Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill 483
otakuj462 sends in an important followup to this morning's story on telecom immunity legislation. "Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance... [T]he threat of Dodd's filibuster... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period."
Political Compromise (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's compromise: we'll just cut off your head.
And so it goes, on and on...
Now only (Score:4, Insightful)
The telcos dont deserve immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Show Appreciation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats want immunity for big business. Republicans want big government.
Are the parties flip-flopping again or are they finally coming into parity with the fact that they're just one big party with two masks so the people get a sense they they're getting a change every 4 or 8 years?
The threat of a filibuster shouldn't have even been necessary if the government was really for the people by the people.
Watching it on CSPAN... (Score:5, Insightful)
The installation of systems poorly suited to specific taps but ideally suited to dragnet surveillance. In major fiber exchanges that aren't where the main foreign fiber trunks or satellite dishes are (i.e. the San Fransisco case that started it). And now we learn that Qwest balked because they wanted to put a dragnet on a switch center that handled almost entirely local traffic.
Then Orrin "destroy their computers" Hatch started speaking. About how the American government didn't do {the bombings in Beruit, the Bali nightclub bombing, the bombings in Kenya, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and (of course) 9/11}, the Turrists did. And I'm sitting here trying hard not to scream "And how would dragnet surveillance of domestic calls have stopped a single damn one of those things!?!?"
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Immunity is illegal anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Constitution, See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:
Which means no retroactive anything is legal. I'm amazed that the media continues to overlook this critical bit.
On second thought, no I'm not. There can be no compromise on this. The telcos colluded with Bushco to perform illegal acts, and granting them immunity after the fact is not allowed.
Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DoS against Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Representative Republic is _a_ _form_ _of_ _democracy_.
not exactly a good record (Score:4, Insightful)
He seems to like the Thought Crime concept. Rather than merely punishing people for bad actions, he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him.
He's OK with the government taking people's legally owned firearms during an emergency or major disaster. (as in Katrina... where the cops were followed by thugs preying on the now-unarmed residents) Got a disaster? Time to steal from the people!
He somehow thinks that firearm suppliers should be held liable for the actions of firearm users. If this seems sane to you, consider applying it to computers or vehicles. (on the plus side, that kind of liability would put Microsoft out of business and solve all our traffic problems)
He likes the PATRIOT act. Oh dear...
He's a CAN SPAM kind of guy.
He's OK with shovelling money to sugarcane growers.
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for your post; it's just what I'd hoped for in a reply.
Re:Show Apprectiation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now only (Score:3, Insightful)
how's that Kool-Aid, stork? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah ha ha ah ha. No. It's about massive, serial lawbreaking and attempts to sweep it under the rug. And who gives a shit if it ends up in the hands of lawyers! Give it to Britney Spears, burn it, open a mime school - the point is that it's out of the hands of those who conspired to violate our Constitutional rights.
One of the few industries we have left in the USA not destroyed by litigation, and now, that's all going down the shitter to.
AT&T's market cap is 425 BILLION DOLLARS [yahoo.com] Yes, poor beleaguered AT&T REALLY needs legal protection here.
What's even more amazing, at the end of the day, is that Democrats will ultimately create a legal framework that says a corporation doesn't actually even have to listen to the government at all
When you're done drinking the Kool-Aid, try reading up on the Nuremberg trials.
Democracy Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
The US constitution, something that is generally revered as being as a model constitution is an example of an UNDEMOCRATIC document. The constitution sets in place limits that a democratically elected government must follow, irregardless of what the will of the people is. It sets in place a method of changing the constitution that demands far more than a "democratic" majority vote. The Supreme Court which upholds the constitution is an example of an undemocratic institution. In fact, I would say the things I like best about the American part are its undemocratic parts, not the democratically elected pieces of it.
So, is a filibuster an example of an anti-democratic purpose? Hell yes, and I love it! The best thing about the American system is the fact that a simple majority can't impose its will upon the minority. In order to get even the simplest of things done, you need a majority of 60%. To get truly earth shattering done (like changing the constitution), you need a super majority well over 2/3's. This is a good thing. This is one of the reasons why despite Europe being far more liberal than the US, the US still has much strong free speech laws. It isn't because Americans are hippies, it is because the non-democratic aspects of the American government make it virtually impossible to pass anti-free speech legislation, and even when it is passed, it promptly gets struck down.
I say hurray for the non-democratic institutions. I think we need MORE of them. This world needs more liberal (liberal as in liberty, not leftist) institutions and less democracy.
Re:Yay for Dodd, but how'd we get here? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Small government" was only ever a marketing slogan for the GOP. It didn't mean cutting the size of government at all, it meant cutting regulation and social spending - but baby, bring on those military and pork barrel projects.
Sell out Dems like Reid, Hoyer, Feinstein, and Rockefeller need to be kicked to the curb just as soon as they can be primaried. As for the Republicans - well, their party needs a complete enema as Nixon would almost be a communist in today's GOP.
Re:DoS against Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a noun, which means: We are a democratic republic. We *are* a democracy, even though we use representation. We are a republic, even though the supreme power is vested in the people.
Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:3, Insightful)
Ron Paul is a hippocrite. Yes not nearly as big as some other politicians, but a hippocrite none the less. If Paul fixed this one single thing I believe that he would win this election as A LOT of people on the left cite his abortion stance, and the hippocrisy that comes with it, as the main reason they will not support him.
Re:Now only (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now only (Score:2, Insightful)
It also doesn't help that your list has perhaps the most inefficient and dirty of government organizations. (The IRS, homeland security, and FEMA all have black eyes right now, or are things most people hate intrinsically). If you wanted something that will make people go "what??" try mentioning that he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.
Re:Now only (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate crime legislation is thought crime legislation. What matters is you denying someone their rights, not your reasoning for doing it.
Re:Ron Paul won't allow warentless wiretapping (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many definitions of personhood that a fetus fails, as well as many which it will pass.
It isn't as clear a topic as many folks represent it to be, which is a good reason to keep regulations regarding it down at the state level... Part of the functions of a state is to be "experiments" in law for the rest... each can try their own ideas out, and every one can see how things work out.
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. It's the recognition that the harm caused by burning a cross on a black family's lawn (for instance) is a whole lot more harmful to the victims than, say, burning some garbage out back behind your neighbor's house.
Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims. Clearly that's an indisputable goal of the justice system. Things that fall under the level of "hate crime" represent acts that harm their victims far, far more than the basic act (just burning something on somebody else's property) might suggest.
Hate crime legislation doesn't have anything to do with thought. It has everything to do with action. It's the actions that are being punished commensurate with the harm they caused. Completely consistent with the aims of the justice system.
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds dystopian until you realize that very basic parts of the law already hinge on being able to determine the perpetrators state of mind/intentionality. Think of 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter. Or should we merge and treat all classes of homicide the same way since otherwise we're punishing thought crime?
The technical term is mens rea [wikipedia.org].
Re:Now only (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is this: is health care a business or a public service? Neither is fundamentally more right than the other, but they do lead to very different outcomes. I know what world I want to live in.
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:2, Insightful)
The motivation and circumstances of a crime has always been factors in criminal justice. A planned killing will be first-degree murder but doing so in self-defense is not usually considered a crime, even though the victim is dead in both cases.
You can argue that being "race-motivated" or "religion-motivated" are not important factors to warrant special considerations in the US... but you were not doing that. Justification for harsher punishments for hate-crimes is because they inflict greater personal and societal harm.
Hate crime is not a thought crime. It has nothing against the freedom of speech. Even the US Supreme Court has decided. Yes, it means you're free to believe that all Blue Martians are idiots or to claim that in your blog, as long as you don't go out and beat Blue Martians up out of such belief. Inciting violence against Blue Martians in your blog would be different - go ask a real lawyer.
It's not that hard to understand, isn't it?
No, I'm not a lawyer. I just spent ten minutes reading the Wikipedia.
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
Mens rea is a "guilty mind". Yes, this means every crime committed consists both of a thought crime and a criminal act. The concept of thought crime in this context makes very good sense. The context in which it is not tolerable is when thought crime is punishable on its own, without a criminal act.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not exactly a good record (Score:5, Insightful)
The racist who assaults an individual black person isn't just indulging in his personal depravity; he's sending a message to every black that while the law may say they can live, work or go to school wherever you like, he is going to make sure you stay where he thinks you belong.
The bigot who kills a gay person isn't just acting on his hatred of that individual. He's telling all gay people that they'd better keep their relationships secret.
A hate crime is an ordinary crime that is committed in a way calculated to undermine society's liberty and democracy. It is everything the basic crime is, plus an attempt by the criminal to impose his personal political, racial, or religious views on others through intimidation. What we call a "hate crime" would more accurately be called terrorism: terrorism for impulsive and poorly organized people. If you and your buddy are having a couple beers and decide to go out and torch the local synagogue, that's what we call a "hate crime". If you're more organized, if you write down a list of synagogues, visit the locations and make notes of when people are using the building and what kinds of security measures they have, then we call that "terrorism".
adendum (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans fear their base. Too many Democrats deliberately vote against theirs, and with the most unpopular president in history. This is because they think they have nothing to fear from the left or the center, only the right - so they move to the right. Oh, and they crave approval from the Joke Line [salon.com] beltway pundits. They need to learn that is not the case.
Re:Now only (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BOR is So Yesterday (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Second point, I don't see how this falls under Article II of the Constitution unless you are saying that it's part of the Presidents war powers. If it is part of his war powers then we actually need a declaration of war. This crap that has been pulled the last 60 years of getting us into "conflicts that aren't wars" is bullshit and an end run around the Constitution.
Last point, while I don't like the idea of wiretapping other people outside of the US (where all parties are outside the US). I don't see anyway for us to stop it Constitutionally, so it would be allowed.