US House Rejects Telecom Amnesty 614
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."
Evil men doing good things (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This sucks. (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't matter if Bush vetoes it. Under current law, there is no telecom immunity. EFF vs. AT&T [eff.org] goes forward.
Re:OT (Score:5, Informative)
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]
How they voted... (Score:-1, Informative)
This Might Not Survive Conference Committee (Score:5, Informative)
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:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what does this all mean? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Informative)
There is only so much money to go around and the NRA - which only cares about 2nd amendment issues - has an order of magnitude more funding than the ACLU does. Do you refuse to support the NRA because they won't take on other civil rights cases?
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:-1, Informative)
The intelligence community's lack of information is certainly their fault. The president's decision to go to war based on evidence he *knew* was shaky was entirely his own fault. Right now, I have more respect for Gov. Spitzer than President Bush. At least Spitzer is willing to take responsibility for his own mistakes.
Re:One Marxist after another... (Score:3, Informative)
"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Informative)
The 2nd amendment is meant to ensure that MILITIAS continue to exist by giving INDIVIDUALS the right to keep weapons. The 2nd amendment is not a multiple choice (I have to pick the rights of militias or the rights of individuals). They BOTH get that right.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Informative)
"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... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ACLU is biased? (Score:3, Informative)
Now, why are 'the People' of the Second Amendment any different from 'the People' anywhere else?
Personally, I think it does mean all people and all weapons. I don't think the founding fathers expecting anything like nuclear weapons, but even those could be removed from citizens by an amendment instead of just a few laws. My opinion is that the intent was to allow the citizens to own any weapon that the government could possibly also own and turn against them. In that manner, and I'm sorry for you but, I think your ex-wife should be allowed to rockets and full auto weapons.
As for felons, that's a whole other can of worms.
On topic, I disagree with the ACLU on the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, that's not what I expect them to do, I expect them to protect free speech and privacy and other rights.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:3, Informative)
So, the calculation is most pragmatically which weapons are likely to be useful and effective in supporting an insurrection. Sure, there are some risks of an armed citizenry, but the calculation of the Founding Fathers is that that risk is a better bet than ceding all power forever to a central government. It's no wonder oppressive regimes first confiscate the citizenry's weapons.
This also involves the basic right to self-defense, inherent in the right to Life, but it has little to do with deer hunting.
Re:ACLU is biased? (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, the Constitution comes with Cliff's Notes, the Federalist Papers. Here's what Madison had to say on the issue of the Federal military usurping power from the States (to the people of New York, specifically, in Federalist #46):
I'm not sure Madison could have been more clear on what a 'militia' meant in 1789, nor what its purpose was.
For the Supreme Court or the ACLU to ignore the relevant historical context is simply statist activism in disguise.
"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.
They meant the citizenry should be able to defend itself against an oppressive regime. Certainly small arms would be the most useful for this. WMD's probably not. Grenades, yeah, probably. The calculation is that it's beter for your ex-wife to have a grenade than for her to be put in a prison camp. Sorry, you may have to take one for the team.
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?
Ah, now you're beginning to see the lurch our forbearers have gotten us into!
Re:Evil men doing good things (Score:4, Informative)
The colonies back then lacked any strong form of government. The articles of confederation were quite horrible from the perspective that none of the states wanted to help out other states; they each viewed themselves are independent entities. I'm not an expert, but i suspect the states under the articles loosely resemble the EU, which works fine - except that it was built on top strong governments that already worked. Clearly something needed to change, or the US wouldn't exist.
From this they made the constitution, and the current form of government. Perfect? Hardly. There were numerous compromises made, some of which the founding fathers hated. For example:
"In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different. "Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment.""
The problem was that they faced a deadline, and they knew there were differences between what they wanted and what the states would accept. They chose to abandon idealism as little as possible, but did abandon it for the sake of getting something that would work. Getting 80% of what they wanted was better than chaos and perhaps foreign rule. However the fact that the document has held up remarkably well for over 225 years is impressive. Judge them how you want, however the men did have vision. Whether they saw forward into a future where things completely unimaginable could happen, or they simply looked into human nature and governments and attempted to provide a framework to allow no man undue influence over the actions of another, I cannot fully say. They may have gotten lucky, and ourselves as well in the process.