy that passed the legislature or the copy that was ratified.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Obfuscant]

I think ex post facto laws refer to making what was formerly a legal activity to suddenly become illegal. Not sure if it covers the reverse (i.e. retroactively legalizing and excusing law-breaking)

Ex post facto means, literally, "after the fact". Yes, it would apply to legalization as well as criminalization.

However, consider this. Criminal cases in the US are brought by the public prosecutor, an arm of the state. It is the state that is passing this law. The state should have no standing in objecting to an action by the state. The accused who isn't prosecuted would be stupid to object to his crime being made legal. He's the only other party with any standing. So, who's going to go to court to test whether ex post facto legalization of something is constitutional?

Civil matters are different, and I suspect that such cases are not hindered by ex post facto laws, but a real lawyer would have to answer that.

If it did, then, presidential pardon would be trickier than it is.

Presidential pardons are not ex post facto laws.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be extended in perpetuity. They will never willingly let this power go. Not until they push people too far and there is a violent uprising.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[SydShamino]

Republicans: 227 for, 7 against
Democrats: 74 for, 111 against

Not that there's anything different whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans. No sir. I read that right here on Slashdot.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Charliemopps]

That's cute... you think that vote was a legitimate look at those politicians beliefs.

Have you ever had someone play "Good cop / Bad cop" on you? Like your boss comes to fire you. He says "Well, I really wanted to keep you, you're a great guy but... the big boss says you've gotta go. He's a real jerk." Isn't that nice? He wanted to keep you and he really liked you... Well, I've got news for you... you're still fired and he was lying. Get a fucking clue. Every republican and democrat on that floor knew exactly how that vote was going to come out before they walked in. The democrats could have stopped that legislation but didn't.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it can. Anything is possible if the Supreme Court supports it, un-Constitutional or not.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[meglon]

So.. it's the democrats fault that they didn't stop it (because they don't have the numbers or ability to stop it), but not the fault of the teabaggers who voted for it? Obviously that kind of thinking is a symptom of the major problem in the US these days.... really fucking stupid people.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[sgt scrub]

Do you know an overlord that has given up power after it was given? This vote was just a confirmation to show that nobody will give up power no mater how evil the overlord or the power.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[0111 1110]

It was never the intention of the founding fathers for the constitution to be read literally.

Oh yes it was. They thought that would protect their new republic against tyranny. They were so naive. But, to be fair, their noble experiment had never really been tried before.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[compro01]

let's say that we ended the war on drugs and at least decriminalized a large number of substances. Would granting them amnesty/pardon be unconstitutional? I don't think so

Yes, it would be if Congress was doing that, as they don't get that set of powers. The president would need to be issuing the pardons.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Tea partiers , pay attention, this is for you..

All of you that voted in all the Tea Partiers and hardcore right wing Republicans into congress.. this is what you gave us..
Your desperation to oust Obama gave us this.. a government that does not function because of all of these Republican retards who will run America into the ground just so that they can get their guy in power in the next election. Trouble is Dubya made such a horrible mess of things, we can't afford for the government to spin it's wheels for four years.. We needed to be doing stuff to overturn all the short sighted profit minded bull crap that Bush did and we needed to get started on it in 2008 and continue until 2016 no questions. We had time to waste in 2001, we had time to waste in 2004, but we spent enough money in Iraq and Afganistan to colonize Mars, literally! We have to get to work now to turn things around or there likely will not be an America to speak of in 2016. It's sad when the way we are going to have to get through to the congress is to let them drive the country over the financial cliff so that the clinton era budget and taxes go back into effect by default. I am ready to move out of America , it is going down the tubes and if we swing to the right again like we did in 2001, were basically done.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is, they can in effect. This is simply because in this day and age, the law is whatever the feral government (yes, feral) decides it is. Consequently, they can disregard whatever laws they like, because we are no longer in control of them. The people who buy them and pay for their elections are, and THEY are okay with this. Conversely, possession and consumption of marijuana is a federal crime, yet there are people in many states doing it OPENLY, in public, at what are called "medical marijuana" dispensaries. Under federal law, these places should be raided and shut down immediately, but the federal government has decided to ignore federal law in these cases when the dispensaries operate in compliance with STATE law, despite federal law trumping state law, per the supremacy clause of the US constitution. So we have instances where the government ignores the law, or refuses to enforce it, and then pretends the law matters; at the very least, we're not allowed to break it, just the thugs in our government bureaucracy.

Makes you wonder what the point in paying taxes is, when the government we're paying for doesn't enforce it's own laws, doesn't obey them, and elected officials spend one half of their terms arguing about shit that doesn't matter, and the other half trying to scare us into allowing them to keep their jobs.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

BILL TITLE: To extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years
YEAS 301:
Ackerman, Adams, Aderholt, Alexander, Altmire, Amodei, Austria, Baca, Bachmann, Bachus, Barber, Barletta, Barrow, Bartlett, Barton (TX), Bass (NH), Benishek, Berg, Berkley, Berman, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Bishop (UT), Black, Blackburn, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boren, Boswell, Boustany, Brady (TX), Brooks, Buchanan, Bucshon, Buerkle, Burgess, Burton (IN), Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Canseco, Cantor, Capito, Carnahan, Carter, Cassidy, Castor (FL), Chabot, Chaffetz, Chandler, Cicilline, Clyburn, Coble, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Connolly (VA), Cooper, Costa, Cravaack, Crawford, Crenshaw, Critz, Cuellar, Culberson, Denham, Dent, DesJarlais, Deutch, Diaz-Balart, Dicks, Dold, Donnelly (IN), Dreier, Duffy, Duncan (SC), Ellmers, Emerson, Farenthold, Fattah, Fincher, Fitzpatrick, Flake, Fleischmann, Fleming, Flores, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garamendi, Gardner, Garrett, Gerlach, Gibbs, Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Gonzalez, Goodlatte, Gosar, Gowdy, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Green, Al, Green, Gene, Griffin (AR), Griffith (VA), Grimm, Guinta, Guthrie, Gutierrez, Hall, Hanabusa, Hanna, Harper, Harris, Hartzler, Hastings (WA), Hayworth, Heck, Heinrich, Hensarling, Herrera Beutler, Higgins, Himes, Hinojosa, Hochul, Holden, Hoyer, Huelskamp, Huizenga (MI), Hultgren, Hunter, Hurt, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson (OH), Johnson, Sam, Jordan, Kaptur, Kelly, King (IA), King (NY), Kingston, Kinzinger (IL), Kissell, Kline, Labrador, Lamborn, Lance, Landry, Langevin, Lankford, Latham, LaTourette, Latta, Levin, Lewis (CA), Lipinski, LoBiondo, Loebsack, Long, Lowey, Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Luján, Lummis, Lungren, Daniel E., Lynch, Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, Marino, Matheson, McCarthy (CA), McCarthy (NY), McCaul, McHenry, McIntyre, McKeon, McKinley, McMorris Rodgers, McNerney, Meehan, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Miller (NC), Miller, Gary, Mulvaney, Murphy (PA), Myrick, Neugebauer, Noem, Nugent, Nunes, Nunnelee, Olson, Palazzo, Paulsen, Pearce, Pelosi, Pence, Perlmutter, Peters, Peterson, Petri, Pitts, Platts, Poe (TX), Pompeo, Posey, Price (GA), Quayle, Quigley, Rahall, Reed, Rehberg, Reichert, Renacci, Reyes, Ribble, Richmond, Rigell, Rivera, Roby, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rokita, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Ross (AR), Ross (FL), Rothman (NJ), Royce, Runyan, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Scalise, Schiff, Schilling, Schmidt, Schock, Schwartz, Schweikert, Scott (SC), Scott, Austin, Scott, David, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Sewell, Sherman, Shimkus, Shuler, Shuster, Simpson, Sires, Smith (NE), Smith (NJ), Smith (TX), Smith (WA), Southerland, Stearns, Stivers, Stutzman, Sullivan, Terry, Thompson (CA), Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiberi, Tipton, Turner (NY), Turner (OH), Upton, Walberg, Walden, Walsh (IL), Webster, West, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf, Womack, Woodall, Yarmuth, Yoder, Young (FL), Young (IN)

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

His point is that 40% of the democrats voted in favor of the bill. If that is supposed to be the party of human rights, they're not doing so well.

Republican representatives aren't really allowed to vote individually, so when 90% the party of small government and individual liberty approves a big government plan to monitor individuals, it doesn't mean that 90% of them actually approve of the bill.

The parties have different rhetoric to feed the masses, but their voting records are not very different on the bills that are most offensive to those masses

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the point is the majority of one party voted against it, the majority of another voted for it. You can back-justify it however you like, but those are the facts.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[MysteriousPreacher]

Only one comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[wisnoskij]

Well you do hear about governments retroactively changing decisions all the time.
Like when they retroactively re-voted on the Japanese internment issue of WW2, cannot remember if it was Canada or the US.
So as far as the records go, we officially, as a country, voted unanimously against interning Japanese Americans/Canadians for no reason.

I cannot see how this would not clear all involved of crimes/war crimes at the same time.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

So...there are only 7 non-tea Republicans in the House? No, but it makes as much sense as your response.

The "takeaway" here should be that at least half of the Democrats in the House had the good sense to vote against this nonsense and that very few Republicans did. Still a poor turnout by any measure, but it is certainly a decent barometer.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Phrogz]

Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators?

Despite beliefs to the contrary, society is nothing but a giant game of Nomic. There may be rules about what you can do, but if you play well enough you can change those rules. Playing well includes the ability to change them retroactively.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[cyberchondriac]

Actually, yes. Lincoln had Habeas Corpus suspended during the Civil War. It was reinstated afterward.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct link: Roll 569

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, phrases like 'necessary and proper' were actually quite specific back then. Tard.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Script Cat]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Kurrel]

If the entirety of the losing side has wasted their votes because they lost afterward, then obviously voting doesn't work because whomever still does vote would win.

Oh...wait...I guess hindsight doesn't qualify you to place different values on anyone's votes...

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[v1]

it was neither a matter of bad intent or bad idea. The intent and the design were good, but they weren't made to work forever without being updated. Nothing like this had ever been put together that had managed to last very long. Maybe they just didn't really think it was too important to make the constitution something that would easily keep itself up to date with the times.

If they would have made the constitution easier to ammend, maybe we'd see a more modern document.

Now that the state and federal government have managed to wiggle mostly out of the ropes of the constitution, it's become a very difficult prospect to get them tightened up again the way they were intended to be. The constitution used to be considered a guideline and a framework for law, but now it's more of a nuisance and inconvenience to be worked around as a matter of daily business. It doesn't stop them from doing whatever they want to, it just forces them to plan HOW they do it a little more carefully.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[queequeg1]

Political posturing for a vote the Democrats knew they would lose. If the Democrats were truly worried about the effect the FISA amendments have on our personal freedoms, they could have easily revoked them all during the first two years of Obama's presidency (when they had a solid majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate). That they didn't make such a move shows you where they really stand on the issue.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[T Murphy]

As much as I dislike the idea of the (at the time) illegal warrantless wiretaps being made immune from prosecution, I have to admit I hate the law that made it legal, not the ex post facto legalization process. If they were legalizing something I think shouldn't be illegal, I would certainly have a problem with continued enforcement of the old law just because someone broke it while it was still on the books.

But for the sake of argument, what if (in a parallel universe) the house just voted to make those wiretaps illegal again? The Bush wiretaps were illegal at the time they were committed, so could they lose their ex post facto protection?

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[ks*nut]

Because they are sheep.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[englishknnigits]

Over generalize much?

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Urza9814]

Been removed from that link, but it can be found here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

the anonymous coward above confuses specificity/generality with literal/figurative, and then calls someone a tard.

what a cock smoker...

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah man, the idea that there's no difference between the two is SO FUCKING STUPID, only an idiot would believe that! /sarcasm

*completely ignores the fact that the WHITE HOUSE and OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CLAIMED THAT PASSING THIS WAS A TOP PRIORITY*

nice trolling, though!

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a UK citizen, so sorry for not having full details of the US Congress...

The House has around 600 members. There are approx 400 votes accounted for above. The majority is around 50 votes.

So, roughly 200 Congressmen didn't vote. And only 50 more 'nay' votes were needed.

The bit I don't know is how big is the Rep majority in the House? Given how often it changes I can't imagine it is a 2 thirds majority. So, the Dems could have votes this down.

What has clearly happened is that a lot of Dems thought that this probably would pass regardless, and didn't want to get stuck on the anti-national-security side of a losing argument.

(Posting AC, as posting from someone else's computer)

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Convector]

The House has 435 members at full capacity. There were only ten who did not vote (and evidently six vacancies); not enough to make any difference.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[joocemann]

Thank you so much. My district rep that normally votes in accordance with the common ideologies of the region actually voted YEA on it. This is inappropriate from him and its time for activism.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[Obfuscant]

If they would have made the constitution easier to ammend, maybe we'd see a more modern document.

Yes, a more modern document. Also one that shifts with every change of the political winds. You wouldn't get to complain that FISA is unconstitutional, because it would not have been on 9/12.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[king neckbeard]

I don't see a way to easily challenge it on those grounds. Who would even have standing to bring a suit against such a law?

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized

[SydShamino]

They had a 17-week filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and could only put so many things through in that time while allowing for the healthy debate necessary within their own party. Democrats are not in any way a think-alike walk-alike block; all that healthy debate and compromise that people say we need more of in Washington exists within this one party. It's just the problem that there's this other party saying "no" to everything that gets in the way.

(I fully expect that some number of Democrats in Congress readily and happily support the warrantless wiretapping. That's what it means to have a heterogeneous party. Even if they'd taken it up in their 17 weeks it may not have passed. However, overall the clear majority of them don't support it as this vote shows, so it would be overturned if there wasn't the big block of Republicans voting in much-closer-unison for it.)

4 years later...

[KrazyDave]

and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.

Re:4 years later...

[dreamchaser]

and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.

Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well. It would be more appropriate to blame 'despicable politicians'.

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the latter has signed off on exponentially more debt. Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.

Re:4 years later...

[The Master Control P]

Behold! The BSABSVR!

I think that women, and Hispanics, and anyone who's part of a union, and the GLBT community, and plenty of others might possibly disagree though. Oh, and simple reality too: The vote was 301-118 in favor of passage, with 111 Democrats and seven Republicans voting no. Yep, both sides are clearly exactly equally as bad!

Re:4 years later...

[fustakrakich]

Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.

Nobody demands that they do. Oh, there's lots of pissing and moaning about it in some groups, but then they all go and reelect the same old bastards.

Re:4 years later...

[Mitreya]

Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well.

Even if Obama WANTED to veto it (which, granted, he probably doesn't), what would be the point of doing that? The bill has enough majority to override the veto.
So I would mostly blame the representatives here.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

what would be the point of doing that?

To show that he's against it? To do... something? Trying to stop it is far better than just allowing it to pass with no resistance.

Re:4 years later...

[fustakrakich]

74 democrats voted yes... The only difference between the 'sides' is that one is dramatically more unified than the other. Regardless the content of their thought, that's a sign of strength!

Re:4 years later...

[fustakrakich]

I didn't finish the sentence:

...that's a sign of strength! of the herding instinct...

so sorry

Re:4 years later...

[zippthorne]

There's two months till the election. My guess is that he's going to accidentally pocket veto everything for which the timer runs out. There are too many donors and golf courses to court and congress isn't in session all the way through November, is it?

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

To override I believe they would need a senate majority, which wouldn't happen if Obama didn't want it to.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the latter has signed off on exponentially more debt.

Only in loony land is this true. One of those two wants some sort of sensible tax reform where the rich are required to pay their fair share. One of those two openly supports the rights of homosexual couples. One of those two is pro choice. One of those two ended the war in Iraq. One of those two has stood up for what little regulations we have protecting net neutrality.

Maybe you can draw a few parallels here and there that piss you off, but the two men aren't the mirror images you've tried to paint here.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, most Democrats voted against this bill while an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, and somehow you've concluded that the Democrats are just as bad. This logic is really pretty twisted.

Re:4 years later...

[Rockoon]

One of those two wants some sort of sensible tax reform where the rich are required to pay their fair share.

Yes, but which one that is is open to interpretation because "fair share" are words seeking emotional involvement, rather than reasoned thought.

One of those two openly supports the rights of homosexual couples.

Are you always this bad at saying what you mean? The nation is talking about marriage, not couplehood. The reason they are is because married people are an elite group with special rights and privileges that are not extended to single people. We arent talking about fairness here. We are talking about letting a few more people into the special rights club. I thought you were all about fairness? I guess not in actuality. You seem to be focused on the perception of fairness, rather than equality for all.

One of those two ended the war in Iraq.

No, neither of these two did. The Iraq war was ended by the authorization of George W Bush, on the time table authorized by George W. Bush. You seem to want to give Obama credit for not extending the war further than the Bush plan. How partisan of you.

One of those two has stood up for what little regulations we have protecting net neutrality.

We have no regulations protecting net neutraity. Why dont you read those FCC "net neutrality" rules sometime. You do know that they were written by AT&T, right?

Maybe you can draw a few parallels here and there that piss you off, but the two men aren't the mirror images you've tried to paint here.

Says the guy that doesnt give a rats ass about equality for all... One day you will be free of the brainwashing, and on that day you will reality that Obama and Romney are almost entirely the same.. against freedom and equality.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you're in a no-win situation it's ok to become a total asshole who betrays your ideals just for the fuck of it? I really really never hope I have to deal with your punk ass in real life. You're the kind of person who lets this shit go on unchecked because having the balls to stand up for what you believe in, even if it won't get you what you want, is a lost concept.
 
Feel free to move to a dictatorship or at the very least go fuck yourself.

Re:4 years later...

[The Master Control P]

One of those two ended the war in Iraq.

No, neither of these two did. The Iraq war was ended by the authorization of George W Bush, on the time table authorized by George W. Bush. You seem to want to give Obama credit for not extending the war further than the Bush plan. How partisan of you.

If anyone deserves the actual credit for ending that clusterfuck, it's Bradley Manning - among the documents he gave to Assange are lots of nasty details about things the US covered up in Iraq, the kind which made it politically impossible for Iraq's government to continue to grant American troops immunity from prosecution. Which was the only reason Bush agreed to withdrawl.

Re:4 years later...

[artor3]

He could put a signing statement against it, to try to weaken it, as he did with the NDAA. It's not much, but it's something, which is better than some token gesture that plays well with the /. crowd but has no actual impact.

Of course, in this case I don't think he'll even do a signing statement, because as I recall he's actually in favor of the wire tapping law.

Re:4 years later...

[shiftless]

The bill has enough majority to override the veto.

It doesn't work like that, sparky. It might have enough now....but what's to say the veto won't change that? What's to say President Obama couldn't get up on the podium and tell the public "hey, this is WRONG and here's why"? Don't you think they'd listen to a man who has 60+% approval? Of course they would. The reason he doesn't do that is because everything he tells you is a carefully crafted lie.

Wake up. Stop being a sheep, and stop apologizing for the wolf.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what I would do as president.

I would call for the Senate to have a meeting for a press conference and on LIVE television, I would bring this up that I was vetoing it and I would tell them that they would have to override it right there, on national television in front of the whole world, so each of the worlds voters could see who voted for it and would put them directly on TV so more than just some few who read reports could see it.

I would do this for every bill I vetoed that I thought was against the public interest and against public opinion. Especially ones with riders tacked onto it. I would line-item veto the rider and then have them revote for that on live TV. Force them to screw the voters on national TV if they want to screw them at all, lets see how many would commit political suicide and how quick it would change then.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

iverrude the veto?

im porscheable !!

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Four years doesn't erase the catastrophe that was the Cheney-Bush presidency, you fucking goldfish.

Re:4 years later...

[Kirth]

Yeah, mee too. I just don't understand your constant squabble over who is to blame, this George W. Bush or this Obama Bush. It's all the same.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

All parties rape the American people; Selecting a party simply decides which hole they use.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.

Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well. It would be more appropriate to blame 'despicable politicians'.

Yes, his campaign was run on a slogan of "Hope and Change". I'm one of those that was hoping for some change. Unfortunately I've been highly disappointed as my hopes have been repeatedly dashed. Unfortunately the Republicans chose to run on a 2012 platform of not only "more of the same...in trumps." Doesn't leave me with a good choice at the polls this November....

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the latter has signed off on exponentially more debt. Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.

I disagree on this point. A majority of Obama's debt is in fact dealing with Bush's wars (1) as well as dealing with the legacy of the Bush economic plan. We can discuss that plan versus Obama's performance in other threads but again I'm disappointed that the alternative to Obama in this election cycle is "let's double down on what got us in this situation to begin with".

(1) Afghanistan justified as going after OBL, I can agree with that. Most of the world can too. Iraq justified by a series of lies (including shooting the messenger when there was no yellow cake Uranium acquisition found). And the cost of Iraq goes beyond Iraq itself as it distracted a lot of man power, time, and resources from Afghanistan.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Signing statements mean exactly two things: jack and shit. (and jack just left town)

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imaging it making sense to those who think the US, in its discrimination against gays, is just as bad as countries that kill gays. Or those who think the US is just as bad as China in the treatment of its own people because they got hassled at the airport. You know there are slashdotters who think this.

Re:4 years later...

[T Murphy]

The only difference between the 'sides' is that one is dramatically more unified than the other

So, the only difference between the sides is that one fits nicely into generalizations but the other doesn't?

Re:4 years later...

[xclr8r]

One also has to look at who is up for re-election and can not afford touchy votes like this.

Re:4 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then they all go and reelect the same old bastards.

Because there are so many other options than those bastards... A sure sign that democracy has failed: Who you vote for has largely the same result. This garbage came in when Republicans were in power, and it is upheld while the Dems are. I want this nonsense stopped, but my vote, by and large, won't do this. (OK, honestly, I'm Canadian, but our Conservative government is a nightmare, and the effect is the same. They play this same game, but with 6 parties instead of 2)

The politicians have our number folks. They know the score: I get my 4 years... and if I do well or not, I'm well off from it. The other guys can walk in, screw everyone for another 4, and oh... look, we're back to the "other guys".

Re:4 years later...

[fustakrakich]

No, the only 'difference' between them is in style. One side wears high heels, and the other side wears a long skirt. But both weigh 300 pounds and are on their fifth plate at the Country Kitchen Buffet.

Re:4 years later...

[Uberbah]

Yes, but which one that is is open to interpretation because "fair share" are words seeking emotional involvement, rather than reasoned thought.

It was a general statement about general positions, not a dissertation. A bit beside the point, though, when we know how much we can trust Obama's sincerity in general and on the issue of the wealthy paying more of their share in taxes in particular. Because after he won election with ending the Bush Tax cuts as part of his stump speech, he happily signed their extension at the end of 2010.

Are you always this bad at saying what you mean? The nation is talking about marriage, not couplehood.

You know what he means. What the Obamabots like to leave out of Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage: sure, he supports it, but he also supports the rights of states to ban it. That a black man is endorsing a "states rights" position either doesn't occur to them or bounces off their reality distortion field.

Re:4 years later...

[Uberbah]

So, most Democrats voted against this bill while an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, and somehow you've concluded that the Democrats are just as bad. This logic is really pretty twisted.

Which party holds the White House again?

It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

These powers are what has allowed the authorities to infiltrate and disrupt these dastardly plots. If these jihadists might think the feds are watching, that is also an effective deterrant.

I'm all for giving the government all the powers they need to keep me and my family safe. My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[icebike]

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT? You planning to tap phones in Libya?
And don't we have warrantless wiretaps today and yet we still have THAT?

And if there is a risk that can be averted with a wiretap, why not get a warrant?

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

But everyone's freedom is worth more than a few casualties (assuming that this security theater is even effective, and it isn't). You do not get to punish everyone or take away everyone's freedom just because you're a miserable coward.

Have your lovely totalitarian government, but move elsewhere. I love how you imbeciles think that the government is made up of perfect beings, but in reality, they're just as susceptible to corrupting or mistakes as anyone else, and they can be just as bad as the people they claim to want to protect you from. But you're an idiot, so of course you'll give away all of everyone's freedoms so you can feel safe from a nearly nonexistence threat; pathetic.

That would be my serious response if the OP wasn't a complete troll. No one on Slashdot believes that illogical garbage. I hope...

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[ranpel]

Apparently nobody else's freedom is worth anything to you alive.

Do enjoy your essential security. Others will see to you having neither in the end, rest assured.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Githaron]

Freedoms are also not worth anything if they are stolen away..

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Yakasha]

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Your life is worth nothing if you are not free.

If you are not free, you are merely a commodity. A resource to be used in the furtherance of your controller's desires.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America

Remind me again when the world was without "evil doers", whatever that means. Can you name one "evil doer" we are currently fighting that doesn't feel WE are the "evil doers" THEY are fighting.

I for one do not believe in "evil", that seems to make me the odd man out in this world. For the sake of world peace, I invite everyone to go to war with me. Common enemy and all...

 

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[dark12222000]

Yup. This has absolutely kept us perfectly safe. All of our consulates are safe, we've never had any terrorist attacks, and there have never been any breaches of government security. This is clearly working so well.

By the way, you're a selfish bastard if all you care about is "My freedom".

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Mitreya]

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not here (modded Funny + Interesting + Troll). Go figure

But might I note that any power that is needed while there "are still evildoers" will be available infinitely and with no checks, because we are not scheduled to reach nirvana and absolute enlightenment any time soon.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Wow, glad the men and women of the American Revolutionary didn't think that way. For that matter anyone that has fought for a peoples freedom against oppression.

How sad that you feel that life and freedom are not possible at the same time.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Brother finds this comment to be ungood. The Ministry of Love will shortly be by to re-educate you in the importance of your life, and how it is bettered by your compliance to the Party's will.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[fustakrakich]

Your life is worth nothing, and you are not free.

But, life is short... Enjoy every minute of it.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[MightyYar]

That was a terrible troll. Or maybe it was awesome satire. Hard to tell on the internet.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[epyT-R]

Fallacious appeals do not justify taking my freedoms (and the privacy they depend on) away.. Why would you burn the village in order to save it? An america that's run like a typical european state is not an america that has been saved.. If those islamic terrorists are that much of a threat, it's time to quit appeasing the governments (like syria for ex) that passive aggressively back them and declare war on them instead.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[RabidReindeer]

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Wow, glad the men and women of the American Revolutionary didn't think that way. For that matter anyone that has fought for a peoples freedom against oppression.

How sad that you feel that life and freedom are not possible at the same time.

I, too, heard the voices of Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin when I read that.

How we have fallen. A lecherous old womanizer and his friends risked torture and death all so that they could bequeath a nation to spineless cowards who run around chanting "USA! USA! USA!" and then beg the government to take all their freedom so that the big mean terrorists won't eat them.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

....and expresses an opinion that many, many people would agree with.

And many people fall for the faulty logic of the GP.

Just because many many people hold the same opinion does not make it correct.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[jamstar7]

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT? You planning to tap phones in Libya? And don't we have warrantless wiretaps today and yet we still have THAT?

And if there is a risk that can be averted with a wiretap, why not get a warrant?

Warrants take effort to get, and a modicrum of evidence. Cops, particularly the Federal type, are inherently lazy. If a warrantless wiretap will get them the evidence they need to get the evidence they need, so much the better.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

The Libyans were pissed that we support a culture that does nothing but hate on Islam. I'm pissed too.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[gnoshi]

If what you're saying is true, then what needs to be changed is the cops, not the wiretap laws.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[artor3]

Freedom isn't a binary quantity the way life/death is. Only an idiot would trade his life for the freedom to, say, drive drunk.

I'm not in favor of warrantless wiretapping, but you fatalistic woe-is-me drama queens irk me. Life in the US is fucking GREAT. Not perfect, no place is, but if you think things are so terrible, you have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like.

We have a tremendous amount of freedom. I can call ruling politicians a bunch of fucking morons, and not be killed for it. I can dance and drink and have sex out of wedlock, and not be killed for it. I can draw pictures of Mohammed and call priests pedos, and not be killed for it. There are a lot of places where you can't do any of that.

In fact, right here in the good ole US of A, it was common for people to get killed if they offended the wrong religion, or had sex with the wrong gender, or were born with the wrong skin color. That was back in the Glory Days that never were. The Glory Days you saw in old movies and sit-coms and convinced yourself were your birthright.

So yeah, push for politicians to not tap our phones, but drop the extremism. It just reveals you to be an angry kid, rather than an informed adult.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[king neckbeard]

Life in the US is fucking GREAT. Not perfect, no place is, but if you think things are so terrible, you have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like.

The rest of the world doesn't matter, and it's idiotic to think that in any way justifies this. I don't care if the rest of the world makes it mandatory to be punched in the face 3 hours a day, that doesn't make warrantless wiretaps okay. The same goes for the US in the past. Society doesn't progress by being complacent with injustice. Even when we grow by leap and bounds, we should not be satisfied, but instead, keep striving forward, eternally vigilant.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[cervesaebraciator]

Anyone who uses the term "dastardly plots" is not being serious. As for, "I'm all for giving the government all the powers they need to keep me and my family safe", that's satire. I think, however, that an attempt made by the poster to be funny has inadvertently turned into an effective troll. This reminds me of my wife telling me her coworkers said they liked John Stewart but didn't care for Stephen Colbert because "he's too conservative."

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[meglon]

Spot on. Wish i had mod points just for your post.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[jamstar7]

If what you're saying is true, then what needs to be changed is the cops, not the wiretap laws.

Both, actually. Warrantless wiretaps are the grease on the slippery slope.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[0111 1110]

Life in the US is fucking GREAT. Not perfect, no place is, but if you think things are so terrible, you have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like.

Have you ever actually lived outside of the US? I have noticed that most people who say such things have not. I've traveled to many countries and the only country I found to be worse than the US is Cuba, where owning a computer was against the law and the average salary was around $15/month. Hell. Even Canada is better. After living abroad you also may start to realize how much more free you feel outside of this rat's cage of a country.

If you want to cherry pick a few awful countries in the middle east you might find somewhere worse, but as someone who actually has left the US and lived in several other countries for long periods I can tell you that the US actually sucks pretty bad in the scheme of things.

The US is really only good for two things: making money and buying either computer parts or really weird esoteric tech stuff. Go spend a year outside of your little nest of familiarity and see how wrong you really are. The US is a country of immigrants who usually came here out of greed because they hoped to make giant piles of gold and lounge in bean bag sized piles of diamonds and our culture, what little there is of it, is based on that. A country of merchants.

If all you care about in life is getting rich then the US is probably in the top 10 countries, but if you judge your life by more than the size of your bank account and you are actually interested in being happy the US is close to the bottom and only benefits from comparisons to a few Middle Eastern and African countries. Proud Americans like yourself like to boast about all the (always poor) immigrants who want to come here and then ignore the fact that as soon as they make some real money they can't get out of here fast enough. Of those who stay it is nearly always for financial reasons. They'd be just as happy to live in East Germany if they thought it would increase their income by a few dollars.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

It just reveals you to be an angry kid, rather than an informed adult.

In this case, "an informed adult" seems to mean "someone who reacts differently to a certain situation than me." Some people just take freedom seriously, and given the countless evil governments throughout history and the countless evil governments that exist now, can you really blame them? It's a giant slippery slope that we could slide down at any time, and the only solution is to be, as the other guy put it, "eternally vigilant."

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

You're holding the country up to a standard that literally no civilization in all of human history has met, and howling about how awful things are when we don't meet that standard.

We have a robot exploring Mars as we speak, something that would have been unimaginable not too long ago, and still is unimaginable for most countries. Are you gonna scream and cry that we don't have a space elevator yet?

Get some perspective. You can push things forward without shouting bald-faced lies about how we're all slaves. When you tell such lies, all you do is drive away the reasonable people whose votes you need.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

LOL, right.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Not perfect, no place is, but if you think things are so terrible, you have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like.

You overestimate how good the US is in comparison to (that homogeneous place called) "the rest of the world". Meanwhile, no one in my country has every heard of "Free Speech Zones" and almost every single person openly criticizes the government without fear of having a SWAT team come down on them, without getting their phones legally tapped and without being called "unpatriotic". YMMV.

We have a tremendous amount of freedom. I can call ruling politicians a bunch of fucking morons, and not be killed for it. I can dance and drink and have sex out of wedlock, and not be killed for it. I can draw pictures of Mohammed and call priests pedos, and not be killed for it. There are a lot of places where you can't do any of that.

I can do all of those things in my country too, without being killed and without fear of getting arrested. Also, I can openly smoke weed on the streets or in a park, if I feel like it. Can you say the same? No? Aw. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, was it?

Here, read this phrase and see if it still applies to the US: "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."

I repeat: you overestimate how much "free" the US is in relation to other countries. You should get out more often.

Your whole logic boils down to "But... but... we're still free! Look at all those countries that are worse than us!". As if whatever people are doing in Iran or Saudi Arabia or North Korea somehow legitimizes warrantless wiretapping of US citizens in US soil by the US government. *facepalm*

Not perfect, no place is, but if you think things are so terrible, you have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like.

Nope. You are the one who has absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT?

Warrants take effort to get, and a modicrum of evidence.

US wiretap laws apply only within US territories and to US citizens. So, unless you think the attacks in Libya, Egypt and Yemen were instigated or coordinated by someone in the US, this law in no way limits investigation or prevention of such attacks

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Haxzaw]

I'll tell you that if I ever end up in prison, they'll have to put me on a suicide watch, because if I can't live free, I'd rather be dead.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

You're too harsh: the troll got lots of bites despite the *whooshing* sound effects.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue I have with this law is that before it was legalized, they were able to get warrants after the fact, but didn't in most cases. That is why the law was made to include previous acts. They didn't feel the need to follow the law which wasn't contested at the time.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Yakasha]

I'm not in favor of warrantless wiretapping, but you fatalistic woe-is-me drama queens irk me.

I read about some people a while back. Sometime around 1776 they acted like woe-is-me drama queens bitching about freedoms and started a country. Maybe you heard of it?

I can call ruling politicians a bunch of fucking morons, and not be killed for it. I can dance and drink and have sex out of wedlock, and not be killed for it. I can draw pictures of Mohammed and call priests pedos, and not be killed for it.

Ya, I get it. You like being an anti-social prick.

So yeah, push for politicians to not tap our phones, but drop the extremism. It just reveals you to be an angry kid, rather than an informed adult.

sure it does. And you're stooping to my level by ranting against my philosophizing. bye.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[Desler]

This is not true. They can get a warrant from the FISA court up to 24 hours after the fact to specifically make it easier for themselves. That anyone still claims and believes it's hard to get a warrant is laughable.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[artor3]

Which countries have you been in?

I've spent at least a month in each of the following: India, China, the Philippines, Italy, Germany.

Additionally, I have good friends from Vietnam, Burma, Mexico, and Moldova. They didn't come here thinking that they'd get to "lounge in bean bag sized piles of gold" and none of them are eager to leave. I'd imagine most immigrants are similar. People who sneak across the border from Mexico want a better life, and there's more to that than money. They like the safety of a stable country. They like cops that don't demand bribes, and electricity that is on all the time. They like the quality of life, even if they're just part of the middle class.

Did you know Moldova has a breakaway region? Probably not, most people don't even know it's a place. Do you notice when a fire or flood wipes out thousands of homes in the Philippines? Did you realize that so many homes get destroyed each time because most of those homes are made of corrugated steel and cardboard? They have shanty towns bigger than the town I grew up in.

Sure, if you're just comparing to the cream of the crop (Western Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.) then the US is average or worse. But the vast majority of the world's population don't live in nice countries like those. That's not me "cherry pick[ing] a few awful countries". That's the standard of human existence. And it used to be even worse!

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe

[jamstar7]

The 'rubberstamp' warrants? Yeah, they can invoke 'national security' and take their time going in front of a secret judge (72 hrs, I believe is the time allowed) to get the warrant, but they still have to get the warrant. And in the history of the FISA courts, something like less than 30 warrants were denied, most of them for improperly filling out the warrant request IIRC. The 'officers' in question redid their paperwork and got their warrants.

Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom

[For a Free Internet]

We need a workers party that fights for a workers government! Down with the "war on terror" racist police state! Mobilize the power of the international working class to defeat U.S. imperialist war & drive the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Iraq & everywhere! For international socialist revolution to smash imperialist barbarism before it's too late!

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Pass. I don't like the proles any more than I like the politicians.

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Workers parties have such a jim-dandy record in the rest of the places they've gained traction. /eyeroll

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom

[fustakrakich]

Fuck work! We already do too much work...

Will you run an engine lathe eight unfucking hours a day because the syndicate tells you the people need what the lathe produces? If you will, the people just becomes a new tyrant.

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom

[shutdown -p now]

We need a workers party

Yeah, but Leninist, Maoist, Hoxhaist, Trotskyist or Juche?

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom

[dunkelfalke]

Oh, but there are other alternatives. Strasser style, or Rosa Luxemburg style for example.

I personally prefer the latter.

The end is nigh

[starworks5]

As the resouce cruch comes ever closer, the rich in this country need the monopolization of force, to keep them sheltered from the huddled masses, the ones that our lady liberty sought to provide refuge for.

Obama = Bush III

[Lawrence_Bird]

And the progressives, not to mention the rest of the dems just rolled over. Evil Bush! Evil Evil! We believe in civil liberties. Ha. What a joke. All you believe in is that your guy is in the white house. Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers. And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....

Pathetic.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[dreamchaser]

And the progressives, not to mention the rest of the dems just rolled over. Evil Bush! Evil Evil! We believe in civil liberties. Ha. What a joke. All you believe in is that your guy is in the white house. Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers. And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....

Pathetic.

Why are you trying to confuse people with facts?

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....

You better stay away from War-on-drugs Road.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it if fun to watch them struggle to understand? They make the goofiest faces.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[AlienSexist]

Because phenomenal powers are only evil when the opposition is in position to use them. Win some elections and suddenly they are okay again.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[The Master Control P]

So 111/191 Dems in the House, presumbly all who might be described as actually liberal or left-leaning (Including my own, Peter de Fazio), vote against this seditious legislation.
Liberal and civil rights supporter Ron Wyden has put a hold on the corresponding act in the Senate, as he has on multiple such acts in the past.
Meanwhile, the Republicans (both in Congress and in the media) make emotional appeals to fear to explain why we must give up our rights in order to be safe and preserve our "Freedom," and ever since 9/11 have openly and vehemently accused anyone who questions the nascent police state of being unpatriotic, unamerican and traitors.

But you're right, clearly both sides are equally as bad. But the Democrats are worse, so you should vote Republican to be safe, amirite?

Re:Obama = Bush III

[degeneratemonkey]

As a "progressive" in the literal sense, what I believe extends well beyond the impotent stupidity of politics.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[squiggleslash]

Understand where you're coming from, but let's not forget that a major part of the support of Mr Hope & Change was from people who understood his position to be against warrantless wiretapping, and this bill wouldn't be on any agenda if Obama had actually been the person with that position.

We're best off voting for a third party at this election for President (Congress is more of a local matter and can't be generalized like that.) No matter who wins, we will get this crap anyway. At the very least, though, votes for a third party for President are votes that analysts will recognize as votes that could have been for a major party, had either one shown any principle whatsoever.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[RabidReindeer]

Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers.

For a Republican congress to pass anything, all they need is a simple majority. Republicans march in lock-step like Red Square on May Day.

For a Democratic congress to pass anything requires a super-majority. Enough votes to override the massed Republicans and the breakaway Democrats. Like Will Rogers said: "I belong to no organized political party, I am a Democrat".

Obama is another story, though. Sure, he's skinnier, darker, more capable of coherent speech. But dangit, sometimes it's hard to tell W's not still in the Oval Office. They even both have the same ears!

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Lawrence_Bird]

I would recommend Gary Johnson. At least you may have a clear conscience after. Bush=Obama=Mittens.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Democrats are worse, so you should vote Republican to be safe, amirite?

How about you vote for neither? And where did he imply that you should vote republican? Insulting democrats != praising republicans. Actually, by calling Obama "Bush III," it looks more like an insult to both.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Burning1]

You're kind of a tool. The house has a super-majority (70%) voting yay for this piece of legislation, so it probably won't make a damn bit of difference whether or not Obama vitos it.

95% of the republicans in the house voted for this bill
39% of the democrats voted for this bill.

Clearly there's no difference between the parties on this issue *rolls eyes.* Keep telling yourself that your vote, and everyone else's doesn't matter.

It's not the democrats who are ruining america... It's not the republicans... Apathy is ruining america. And it's pathetic little people like you who are pushing it along.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Burning1]

The original sentiment seems to be somewhat Libritarian leaning. Most of the Libritarians I've met tend to vote conservative, due to their image as being the party of smaller government. GP is probably basing his comment on that.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[TheGratefulNet]

in short, bush was not man enough to resist spying on us. and obama is not man enough to stop spying on us.

I think it did take bigger balls to start the wholesale spying. and it takes very little effort to keep things going, once started. in fact, it takes more effort to stop things than to start them, in cases like this.

it would have been nice to have obama taken a stand and cut the stupid 'reaction-based laws' that we got stuck with over the last decade or so. including the TSA. and the WoD.

I'm not sure anyone could really reverse the stupidity that we have created for ourselves. it was easy to do this dumb shit to ourselves and now its really hard to put a stop to it. too many people have dug in and make profit from it. while that goes on, you can't expect sanity to rule. money is involved.

obama promised more than he could deliver. his failure was thinking he could actually do things in this very rigid world.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Obfuscant]

For a Republican congress to pass anything, all they need is a simple majority.

301 to 118 is hardly "a simple majority".

For a Democratic congress to pass anything requires a super-majority.

For the existing Senate, all it took to block passage of this extension was one person. One person is hardly a super-majority. I don't need to bother looking up whether the Senate is Democrat or Republican controlled, if all it takes is one it doesn't matter.

That's a pretty strong clue that one person could have stopped this before, and not a single Democrat could muster up the ability. Your rants about those awful Republicans are ignoring a large number of other, non-Republican guilty parties.

Obama is another story, though.

Obama is the same old story, rewarmed and rehashed and doing the same things, under the banner "Hope and Change". How could anyone see his pick for VP and not know that it would be four more years of the same old politics? And now the banner "You Hope we can Change what we didn't Change during our first four years."

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Obfuscant]

Liberal and civil rights supporter Ron Wyden has put a hold on the corresponding act in the Senate, as he has on multiple such acts in the past.

And you might read to the end of the article and notice that Wyden says he'd be agreeable to a 'short term extension' of FISA so that the issues can be more fully discussed. This is a five year extension, which is a reasonably short extension in terms of government actions.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[antdude]

Vote for Independent?

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Obfuscant]

obama promised more than he could deliver. his failure was thinking he could actually do things in this very rigid world.

I'm sorry, where did you get the idea that Obama has failed? He won the election, he's living in the White House, he's idolized by a significant fraction of the US populace, as well as a significant fraction of the world. He's snagged a pretty cushy pension for the rest of his life, and made his wife proud of the US for the first time in her life.

And where did you get the idea that he actually thought he was going to do any of the things he promised to do? If he never thought he could do it, then it isn't a failure when he fails to do it. If you really believe that he believed what he was promising to do, then you must believe that Obama is a naive fool. A fool he ain't.

I'd say the failure is on the part of those who fell for it the first time around and who gleefully chant that they'll fall for it this time.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Rockoon]

Really? Most of the Libertarians I know tend to vote liberal, due to their image of being the party of personal rights.

Paradoxically, the democrat/republican spectrum turned 90 degrees precisely during the period of desegregation and equal rights. It used to be the Republicans were fiscally conservative but a mix of socially conservative and socially liberal folks, and the Democrats were fiscally liberal but a mix of socially conservative and socially liberal folks. Both the Democrats and Republicans faced turmoil during this time because a few of the most prominent members of the parties were quite vocally against desegregation, yet the president had made up his mind and most of the population were in favor of it.

So all through the 70's and into the 80's both the Democrats and the Republicans transformed themselves, pushing most of the social conservatives into the Republican party and most of the social liberals into the Democrat party.

The end result is that now both parties are a mix of fiscal attitude, while mainly hard-line on the social issues. The whole thing turned 90 degrees. Instead of the parties being split on fiscal issues, it was now social issues.

We no longer get to vote for "the fiscally conservative party" because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent that ideal. So where do we go from here? Right down the tubes.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[kenorland]

The Obama administration has been using these wiretaps, Obama is going to sign the law, and he is going to continue to implement it. If the Democratic party thought this act was wrong or bad, it could put a stop to it tomorrow. So don't tell us that Democrats are any better on these issues than Republicans.

The fact that some nominally Democratic representatives in the House voted against it (in order to appease some more liberal voters, knowing full well that it would pass anyway) doesn't change that one iota.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[kenorland]

The law is an authorization to the administration. Obama likely lobbied for it, because Congress usually doesn't bother authorizing something that the president doesn't actually want to do. In fact, if the Obama administration said "we don't want this, we don't need this, and it is bad for the country", the authorization would likely not have passed.

But regardless of that, Obama is the head of the executive branch. He is under no obligation to do everything he is authorized to do. If he disagreed with the law, he could simply not take advantage of the authorization and publicly condemn it. Instead, he has not just been taking advantage of it, his administration has actually violated even the already broad limits of the authorization in the past.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

They would be facts, except they're not true.

111 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted against this bill.

Read that again: 111 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted against this bill.

Or, to put it another way, 74 Democrats and 227 Republicans voted for the bill.

Or, to put it another way, a random Republican was 2.4 times more likely than a random Democrat to vote for the bill.

But sure, you just go on believing that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans, if believing a lie is what it takes for you to live with yourself.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

And the alternative is...... ???.........???

I moved to Canada, personally, where the "conservative" party aligns with Democrats. Of course, Canad has at least 7 viable parties in various places. There's a few that are even pretty rational... as in... avoiding the "lalalalala ban abortions, buy guns and build churches" bullshit, but also not going down the "lalalalala ban bibles, bribe the unions and flood the welfare" road either.

It's not perfect, but avoiding the 2 year "electioneering cycle" is nice as well.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

Jill Stein would actually have the cajones to stand up for America.

Too bad the United Suspects of America will never be able to have a 3rd party candidate.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[0111 1110]

As a Libertarian I would only vote Libertarian. If I voted Republican or Democrat I would no longer consider myself to be a Libertarian. The 70s was before my time, but I have noticed that both the Democrats and the Republicans have become more and more hostile toward freedoms of any kind. In the 80s Republicans seemed to represent financial freedom and personal tyranny and Democrats seemed to represent personal freedom and financial tyranny.

It still amazes me that the ACLU used to be considered a Democratic institution. In terms of personal freedoms they actually used to represent mainstream Democrats. Now Democrats are nearly as enthusiastic as the Republicans in pushing toward a 1984-ish, constant surveillance police state. When discussing personal freedoms 80s Democrats used to sound an awful lot like Libertarians. I would have thought that preserving our right to be left alone in our personal lives would be more important to Democrats than their class war, but it wasn't. Now class warfare is the only thing they seem to stand for. I wish Democrats had the equivalent of the Tea Party to Republicans, a group whose only interest was in defending personal liberty.

As for Republicans, they are as enthusiastic as ever about stomping out even the slightest hint of personal freedom in people's lives, but no longer even remotely stand for financial freedom. Financially they don't seem to really represent anything anymore accept maybe a preference for borrowing the money to pay for their pet programs instead of raising taxes to pay for them.

At this point neither party represents freedom in any way whatsoever and neither party would ever dream of selecting a presidential candidate with any sort of philosophy. Instead we get politicians with empty heads who simply don't care about any kind of idea.

Now the only reason to vote Democrat is out of pure, blind hatred for anyone who makes more money than they do, hoping, despite all evidence to the contrary, that a Democratic president will hurt rich people in some way. The fact that the presidential candidate himself is rich and that most of his campaign money and bribe money is from rich corporations seems to escape their notice.

The only reason to vote Republican is out of pure blind hatred for freedom of any kind. The current Republican model of an ideal society is 1984 meets Deutsche Demokratische Republik meets Abu Ghraib. Democrats tend to accept torture as a necessary evil, but Republicans seem to relish it. As long as they are not the ones being tortured of course. They have always been enthusiastic executioners. Their love for torture seems to have been an acquired taste.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama & Democrats != Progressives

Thought that was obvious.

As a progressive I'm sick to death of being falsely pegged as a Democrat.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Most of the Libertarians I know tend to vote conservative, due to their image of smaller government.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[fatphil]

And Duverger's Law shows that it will always be the case no matter how many of you "we can make a difference" types complain about the people not making the system work. The system, as implemented in the US, and the UK for that matter, doesn't work. Working within the bounds of that system can never magically make it work.

Your implementation of democracy is ruining America. (It is theoretically possible for a party to receive about 0.00001% of the vote cast, and still elect their president in your system, for example.)

Re:Obama = Bush III

[tbannist]

Obama likely lobbied for it, because Congress usually doesn't bother authorizing something that the president doesn't actually want to do.

Oh, I see, you're saying that the Republicans are more amenable to doing what Obama lobbies then to do than the Democrats. That seems an entirely reasonable and clearly not insanely wrong point of view.

Personally, I would think the Republicans voted for it because they think their guy is going to be president in a few months and they want to keep the powers available to him.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[lexman098]

Yes! Finally. I don't have any mod points unfortunately.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[RabidReindeer]

For a Republican congress to pass anything, all they need is a simple majority.

301 to 118 is hardly "a simple majority".

For a Democratic congress to pass anything requires a super-majority.

For the existing Senate, all it took to block passage of this extension was one person. One person is hardly a super-majority. I don't need to bother looking up whether the Senate is Democrat or Republican controlled, if all it takes is one it doesn't matter.

That's a pretty strong clue that one person could have stopped this before, and not a single Democrat could muster up the ability. Your rants about those awful Republicans are ignoring a large number of other, non-Republican guilty parties.

Obama is another story, though.

Obama is the same old story, rewarmed and rehashed and doing the same things, under the banner "Hope and Change". How could anyone see his pick for VP and not know that it would be four more years of the same old politics? And now the banner "You Hope we can Change what we didn't Change during our first four years."

Your math is all wrong. When I said "simple majority", I was referring to the makeup of the Congress when the bills are passed, not what it is at the moment or at any other moment that happens to be convenient to convey a false level of power.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

When he was still a senator campaigning for the presidential election, he voted for retroactive telecom immunity for warrantless wiretapping. I don't see how anyone could be confused about his position.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[squiggleslash]

He voted for it as part of a larger bill, and stated at the time that while he was opposed to warrantless wiretapping and would continue to fight it, he couldn't veto the entire bill it was a part of because the balance was better than worse.

He betrayed that promise.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Lawrence_Bird]

Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds majority vote of the Members present is required to override a presidential veto. If one house fails to override a veto, the other house does not attempt to override, even if the votes are present to succeed.

Will Obama veto it? Will the Senate (controlled by Dems) pass it?

Are you arguing that a Democrat, Mr. Obama, has not greatly extended the power of the FBI and others?

The real question is which room in the west wing he lets Dick Cheney use.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[ks*nut]

So it won't make any difference who is in the White House over the next four years? Supreme Court appointments come to mind...

Re:Obama = Bush III

[squiggleslash]

I've lost the ability to care about whether abortion gets banned or not. Seriously. One party seriously can't expect electability on the basis that no matter how far to the right it drifts, at least it won't ban abortion!

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

no, you aren't right, but it works much better for your strawman to assume that anyone who has a problem with this / doesn't like Obama is going to vote for Romney, doesn't it?

I love how you jackasses are continuing with your sarcastic "Both sides are equally bad" meme and totally ignoring the fact that there are not TWO sides to choose from in a presidential election. But again, regurgitating your strawmen and trying to lump everyone who has a single criticism of the president into the "Romney voter" category has been working pretty well so far, considering all the memegenerator pictures with incredibly fucking vapid text on the bottom getting posted on Facebook, so "mission accomplished," amirite?

Re:Obama = Bush III

[kenorland]

Oh, I see, you're saying that the Republicans are more amenable to doing what Obama lobbies then to do than the Democrats.

I'm saying that Obama's pretenses of being any better than Republicans on civil liberties are b.s.; just look at his record.

Personally, I would think the Republicans voted for it because they think their guy is going to be president in a few months and they want to keep the powers available to him.

Republicans voted for this because they think the president (any president) should have this power and because Republican districts don't give a sh*t about this stuff. The Democratic party and the Democratic president like these powers too, and they are using these powers. The only ones who vote against it are a minority of representatives in whose districts such laws actually may be unpopular Their parties don't bother pressuring them because they can't actually keep this from becoming law; if it had been close, you can be sure Obama and the Democratic party would have been twisting arms. But you're trying to read some grand ideological differences into this. It's people like you that keep bad presidents (whether Bush or Obama) in power, to the detriment of the country. Start using your head and thinking independently, instead of acting like a sheep.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Uberbah]

in short, bush was not man enough to resist spying on us

Resist? Domestic spying, along with invading Iraq, was one of the first items on the Bush/Cheney agenda after they took office in January 2001....

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Uberbah]

You're kind of a fool. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, which, thanks to Democrats like Obama, is now behind domestic spying as much as Bush was.

If he said "hey, we got Osama, now lets get back to normal", you're kidding yourself if you think there would be enough Democrats to overrride his veto right before the national election.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Uberbah]

That argument went out the window when Kagan said cops could search your residence without a warrant if they say they think they hear you destroying evidence.

And, of course, there's the almost inconsequential fact that Obama agrees with the GOP appointed extremists on the court when it comes to getting his Unitary Executive on.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[Uberbah]

He betrayed that promise.

He did that when he broke his pledge to filibuster the bill. The various bogus rationalizations he offered were comical, since the bill was about passing telecom immunity, and only telecom immunity. Because the extra law enforcement powers Bush was demanding were already authorized till the end of his term in office....

Re:Obama = Bush III

[fatphil]

From 2000 data, as calculated by Mark Brader, for which many thanks:
"The popular vote is 88,649,000-11 or a bit under 99.999988% for B, but assuming no faithless electors, A wins the electoral college 270-268."

Or 0.000012% of the vote in order to win. To decrease that ratio, just bloat the population in all the states that aren't electing your desired winner. Details can be found on rec.puzzles, inst. .

Re:Obama = Bush III

[tbannist]

Is it ironic that you claim that people who don't automatically agree with you are "not thinking independently" and "sheep"? I think you'll find it difficult to convince anyone of anything as long as you continue write like a petulant teenager.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[kenorland]

Is it ironic that you claim that people who don't automatically agree with you are "not thinking independently" and "sheep"?

There are plenty of people who disagree with me that I don't call sheep. I call you a "sheep" not because you disagree with me, but because you argue entirely in terms of Democrats/Republicans.

I think you'll find it difficult to convince anyone of anything as long as you continue write like a petulant teenager.

There are plenty of people that I can convince and that can convince me. On you, reason is obviously lost.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[kenorland]

Fanatically anti-fanatical

An ironic signature, given your fanatical and knee-jerk reaction to political views.

Re:Obama = Bush III

[tbannist]

That's rich. I point out that the Republicans aren't known for cooperating with Obama and you call me a knee-jerking sheep who can't think independently or use reason and is ruining America and you think I'm the one who's fanatical about political views?

Do you amuse people by being this clueless in real life too?

Sedition

[JustOK]

The govt, by virtue of its actions, it promoting sedition.

Yes!!

[Anonymous Coward]

5 more years of safety

Can we please give the libertarians a chance now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary Johnson 2012

How's your

[Gonoff]

Constitutional republic?

I don't think you are any better off than me in the UK or anyone else in this part of the world.. Your 1776 revolutionaries must be turning in their graves...

Re:How's your

[X0563511]

How do you think these dicks fund themselves? They hook up the Founding Fathers to some dynamos and sell the electricity.

Re:How's your

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! I finally understand the Democrat plan to fix the economy!

Re:How's your

[jcr]

Constitutional republic?

It's long gone. It has been under attack pretty much since its inception.

-jcr

Re:How's your

[Type44Q]

Constitutional republic?

I don't think you are any better off than me in the UK or anyone else in this part of the world.. Your 1776 revolutionaries must be turning in their graves...

At least we've still got our guns (perhaps for not much longer, mind you).

Re:How's your

[shutdown -p now]

There has been a steady reduction in the ability of private citizens to own various types of firearms for the last century or so, and in all cases gun owners didn't fight back. I don't think they will do so if tomorrow AWB gets re-enacted. Or if the day after that, all semi-auto guns are made illegal.

Eventually, when all you are permitted is a single-shot rimfire, what use will it be for you?

Re:How's your

[Type44Q]

Eventually, when all you are permitted is a single-shot rimfire, what use will it be for you?

Virtually none whatsoever, I imagine. All the more reason why it's so crucial that the "brainwashed left" see past the false left-right paradigm and realize before it's too late that they've fallen for the lie that guns aren just for the "brainwashed right." History clearly shows that they're for anyone who wants to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones and have a faint chance of being able to preserve what little remains of their liberty.

I strongly suggest that everyone check this out, regardless of their political "assumptions."

This is equally relevant.

Re:How's your

[shutdown -p now]

My point was rather that guns are often cited as a safeguard against government taking citizen's rights. But so far I haven't noticed citizens actually using said guns while their rights are being taken, including the rights to own guns. At what point do you move from the soap & ballot boxes to ammo box? Is it before you still have one, or long after? So far all signs point to "after", even for die-hard 2nd Amendment adherents. But if that's the case, then it seems the premise (that guns are a deterrent) is wrong?

Re:How's your

[tbannist]

Well, you're supposed to actually use them in order and I haven't actually seen many people using the soap, ballot, or jury box to make a difference.

Generally speaking, politicians don't do things they think will be unpopular (unless they think they won't get caught). If you want politicians to end some policy that gives them more power, you really should try to make it unpopular enough that the politicians will vote against it. That's the "soap" box. Posting to Slashdot isn't going to make that happen. Get a million people to march in Washington against warrantless wiretapping and you can bet that suddenly the issue will become "an important political divide" between the parties.

Re:How's your

[lexman098]

It's no use for you specifically (except for hunting and target shooting), but if a hundred thousand people with single-shot rifles were to organize and go to war it might actually be pretty effective. I think that was the idea of the second amendment anyway.

Re:How's your

[Anonymous Coward]

We are communists regarding privacy, but capitalists when exploiting people, resources etc - China and USA becoming more and more alike - surprise?

Re:How's your

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're supposed to actually use them in order and I haven't actually seen many people using the soap, ballot, or jury box to make a difference.

And we haven't even gotten to the point where people need to open the jury box yet. When's the last time a court case like this?

"The defendant stands accused of Being Naughty In Our Sight."
"What is your evidence, Prosecutor?
"It's on his permament record!"
"Can we see his permanent record?"
"That's classified."
"How'd you get the data in his permanent record?"
"That's classified."
"Did you at least get a warrant before you got the data?"
"That's classified."
"We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty."

The Jury Box works like this: If juries start refusing to convict when the prosecution refuses to follow the law, then prosecutors will have to start following the law in order to get convictions.

Re:How's your

[Gonoff]

At least we've still got our guns (perhaps for not much longer, mind you).

I think that your 40 times greater chance of getting shot does not make you better off. I learned to use firearms in uniform and did not notice civilians with guns making the world a freer place. The fact that most people around me do not have guns makes me more free.

Do you really think that you could stand up against your government that way? I do not think you are remotely correct.

Re:How's your

[Type44Q]

Do you really think that you could stand up against your government that way?

Nope, not for an instant. Nonetheless, in certain liberty-minded areas of the United States (Montana and New Hampshire come to mind), the government has demonstrated by its actions that it very much considers the citizens of those states to be a threat. If I were them, I would certainly take that as a good sign that now isn't necessarily a good time to disarm. To quote Thomas Jefferson,

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

I think it's rather self-explanatory, really... but those who've already been neutered might feel better about their lot of life if they tell themselves otherwise...

Re:How's your

[Type44Q]

...might feel better about their lot of life...

Lot *IN* life; pardon me. :)

Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

You will be monitored for reading this post, which is considered a suspicious activity.

Smile!

Re:Paranoia

[X0563511]

SIGNAL TO NOISE! Diminishing... oh so tiny.... oh look, where did the signals go?

I already knew they would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

I already knew that would pass. Hold on... Congressional meeting on other line... Wow, really? OK, so I buy 1000 puts tomorrow on--Oh, hold on, text to speech is still linked to Slashdot, OK so I buy (unintelligable) (text to speech made with iPhone6 TTS).

Always happens with "Sunset" laws

[AlienSexist]

Controversial legislation will attempt to lull some opponents by having a "Sunset" provision where the law will expire or require some sort of a reauthorization. The thought is "Okay we need it for right now but it is far too terrible to make permanent." When that time comes they always pass or are made permanent. Proponents argue "We've already spent all this money to implement it, no sense in squandering it now", "It is just so useful and important it is absurd to abandon it", or "Termination of the program would cause the layoffs of thousands of government & contract workers (in my jurisdiction)." PATRIOT Act did this too. Not to mention taxes and tolls as well. Government just cannot resist getting bigger. And yes, as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter which political party is in power when they pass. As soon as another party takes over for a term they really start to love these new powers and suddenly their criticism vanishes along with their promises to repeal.

Re:Always happens with "Sunset" laws

[Githaron]

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." --Milton Friedman

Re:Always happens with "Sunset" laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just shoot up an American consulate the day before the vote, on the anniversary of 9/11. "Congressman, you need to vote "yes" on this extension; you don't want folks to think you're soft on terrorism, do you?" Since most of them don't have the stones to say "No, I thnk I'll vote "no", just so they won't think I'm a spineless, credulous idiot, instead," well, that's how we got the Patriot Act, FISA, CALEA, DHS, and all that to start with. Granted all those lucrative Federal contracts in their districts probably helped, too.

our basic fascists

[harvey the nerd]

Only one correct answer. Seig Heil !

Re:our basic fascists

[shutdown -p now]

Kids these days...

When you want to express your excitement over some awesome thing that your Great Leader has announced, you say "Heil X", where X is their name. So, "Heil Bush", or "Heil Obama".

On the other hand, when you're meeting the Leader, or another Party official, in some sort of official rally, and they want to cheer you up, they say "Sieg", and then you respond "Heil". Normally done three times for greater effect.

I can't believe my eyes...

[grumpyman]

At first glance I read "House Approves Extended Warranty Wiretapping Act". In all seriousness the house really should approve this one!

And Obama will sign it...but only reluctantly

[crazyjj]

He's going to sign it...but he didn't mean to.

He's going to fight for our civil rights next year. He promises. Honest.

Re:And Obama will sign it...but only reluctantly

[pecosdave]

We have to sign the extension act to see what's in it. Only then can we stop it!

Re:And Obama will sign it...but only reluctantly

[Type44Q]

He's going to sign it...but he didn't mean to.

He's going to fight for our civil rights next year. He promises. Honest.

He may be a fascist CIA puppet like the others (well, besides Kennedy of course) but hey! He drinks microbrewed ales, man!

Find your Representative

[Guppy06]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml

Re:Find your Representative

[Anonymous Coward]

The real list to make is the list of ones that publicly denounced the bill then turned around and voted for it anyways like fucking traitor cowards.

Re:Find your Representative

[schwit1]

None of then are mine. They represent the highest bidder.

Any elected official that accepts campaign contributions from people outside of their district no longer represent their district.

Re:Find your Representative

[Obfuscant]

None of then are mine. They represent the highest bidder.

What would you say to a white, middle-class, middle-aged male who says "Obama isn't my president because I didn't vote for him"?

Do you see any parallel between that and what you just said?

Re:Find your Representative

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the same thing was said by some Democrats of Bush.

Re:Find your Representative

[Anonymous Coward]

no

Re:Find your Representative

[ravenscar]

First congressional district of Washingoton here. I currently have no representation in Congress as our spot is vacant. I wish there was a better way to fill the gaps between elections when a Congressperson resigns.

Re:Find your Representative

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama represents the highest bidder to, so the theoretical white guy is correct.

Re:Find your Representative

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to Texas Republicans, I live in a heavily gerrymandered district. My representative doesn't give a damn what I think. He's safe.

Re:Find your Representative

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting thing I found out about this.

1. Todd Akin is my rep (I had no idea before today...I know I didn't vote for him, but it never occurred to me, I guess I can write 'im a letter now).
2. He didn't vote, so I guess he's off the hook on this one.

Third party doctrine

[WaffleMonster]

It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.

If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.

Read it and weep:

"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."

Re:Third party doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

A careful reading of the text of the 4th amendment shows that it creates a procedure for the government to follow. First comes probable cause, then a warrant, and finally a search. Warrant-less wiretapping and FISA courts granting warrants after the fact are clearly unconstitutional.

Re:Third party doctrine

[RabidReindeer]

It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.

If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.

Read it and weep:

...

Of course you'd believe that. The amendment that nullifies that for affairs of National Security is Classified.

Re:Third party doctrine

[Bigby]

But warrants can be granted by anyone taking an Oath. Who's to say that a computer can't take an Oath? The computer automatically issues warrants on demand. It doesn't care about the probable cause behind the issuance. It then describes everything being searched.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

Most of the voters do too - there lies the problem

[Taco Cowboy]

Under the votes tab: Roll no. 569.. Might not be there long

They have nothing to fear from this. They see it as a plus, and most of the voters do, too.

I really like America and I really hate to say this ---

America is no longer the land of the free

It has become the land of the free to be wiretapped, without warrant, without due process, without any valid reason

Kill the traitors!

[Anonymous Coward]

We as Americans should kill every one of these bastards where they stand. Burn down the house!!!

The government, the terrorist...

[chowdahhead]

Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack. But considering the freedoms and rights to privacy that we've sacrificed in the process, I'd choose to live my life in pre-9/11 vulnerability, than a reality where everything I say and do is being recorded and monitored. I feel like "terrorism" has still won.

Re:The government, the terrorist...

[Mitreya]

Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack.

Ah, but there still are faceless "evil doers" who wish to "harm us". So there is clearly a need for more and more military and extra-judicial actions.

Plus, if we keep bombing random countries with drones (without even contemplating war declaration), new terrorist groups will eventually form. Or we can just name some organization in that country as "terrorist"

So it's really a win-win all around

Re:The government, the terrorist...

[kenorland]

Ah, but there still are faceless "evil doers" who wish to "harm us"

Yeah, these "evildoers" are called traffic accidents, medical errors, obesity, smoking, lack of preventive medical care, etc.

Re:The government, the terrorist...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Mate, you are living in pre-9/11 vulnerability. They're groping old ladies and children at checkpoints and testing the air-side beverages you buy for explosives and poisons. Do you think either of these things helps stop plane hijacking? I ask because it does nothing to stop an attack in a city centre, or a bus terminal, or a train station.

I used to think it was a gross invasion of privacy and an unnecessary indignity. Now I think it's either outright insanity or malicious intent. Unfortunately this "security theatre" as everyone here calls it gotten so far out of hand that I don't think the distinction can be made any more. I choose to take my holidays in Scotland or Wales now, or maybe on the south coast; Flying anywhere is just too much hassle, and so undignified.

Re:The government, the terrorist...

[ks*nut]

Terrorism absolutely won because the former occupant didn't recognize, I'm sorry, nobody told him that the entire world was on our side following 9/11. We had one moment in which we could have stopped all this foolishness and made a stand for the freedoms for which the U.S. was founded. I think it was Yogi Berra who said "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." He forgot to add, "Think before you leap, you fucking idiot."

Check your congress critter's voting record.

[jcr]

Anyone who votes for a statute that violates the fourth amendment is failing to uphold their oath of office.

-jcr

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[TheGratefulNet]

which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?

don't parrot back to me what you think *should* be. we're probably in agreement on what *should* be. but answer me, what current gov, that has any core routers of its own, is *not* tapping and scanning and capturing and thresholding and triggering (all in hardware, these days)?

anyone who can buy or get their hands on top-end router and switch gear can install it and tap all they like. its not too expensive (for govs) and its very tempting to any human being with that much power.

the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.

so go ahead, name me a country that is wired (has some internet ability for its citizens), or is even voice-connected, and is not checking on its population using tech means?

deal with the fact that this is a human problem, not a US or UK or aussie or whatever problem.

Bush III Few wingnuts have read beyond the 2nd

[dizzy8578]

Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)

---
Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But the --"

Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."

Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."

Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"

Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "

Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'" ( h/t Dale)
-- Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January.

----
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.

" Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment."

    "It is a measure of the framers' fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself."

    --- Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 1981-2005 (resigned)

Re: Bush III Few wingnuts have read beyond the 2nd

[Anonymous Coward]

The General was right. The protection is against "unreasonable searches and seizures". The fourth amendment has nothing to say about "reasonable searches and seizures". So the test of whether it applies is whether the action is unreasonable. Who decides that? Presumably the legislature. Fucked if I know.

Temporary states of emergency

[nut]

Please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

Re:Temporary states of emergency

[fatphil]

Many thanks for the link.
Had mod points yesterday, but not today, have a virtual +1 interesting instead.

Nice strawman

[Taco Cowboy]

which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?

Nice try, buckwheat, but you ain't fooling nobody.
 
I am not talking about other countries. I am talking about the United States of America - The Land Of The Free
 
Where "Liberty to All" is thing that supposed to differentiate the United States of America from the rest
 
This is also the country where "Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death" has been taught in history lessons, to all students
 

Re:Nice strawman

[Nationless]

You're still free to do whatever you want. This just means the government is free to spy on you while you do it.

Re:Nice strawman

[Taco Cowboy]

You're still free to do whatever you want.

Really?
 
If you say anything that sounds like you want to do harm to the POTUS, and I can guarantee you that you ain't gonna enjoy any freedom no more
 

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, apparently this lesson has *not* been taught well enough, at least to the members of the House of Representatives, given they just voted against your platitudes of supposed freedoms... yet another time.

Re:Nice strawman

[Nationless]

It was meant ironically, but I guess I didn't phrase it well enough. I hoped that using the negative word "spy" would get the message across that I wasn't in favor of the situation.

What I meant was that you can still do anything you want, but you are going to get caught.

But nevermind!

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say anything that sounds like you want to do harm to the POTUS, and I can guarantee you that you ain't gonna enjoy any freedom no more

That's why Ted Nugent is in jail, right? Oh, that's right. He's not. I know...you are going to say it's because he's famous. Except there have been other instances in the news lately where someone threatened Obama, and after investigation proved the threats weren't credible, no charges were filed.

That aside, I'm not sure what your point was. It sounds like you are suggesting that we don't have any freedom unless anyone can shoot out your knees and rape your wife while you and your children watch, all without worry of legal consequences.

Re:Nice strawman

[cayenne8]

Well, we already know that Mr. Obama supports this (his votes prove it).

Can someone ask if Romney goes along with this overreach by govt too?

Sadly...I'm pretty sure I can guess the answer.

:(

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry they traded it for security...

Which isn't even accurate. The sheep were lead astray by a false profit, this ALL started with the separation of church and state.

Blame Eisenhower, the day they allowed "under God" to be put in the allegiance was the end...

Thought he was doing a "good" thing, but it opened the door for religious mind control which allowed the current crisis...

Re:Nice strawman

[TheGratefulNet]

gimme a break.

other countries have 'prideful statements' from the past, too.

what about TODAY? what is in practice TODAY? do they all honor it?

I'm not excusing the US from its behavior. I'm really not.

but what I am saying is that this is not anything linked or localized to any one nationality, creed or even how long you've been around as a country. the drive to use power like this is just too great.

'land of the free' and all that are just sayings. there is a duality in what is said and what is done. you did know that, didn't you? that's one of the subtleties of life that adults pick up on as they gain experience in the world.

Re:Nice strawman

[Artifakt]

There's no point in bring up a limitation such as threats against the president, as so many people are actually OK with freedom of speech being limited in that way. To reach the undecided, the uninformed, and any share of those people who have 'good hearts' but not a lot of on the street political education, you need to mention a limit more people would disagree with, such as the loss of freedom to carry more than $500 cash while travelling. My own favorite is, "if America is the land of the free, why do we have such a high perecentage of people in prison?" For people who appreciate numbers and hard facts, try "Why are there 17 different civilan agencies that have agents trained to used assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and Claymore Mines? ". Try putting things in a context that involves the person you're speaking to. For example, it's amazing how many older people rethink their position on the Fed acting against medical marijuana dispensaries in CA, when they find out the avarage person considering marijuana for pain is about their age, and often wants it for a common disease of people their age (There's quite a number of medical pot users who have lost a foot or leg to type 2 diabetes, and want relief from phantom limb pain. Mention that to a 50 year old pro drug war conservative who has type 2 and fears they might be in the same situation some day, and watch the cognative dissonance at work.).

Re:Nice strawman

[tbannist]

If you look at the role, 95% of the Republicans and 39% of the Democrats voted for it.

That should probably answer your question.

Re:Nice strawman

[Talderas]

The line is "Give me liberty or give me death" uttered by Patrick Henry and exemplified by Nathan Hale at his execution when he uttered, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."

Re:Nice strawman

[boef]

I often wonder why people still refer to the USA as 'the land of the free' or even to their president as the 'leader of the free world'. Don't get me wrong; As a non-American I have great respect for the tradition and history of freedom of the country

The issue I think Americans should be concerned about is the fact that countries Poland, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, United Kingdom all have something in common (well, the list is quite long and can be found here )
They are ALL ranked higher than 'The land of the Free' when it comes to freedom of press... and without press freedom, and journalists calling you on your shit - instead of just dishing out celeb gossip and reality TV updates - you are on a slippery slope.

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Romney has already said that he would have voted for NDAA. So yeah, it is obvious he would support this too.

Re:Nice strawman

[DexPleiadian]

while i stand behind your bravado and message here, you should know that it is "Give me liberty, or give me death!" that is taught in history lessons. Patrick Henry forgives you. ; )

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone ask if Romney goes along with this overreach by govt too?

What do you think, dumbass? Do you think you have any real choice? Do you really think muzzies brought down the Trade Center towers?

Fucking moron.

Re:Nice strawman

[fustakrakich]

They lied...

It's over, Johnny. It's over.

Re:Nice strawman

[HWMTM]

You are free, to do what we tell you. - Bill Hicks

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

That aside, I'm not sure what your point was. It sounds like you are suggesting that we don't have any freedom unless anyone can shoot out your knees and rape your wife while you and your children watch, all without worry of legal consequences.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what he was suggesting...

Re:Nice strawman

[interkin3tic]

Think of it as a high bar we've set for ourselves that we have never actually been able to clear.

Keep in mind that we were talking big about freedom and equality and representation while still allowing slavery and denying the vote to women, african americans, and probably poor white men as well. So it was really hypocritical at first. Still, I'd guess had we been honest about it, had our nation been founded explicitly on "Freedom... for people who are already free basically" and "Equality! For rich white men" or "No taxation without representation of our DOMESTIC elites," then we never would have actually gotten to the point of giving everyone a vote, of ending segregation, of abolishing slavery, and likely wouldn't have inspired ourselves to actually break free from England at that time.

I'd prefer us be a nation that declares ourselves to be the land of the free even if it's hypocritical than declare ourselves the nation of basically being a police state, if for no other reason than it encourages us to make it so.

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully the President has this fabled "veto" constitutional power.

But I wouldn't hold my breath, considering this is the second extension under his term, the PATRIOT act extensions, the authorized killing of citizens abroad, etc etc etc

Re:Nice strawman

[Applekid]

I often wonder why people still refer to the USA as 'the land of the free' or even to their president as the 'leader of the free world'. Don't get me wrong; As a non-American I have great respect for the tradition and history of freedom of the country

The issue I think Americans should be concerned about is the fact that countries Poland, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, United Kingdom all have something in common (well, the list is quite long and can be found here )
  They are ALL ranked higher than 'The land of the Free' when it comes to freedom of press... and without press freedom, and journalists calling you on your shit - instead of just dishing out celeb gossip and reality TV updates - you are on a slippery slope.

Some people read 1984 and Brave New World and think either one would be horrible. People in power read both and decide, hell, why not have the best of both worlds? Totalitarianism and apathy?

Re:Nice strawman

[Douglas Goodall]

Are you free to board an airplane without a stranger fondling your genitals? I am not as worried about electronic eavesdropping as I am roaming VIPR teams randomly stopping people and asking them for their papers. Or forcing them to be subjected to fluoroscopy if they don't want to be yelled at and intimidated by a dozen people with guns. It was recently determined that the domestic intelligence agencies had warrantless wiretaps on an unbelievable number of people, the number of which they would not even disclose. So why was the legislature willing to just rubber stamp a renewal?

Re:Nice strawman

[Darby]

Well, we already know that Mr. Obama supports this (his votes prove it).

That's the primary reason I didn't vote for him. As a constitutional law professor, he *knew* that supporting it was a gross constitutional violation. Therefore he knew that if elected that when he took the oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution that he already had and would continue to violate it.

Of course, you're right about Romney. It was claimed when Obama voted for it it was a political move to sway moderate Republicans his way. Romney's of the party that can't have enough government power over the people provided the rich are free to do whatever they want at our expense.

Re:Nice strawman

[b4dc0d3r]

See, this is where the uninformed take off on a tangent. Travel is not a right, it's a privilege, and you are free to drive to any state you wish. If you wish to take a flight for convenience, you are invited to be conveniently fondled.

I am worried about VIPR teams and forced exposure to harmful emanences. But you started out with something which is completely out of scope to the discussion. If airline security were in the hands of the airlines, they would be free to implement such measures as they thought were necessary, and you have the right to refrain from flying, so there's no difference between private screeners and federal ones doing this.

To put it another way, you don't have the right to enter my house. If you accept my invitation, I could require a full pat-down, either by my assistant or if you are an attractive female by myself, for security reasons. You can opt in or out, but you still don't have the right to enter without the pat-down. You have the right to refuse both the pat-down and entry onto private property (government subsidized or not).

Re:Nice strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

" I am talking about the United States of America - The Land Of The Free"

You made me laugh and cry at the same time...

More of the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you vote for Obama? Then great, you asked for this. Did you vote for Bush, and now looking at Romney? Then great, you WANT this!

The definition of stupid is to vote for the system that keeps getting it wrong. The forefathers were right... the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants... so far the tyrants in Washington not not bleeding enough by comparison. Start voting them out even if you have to replace them with the stupidest 3rd party idiot, and tell them you can get back in if you actually do what you say you are going to do and this is actually represent the people!

*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_0788_THOMAS_JEFFERSON_t.jpg

Re:Can we please give the libertarians a chance no

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. American culture is highly authoritarian. We love what we have now otherwise we would have changed it by now.

looks like the terrorists have won

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

You really want to know who set this up?

[ihatewinXP]

You really want to know who set this up?

Find out who scheduled the vote for the same day as the release of the iPhone 5. I think the vote was probably on the docket for awhile. If so...

To whomever made sure these events coincided: Couldn't have been planned better. Well played.

"The answer to all your questions is: Money"

So, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

..Why are we voting these people back into the house and senate every time they're up for re-election?

I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[shiftless]

I have sent various and sundry emails to various parasites within our corporatized government explaining in no uncertain terms why and how they are failures at life, traitors to Liberty, and parasites upon the citizenry, and how the world will be a 100x better place when the citizens finally wise up and throw these shitbags out on the streets.

Some fat little bitch of an FBI agent knocked on my door the other day flashing a badge around and asking probing questions about some email she alleged I sent to some bigwig at the GOP, who apparently was so horrified at the thought of unemployment he felt the need to send this pushy little bully after me. Needless to say I'm still here, because I committed no crime and am guilty of nothing other than free speech. Most importantly, I didn't talk to the pushy little cunt.

Now a couple days ago I read about this 16 year old kid who just had the same thing happen to him, but unfortunately this kid wasn't aware of his rights. So he let the assholes in, who proceeded to ask him all these stupid questions and then tried to recruit him to be a spy inside the Anonymous organization (lol....) Are you fucking kidding me?

All this because he dared to create an extremely truthful, harmless, and overall well put-together video on Youtube outlining the reasons why our government is headed down a scary path and the citizenry should support Ron Paul. (link) A month later, knock knock--FBI visit.

What....the...FUCK?

So I fired off an email on the FBI web site through the only email form I could find and explained to them in detail why they are shitbags and traitors, who will hopefully (in a just world) die of exposure from homelessness (and thusly be gnawed upon by hungry, rabid dogs, etc in the gutters of the Bright New World they've created) after the public wises up, fires their asses and kicks em to the curb once and for good. I don't remember the exact verbiage used but I do recall pointing out obvious parallels to the Nazis, Soviets, etc. I also encouraged them to go fuck themselves, while stroking their pathetic little egos and powerlust by adding my name to whatever lists they please. I then dared them to further once and for good destroy their reputation by harassing yet another Afghan war vet (hoo-ah Air Force) when I have committed no crime, have made no threats to anyone (I personally abhor violence and war, having been thoroughly exposed to it, and prefer peaceful and intelligent solutions to our problems), and have done nothing more than speak my mind freely and passionately.

So, that was yesterday. I wonder how those fuckers will react when they read it? Will they have the maturity to think "you know what, despite him being a complete douchebag to the n'th degree...maybe he's right?" Will they think "damn, what an asshole....and we'd love to see him in jail, since we're feeling self-conscious as fuck right now.....but how? He's no criminal....and this is a free country...so, whatever. Fucking asshole."...? Or will they react like the immature, childish little turds I sadly expect most of them are, and get all worked up and emotional and pissed off when every word hits home precisely the way I calculated it to? Will these pretentious little bullies in their taxpayer-funded suits with their taxpayer-funded badges feel outraged that their precious little egos aren't being stroked by this free citizen living in Hancock, Michigan (who will never bow before Satan) and will they vow to "teach him a lesson" through some rude and ugly show of force?

That's the question.

I think the USA is becoming a police state. I hope the FBI proves me wrong.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[postbigbang]

What a warm, kind, and endearing person you are. I'm so very sorry that I live far, far away from your town of Hancock, Michigan. It must be a great place, with you living there.

But like other Americans, I'll defend your right to free speech vehemently, until it becomes sedition itself. Then you're on your own.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[shiftless]

Cool story bro

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like he's just pissed off at the way the government is acting now. Who wouldn't be? Brainless, spineless cowards that haven't ever had a rational thought in their lives.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[lexsird]

You are most certainly being tapped and watched. But you are pretty much harmless and clueless. You can smell the bullshit, but you haven't figure it out. If you did figure out, you wouldn't be here shooting your mouth off about it. But they will watch you to see if you do and what you will do about it. And if you do try to do something about it, you will be a fuck up and they will not only catch you, but other idiots whom you have informed of it, who want to try something.

So do yourself a favor, forget about it. Shut up about it. Watch your sports, play your internet games, and be a good little drone.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[lexsird]

So, how do you know where he is from? I found that to be kind of creepy. I don't know how to find that kind of information about a poster, did I miss something? Or is this some kind of creepy veiled threat? Again unless I missed some way to figure out where a poster is from this smacks of "We know who you are and where you are, bitch all you want, but make a move and you are toast."

Sedition really is the thing they are worried about. An "American Spring" is what they want to avoid. I think they have that aspect nailed down pretty good all things considered.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[postbigbang]

The poster alludes to the address in the post. There are also signs of paranoia, although I'm not a licensed medical professional. There is much hostility here; the poster has an abundance of fear, and not even a dram of warmth.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[chfriley]

He knows because the poster says near the very bottom of the post: "this free citizen living in Hancock, Michigan" :-)

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[lexsird]

LOL, I missed that at the end. I can see why, he's a bit ranty. I tend to skip over ranty stuff, probably because it reminds me of myself too much. I think the poster is like many others, they smell the bullshit in the air, but can't quite put a finger on what is going on, hence the levels of frustration.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[lexsird]

Such leet hacks!! I just replied to another poster pointing this out.

The title reminded me of the X "no such agency" guy who was telling all about how they monitor everything. Our fine feathered friend has most assuredly made some "lists". But he's just another number, as we all are, and our entire lives are monitored, tracked, labeled, and studied. I'm sure algorithms are tracking us for threat potential. The tech is here, and it's what I would be doing if I was in charge and I was an evil fuck.

Here's the rub, it's a complicated, crooked, fucked up world full of assholes. Not everyone can be a 9 to 5 drone, happy in their little world of blissful ignorance. Someone has to work through all of this shit, and get dirty, sort through it and hope the world doesn't blow the fuck up in the process. Trying to keep up with this ever shifting landscape of trouble is a nightmare, especially when your own side causes a great deal of it.

Sure we create solutions that are shitty. We create weapons that will come and bite us on the ass later. But it's what we do in the moment, and hope we live to regret it. Remember, we are dealing with people, they can be intelligent and dumb as fuck at the same time. Factor that into any organization, any government, any agency, etc. Life is messy and it's a wonder its not one big shit storm of chaos. If we can keep it down to a dull roar so that we can at least enjoy our morning breakfast cereal, it's a good job.

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[shiftless]

Believe me bro, I know exactly what's going on. I got my eyes and ears WIDE open. The reason I made the post is simple. I'm building a case....just in case.

Hi FBI! Nice to see you have nothing better to do. Go fuck yourselves.

Oh yeah, and .... have a nice day. ;)

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[shiftless]

Thanks bro I enjoyed your commentary. See, here's the thing with messiness. I can tell you all about it, because I was there and saw it everywhere. I saw the Humvee with the back end blown off by an IED, and the soldier in the back who was shoved forward with such force it destroyed his knees and legs. I showed up just a couple weeks after the insurgents nearly overran the compound, taking shelter in a nearby farmhouse and putting a bullet through the back of the platoon leader's head, who continued to lead his men lying on his back with a map over his face and radio held up to his ear by others while the doctor kept him from bleeding to death. I came to fix their satellite system, and before I left I'd helped and aided and succeeded and jumped for joy right along with them when when we blew up a truck that looked suspicious. We thought it was carrying a mortar crew, but really, our thinking was shoddy and adrenaline fueled and just plain wrong. It was just a truck with some farmers in it.

This was in summer '07, around mid-late September, which I remember because I spent my birthday at this little shithole FOB called "Baylough." It was on a hill overlooking a depression, arid scrubland with mountains all around. We'd just crammed ourselves onto the little picnic table in the "chow hall" (more like a dirty closet) and started eating when the first mortar round of the day exploded just outside the inner compound wall, maybe 30 yards away. We all stared at each other for a split second then jumped up and ran out to our positions. There was a small bunker just outside the inner wall the contractors usually ran to, but this day for some reason I decided to run up on the wall with the soldiers. I'm glad I did because shortly after I got in position up there, another mortar round came in not far from where I would have been standing, throwing rocks all over a couple of the other guys who had sat down along the wall and putting a hole in the water tank nearby. This was somewhat surprising because most days the incoming mortar fire was wildly inaccurate; they really had us dialed in that day.

(The insurgents' typical procedure was to fire off a few rounds, then pack up their gear and go. According to what I gathered from the guys on the FOB, they had installed a new radar system which detects incoming mortar rounds, and it allowed them to target those mortar crews and fire back, taking them by surprise and killing a number of their best mortar crews, before they wised up and started moving frequently. As a consequence their accuracy had gone way down.)

So after a time, the enemy stopped shooting and presumably packed it up and left. Our theory was the enemy was using local taxis to ferry themselves around. Looking back, everyone was really just itching for a target. Their theory could have some basis on logic but by no means did we have any basis to conclude that the truck we picked out to fire upon was actually enemy insurgents. It was just a truck, driving down the highway behind the little town. It all looked so small through binoculars and being so far away. So did the massive crowd of people who showed up for the funerals the next day. I held the binoculars and kept an eye on that truck while one of our good ole boys (who had been the beneficiary of a round of simulator training on this new weapon and thus was the designed expert) zeroed in on the target. The Javelin is a shoulder fired missile which can target both air (helicopters) or land (tank) targets. It is specifically designed to kill tanks, and it does this by flying way up in the sky and zooming down at high speed through its weakest point: the roof. This old Russian farm truck didn't stand a chance.

The soldier damn near stepped off the roof when he pulled the trigger, expecting blowback; nope, the spring loaded missile shot out of its disposable tube a couple dozen feet before the rocket motor then ignited, sending it zooming off at incredible speed and disappearing off into the sky. This is a true fire-and-forget missile syste

Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak.

[shiftless]

You don't know what you're talking about

will an investigation ever be possible?

[PJ6]

Considering the possibility that this is found unconstitutional in October, is there any process that could be invoked to initiate a full, independent investigation of this program, especially the secret bits? Something along the lines of responding to "it's for national security" with "we don't believe you, we're going to check everything you've done so far".

I know, crazy question.

Re:will an investigation ever be possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is no. This has been challenged before and the courts have stated: You have to show that some harm has been done to someone to bring forth the case. Anyone who has shown harm to date has been guilty of something. It's going to take a screw up and an innocent victim who can survive the screw up to bear justice through the courts on this one.

Well then

[socoloco]

I'd bet that all members of the House are being bugged also, have been and always will be.

A look at history might be a very good idea

[gweihir]

I recommend investigating snooping, denunciation and stigmatizing of citizens in the 3rd Reich, Stalinism, the German Democratic Republic and others. (Of course, there are contemporary examples, like North Korea and China, but the historic ones are well documented put thing into perspective.) Snooping on citizens without strong legal safeguards is a very dark thing indeed and fundamentally incompatible with a free society.

Ignore this post.

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems to be the only way to undo an accidental mod action.

It does happen occasionally

[Sycraft-fu]

One time in recent memory I can think of is the Assault Weapons Ban. It banned features of guns largely based on how they looked. It was given a sunset, and it was not renewed so not guns with those features are again legal to purchase new.

Now I'm not saying that sunset laws are a good idea or you should truest them to make things go away, just that sometimes they do actually sunset, if very rarely.

They are really likely only useful for things that are fairly contentious, like the AWB. The thing is with a normal law, you have to convince someone to sponsor repealing it, get it out of committee, and then get a majority vote. With a sunset law, all that has to happen is for that to not happen. So if something was narrow to pass, then it may not make it the next time.

Thing is this bullshit was near unanimous the first time so this is no surprise.

It's not Lupus?

[phluid61]

When you say "House" you mean "US Congress," right? Not "fictional tv doctor."

Republican house, your fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans control the house, you voted them in, it's clear from your bias, therefore its YOUR fault.

Obamas increased the debt 1.4 trillion, Bush 7 trillion. The misleading talking point Fox uses is to say it increased more under Obama than Bush, but in reality the policies that caused the increase are all Bush's.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

Obama may not have been successful yet in fixing Bush's laws (you voted in the Republicans into the House, you knew what they were like, why????), but he's done some of them, even caught Bin Laden, stopped that "be afraid be afraid" fearmongering stuff the Republicans do.

Of course they did!

[jenningsthecat]

voted today, in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act

What government, once having acquired a type of power over its citizens, ever relinquishes it without a fight? Income tax, The Patriot Act, and on and on and on - it's all about concentration and maintenance of power, and has been for millenia. Nothing to see here, move along.

However, it may be important to keep in mind that this is a hallmark of human societal hierarchies. Then we can set aside our righteous moral indignation and keep our eyes on the prize, which is the construction of a functioning, fair, free, inclusive society that endures in spite of our natural tendencies to destroy it. We've been close on several occasions, but it keeps slipping away from us because we become complacent. What was that about bread and circuses?

Why bother passing job legislation?

[Slyfox696]

I think it's funny how so many columnists and "experts" have basically said this Congress won't do anything until after the election, and yet one of the few things they DID decide to do (the House at least) was extend the ability of the government to spy on American citizens.

Sometimes I just don't know what's worse, when Republicans and Democrats disagree leading to gridlock, or...when they agree. Hard to say really.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?

How is your question remotely relevant? You appare to be making the same kind of argument that Newt Gingrich did when he said we shouldn't permit the building of the "911 mosque" until Saudia Arabia permits christian churchs in their country.

In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.

the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.

That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Doctor_Jest]

Well said. (Sorry I used all my mod points in another thread...) :-)

The key here, and you imply it I think, is that we have entrusted these assclowns with power WE granted them, and they CONTINUE to ignore us. They expand the federal government to vastly unconstitutional levels (has been since the New Deal, unfortunately), and they ignore fundamental liberties by claiming "national security" (liberties are not "granted" by the Constitution or the government (Pelosi, I'm looking at you) like some of the asshats have alluded... we HAVE those rights by being born, but that's another story).

They insist that they're "fans of freedom" as they pick our pockets, bankrupt our country, and generally piss all over the People. Yet, idiots still vote for them. I've not voted for a major party candidate in 15 years or more. I just can't take it. Sure, that makes my voting sheet a little sparse in some elections (particularly local), but I just can't in good conscience use my vote to further the erosion of MY liberty.

On a similar note, France is steamrolling some interesting tax "reform" into law, and it appears that this "reform" has become the blueprint most people who don't even pay any income taxes to rally around so the "rich can pay their fair share." Remember kids, you can't EVER let a politician who has the power to tax you to define the word "fair." :) I weep for our Republic and all the morons who are riding shotgun in this hand-basket we find ourselves in.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[bgat]

America is no longer the land of the free

It has become the land of the free to be wiretapped, without warrant, without due process, without any valid reason

Somewhat yes, but mostly no.

There are still very high barriers to using warrantless-wiretap as legal evidence to support a charge. Just having a recording doesn't automatically mean you'll get to use it in Court, by far, warrantless or otherwise.

In addition, you should take some satisfaction in realizing that those who voted for this extension are themselves not exempt from it, AND they are mostly former lawyers who, because they are now politicians, probably have lots of skeletons in their closet that they would prefer stayed there. That the measure would pass therefore suggests that it's of little consequence in the big legal picture. Which is true.

But it makes great political hay in front of the right audience.

Order By Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Barak Hussein Obama II ordered the murder of the US Embassy staffers, members of the Unelected Government of the United States of America in Libya.

The calculation for justifying the murders was to get the U.S.A. House of Representatives to reauthorize the unlawful warrent-less wire-tape 'law' of George Walker Bush.

That was as success on both fronts.

here's the list of freedom's murderers

[GarretSidzaka]

i tried to post the list, but /. diligent post filters stopped me. please pardon the pastebin

http://pastebin.com/ZUg8eKYd

Re:here's the list of freedom's murderers

[GarretSidzaka]

i know i suck but here is the complete list:

http://pastebin.com/TtGNBygm

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Anonymous Coward]

so go ahead, name me a country that is wired (has some internet ability for its citizens), or is even voice-connected, and is not checking on its population using tech means?

Uganda

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[dgr73]

In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.

That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..

I love it when Americans think their country is the most free and hot shit country on the planet. And then find out it isn't.

Maybe if you didn't harbor illusions about the "highest possible standard" in your leadership, you'd be able to elect people who weren't total douches in the employ of corporations. It's so easy to reject a good candidate just because he once cheated on his wife, or shoplifted when he was 8. But that just leads to some rich douchebag who can afford to hide his mistakes to get elected with the full intention of fucking you over.

Fox news

[Anonymous Coward]

He will sign the REPUBLICAN extension, because if he doesn't they (and YOU) will paint him as being a terrorist.

Welcome to the bought and paid Republican propaganda machine. Republicans created it, Republicans renew it, Republicans pay for the propaganda to push it through, and yet you blame Obama.

If you didn't want this, then you shouldn't have voted in Republicans into the house, and it wouldn't have been renewed, because the majority of Democrats are against it.

Re:Fox news

[ravenscar]

Ah...that's it. Then I wonder why the Dems didn't do something about this during the first 2 years of the Obama administration. Oh, and Obama was going to do something about the PATRIOT Act as well. Did that ever happen? I guess you can call signing an extension of three key provisions of the act in 2011 doing something.

I prefer Obama's platform this year because he's pro-choice, supports gay marriage, and actually realizes that we have to increase revenue (along with cutting unnecessary spending) to get our national debt under control.

Still, when it comes to advancing the police state, it seems he's no better than the alternative.

Re:Fox news

[kenorland]

He will sign the REPUBLICAN extension, because if he doesn't they (and YOU) will paint him as being a terrorist.

I'm an independent who voted for Obama last time around. And if Obama can't do the right thing because people criticize him for it then he is unfit to be a president. In fact, I think that pretty much sums up what the problem with Obama is: he isn't governing or doing the right thing for the country, he is going by poll numbers and buying votes.

It's morons like you that are so destructive of the political process by lacking even a glimmer of an independent thought; and, yes, morons like you exist in large numbers both in both parties.

Re:Fox news

[kenorland]

I prefer Obama's platform this year because he's pro-choice, supports gay marriage

I am pro-choice and pro gay marriage, but I also think those issues are insignificant compared to the economy and international politics. In addition, I don't find Obama's stance on these issues particularly principled.

and actually realizes that we have to increase revenue (along with cutting unnecessary spending) to get our national debt under control.

Obama is paying lip service to the idea, but in practice, he isn't doing it either. He wants to keep the Bush tax breaks for people making less than $250000; those tax payers represent 80% of all income tax revenue. How exactly is Obama going to get the national debt under control that way? Obama is using taxes as a political tool; I don't see a convincing plan to reduce the debt there either, and Obama's track record on the economy is lousy. I'll keep an open mind until the election, but the way it looks right now, I may just stay home.

Re:Fox news

[Magius_AR]

Oh, and Obama was going to do something about the PATRIOT Act as well. Did that ever happen?

What made you think this was ever going to happen? He voted in favor of the Patriot Act before he even became president.

actually realizes that we have to increase revenue (along with cutting unnecessary spending) to get our national debt under control.

Well, when you spend 4 years blowing cash on stimuluses and tax cuts and bailouts, I guess that does sorta become true.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[bbelt16ag]

what if they are thinking they can get away with it since they sit in congress and have all these 'powers and prestige' ? is that not what most of them say when they get caught. oh i cant believe i got caught i thought i was so clever.. ??

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Anonymous Coward]

Which countries are not?
The ones who don't want the maelstrom to start with ever larger acts of insurrection culminating in revolution.

Let's not forget...

[Coppit]

Let's not forget that FISA allowed warrants to be granted *retroactively*. So before this law there was *nothing* slowing down or preventing the government from wiretapping suspected terrorists here in the US. Can someone remind me why we need this law?

In November the choice is yours!

[ThatsNotPudding]

Coors or Coors Light.

Why I've lost all trust in government

[moeinvt]

The blatant erosion of our civil liberties over the past 20 years is exactly why I will not trust the government with ANY new powers. These people, regardless of party, have gutted the Bill of Rights.

-Patriot Act and extensions
-Warrantless Wiretapping and ex-post-facto legalization thereof
-Indefinite detention of US Citizens
-Military Commissions Act
-FISA Extensions
-Assassination of US Citizens
-NDAA

I accept some of the climate change science, but there is no way in hell I am going to support granting the federal government more power to regulate energy consumption. I won't support any new taxation to give these criminals more wealth to waste, or support any efforts for them to seize power to control PAC money or campaign financing.

The federal government and its minions have declared themselves enemies of the citizens of the United States. I want to see them stripped of power and starved of wealth.

P.S.
Any federal government employee reading this is invited to go **** themselves.

Re:Why I've lost all trust in government

[Anonymous Coward]

HERE HERE I TOTALLY AGREE.

Re:Why I've lost all trust in government

[strangeintp]

For what it's worth, I am a federal government employee, and I agree with you. Just because we're employees of the government doesn't mean we have to agree with everything the government does, or make us complicit in it's actions on principle.

Re:Why I've lost all trust in government

[Anonymous Coward]

PARTY VAN!!!

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[dywolf]

That's just one more reason why I say vote every single MFer in that building out.
Every.
Single.
One.

Santayana, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

All is proceeding as I have foreseen.. The apparatus will all be in place for the Caliph's Mukhabarat when it is needed, in those first few years before the dhimmi learn their place. Allahu akbar!

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[usuallylost]

We have been steadily eroding freedom in this country for the last 70 years. People want the state to take care of them, to provide for their personal comfort, for their safety, for their retirement, for helping raise their kids, for their health and probably another 50 things I don't even know about. The state can't do that without increased powers and increased powers for them equal less freedoms for us. This is what the majority in this country has voted for over the last few decades. I don't see that changing. They will continue to erode your 4th amendment rights, the rights to your property, the rights to be secure in your home etc. In large part because it is necessary for them to do that in order to provide the level of services and protection that we the citizens have demanded from them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to fight the good fight to defend your freedoms. It just means that you need to understand that right now those of use that value individual freedom are a minority and it is unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.

Well duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does any government give up power, illegal or not, once it has it?

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... Canada? Y'know, that big thing on top of the USA on a map? I mean, Harper is trying as hard as he can to turn us INTO the USA, but so far they haven't pushed through warrentless tracking/etc of people.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Bigby]

But we should have universal health care because the rest of the world does!

(sarcasm)

SHIT ON AGAIN By our own employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again we have been taken advantage of by our own employees. They should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in that matter we should. Those bills should be put up for vote by us, the people they affect. they should at least have to post the bill 2-4 days prior to the vote and we get to vote on it and right after the vote we get to see who voted for and who voted against the bill so we the people know how our employees voted after we told them clearly in a vote what we wanted.

Remember We The People SHOULD NEVER FEAR our government, OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD ALWAYS fear We The People.

Please vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, please, anyone who has a representative that voted for it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h569 please vote for someone else in the next election, even if you think another candidate might be the same. I mean, they already not representing us, how worse can it be? At least it will send signal that their position is not guaranteed.

PotKettleBlack

[ThatsNotPudding]

But you're right, clearly both sides are equally as bad. But the Democrats are worse, so you should vote Republican to be safe, amirite?

While still in the Senate, Obama voted to give AT&T a free pass for enabling NSA warrantless wiretaps (there's your ex post facto), solely to insulate him against 'soft on terrerism' charges during his run for the White House.

While I'm glad he won (considering the horrific alternative), from that vote forward, I knew he didn't stand for anything but winning. Exactly like everone else.

Death to America? Patience, sir; we're taking care of that ourselves.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Anonymous Coward]

If all the other countries jumped off a bridge should America do it too?

9/11, Embassy attacked; 9/12 4th gutted

[Anonymous Coward]

Just coincidence. Sure. That was military attack in Benghazi. Any protesting over that asinine film is just cover. I would encourage peace-loving Muslims to abjure the hot-heads to not fail for the bait. Likewise to my fellow Americans not to fall for the FUD.

What's bothering me right now is what will be deemed necessary to get this through the Senate.

Just a heads up for those of you honest Feds who aren't in on the treason and crime.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[cusco]

Just having a recording doesn't automatically mean you'll get to use it in Court

"In court" is not the endgame here, that would be "In Gitmo" (or another law-free and rights-free zone). These people (the congresscritters and their handlers) don't give a flying fuck about reducing crime, they want to make sure that a revolution can never be organized no matter how bad things get here. When hyperinflation destroys the economy and social structure they need to be ready to shut down any opposition before it can actually organize itself. A continent-wide monitoring project isn't something that can be rolled out overnight, they're in the development and testing phase here. It's going to take years to work the bugs out of a project this big.

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is weird that you conflate abuse of authority with juvenile misdemeanors and sexual infidility.

Land of the Free No More

[Somebody is Grar]

What? Republicans and Democrats in favor of curtailing personal freedom and privacy out of cowardice? SHOCK!

Yes, they can. ONLY YOU can prevent it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators?

No, the power to prevent that, rests solely in the hands of you, the voter. It's up to you, in November, to vote against the incumbents who did this. Create a deterrent force so that future Congresses will know that doing this is a reliable way to cause themselves to become unelectable outcasts.

In 2008 a certain high-profile senator voted to give retroactive immunity to AT&T, and in fact, he did lose his job as senator. Yay!

The part I left out, though, is that the same time he lost his senator job, he got a new job as president. Also, his chief rival (also a senator) for that white house job, while he didn't happen to show up for the roll call on the retroactive telecom immunity bill, did speak out in support of it, and is still a senator today. Between the two of them, they got 99% of the vote for president.

What I'm saying is that in the past, you the voter have been completely negligent, in using your power to prevent the annuling of culpability for preexisting perpetrators.

Nevertheless, that power is still in your hands, and 2008 is old news. What's done is done. Two/four more years of Republicrat rule? Or are you finally going to vote for real this year? There isn't a lot of diversity in house/senate candidates (at least where I live) but there are a shitload of people running for president, and if they start to get a significant number of votes (and especially in the far-fetched case of a non-Republicrat winning), you'll see more candidates in 2014 for the capitol hill jobs. Vote!

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob

[Uberbah]

Because UHC provides better care for less money than the for-profit insurance industry, who are and always have been the real "death panels" as they find new ways to jack up your rates while denying you coverage.

(but you knew that already)