US House Rejects Telecom Amnesty

The US House has just approved a new bill that rejects the retroactive immunity to telecommunication businesses and denies most of the new powers for the US President to spy on citizens without a warrant. "As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework."

Its about damned time...

[damn_registrars (1103043)]

That someone with a D after their name grows a package and stands up for something. If only it had happened several years prior as well...

Re:Its about damned time...

[Sorthum (123064)]

Forget the Democratic slur-- it's about time ANYBODY in Washington stood up for something that doesn't involve systematically stripping our rights from us. Well played, House.

Evil men doing good things

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

This is separation of powers at work, just like the founding fathers intended. Even if they don't really believe the ideals of freedom of speech, rule of law, no unreasonable searches, etc, they are supporting them because they don't want the president to be stronger than they are.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[TubeSteak (669689)]

This is separation of powers at work, just like the founding fathers intended.

Except the powers so far seem to be Democrat versus Republican, a duopoly which the founding fathers warned of and did not want.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Original Replica (908688)]

The slur is on the R, we don't expect THEM to value freedom

Before the Neo-Cons, there was a time when the Republican party was actually conservative."Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism, libertarianism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small government, and states' rights." [wikipedia.org] About the only aspects they still have from that old ideology is their love of a strong military, and religious conservatism.

Re:Its about damned time...

[geekoid (135745)]

Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what the president had said about WMDs.

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president. Of course, now that we know he lied, he should be tossed out, perferable on the last day in office, so he still gets it noted in the history books, but Cheney has no time to do anything else.

hmm, or maybe do it sooner, and then toss Cheney out for lying as well, preferably on the same day.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Scrameustache (459504)]

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president.

I'm sorry, but it was unreasonable.

It wasn't trust based on rational thought, it was based on emotion. Fear, anger, panic.

I didn't trust him then anymore than I do now, because I do not base the trustworthiness on a person on their position of authority nor their space-time proximity to an awe-inspiring event.

Re:Its about damned time...

[blueg3 (192743)]

Indeed. A lot of people didn't trust him at the time, and a lot of people disagreed with going to war before we even did so. Now, when politicians start up with "if we knew then what we know now..." business, I can't help but think that apparently a lot of people are more well-informed than they.

Re:Its about damned time...

[techno-vampire (666512)]

That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.

Re:Its about damned time...

[SoupGuru (723634)]

I was under the impression that the ACLU stayed away from 2nd Amendment issues because there are many other organization that will step in should the situation arise. The NRA being one of them.

ACLU is biased?

[GeekZilla (398185)]

I am not sure how you can claim being neutral on the Second Amendment constitutes the ACLU as being an "organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda." They clearly state their position here (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html). Their position statement follows:

ACLU POLICY

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- Policy #47

Now, not being an expert on Supreme Court rulings, I wonder if there are later cases where the opinion of the court was different. The case the ACLU references is from 1939.

I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."

"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals" do you think the founding fathers meant ALL types of arms? It was pretty limited back then...cannons, pistols, rifles, swords, so maybe at that time they did. If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now? There are quite a few people I can think of that don't really need to be carrying around grenades or rockets. :) My ex-wife is one example.

If they did mean individuals and arms in general and not specifically "small arms" and non-automatic weapons, then there is a constitutional right for individuals to actually own those types of weapons and where can I get mine?

It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.

Oops! Sorry. I included two different topics. I went from "The ACLU is not choosing to only promote it's own agenda" to a discussion on what the founding fathers meant by "militia" and "arms". My mind tends to wander as the caffeine wears off in the evening.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Ardeaem (625311)]

That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.

I love how everytime someone wants to disagree with a point of view, their opponent has an "agenda," while the people they agree with have "values." Feel free to disagree with the ACLU about the second amendment, but if you read the text of the Constitution, you understand that the second amendment is difficult to interpret. The courts in the US very rarely side with people who hold to the most pro-gun positions anyway; the ACLU is not the only one who does not interpret the second amendment in the same way that the NRA does.

The ACLU does tons of good work with free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, Fourth amendment issues, etc, etc, etc. You want nothing to do with the ACLU because of its position on ONE confusingly-worded amendment? That seems extremely shortsighted to me. Strip away your free speech rights, and advocating second amendment rights becomes terrorism. Let's make sure we keep our free speech rights so we can be free to continue to debate what our second amendment rights should be. Support the ACLU, and that will remain possible.

Re:Its about damned time...

[statemachine (840641)]

Hmm, another person who didn't read the link. Bush discarded the information given to him by the intelligence community and made up his own. Here's that link again: 935 [publicintegrity.org]. I can't help you if you're not willing to read it.

Re:Its about damned time...

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Lots of regimes have mass graves, torture rooms and every affront to civilization one can imagine. The United States has not historically leaped to the defense of the citizens of such nations before, and has, in fact, in some cases, actively supported governments that committed such atrocities (Chile comes to mind). Where was the United States when hundreds of thousands (including women and children) were being cut down in Rwanda? Where is the United States with the atrocities in Darfur?

No, it simply will not do to try to excuse the illegal invasion of Iraq as some sort of humanitarian action. The precise reasons for it are vague to me, although it's pretty damned clear that there was some part family pride (the son finishing what many thought the father ought to have), access to a major source of oil (a classic war for resources) and maybe even a genuine lack of understanding that the Baathists, as vile a bunch as you can imagine, were not Islamists, and in fact, maintained power in part by harassing and murdering the types of religious fanatics who are likely to join Al Qaeda. I can well imagine from a man like George W. Bush an incredibly ignorant and one-dimensional understanding of the region.

Re:Its about damned time...

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

How about violation of his oath of office, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Or, as he put it, "a fucking piece of paper"?

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face; it's just a fucking piece of paper!"
--Words of Treason from sitting U.S. President George W. Bush

Re:Its about damned time...

[ArcherB (796902)]

That someone with a D after their name grows a package and stands up for something. If only it had happened several years prior as well...

Sounds to me like they just gave a bunch of pretty speeches.

I haven't read the bill that was passed, but it seems like it's a bunch of the same, minus the telecom immunity. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.. well, take a look. From HERE [myway.com]

The surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S, and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States- for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.

Re:Its about damned time...

[ppanon (16583)]

The reason why the Bush administration wants the blanket immunity is to cover their own asses for after 2008. The Democrats won't bother doing anything now because they know the Justice Department will cover Bush's ass. But after January '09, Presidential pardons likely will no longer be an option.

When Bush leaves, criminal prosecutions by a Democrat-run Justice Department against telecom employees might get them to inform on the illegal behaviour carried out by Bush administration officials in a plea bargain. With telecom immunity however, the Bush/Telecom omerta can continue.

This Might Not Survive Conference Committee

[MichaelCrawford (610140)]

This bill has only been passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate has already passed a bill that gives Bush everything he wants. What happens now is that the two bills will be "reconciled" by a conference committee, that will then yield the bill that actually gets passed - or not.

What You Need To Do Now:

If you are a US citizen, visit Congress.org [congress.org] and enter your zip code in the Search box to find out who your Representative and Senators are. Then write them a letter urging them to uphold the House's version of the bill in the conference committee.

Don't bother with email; if you can't write a letter, call them on the phone.

Emphasize the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Urge them not to compromise, if the President does veto the final bill. It would be much better not to pass a bill at all than to allow this travesty of justice to continue.

My letter is going to point out that all the telcos knew they were breaking the law when they committed their crimes. Such criminal acts should be treated as such. IMHO, there shouldn't need to be civil lawsuits filed by those who were spied upon; all of the telco employees involved, as well as all the government officials involved, should be put in prison for a good long time.

You can't prosecute a sitting president, but what you can do is impeach him, and that's what should happen to Bush.

Re:OT

[timeOday (582209)]

I disagree. The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it." If that's a valid defense, then essentially there is no rule of law, just the whim of the king. So which is higher, the president or the law? That's the real question at issue here.

Re:OT

[whoever57 (658626)]

The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it."

Then go after the president.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, didn't the Nuremburg trials show once and for all that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense?

Re:OT

[DragonWriter (970822)]

At the risk of invoking Godwin, didn't the Nuremburg trials show once and for all that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense?

They certainly showed that it wasn't when the orders came from the leadership on the losing side of a war, and the winning side is making the judgements.

Re:OT

[jb68321 (1123905)]

Hm I suppose you MAY have missed the article that came out (from the Wall Street Journal no less) that talked about a huge NSA spying program, which includes -everyone- in the city of Detroit, everyone they talked to, among millions of other people whose emails, etc got flagged by some NSA program. I'd link but their site requires subscription. The NSA pulled bank, phone, credit card, etc records for millions of innocent individuals and shared them with many other government agencies.

This type of government-funded, classified-budget project, plus all the other recent revelations about warrant-less wiretapping (demanded by the Bush administration officials on account of their terrorist-finding programs) amounts to a huge case against the Bush administration itself. If the administration had not demanded the info, which is illegal itself thanks to the Constitution, the ISPs would not have had to give up info... not that they had to, and doing so was also illegal IMHO. Anyways you can't possibly say it was only the ISP's fault without acknowledging the government was giving them hell in the meantime.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org [nytimes.com]

Re:OT

[DragonWriter (970822)]

I'm not defending it either way, but when you are debating to decide whether or not to give immunity to telecoms, why bring up congressional oversite of the President?

The kind of immunity for the telecoms sought by the Administration would have presented lawsuits against them which, because of governmental immunities, standing issues, and other problems, are pretty the most probable way, if not the only way, that any of the facts necessary to hold the executive accountable are likely to come out in practice.

It also would encourage large companies to violate the law at the behest of the executive in future cases (and not only in this particular area), by setting the example that such violations would be the subject of retroactive immunity. By encouraging lawbreaking at the behest of the President, it would, therefore, have reduced the degree to which the law served as a practical constraint on executive action.

So this law, that superficially concerning immunity for telecoms, had a serious impact on the practical accountability of the President to the law, something which Members of Congress unsurprisingly did not miss, and perhaps more surprisingly actually pointed out and acted upon.

Re:This sucks.

[Bovius (1243040)]

I disagree. Passing a good bill that is doomed to failure is better than passing a bad bill to maintain the appearance of "getting things done."

Re:This doesn't address the issue.

[MightyMartian (840721)]

While obviously telecoms KNEW better, its hard to say 'no' to your nation's president

And that suggests that biggest problem with how the Presidency has evolved. The Presidency was not supposed to be some sort of regal position, save in the ceremonial respect (where the President is the equivalent of a king or emperor). If the President of the United States asks you to do something illegal, it is, under the law, no different than any other citizen of the United States asking you to do something illegal. You say no, because you're opening yourself up to possible prosecution or civil reparations.