Slashdot Log In
Democrats Propose Commission To Investigate Spying
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Mar 12, 2008 07:02 AM
from the no-immunity-for-you dept.
from the no-immunity-for-you dept.
metalman writes "Wired has a story on a proposal by House Democrats to 'establish a national commission — similar to the 9/11 Commission... to find out — and publish — what exactly the nation's spies were up to during their five-year warrantless, domestic surveillance program.' The draft bill would also preserve the requirement of court orders and remove 'retroactive immunity for telecom companies.' (We've discussed various government wiretaps, phone companies, and privacy violations before.) But it seems unlikely that such an alternative on phone immunity would pass both the House and Senate, let alone survive a Presidential veto."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now 262 comments
austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.
[+]
IT: Feds Have a High-Speed Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier 229 comments
An anonymous reader writes "An unnamed U.S. wireless carrier maintains an unfiltered, unmonitored DS-3 line from its internal network to a facility in Quantico, Virginia, according to Babak Pasdar, a computer security consultant who did work for the company in 2003. Customer voice calls, billing records, location information and data traffic are all allegedly exposed. A similar claim was leveled against Verizon Wireless in a 2006 lawsuit."
[+]
Your Rights Online: FBI Admits More Privacy Violations 179 comments
kwietman writes "The FBI admitted that in 2006, for the fourth straight year, they improperly accessed phone and internet records of U.S. citizens. Director Robert Mueller testified that the abuses occurred prior to sweeping reforms enacted in 2007, and actually blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested. In another unsurprising development, the FBI also underreported the number of security letters - used to authorize wiretaps and to subpoena internet and telecom records - by over 4,600. The use of these letters to identify potential terrorists has, according to the government audit, increased dramatically since the implementation of the Patriot Act. Over 1,000 of these security letters were found to be improper in 2005, and similar numbers were expected for 2006 and 2007."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Speak really slowly for me... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't live in the US so please forgive me if there's actually some method to this madness, but frankly, it's still madness.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amusingly, one of the Republican talking points was a complaint that the Democrats were wasting their time on a doomed-to-fail veto override attempt instead of working on passing a renewal of the previously-expired wiretap legislation (honestly, the Democrats hold all the cards on that situation, since "no action" is much closer to their desired position than to that of the Republicans).
Of course, the funny thing is that they could just wait a year. All three of the remaining Presidential candidates are against waterboarding.
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes a powerful political statement to stand up against torture, even if it's bound to fail. It also makes a powerful statement to just sit and do nothing about it and hope the next president maintains his/her current opinion on torture.
This is a very necessary "waste of time".
Parent
McCain voted FOR torture (Score:3, Informative)
McCain voted AGAINST banning torture. He says he is against torture, but when it came to a vote, he vote to allow it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What we don't have is two reasonably distinct ideologies. We certainly have two distinct parties despite the fact that they only oppose each other out of spite and grandstanding rather than on principles.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course as ultimately a society is determined by the people composing it, the responsibility belongs to the people for the state of matters, but the current sitation is different than just living in a two party system and most people accepting it.
Consider voter turnout, it is considered very low, even for a (sort-of) democratic country. People would vote for other parties, but those parties never get the chance to gain traction due to the built-in favorism in the system towards major power blocks. Ultimately, this is going to be an uphill battle for you guys, you need to change the way your system works and probably the most success you'd have is by going on a roundabout way on this matter: start from education, from history: do not worship your founding fathers because they established this system (even if it was considered enlightened in their age), teach critical thinking, disrespect for authority, establish independent information channels, inform, inform, inform. Tell people about things they don't want to hear: individual social responsibility, collective action for the individual (but overally positive-sum) good, etc.
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Party structure is an orthogonal issue really. I think I need to qualify that by "the system" I meant the structure of the state, the voting and legal processes. There is a winner takes all mentality, which favors large parties, but the winner takes all method only requires a relative majority. This means that looking at the trend (voter turnout, party popularity ratings) in the last few years,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, actually it is. You aren't aware of the public funding [fec.gov] that the federal government does for the "major" parties, i.e. the dems and repubs, during presidential elections. The federal government may have a loose hold on how th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that a stronger Congress and a weaker president is better, because it makes things less radical and responsibility is divided more evenly. It would also make people able to vote for representatives locally who could eventually influence things, but while the president is too powerful change is not possible if you have to gain the presidential seat to actually do anything, given the state of media and related issues.
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been very disappointed with elected republicans ignoring their responsibility as congressmen to actually do their job as a balance to the president instead of just cheerleading him on - just because he's from the same party doesn't mean you should give up all your power to him.
Btw - that's actually why I'm a little worried about electing a democrat president this election - the democrats are in a very good strategic position in the house and senate this year, and will likely maintain their lead in the house and create one in the senate. Which removes the separation of powers again next year if we don't elect a republican president, and suddenly instead of rubber-stamping terror bills and invasions we're rubber stamping a whole new level of welfare state.
The only way powers are separated in the current system is by party lines.
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
What really scares me is when this final "party-check" doesn't work... like 70% of what we've seen from the Democratic congress so far.
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this makes me a horrible, old-fashioned, poor-person hater in the eyes of liberal European government.
I maintain that the only reason that Western Europe in general can afford so many government programs is that in the last fifty years our military budget has been paying for a large part of their safekeeping. Military requirements can grow and shrink, but they never go away, and as bad of a hegemon as the US can be at times, most people would consider the Soviet Union or China to be worse. We're in a rare lull with a single super power here - it's not going to last.
And finally - I don't believe that government handouts are the way to help poor people. My family background is poor, dirt farmer poor - but they never took farm subsidies because that meant that the government had control over your land. In just one generation after that their children were solidly middle class, and now my generation is all college educated with good jobs. The government lifting people up isn't the answer - giving people opportunities to lift themselves up is. That means stop worrying about healthcare for unemployed people and try to fix why those people don't have jobs in the first place.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your right, the government lacks the constitutional authority to have welfare programs and such where they don't for the military. IF you go back and study the situation, you will find that Roosevelt basically did the same thing as Bush has done and ignored existing laws, taken out massive loans, ignored supreme court rulings and at one point basically told the courts to "make me abide by your ruling" knowing the the president control the executive branch. Thi
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Checks and balances is a poor justification on this level, because the executive should not be overwriting the legislative in my opinion. I believe a nice compromise would be if the president could send the bill to the supreme court for a constitutionality check and suspend signing the bill into law until the court decides.
The courts are not supposed to be legistlating. Never, ever, ever! That's why we have the legislative branch.
The "constitutionality check" still happens - it's called judicial review, but the way it happens, it keeps judges somewhat removed from the political process. Which is a good thing; I at least like the illusion that politics shouldn't play a role in justice.
I think that a stronger Congress and a weaker president is better, because it makes things less radical and responsibility is divided more evenly. It would also make people able to vote for representatives locally who could eventually influence things, but while the president is too powerful change is not possible if you have to gain the presidential seat to actually do anything, given the state of media and related issues.
Problem is that a direct democracy is a synonym for mob rule. They didn't want a skilled sophist or propaganda mill to convince the 51% to vote to kill the 49%. The idea was to separate the government from the people, yet still have the government accountable to them.
Originally, we elected the House of Representatives, and the House elected the Senate. (IIRC, this is how the Japanese government works.) The House was designed to be responsive to the needs of the people, the senate more deliberate and long-sighted, and the courts even more long sighted.
I look around me, and most of the people I see are idiots. Granted, I am arrogant and elitest - but the prolefeed I see when I watch television scares me. Celebrities? Al Gore? (But I repeat myself.) Crime is given more airtime than ever before - it's shocking and will get viewers and ratings, but without being controversial.
The idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H human beings and individuals at my college who will vote for Obama because "He'll give more money to teachers and I'm an education major" or the editorials in my local newspaper agonizing over the problem of choosing between black man or a white woman for president. Because, of course, superficial things like race and gender should matter in an election more than what they'll do with the office.
American Idol had better turnout than some primaries. The population as a whole has screwed up priorities, and I want those less represented in my government, thank you very much.
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
So your vote really is worthless.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
He needs the support and agreement of one third of each of the houses of Congress. In effect, a supermajority is required to pass any law in the face of opposition by the President.
The reason that it doesn't happen all the time is that the President wants things from Congress he can' get any other way. It works better than you'd think, but it makes slanting the power balance between Congress and the President in the direction of the President a very bad idea. The veto power makes that balance unstable the moment the President can pursue his ends without Congressional cooperation. As soon as the President and his aides feel they can operate independently of Congressional oversight and appropriations power, Congress becomes powerless and Presidential power becomes practically unlimited.
That's what made the Iran-Contra affair in the Reagan administration a much bigger deal than most people realized. It wasn't just that it was a strategically stupid thing to do, what prompted the stupidity was the desire of the Reagan administration to develop their own sources of funding which Congress did not control, in fact was completely unaware of. To a lesser degree, that's why the Bush administration's insistence on exempting the DHS from civil service worrisome. Civil service regulations are a form of Congressional oversight; the idea that the President should be able to move personnel around and have them do whatever he wants is really giving him a kind of de jure power to alter the DHS budget under any circumstances whatsoever, over and above the de facto power he has to do this in a clear national emergency.
There are a number of structural faults in the US Constitution, and one of them is the delicacy of balance between the President and Congress. The basic idea was patterned on the relationship between George Washington and the Continental Congress: you get a powerful leader who has a free hand within the scope of his powers, but that "free hand" is subject to oversight, regulation and budgetary restraint. When this works, it works extremely well. But when you have a narcissistic and self-righteous President, supported by a sufficiently large block of Congressional sycophants, his power is only limited by what he imagines it to be.
Parent
Why not wait... (Score:2)
Obviously the outcome is not guaranteed, however there appears to be a good chance that the next president will most likely be a democrat. If this happens, the chance of a veto is far less likely. Why constantly push for bills in an environment where there is a 100% chance of failure?
Re:Why not wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was naive, I'd say it's because they're idealistic and feel the must do the right thing. However, I'm cynical, and believe it is because they want the next president to be a democrat, so they're forcing republicans to reveal some of their shadier motives. Honestly, though, I really don't think I blame them...
Useless.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Such committees have done NOTHING. All they do is provide platforms for speeches and "questions" which the speaker doesn't care about any findings or answers, just their own political position.
At least they're not screwing anything up when they do this, they're just spinning their wheels.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Useless.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're biding their time until they face a less hostile president, but while doing so, Republican media assets are accusing them of being a "do nothing congress", so they're working on useless projects that they know are useless but look better than doing nothing.
It's all politics.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they have, they've spent our money for nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately she sided with the fascists on illegal wiretapping and telecom immunity, so I won't be voting for McCaskill in four years.
The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Better (Score:3, Insightful)
Your Bias is Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with rich people trying to stay rich. The problem occurs when they are rich people trying to stay rich at your expense.
Parent
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, first of all, as the earlier response mentioned, Congress has only been in the Democrats hands for a couple of years. During the time that the Republicans were in control, there was virtually no oversight of the administration. When the Democrats did gain control, they have razor thin margins in both houses. I will admit that occasionally there is grandstanding, but at least they are trying to do some of the oversight that is spelled out in the Constitution. And I believe that your "efforts to fabricate evidence" needs a big fat citation needed.
Also worth mentioning is the size of those Haliburton no-bid contracts. It means nothing for the pure numbers of contracts if the size of those contracts are not the same. A wartime budget surely is higher in price than the previous contracts they may have gotten.
Again, citation needed please. Plus, let's just wait to see what "W" does in his last few days in office. That's traditionally when previous Presidents have handed out their bulk of pardons.
Once again, please cite where you get this kind of classification for domestic spying. One of the main arguments the Democrats have had against expanded wiretap authority has been the availability of the FISA courts which in the past has worked quickly, efficiently and rarely if ever turns down a legitimate request. It sounds to me that this description of the Democrats stance on domestic spying is the product of the echo chamber of conservative radio and pundits.
First, the nation's business, THEN play self-indignant party apparatchik.
Let's not forget that the Republican congress two years ago, in the final months before they lost control of Congress decided to go into recess early and not finish the budget at all during their calendar year. This action unnecessarily passed responsibility of the previous Congress onto the incoming Congress. They could have done the nation's business, they could have passed budget items the nation needed, but instead decided to pick up camp stakes and go home.
However, the current problem with government is that they have forgotten how to govern. Part of that responsibility is the ability and the necessity to compromise. However, with hard-nose tactics and frequent grandstanding by both parties, the very thought that just this Congressional session is a do-nothing Congress full of grandstanding is just not seeing the Congress over the last fifteen years.
Parent
How much spying was political? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not being from New York I didn't know much about the man, so I checked [wikipedia.org], and it turns out he's a Democrat. So ever since yesterday I've been wondering if this was an attempt to bring down [wnbc.com] the Democratic Governor of a key state, like they did in Alabama [cbsnews.com]. I'll be curious to see how much media complacency [rawstory.com] there is in the New York case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The case started because he withdrew over $4,000 in cash to pay for the "service". Banks are required to report that kind of activity to the IRS, and maybe other departments (DEA seems likely) because it can indicate money laundering, tax fraud or other underground economic activity. It is also illegal to travel with large amounts of cash on you (I forget the amount, but don't sell your car for cash in another state).
What is remarkable is that the former Attorney General for the state of New York never thought that he might get caught.
According to my tax attorney the reporting threshold is $5,000. It used to be $10,000. If there was a $4,000 withdrawal and they knew about it, they were already watching him.
It is not illegal to carry large amounts of cash, though there are numerous reports of it being confiscated on suspicion of drug trafficking, suspicion of income tax evasion, or suspicion of being a large amount of money and we no-knocked the wrong house and we need an excuse to be here. Getting it back can be hell -- all of a su
Transparency and Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, investigators have the power to tap and begin monitoring suspects before a proper warrant can be obtained. Once the surveillance has begun, investigators have 72 hours (an ample amount of time in a ticking bomb scenario) to collect evidence and present it. If there indeed is a bomb out there, the judge should have no problem issuing a proper warrant.
The current problem is this; nobody wants to play by the rules. Everybody in the intelligence community along with most of the executive branch want to play king. They want to work independently and forgo the checks and balances. It is not that uncommon for branches of government to try to gain more power so they can do their work "easily." Unfortunately, it's our civil liberties that are being stomped on.
Transparent and balanced oversight is the only thing that will cure this ill. Without a diverse and unconnected group monitoring each other, we will lose the liberties that make this country so fantastic. Sure, it's scary to think about dying in a World Trade Center type attack, but it's much more scary to live in a state with secret police secretly monitoring you. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are vanishingly small; the chances of losing your civil liberties if laws like the Protect America Act are allowed to exist are alarmingly high.
I for one, believe that laws like the Protect America Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007 [wikipedia.org] are just the thing that erode our liberty for the fleeting promise of a tiny bit of security. Without judicial or congressional oversight, who polices the police? The answer is scary and we only need to look to Peru, East Germany or any other state with Stazi like organizations for the answer.
Ben Franklin said it best over 200 years ago, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's almost like he knew what he was doing...
Yup, Posturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yup, Posturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but it's a credit to us, the public (Score:5, Insightful)
So to all those out there who think that there's nothing anyone can do to change the course of government, this is evidence you can; you just have to take a little time to write a letter or make a phone call to your representative.
Don't destroy our freedom, encourage theirs (Score:5, Interesting)
This article [bbc.co.uk] is about one Sheikh in Saudi Arabia who is tired of being bullied by fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia. The US should invest 1.0% of its current Iraq war budget in people like him rather than creating converts to funadmentalist Islam with our war in Iraq. Nurture a moderate alternative and fundamentalism will remain small.