White House Wins On Spying, Telecom Immunity 658
EllisDees sends in a Washington Post report that Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats, who withdrew a more stringent version of legislation to control the government's domestic surveillance program. The legislation that will go forward includes a grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.
Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
Who watches the watchers? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hooray! (Score:0, Insightful)
Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how immunity can be granted when it clearly go against the US Constitution, given that the president takes an oath "to uphold the United States Constitution", doesn't this mean he's in breach and therefore liable of contempt?
ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The US constitution forbids ex-post-facto laws [wikipedia.org]
This is above-and-beyond the obvious fact that it is perhaps the most illegal and immoral thing I've ever heard of congress doing.
Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: In a Democrat controlled congress the Democrats could not convince their own people to reject this bill. Thus the bill passed with the help of some Democrats voting for this bill.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Manuvers? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. The people have spoken and put them in trusted seats of power and they CAVED. I'm sure there are lot of home teams cheering from the stands only to have the players go, "ah, well, it's a lot of work to play the game. Let's concede."
I'm disappointed.
outmaneuvered (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the burglar who smashed my window the other day. I politely asked him to leave, yet he refused. I threatened to call the police, but he said that I shouldn't. Well, you can't argue with that! He outwitted me fully and truly!
I let the burglar ransack my house because, let's face it, I had no choice. Sure, I had a gun and a cell phone, and he was unarmed, but he kept outmaneuvering me at every turn. I said I would shoot if he raped my wife, but he preempted me! Before I knew it, he was raping my wife, and it was just too darned late to stop him, so I put down my gun and wrote a press release (which I intend to publish EVERYWHERE to let the world know how this burglar has wronged me).
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I didn't see anything in there about phone lines either. Did find this though:If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that.
11% approval rating for Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
This quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. That would be stupid.
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
There's more risk of corrupt officials using this to further their own agendas than there is that it will stop any terrorist.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you could argue that a person's phone calls aren't included in the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" that the government isn't allowed to search or seize without a warrant, but I can't imagine any sane person really believing that and arguing it as anything but an intellectual exercise.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
A Good Thing (tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
They will do it anyway they can, and have been doing it for over 60 years. It's just now, when we are so digitally integrated, that is has become so much easier for them.
You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.
I recommend reading "A Man Called Intrepid [amazon.com]". It details the beginning of the spy game, and how it dramatically turned the second world war around. The burden on our intelligence forces is great. The responsibility even greater. Have you elected the government you trust to use this intelligence infrastructure properly? Don't blame the telcos, blame those who are abusing the info.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
When 11% is "good enough" (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here's why their approval rating is flat on its back at 11%.. cozying up to big telecom, while the people scream for their 4th amendment rights. Take that, rule of law. What's an industry-wide get out of jail free card cost these days, anyway?
Now that this is over, they can go back to offending Turkey and China.
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Companies collude with the executive branch to perform illegal and unconstitutional activities
2. Government passes law giving themselves the power to do this
3. Government passes law giving immunity to anyone who helps
I can actually FORGIVE #1, as sad as that is. But only because I trust the courts and congress to hold them accountable. But then when congress passes an immunity law, then what the heck???? That's about one step short of just granting themselves the power to do whatever they want. "You mean it's illegal to burst into your house and steal your possessions and rape your family? Oh, well, then we'll just fix that tomorrow in the next session..."
Now everybody will jump on my and say how they aren't really busting into American's houses. But that misses the point. The exact same tactic used to bust into American's phone lines is what would be required to bust into American homes. It's the same laws, same tactics. Frankly, I don't care if they listen in on suspected terrorist phone conversations
So where do I recruit an army?
Re:Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
If the MINORITY has so much power to pass legislation, why doesn't the MAJORITY? [Answer: empty excuses]
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like UF said about "Microsoft Genuine Advantage"..."we never said it was an advantage to the customer..."
So you're saying the Democrats are cowards? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the Democrats who voted for this bill are too cowardly to vote for what's right instead of what's politically convenient.
Yeah, I'd say you're exactly right about that.
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
This is above-and-beyond the obvious fact that it is perhaps the most illegal and immoral thing I've ever heard of congress doing.
Apart from failing in their duty to remove an unethical President from office?
Republican = Suck (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he sure made that one a reality.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas, if only that were so.
In Sov^H^H^HPost-9/11 America, it falls on listening ears.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and the same can be said of the Democrats who went along with this travesty...
Telco immunity gives *Bush* immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts, however, especially at the level of the Circuit Courts, are a different story.
The telco immunity provisions in this legislation are to keep the White House from being found (as part of some telco trial) to have broken the law. It's got little to do with protecting the telcos other than as a way to sell it to the public.
Glenn Greenwald over at Salon had a good interview with the EFF's lead counsel in the ATT/NSA/let's-just-snoop-the-whole-backbone trial [salon.com] that explains this quite well.
This is all about closing off the courts to examination of Executive Branch violations of the Constitution. Which is why it's actually a much, much bigger deal than most people seem to understand.
Re:A Good Thing (tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.
What? No, these options are unacceptable. I choose to not trust any administration and insist that the power to break the law and then provide yourself with retroactive immunity should not be granted to government.Re:Saving lives (Score:2, Insightful)
If we let the army patrol the streets and ground all flights indefinitely, think of how many lives we can save!
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
The most confusing part about all this is that any members of Congress continue to support the president on these matters. The broad wiretapping program is part of a serious (and so far successful) campaign by Cheney and his compatriots to expand the powers of the executive branch. While Congress continues to have their efficacy whittled away by the administration, they sit back and let him do it!
Why?
Do they need to align themselves with the president to enhance their image to the public? He's certainly not winning popular approval right now.
Do they need the approval and agreement of the president to achieve useful goals? He has yet to approve anything that doesn't fall into his specific ideology.
Do they expect the president to return the favor and compromise on other matters? He certainly hasn't so far.
So what's left? Why is Congress bowing down to this monster at their own expense? I can't understand why the Republicans in Congress support such an unpopular tyrant, much less the Democrats. Congress looks like a bunch of whipped dogs. Do none of them have the balls to start giving our government some semblance of repair and restoration?
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
At no point will the vast majority of people be interested in taking up arms. Fuck, over half the population doesn't even vote and 50% of those that do voted for the fascists. Another 35% of the 50% that voted for him think that what he's doing is completely and utterly correct in every single way mostly because they agree with his "morals".
When the government shuts off TV and they can't watch Wayne Newton dance like a robot and sing like a drunken karaoke participant three times a week will they finally decide it might be time to pay attention to something other than what is force fed to them alongside advertisements for more products that's only purpose is to keep them further in debt to those that the government has colluded with.
So where do I recruit an army?
At this point, armed militias are worthless against the power of the US Army and its remaining allies. They have weapons that we may acquire, regardless of the numbers of individuals we have on our side, will be of no match to the powerful arsenal that the government has.
I saw this in Berlin recently. (Score:2, Insightful)
The right balance between freedom and protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ex post facto (Score:3, Insightful)
Asymmetric warfare works.
Also note that the US armed forces attacking US civilians in an unpopular "war" would never happen. Either the US gov would intervene far before it got to any kind of scale, and spin it so that there was popular support for their actions (or do it covertly), or they'd have to accomodate the "rebels" in some fashion.
Too many political careers would be on the line for using the US armed forces against a popular movement.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between, say, Bush and Clinton, is that the things people dislike Bush for are mostly all official acts. They may be abhorrent, but they're official, and thus he's shielded from personal prosecution. Clinton got into hot water (re Paula Jones) because it was alleged that his sexual advances weren't 'official' acts and thus unprotected. Although Clinton argued that everything a President does should be immune, this was rejected by the USSC: acts conducted as the President are untouchable except through Impeachment proceedings; acts conducted as a private individual can still have civil liability (and potentially criminal liability as long as it was prosecuted after the person left office so as not to interfere with their official duties).
I think you'd have a hard time going after Bush personally, outside his role as President, so it's basically a non-issue. As there doesn't seem to be the will to conduct impeachment proceedings, he's free and clear.
Re:A Good Thing (tm) (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has yet shown why pre-9/11 intelligence infrastructure was not or is not good enough. The simple fact is that it is and was a workable and competent system, replete with oversight and check and balances. The current government failed to utilize it correctly, or twisted the information that it fed them in order to create public support for a war that was not needed, and to create support for taking away our rights and freedoms. This is how repression works.
The more that you and others begin to believe that this illegal intelligence system is 'needed' the easier it is for the government to take away even MORE of our rights.
You must be new here? The news agencies are reporting lately of more and more intelligence that was ignored or twisted into lies to mislead the public, and not just the US public, but the world public. They could have bought Saddam off. They had multiple chances to arrest Osama. They KNEW there were not WMDs. Is the picture becoming any clearer? This current Administration twisted the truth, manipulated the news, and broke the law to create an environment where you, and others like you would simply roll over and let it happen. There are more than a few scary comparisons to pre-WWII Germany.
The pre-9/11 intelligence infrastructure was and is functionally good enough. More is not needed, and only erodes the rights they claim to be protecting. You are a FOOL to believe the claims of the same people that lied to you to get you to support a war that is illegal, and was TOTALLY unnecessary.
Re:Worthless Gutless Democrats. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you're posting from any other country that calls its system a form of democracy, I can assure you that, based on your standards, your country's democracy "experiment" failed long ago, as well.
However, considering that you are still able to make posts like the one above, I am assuming your standards are far beyond a system any country the Earth has yet to produce.
The situation will right itself. Perhaps not immediately, but it will in time. But has democracy failed? No. It just has not had a chance to shift from an extreme back to a medium on one topic. Citizens should have faith in the Constitution, give the situation time, and work toward what we know is right.
And please, try to keep a level head when posting. Spouting extermist dogma of fascism and the oppression by the military/industrial complex just gets you rightfully moderated as Flamebait.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
They're like a guy who plays chicken in an SUV and runs off the road the second the other driver starts his compact car.
I think they want the power too. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
I think back to visiting the film library at the hospital where I work. It was the day after one of the debates between Bush & Kerry. The folks in the film library were all planning on voting for Bush. Their reason: Kerry used too many words in the debate.
He used too many words...in a debate...
I sort of lost all hope then.
Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio (Score:2, Insightful)
"It is the ancient and undoubted prerogative of this people to canvass public measures and the merits of public men." It is a "home-bred right," a fireside privilege. It had been enjoyed in every house, cottage, and cabin in the nation. It is as undoubted as the right of breathing the air or walking on the earth. Belonging- to private life as a right, it belongs to public life as a duty, and it is the last duty which those whose representatives we are shall find us to abandon. Aiming at all times to be courteous and temperate in its use, except when the right itself is questioned, we shall place ourselves on the extreme boundary of our own right and bid defiance to any arm that would move us from our ground. "This high constitutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living, we shall assert it ; and should we leave no other inheritance to our children, by the blessing of God we will leave them the inheritance of free principles and the example of a manly, independent, and constitutional defence of them."
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Congress, (Score:3, Insightful)
Start doing your jobs.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Thats like saying if a cop (Democrats) sees a man beating his wife (Bush and the Constitution) hes not at fault for standing by and doing *nothing*..
Bush and the rest of the proto-fascists have a hard on for this police state they're creating
You just dont seem to get it... why did the dems not strongly oppose this? Because odds are they will be in the white house in 2008 and they would love to have this kind of power... Remember all the 'missing' FBI files in the white hose during the last administration?
They are playing a game; when one is in power the other uses procedural measures to stop them (like stopping judges from even getting a vote), the party in power complains about obstruction tactics the political winds of change blow and when the shoe is on the other foot its the same game with the roles reversed.
You cant honestly believe the party that considers hate speech too offensive to be covered by the first amendment is anything short of a fascist entity can you? The dems tell you what to think, and the republicans listen in to every word you say... Either way until some third parties start asserting themselves we are in real trouble..
and there is little the Dems can do to stop it, for the time being.
LOL you cant really be saying this, your as bad as the Republicans who blindly let their party leave its core values (small government) under the guise of 'well we dont have a super majority, but when we do, then things will be different'... What a sad joke. The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it...
The GOP as a minority party killed everything Bill Clinton tried to do between 1992 and 1994. They made their agenda (for example: welfare reform, balanced budgets, and (unfortunately) NAFTA) Clinton's agenda. Phil Graham risked his political career to stop Hillary care and won. Sadly that GOP is gone all we are left with is two parties with *slightly* different agendas (no neither is about the constitution or your rights) who will do whatever they can to accomplish it.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:1, Insightful)
Basically, in exchange for their short-term (and our long-term) inconvenience, they get power, and we get the shaft.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
We no longer have a Republic. Maybe we can win it back.
Dude, where's my civics class? (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought the senate/house represented the people of their district/state. Isn't that how's its supposed to be? Since when is at&t, Verizon, and other crooked telco companies considered constituents? I always thought that public voters held the ultimate power - but apparently the ballots us people use are full of hanging chads, multiple votes, and mistakes, while the ballots these corporations submit are green and have a nice portrait of Ben Franklin on them.
I hope I see a government that serves the people in my lifetime.
Re:The right balance between freedom and protectio (Score:2, Insightful)
Key quote (Score:3, Insightful)
extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans,
Actually, that's more like extending our laws beyond American soil. The Constitution can't even be extended past the executive branch these days, much less beyond our borders.
Re:ex post facto (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ex post facto (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but looking in from the outside, I don't understand how any American can possibly believe Clinton's indiscretion was worthy of impeachment while Bush Jr's systematic erosion of the checks and balances in your government and immoral actions causing the deaths of countless thousands of people apparently are not. You would think that given the obvious centralisation of power around the executive branch and its willingness to outright ignore the authority of the other two apparently on a whim, you would see Congress and the judiciary restraining the President as a survival measure if nothing else....
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
Now for those individuals who suffer an accident and their insurance runs out, they deserve to be cut off, and their lazy children can go out and get a job, being in primary school is no excuse. As for those in the military who were wounded in service, well, they should have been more careful, what right should they have for free medical services etc. for their clumsiness in being shot or blown up.
I suppose your political slogan would be, if you can't pay then you deserve to die. For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing.
What you get... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what you get when you over-reach.
The more-liberal members tried to make the requirements so onerous that even more-moderate members of the Democratic party could not support it. Their efforts were turning warfare into courtroom drama. We have never before required court orders to approve of spying upon enemies overseas; had we done so, FDR would have had a lot of trouble fighting WWII. If the left wants to use this sort of legislation to score cheap political points and/or undercut spying efforts against foreign enemies, it should expect blowback and a re-bound. Adults would get together and seek intelligent solutions, but there are not enough adults on Capitol Hill and with the elections looming things are only going to get worse.
The nation is at war. The people in "fly-over country" get that. As long as one party sticks its fingers in its ears, closes its eyes, stomps a lot and whines in an effort to convince everyone to hand the whole effort over to their lawyer friends, they cannot get the traction they want on some of this stuff. If they get serious about the war, then perhaps they will get more cooperation in defining the limits. Denying reality is not the best way to get the masses to support you in your paranoia. The public will be more-likely to listen to your concerns about the dangers of our own government once you admit that there is a war and the enemy is actually more dangerous. Seriousness on the war gains credibility on the rest.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the appeal to emotion, but when the discussion is the constitutionality of these services, your post that boils down to "WAHHH! POOR PEOPLE GET SICK TOO!!! YOU'RE EVIL BECAUSE YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!!!" misses the point totally.
"For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing."
None of those things are provided for in the Constitution, so a constitutionally valid government must be, for you, something that you don't want or need.
Just keep that in mind when the parts of the Constitution you actually care about keeping get run over. No amount of "THINK OF THE POOR PEOPLE!!!" trumps the Constitution, no matter how much guilt you feel.
No susrprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it seems like it's business as usual for the rubber stamp Congress. Just another obvious sign that we're really under single party rule.
The Republicans and Democrats create a good illusion of opposition by criticizing each other verbally, and staging a few bitter debates about BS issues like flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion. When it comes to important issues like civil liberties, imperialistic military crusades, out of control government spending, immigration and globalization however, they happily work together in the noble spirit of bipartisanship to screw over the average U.S. citizen.
The only wasted vote is one cast for Republicans or Democrats. It's a vote against civil liberties, a vote to endorse the wars, and a vote to continue all of the other disastrous policies that our government is pursuing.
Or, they can send SOMEONE ELSE! (Score:4, Insightful)
And they can even have one team do the surveillance and a DIFFERENT team file the paperwork and handle the FISA court stuff.
You know, I'd have a BIT more regard for their cause if they had a trailer parked in front of the FISA Court's office, packed with people busily filing the paperwork that they claim cannot be done in time.
If they were demanding more people to handle the workload
If they were demanding secure offices closer to the court
I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.
Re:who else in congress has a 'wide stance'? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems unlikely, though. Considering how big a deal they make out of every "foiled terrorist plot" they uncover that turns out to be a bunch of wankers who live in a warehouse and talk about blowing up buildings but are too busy passing the pipe to get around to learning how to actually make working explosives, you would think that if they had any actual successes from a controversial program they would be trotting it out all over the place.
Of course, if they did, then you'd still have people like me asking how come they couldn't follow the Constitution and get a warrant before wiretapping, and keep track of who they were wiretapping and what they used the information for.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:1, Insightful)
Ain't touching that last box. Looks like there's nothing to be done.
No, it looks like you would rather have your government commit crimes under your authority than do what you have to to hold them accountable.
Which is your choice, of course, but don't pretend it isn't up to you, the American public. The means are there for you to stop an out-of-control government, but none of you really want to that much.
Re:What you get... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ex post facto (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because someone has been wrong in the past, does not affect the truth or validity of their current statements or arguments. It is foolish (though common human behavior) to discredit someone due to past untruthfulness, but it falls into the trap illustrated by Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf.
Someone may be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make them wrong when they're talking about abuse of the constitution. Look at the claim at face value, not at whether the claim was made by a "lefty" or "liberal screecher", and judge the claim on its own merits, not on the merits of the claimant.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, a caring and sharing society would be one where people are only generous with their own money, not with other people's money.
Re:Or, they can send SOMEONE ELSE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, there's a problem with the process all right. The problem is that even though the FISA court is widely regarded as a 'rubber-stamp' court that grants very nearly all warrant requests, they do at some point require the most basic of evidence to establish probable cause in accordance with the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
And the Admin can't do that. So you see, this is a serious problem with the process.
No, really. That's their problem with the system. It requires the tiniest scrap of justification for a search, based on a presumption of innocence, and this isn't how our admins work. If they had the tiniest scrap of evidence, then they could have gotten their FISA warrant no problem and this would have never become an issue. They didn't get the warrants, so they don't have the evidence. That's not the way this administration works -- with evidence, that is. They much prefer massive dragnets that might by luck actually catch someone who is truly worthy of surveillance, though this would only be coincidence since they are so poorly targeted. Obviously no court, even FISA, would find that such a dragnet meets the requirements of the 4th Amendment, so they bypass it.
It's not that different than the mentality behind Abu Ghraib or Gitmo -- in many cases they actually have no evidence at all that the person being detained is an insurgent or terrorist, but that only matters if the detainment is ever able to be questioned before an actual court. Since that's not going to happen, they just arrest everyone who looks funny (or is turned in for a reward by a warlord), treat them like a terrorist under the assumption that they are, and maybe after a few years decide that they weren't worth keeping after all and let the suspect go if they feel like it. Us U.S. citizens are just damn lucky that they are so far only able to do this to us in secret by listening in on us, not actually dragging us off to secret prisons. Much. Yet.
Re:Scumbags (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but it means that they don't have to care.
To paraphrase, "Legal immunity means never having to say you're sorry."
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:1, Insightful)
Touching the last box makes you a terrorist.
No, terrorism is when you attack innocent people to scare them into demanding change from their government. Terrorists use terror as a weapon. The use of force against a politician does not automatically mean that it is terrorism, in fact it's pretty much impossible for it to be terrorism, unless you are killing politicians in order to scare other politicians into doing what you want.
Taking back control of a country that is no longer in the hands of its people is not terrorism, it is a coup or a revolution. Do you really consider the USA's founding fathers to be terrorists?